Immigration

House Tries To Give 'Dreamers' a Path to Citizenship, but Mitch McConnell Won't Even Consider the Bill

The Senate majority leader says he will not allow a vote on it, despite widespread support for the measure.

|

The House of Representatives has passed a new version of the DREAM Act, which would grant a path to citizenship for millions of undocumented immigrants who came to the U.S. as children through no fault of their own.

"This is a day that glorifies what America is to the world. A place of refuge, a place of safety, a place of opportunity," House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D–Md.) said at a press conference before the vote.

The bill applies to the hundreds of thousands of so-called "Dreamers" enrolled in the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, which protected those immigrants from threat of imminent deportation, as well as 1.6 million immigrants who arrived in the country at a young age but have not registered with DACA. Temporary Protected Status recipients—who fled nations affected by humanitarian crises or environmental disasters—would also be eligible for permanent status, as would the small group of Liberian immigrants covered by Deferred Enforced Departure, a similar program for immigrants whose home countries are plagued with civic conflict or natural catastrophes.

Although the policy initiative has bipartisan support across the country, only seven House Republicans voted in favor of the measure. The bill now heads to the Senate, but Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R–Ky.) has already announced his intention to block the legislation from a floor vote.

"The Dreamers have a sympathetic case. There are circumstances under which I and others would be happy to support that," McConnell said yesterday on Fox News Radio. "But we need to do more than that. You know there's some genuine fixes on the legal immigration side and on the illegal immigration side that need to be addressed. There is a perfectly legitimate case for the Dreamers…but I think we need to do more than just that. And that's the context in which I would deal with that issue in the Senate."

President Donald Trump put an end to DACA in July 2017, and he has since leveraged the precarious legal status of the "Dreamers" to push for a border wall and other hardline immigration policies. McConnell is on board with Trump's endgame, refusing to play ball with Democrats on a legislative fix that many Republican senators—including McConnell himself—likely support.

Trump has threatened to veto the DREAM Act if it successfully makes its way through the Senate. Until that changes, McConnell will almost certainly continue to deflect the bill in order to quash any impression of a fractured party.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

116 responses to “House Tries To Give 'Dreamers' a Path to Citizenship, but Mitch McConnell Won't Even Consider the Bill

  1. I believe the proper course in this context to be to refrain from negotiating with Sen. McConnell and, instead, to remove the immigrant-bashing bigots from office by election, then follow the traditional, profitable path of effecting American progress against conservatives’ hopes and efforts.

    Open wider, clingers.

    1. #MAGA

    2. So hows that been working out for you? Considering that McConnell has been on office for over 30 years…

      1. The culture war has been working out magnificently for the liberal-libertarian alliance for at least a half-century. It has turned right-wingers into whimpering, vanquished, malcontents. Until they are replaced by their betters.

    3. Well said. And precisely the approach I’ve been advocating ever since I started posting here.

      #VoteDemocratForOpenBorders
      #ImmigrationAboveAll

    4. Considering that under Obama millions were deported, your hopes will probably be dashed.

    5. Vote early, vote often!

    6. Focus on the argument instead of the grammar. Focus on the argument instead of the grammar.

      I can’t do it, I’m out of here.

    7. No asshole, the course of action you take in any context is the straightest path to a Hawaiian judge.

    8. As a legal immigrant, I’m clinging to the hope that these people will face the consequences of their illegal actions.

  2. Works for me.

    Until we have something resembling progress towards making sure we don’t have millions more “Dreamers” in 10+ years, I see no reason to grant citizenship to the current ones.

    1. Yeah, that is my view.

      We’ve tried the whole “Give them amnesty NOW and we will deal with the border LATER”.

      Time to reverse that script.

      1. What are some minimum requirements for the border that you would insist upon seeing before you would consider a path to citizenship for DREAMers or others?

        1. Only attractive women between the ages of 18-40 allowed to enter.

          1. I stand firmly and directly behind this policy.

          2. Yep. Gotta watch the ratio, or immigration turns into a sausagefest.

        2. A wall.

          And even then, I would never accept a full amnesty for Dreamers. Again, if their dad robbed a bank, we wouldn’t let them keep the money.

          1. We are talking about a potential path to citizenship for the children, not the parents.

            An analogous situation might be the case of a child kidnapped and brought to the US against his/her will. Even if the kidnapped child, grown up to be an adult, is technically an illegal immigrant, should this illegal immigrant be treated exactly the same as other illegal immigrants who presumably knowingly, and with full presence of mind, chose to break the law of their own free will?

            1. So maybe one requirement would be do get rid of the incentive for people to kidnap children and smuggle them across the border?

              1. Well, that’s easy. Legalize migration, and watch the black market dry up overnight.

                But that didn’t really answer my question. Should a person who was brought here against his/her will be treated exactly the same as a person who freely chose to come here, even if both are technically illegal immigrants?

                1. So open borders. Glad you admit it. And it answered your question above about minimum requirements, indicated by my use of the word requirement.

                  1. Yes, I admit that I am in favor of the freedom of association. Not a hard thing for me to admit.

                    If you want to know how to stop the incentives for coyotes and criminal elements to smuggle people into the country, then I gave you the sure fire way to do it. But you won’t accept it.

                    If you want to know how to stop the incentives for otherwise peaceful people to migrate here, then the only way to do that is to make the conditions for coming here worse than the conditions that they already endure in their native countries. Which would be a terrible thing all around.

                    1. Where did I say I don’t accept that? So open borders for anyone? Even MS-13 members?

                    2. No nation states. Its freedom of movement that you want, not freedom of association.

                      If you were for freedom of association you’d also have to be okay with gay bakers refusing to create custom cakes for gay weddings.

                    3. No nation states.

                      Not true. Tell that to the Schengen zone.

                      Its freedom of movement that you want, not freedom of association.

                      Freedom of association implies a certain degree of freedom of movement.

                      If you were for freedom of association you’d also have to be okay with gay bakers refusing to create custom cakes for gay weddings.

                      Well then it’s a good thing that I am.

                    4. Where did I say I don’t accept that? So open borders for anyone? Even MS-13 members?

                      If the only purpose of CBP were to stop MS-13 gang members then you might have a point. But they are stopping anyone who doesn’t have the correct permission slip from the state, gang members or not.

                      The way to stop MS-13 gangbangers from coming here is to make it easier for CBP to stop them, by freeing them from the obligation of having to stop everyone else who isn’t a gangbanger. That means making legal migration far easier, so that otherwise peaceful people don’t have to resort to smuggling, coyotes, etc.

                    5. So you want some security at the border, but only for certain people? So still a black market. I don’t really disagree with you on a philosophical level, but pragmatically I don’t see a difference, especially with the corruption of the countries south of us.

                    6. R Mac, not just for gangbangers. Pedro Jeffy wants all the pedophiles here too. In his stunted little mind, it’s their choice to cum here, inside our children.

                    7. R Mac, if there wasn’t a 30-year-wait to get a visa into this country from Mexico, if getting permission to be here was as easy as getting a driver’s license from the DMV, then there would be no need for smugglers or coyotes to have any reason to operate. Then the CBP would know that the only people who were crossing the border illegally would be the criminals and the gangbangers.

                      It needs to be VASTLY easier to migrate here. I used to be suspicious of Ken’s plan of having just a simple instant background check at the border for anyone wishing to come here, but I’ve come around to think that this is probably the best solution that we can hope for.

                  2. 30 years is irrelevant in your argument. Is the border open or not? Do we (American citizens) control who comes through? You draw the line at
                    MS-13. I draw the line at dipshits.

                    What’s the difference, and how do we enforce that differnce?

          2. And if you would never accept any path to citizenship for any DREAMer, then why should I accept any compromise on the wall?

            1. Pedo Jeffy, you’re not part of the equation. You sick piece of shit.

              1. Shithead, go back to murdering Democrats. It is about the only thing you are good at.

                1. Actually I’m multitalented. As I have vastly greater intelligence than you.

                  1. Open wider, clinger. And prepare to be replaced.

            2. Feel free not to. I will just accelerate my demands to include machine gun nests plants on our border and the area near the border being a free fire zone.

      2. right. 1986 on line 4 …

    2. The bill is not about giving them citizenship! It’s about not tossing them out at gunpoint and into a country they have never known.

      1. Sounds like a problem.

        Does not sound like MY problem.

        1. Nothing says Reason ‘libertarian’ quite like “it’s a problem so it’s up to the government to solve it.”

      2. As a compromise, they can stay, but the people who brought them here have to leave and stay out for 50 years.

      3. My kid and I snuck into a theme park and have been living there for years undetected. We got caught, and guess what? We both still have to leave.

    3. Until we have something resembling progress towards making sure we don’t have millions more “Dreamers” in 10+ years, I see no reason to grant citizenship to the current ones.

      What would this “progress” look like in your view?

  3. There is no majority Republican support for giving these illegals citizenship outside of normal methods…so elections have consequences.

    YOU LOSE!

    1. This bill is not about citizenship. Stop drinking whatever Kool-Aid you’re drinking.

      1. Like the kool-aid in the title of the article?

    1. But will Mexico pay for it? Why does Congress even need to appropriate funds for this glonous adventure Mexico is going to pay for it?

      1. Of course not. I didn’t get to keep my doctor either.

        Presidents bullshit all the time. I’ve found it funny that dems want to jump up and down about Trump’s BS as if a lying president is a new thing.

      2. “But will Mexico pay for it?”

        If you don’t want to be obvious try not spouting DNC talking points in your first sentence.

        The cost of the wall will be more than offset by the money not spent on welfare.

    2. Any wall built by bigots will be removed by better Americans soon enough. Culture wars have consequences.

      Carry on, clingers. So far and so long as your betters permit. Or until you are replaced.

  4. The Dreamers have a sympathetic case. There are circumstances under which I and others would be happy to support that […]

    But he has no intention of letting this “circumstances” ever actually happen.

    C’mon folks, Trump and Republicans have been claiming they want to rejigger immigration for years now. They can’t even propose legislation that gets the majority of Republican votes.

    1. I’m not sure about your position on this. I think there was a deal in the works shortly after Trump took office but the Democrats wouldn’t budge on ending chain migration so the deal fell apart.

      So basically both sides were going to have something in the bill they didn’t want (a compromise) but Democrats were unwilling to compromise so they left the DREAMers in the lurch.

      Republicans have plenty of blame for the years leading up to this crisis, but we can recognize that politically neither party has anything to gain from giving DREAMers citizenship.

      The Republicans will have trouble with it because they (1) fear that they will lose more elections with a left-leaning population gaining voting rights and (2) they will require the underlying problem of illegal immigration to be addressed. The Democrats will simply sabotage any compromise put forward. Full stop. That’s because they absolutely cannot tolerate Trump singing any bills immigration-related in any way, whatsoever. Their base will not stand for it. So they will put forward amendments that will sink the bill by asking for too much too fast.

      1. I blame Paul Ryan for not getting anything done when republicans ran the table. If he wasn’t willing to do this for Trump, why would Pelosi?

  5. But we need to do more than that. You know there’s some genuine fixes on the legal immigration side and on the illegal immigration side that need to be addressed.

    “Go big or go home. And right now, it’s go home.”

  6. In a compromise, both parties get something they want. The Democrats have made clear for a long time that some sort of DACA/Dreamer amnesty is something they want. The Republicans, not so much. So, why should the Republicans give the Democrats something they want without getting something of value in return?

    1. So, why should the Republicans give the Democrats something they want without getting something of value in return?

      Okay, fair point. Perhaps Mitch McConnell or other Republicans should then propose their own ideas that would form the basis of a starting position for an eventual compromise. But he isn’t even going to consider it.

      1. That is what they should do. In returnf for this I would want

        1. Obamacare repealled
        2. The Clean Air Act Amended to specifically exclude CO2 from the definition of pollution and from its emission to be considered as a factor in any federal decision making,
        3. The Supreme Court limited to 9 members by law, so that any court packing scheme would require both houses of Congress
        4. A nation wide ban of partial birth abortion, a prohibition of any federal funds of any kind being awarded to or paid to Planned Parenthood,
        5. Enacting federal mandated national recognition of conceal and carry permits.
        6. Full funding of the border wall
        7. Amending the INA to allow for expidited deportation even in cases of claims of asylum (no more show up and get to beg before a judge)
        8. An end to family migration for anyone other than spouses and children.
        9. An overhaul of the immigration quotas to make them skills and need based.

        I think would do it. I could live with giving the DACA people a path to citizenship if it came with all of that. The question is how important do the open borders people think doing that is?

        It would be great to see exactly what the Democrats value when it comes down to it.

        I think if all of that came in return

        1. I’d go with (6-9) for that, the others while I agree with them in some or all parts have nothing to do with immigration and are really a bad faith negotiating tactic. I would also add the caveat that no land can be seized for the border wall before all claims have been settled and the owner has been paid just compensation.

          1. I don’t see how asking for something that has nothing to do with immigration is a bad faith negotiating tactic. Who says you can’t make deals regarding more than one area of policy?

            Instead of having all ten, lets say the Republicans passed the Democratic bill out of the Senate but with a repeal of Obamacare included. Each side would get something they say they really want. I don’t see why that would be a bad faith action on either side should such a bill become law.

            1. Maybe a bad choice of words but its certainly dead on arrival and doesn’t get anything accomplished. I think your other points if everyone took a step back from the hysteria could actually get accomplished and would go to actually solving the problem everyone says they want to solve.

              1. I agree that it is dead on arrival. And the fact that it is shows that the Democrats value Obamcare more than they do getting these people’s citizenship. Jeff for once makes a salient point. Give the Democrats an option to get what they want. Maybe they will take it and everyone gets something they won’t. If they don’t, then the public at least knows how unserious they are.

                1. They’d want free college education and the green new deal. And when the Republicans wouldn’t go for that then they too would look just as insincere on this issue. “Republicans say Western civ. is imperil from immigrants and for that they don’t want to educate the children and stop global warming”, would be the response.

                2. The problem with the democrats is that their agenda is extreme and destructive to our republic. I don’t want to give them anything they want. All of it is toxic Marxist bullshit.

                  FFS, yesterday they tried to advance senate legislation that would help make it easier for the federal govt. to hire illegals for civil service.

        2. I agree with Notion, items 1-5 are irrelevant to immigration generally and, besides, not even Republicans can agree on repealing Obamacare or defunding Planned Parenthood.

          With regards to Item 8, that is already current policy at least effectively. The quota for immediate relative immigration is unlimited but the quota for immigration for all other relatives is far more limited. Immediate relatives are spouses, parents, and minor children. What specifically do you want to see change here?

          1. Spouses and biological children only. No exception. And who cares if the other things don’t relate to immigration? There is nothing to say you can’t trade one for the other.

            Regardless, it doesn’t matter what you think of these things. The point is that you don’t like them. And whether you are willing to accept them shows how much you actually care about the issue.

            1. Spouses and biological children only. No exception.

              Not even adopted children?

        3. With regards to Item 6:

          1. Would you demand a wall on the entire border?

          2. Would you demand that the wall be completed before you would consider any path to citizenship at all?

          3. Would your proposal allow the government to use eminent domain to seize land in order to build the wall?

          1. Yes, it would use emminent domain. And if the wall wasn’t completed across the entire border within five years, then no citizenship. And the path to citizenship would be living in this country without being convicted of a crime for ten years. If you get convicted of a crime beyond a speeding ticket, you are deported automatically.

            1. You realize that building a 2,000-mile wall is an immense undertaking, and to get it done in only 5 years would mean breaking a lot of existing rules that currently exist for construction projects both at the federal level and at the state level. Not to mention trampling all over property owners’ rights via eminent domain. Even if there was unanimous agreement to build a wall, it would be a big technical and economic challenge to build a wall along the Rio Grande river particularly since both American and Mexican farmers and ranchers depend on it for their livelihoods. What do you do, build it right in the middle of the river?

              Not even Trump has said he wants a wall on the entire border.

              1. It is actually not much of an undertaking at all. We only make it seem that way because of how we have hamstrung government projects with redtape and litigation. To put things into perspective, the Hoover Dam was built in less than five years. The two giant reactors that made Plutonium for the Manhattan Project in Hanford Washington were built in less than two. Even today things in the private sector get built quickly all of the time. Building 2000 miles of wall is comparitively very easy, if you don’t drown the project in litigation.

                1. But all the rules that would have the potential to drown the Great Wall project in litigation were, for the most part, enacted after the Hoover Dam and the Manhattan Project. So using those two projects as examples are misleading.

                  Besides, citing Hanford is not exactly a point in your favor. It is an environmental train wreck.

                  So if you really wanted the Great Wall of Trump project finished in five years, it would mean sweeping away a lot of these rules. Just to be clear, your proposal then is a lot more radical than just “build a wall”.

                  And not to mention taking away people’s property rights.

                  1. You seriously believe anyone here cares about pollution?

                    1. I do think people here care about pollution. I don’t think they particularly care about the government mandates surrounding pollution abatement. For that matter, neither do I.

                      But the fact of the matter is, these mandates currently do exist, both at the state and federal level, and they would tie up the Great Wall of Trump project in endless litigation that would represent an unacceptable delay at least according to John’s timetable. No Democrat is ever going to agree to tear up all of the environmental rules for the sake of Trump’s wall. So any compromise on this score would have to be something far more modest.

                      And let’s not forget, John’s not exactly shedding any tears about the land that would be stolen from private property owners in order to build a wall on it.

                    2. Yeah, but John is a classic authoritarian. If it hurts people below his station and pleases those above him he’s all for it. If he’s really pliant he might get some more homogenized, pre-packaged, “acceptable” rebellion as a reward.

                      He’s not someone to go by is my point.

                    3. Imposing the importation of voters who grossly support more government is hardly an authoritarian position.

                    4. Opposing, not imposing

                2. Even Fox News thinks it’s stupid to build a border wall across the whole border. There are so many better things to do with the money.

                  https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/trumps-border-wall-how-much-it-will-actually-cost-according-to-a-statistician

        4. With regards to Item 7:

          The US is a party to an international treaty ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_Relating_to_the_Status_of_Refugees ) which grants certain rights and responsibilities on both asylum seekers and host nations. In particular, the treaty forbids nations that accept a refugee to participate in refoulment. So even if the INA were amended to permit this refoulment, it would still be contrary to this treaty. What would you propose be done about it?

          1. The treaty is only as meaningful as the domestic law that implements it. With the domestic law, it is a dead letter. The answer to your question is that we pull out of that section of the treaty. No treaty is forever and Congress and the President have the power to end any treaty at any time.

            1. Just so we’re clear, then, your proposal is a lot more radical than just “deport the liars posing as refugees”. It means completely withdrawing from international treaties and denying basic international rights to even legitimate refugees.

              1. No it doesn’t. It would still allow people to apply for refugee status at US consulates and embassies. It would end the ability to show up on US Soil and get to stay and likely bolt while your claim is being processed. I would have to do some research, but I am not even sure that such a rule would violate the treaty. We would still accept refugees. They just wouldn’t get to become illegal aliens when their claim was denied.

                1. Okay then you need to be more precise in exactly what you want.

                  Should individuals be able to come to the US, in person, and be able to request asylum?

                  And if so, what should happen, then, to individuals who come to this country and request asylum, while their claims of asylum are being evaluated?

          2. Have the Senate vote on repeal of the treaty as part of the negotiation (or whatever the steps are for leaving a treaty)? Nothing special about a treaty, we can always walk away from it. And it certainly won’t cause WWIII if we left this one.

          3. Mexico is ALSO a signatory. We don’t have to permit asylum shopping.

      2. But he isn’t even going to consider it.

        Both Trump and the Congressional Republicans have proposed DACA for a border wall. The Democrats rejected that. Now everyone wants to cry about what a big old meanie Mitch McConnell is because he won’t go along with their one-way street.

      3. Perhaps you missed it but Trump did offer a compromise that was 3X the amount demanded by Dems however it also included border security so Dems refused. Lest we forget, Reagan did sign an amnesty bill with the promise from Dems that border security funding would follow. The amnesty happened, the border funding didn’t. The only way Dems will get a deal is if they actually compromise with border security first before any amnesty. Perhaps a scale with each percentage of security then an equal percentage of amnesty.

    2. >>>So, why should the Republicans give the Democrats something they want without getting something of value in return?

      they all want the same thing?

      1. they all want the same thing?

        Yup to keep this issue ongoing so they have something to campaign on.

  7. Is this any surprise? The Republican have shown a remarkable inability to govern. They controlled both houses of Congress and the Presidency and got very little done. Now that Democrats control the House, the Republican are doing even less. They are essentially limited to things they can do by executive order and confirming judges. Anything hard like working a bill through to a law is too tough for them. They are snowflakes.

    1. hey controlled both houses of Congress and the Presidency and got very little done.

      You say that like its a bad thing. And I don’t think meaningful tax reform and taking the courts back from the liberals is “very little”.

    2. Obama could’ve solved immigration easily when he had massive majorities in the House and Senate.

      Just sayin’.

    3. Weird comment from someone who calls themselves moderation4evah.

      1. No, not weird. I want Congress to work together to find solutions to problems. To compromise and find a way to get things done. I don’t see that from most Republicans these days. You moderate your demands find middle ground and solve problems. Remember Senator McConnell did not say that the Senate would look at the proposal and present their own ideas in response. He just said no.

        1. Didn’t the Republicans and Trump offer DACA legalization for a wall and the Dems said no?

          I’ve yet to see a single compromise from the Dems on anything.

          1. No in December 2018 Senator Schumer and President Trump came up with a frame work for immigration that included wall money and a program for the dreamers. President Trump later turned down that offer. In 2013 a bipartisan immigration plan passed the Senate only to be stopped in the House. Speaker Boehner had more than one compromise with President Obama only to have his caucus fail to support him on the compromises. So the Democrats do compromise, the Republicans don’t. It just history.

            1. “So the Democrats do compromise”

              They ALL had wall funding at some point in the future.

              Which, as we’ve learned, means it never happens.

              Until the wall is funded, ZERO more compromises. The Right has gone far enough.

    4. Projecting again? Democrats controlled Congress and the White House yet did nothing about immigration. Hell, they had a bullet proof Senate too.

  8. Both sides are digging in for an impeachment battle. How much legislation do you think will get passed?

    Also we are about a year and a half from the next election. Congress is posturing to get people on record, not necessarily passing good legislation.

    1. Pretty much that. One of two things will happen in 2020; either Trump will win in which case I think the Republicans take the House and with the various Never Trump Rs like Amash no longer in office gets about anything he wants for two years or Trump will lose and we go back to the Obama era of the President ruling by decree and the Congess completely unable to stop him.

      1. 49 states for T

        1. Just not enough half-educated bigots and superstitious malcontents left in America for that.

          1. Really? You think that there aren’t enough leftist retards in California to hold it, Artie?

            You heard it here first, folks–Artie thinks the left has screwed up so badly that there aren’t enough of them to hold California, so it’ll be a Trump sweep.

  9. In related news, Trump and McConnell want to do something about the asylum seeker crisis on our southern border, but Nancy Pelosi won’t even consider it.

    Does Nancy Pelosi’s bill have any indication of compromise? Is she willing to help fun the wall?

    “As the Trump administration is set to unveil its latest iteration of immigration reform, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi slammed the proposal for more merit-based immigration as “condescending”

    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/nancy-pelosi-speaks-to-reporters-as-white-house-gears-up-for-latest-immigration-battle/

    The level of partisan bias I’m seeing from some here at Reason, lately, isn’t very libertarian at all.

    1. I find the displayed bias to be quite edifying.

  10. Make them US nationals. You’re welcome.

  11. “Dreamers”, i.e., children of illegal aliens, already have a path to citizenship. They can get in line with every other foreigner who wants to live in the US.

    Not only should they not be allowed to cut in line as a reward for their parents breaking US law, and their own continued violation of US law, adult foreigners caught in the US illegally should be forever barred from entry thereafter.

    We need consequences for breaking US immigration law, and those consequences should not be *rewards*.

    1. Do you think illegal immigrants who were brought here against their will, should be treated differently than illegal immigrants who freely chose to come here of their own free will?

      1. Their fortunate misfortune is no reason for us to commit suicide as a nation.

      2. Why should somebody get a benefit because their parents were criminals? Seems to be a perverse benefit there.

      3. Those who were brought to the US against their will and are further *held* in the US against their will should be liberated from their confinement and escorted to our borders.

        Those adults who illegally *remain* in the US by their own choice should be treated like other willful illegal aliens. They should be deported, and never allowed to return.

  12. I dreamt the Dreamers were dreaming they were dancing in their maidenform bras.

  13. Republicans a fractured party? This Binion fool thinks we haven’t noticed the Democrats self-destructing.

  14. Deport them. EVERY. SINGLE. ONE.

    The fact that Reagan was a pussy and granted amnesty back in the day is half the reason we have this massive problem now. If we punk out again, it will only make the problem worse in the future.

  15. […] tactics. Under his leadership, for example, the Senate has refused to consider bills on the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, even though such legislation enjoyed broad bipartisan […]

Please to post comments