Your Thoughts?

We will not negotiate the status of unlawful immigrants while Democrats hold our lawful citizens hostage over their reckless demands,” White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said in a statement. “This is the behavior of obstructionist losers, not legislators. When Democrats start paying our armed forces and first responders we will reopen negotiations on immigration reform.”

So, when negotiating something, does each party in the negotiation not have a responsibility to negotiate over that which the other party finds important? Would it not seem that saying "We will not negotiate" on (insert subject) mean that you are being an obstructionist? If so, who then is to blame for failure of the negotiations - the one who wants to negotiate, or the one who does not want to negotiate?

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

Mrsbetweenfatandfit · 26-30, F

hmm Well it would make sense to be discussing u.s citizens rights prior to the ones who are not legal. But that’s just an opinion

frequentlyme · 70-79, M

@Mrsbetweenfatandfit I think it is insane to have anything in a bill about funding the government, other than the issue of funding it; but if one party brings something in, then the other has a right to do the same. It's called negotiating.

JaggedLittlePill · 46-50, F

@Mrsbetweenfatandfit they are legal. They were made legal and if they were given real opportunity to become legal in terms you speak of they would. Remember they were forced here as children thet had no choice.

We can have BOTH we do not need a wall

Mrsbetweenfatandfit · 26-30, F

@frequentlyme sure but again instead of talking about people who are not technically legal would make a bit less sense then those that are actually giving to the government currently but still only an opinion

Mrsbetweenfatandfit · 26-30, F

@JaggedLittlePill the wall seems crazy to me when spoken out loud. I feel horrible for them but we can look at the ugly facts and discuss the legal citizens first or not. It isn’t done fun thing to decide. The kids are innocent I’ll say that but if we allow this precedent I could see it continuing well on into our future

frequentlyme · 70-79, M

@Mrsbetweenfatandfit So, if that is so, then funding and allowing CHIP to go forward, or doing away with other immigrant laws, only causes more issues down the line? In my opinion, each and every issue brings about repercussions down the line. To not deal with them for that reason, would, to me, stop any progress at all. I do see what you are saying, and I agree, but not dealing with certain issues for fear of other issues arising, seems to be self defeating.

Mrsbetweenfatandfit · 26-30, F

@frequentlyme I understand what you mean. I just wonder if we stamp a GO sticker essentially on these poor kids to stay, wouldn’t it encourage people to try and sneak in. With the idea that if they hide the kids for such and such amount of time they’ll be able to stay without going through the process like so many families each year

frequentlyme · 70-79, M

@Mrsbetweenfatandfit Putting a "Go sticker" is simple. You simply define what group (say for instance, those here effective January 1, 2018) it applies to, and then deal with whatever happens after that date. I cannot, in good conscience, say forget them because it might cause other problems later.

Mrsbetweenfatandfit · 26-30, F

@frequentlyme fair enough so in theory we do that, do you have anybrough draft solution or idea for the kids in this situation years down the line. How we might deal?

frequentlyme · 70-79, M

@Mrsbetweenfatandfit Not specifically, other than I can't see punishing a child for their parent's misdeeds. What I do know is that we as a country once stood for fairness, for being just and moral in our decisions and philosophies, and to me, denying these children a way to stay here, is none of those.

Mrsbetweenfatandfit · 26-30, F

@frequentlyme but how is it fair to those families going through the rigorous application process of immigration? I’ve had family go through it to come here. I feel it would be an insult to those coming here the right way. Like you all did what we ask of you to come here, their families did not. But yes both of your children will stay. I can’t see how I’d explain why they should go to trouble of doing it right

frequentlyme · 70-79, M

I married a foreigner and went through the process of bringing her here, then later, her family, and so I know what you speak of. Interestingly enough, every last one of them agrees with DACA. For me it's a decision to be based upon morality, and justice for those who have not committed a crime.

Mrsbetweenfatandfit · 26-30, F

@frequentlyme but can you see what I mean with my last response. It’s not exactly encouraging others to do the work to get here.

frequentlyme · 70-79, M

@Mrsbetweenfatandfit I do see what you are saying, and yes, it is a bit disheartening. For me though, I can see/imagine what would happen to those children if we summarily tossed them out of our country... not a pretty picture. I've lived in several, shall we call them, third world countries, under developed counties, and life there is hard, even brutal, and these children know nothing of their birthplace.

Mrsbetweenfatandfit · 26-30, F

@frequentlyme I totally get that. I really do this is not some quick easy choice type issue we face. We don’t want to hurt kids that did nothing wrong but we also don’t want to spit in the face of those working so hard to become a part of our country, or encourage this situation to continue years on. This is gonna take some serious problem solving and ideas from both sides to figure out the best solution not only for today but going forward.

frequentlyme · 70-79, M

We can certainly agree on that - there is no simple, long lasting solution.