RpR

I am not an immigration expert. He could have self-deported at U.S. expense, taken a construction job in Ireland (or anywhere in Europe), or spent a couple of months vacationing in Europe with his wife visiting family. He could then have completed his interview, established a spousal relationship with a U.S. citizen, received his green card, and returned to the U.S. legally. Instead, he has chosen to remain in detention for—what, five months?—fighting deportation, even though by entering the U.S. on a Visa Waiver he agreed to waive all rights to contest deportation except for an asylum claim. The dude is just digging a deeper and deeper hole.

Foreigner living in America for 20 years, per reports. Was apparently last admitted in 2009, 17 years ago, on a 90-day "visa waiver." Overstayed that limit and lived illegally in the U.S. ever since. Married an American citizen in April 2025, upon which he applied for a green card and received a work permit.¹ Means he was working for at least 16 years without a work permit. I.e., he was working illegally for at least 16 years. (Job was "a plasterer," per reports.) Means he applied for a green card only after being here illegally for at least 16 years. (Not a single report mentions him applying for anything else: H-1X or -2X work permit, asylum, refugee status, long-term permanent residency prior to the marriage, school visa, mastercard, discover card, whatever.) Also means he's not "in the final stages of a long immigration process," he just attempted a short cut after getting married. Didn't attempt immigration before then. Arrested September 9th. Final deportation order from an immigration judge on September 10th. Could've been flown to Ireland on our dime immediately but refused. Appealed to a federal district court. Court sided with the U.S. He received full due process and then some. Many such cases. Still refuses to leave. Says because he has a work permit tied to a green card application, he should be allowed to stay. But that's not how it works. Irish embassy has yet to claim that he has any legal status in America. ACLU is just complaining about detention conditions in general. I've read about this case extensively and no one can give me a legal basis for why he should be permitted to stay. And nothing is stopping him from continuing the fight in Ireland. One wonders why he doesn't. ¹one report says he received a "Statutory Work Permit," which doesn't sound like he applied for an EAD. Maybe he just assumes he has a work permit because he had a pending green card application. It's not relevant anyway.

@NoreenBowden @nickgillespie What part of "they all came over legally" is confusing to you? Distant relatives is like your second cousin once removed, i.e., "distant" relatives. Acquaintances—well, Google is your friend for the definition.

@allowed2speak @nickgillespie What? You said yesterday: “My mom was born in Ireland, and she and her 12 brothers and sisters all came over legally through the proper process. Growing up, I often overheard talk about distant relatives or acquaintances who did not.” A different story now?

This is appalling and I hope cuts through to the 'heritage American' types who otherwise could care less about due process for immigrants: 'Culleton said he was carrying a Massachusetts driving licence and a valid work permit issued by the US government when he was pulled over by Ice on the way home from work in September. His work permit was issued as part of an application for a green card which he initiated in April 2025. He has a final interview remaining.' irishtimes.com/world/us/2026/…

There are always people coming here illegally. Does the volume "make it right"? What is the magic number? In other words, are you saying it was OK for the Irish to come in droves in the 80s but "less right" if they come this year? So other cohorts should also come in droves and finagle special visas as well? Don't forget Reagan's one-time-only general amnesty in 1986 was across the board, regardless of country of origin. What do the 80s, the Morrison and Donnelly visas, and the Reagan amnesty have to do with this guy's situation? My original point was that, upon hearing this man's story (which I am convinced is incomplete—you don't get married to a US citizen, file the paperwork, and get deported without further cause), while I am sympathetic, despite my Irish roots, I honestly see no difference between his case and hundreds more like it for people from Central America. The situation was self-caused. If you are here illegally, you have to go back.

@allowed2speak @nickgillespie Very few Irish arrive illegally now - but not borne out by facts to extrapolate that they wouldn’t have come illegally then. Irish ppl came over in massive numbers in the 1980s, and organized to get themselves legalized. It worked. Read about the Morrison and Donnelly visas.

Your thinking here is confused at best. I still have relatives in Ireland as well as in France (Dad was French), also from a large family. In that entire extended group, I am aware of no single person—and certainly not an extensive number—arriving here illegally. There could be one or two, of course. Your point, I think, is that during different periods in U.S. history there were varying levels of legal migration, to which I can only say: yes, that is the case. Since they are not coming here illegally now, I will extrapolate and also say they would not have come here illegally then. Your assumption that they still would have come here illegally has zero supporting basis. In fact, some did not come, remaining in Ireland; some went to Canada, and one to Australia (later coming to the US). Again AFAIK all were done legally.

@allowed2speak @nickgillespie Are no legal opportunities for them. Your parents didn’t “do things the right way” because they were more conscientious than your illegal relatives later- there was an open door for them, which was then closed.

@NoreenBowden @nickgillespie No, I am in my 60s. The family of 13 spanned nearly 20 years from eldest to youngest. From what little I understand the process was mainly chained sponsorship that started post-WWII.

@allowed2speak @nickgillespie How did your mother and her brother and sisters come over legally? Were they by any chance recipients of Morrison and Donnelly visas? A proper process that was created for the explicit purpose of giving undocumented Irish immigrants a legal pathway into the U.S.?

@BasedMikeLee The zombie filibuster will not enhance Republican political philosophy in the minority, as they do not wield it. It does undermine their philosophy in the majority, since it is always wielded against them. Remove it and let the chips fall where they may.

Raise your hand 🤚 if you find this unacceptable: By maintaining the Zombie Filibuster™️, we’re giving the Democrats the benefit of a filibuster—the right to prolonged debate—without having to debate By so doing, we’re giving them many of the powers associated with a Senate majority without winning enough elections to earn it

The problem is the asymmetry. Democrats believe in nullifying any law they disagree with, while Republicans believe the law of the land must be adhered to regardless of their position on it. Democrats believe anyone can vote regardless of citizenship and support unfettered mass migration. When one side plays by the rules and the other believes the rules can be ignored at will, there is an inevitable ratchet in one direction. Under the current setup, one side cannot win and the other side cannot lose.

The Cato and Heritage immigration analyses are flawed “research.” Neither should be considered a trusted source. They are advocacy groups with preconceived positions (ones I generally share) that produce narrow studies which—unsurprisingly—support those positions. They are not in-depth, comprehensive examinations of a wide range of factors. A simple Google Scholar search on immigration, followed by scanning paper titles and abstracts, will give you a better perspective: the good, the bad, and the ugly. Do your own research, even if it’s light reading. Become informed.

The CATO institute quiet literally counts higher property taxes PAID BY AMERICANS due to higher housing costs as a "benefit" from immigrants.

Every single one of these studies, upon scrutiny, does not hold up or pass the smell test. They are overly simplistic with a very narrow analytical focus. Fake news is now accepted as a real thing; it is now time to focus on fake studies. I suggest people go to Google Scholar and search for real, realistic studies on immigration that are not predetermined conclusions. These institutes are created and funded with the sole purpose of reaching desired, predetermined political conclusions. They are not real research.

Immigrants saved US government at all levels $14.5 trillion from 1994 to 2023 because the taxes they paid cut budget deficits by nearly one-third in real terms, a new Cato Institute study reports. Learn more from @David_J_Bier. ow.ly/gvWM50Y8lau

Once again, this specious argument claims that the extra spending needed for welfare and social services to support housing, medical care, education, food, and utilities for net-negative immigrants is somehow good—like the old I Love Lucy line: “I saved you lots of money because I bought all these shoes and handbags on sale.” Yes, fewer people means lower GDP, so the ratio rises, BUT spending fewer billions and billions (much via waste and fraud) to support immigrants who require social welfare programs for decades… wait for it… PAYS DOWN THE DEBT. A lower debt level also reduces the debt-to-GDP ratio, with the nice bonus of many ancillary positives from reducing the debt. Which is better: spending billions we don’t have, thereby increasing the deficit, on social welfare for people here illegally, or reducing the national debt? The entire argument that massive immigration is good because the required massive spending on social services—via debt accumulation—is positive is absurd. Any argument that X amount of spending on immigrants is positive MUST take into account the opportunity cost of that SAME spending on other critical issues: billions for fusion research, medical research, massive new infrastructure, reduced taxes, much higher levels of quality education, advanced technology, debt service, and so much more. There are billions and billions and billions lost that could instead increase the quality of life of ALL Americans.

Without immigrants, US government public debt at all levels would be at least 205% of GDP—nearly twice its 2023 level, @David_J_Bier reports. Compared to the US-born population, immigrants of every education level reduced the debt-to-GDP ratio from 1994 to 2023. ow.ly/oHGh50Y8lqX

@lawler4ny Daughter of a dictator, OK; poor farmer's daughter, you're gone. It can't work that way. If you're here illegally, you must return home. No special loopholes.

The Dignity Act would grant legal status to a segment of the illegal population that meets certain criteria such as: - Not having committed a crime in the United States as well as in their country of origin. - They cannot collect government benefits. Period. - They must pay all back taxes and a fine for coming into the United States illegally. If this criteria is not met, that is grounds for deportation.

@DLoesch California can go right on ahead and finish building the rail line, taking whatever time it needs. Just don't ask the rest of us to pay a significant part of it, and we are good.

Dude, your rail project was supposed to be finished six years ago and it costs nearly 4 times what it was proposed to cost. It is such a disaster that the French company helping build it quit and went to Morocco to build THEIR rail system in less time.

@lawler4ny @LauraLoomer @RepMikeLawler During Reagan's presidency, the US enacted a one time and one time only amnesty. Both parties agreed to it. If this agreement is ignored, the precedent is set: sneak in, evade removal for years, receive amnesty.

@LauraLoomer @RepMikeLawler That’s just not even remotely true. In fact, I said the opposite. Anyone who came in under Joe Biden wouldn’t even qualify…

Disgraceful. ⁦@RepMikeLawler⁩ on Fox News right now calling for mass amnesty for the 25 million illegal aliens who came in under a Joe Biden. There are 65 million illegals in our country and Lawler wants them to stay. Totally disgraceful. The Dignity Act is AMNESTY!

@EWErickson The other party failed to remove the filibuster, with only two people holding out—one of whom is no longer in office.

There are two parties, the stupid party and the evil party. The Stupid Party wants to blow up the filibuster to pass the SAVE Act, which is just national voter ID. The Evil Party wants to blow up the filibuster to make Puerto Rico and DC states, end voter ID, pass citizenship for illegal aliens, end deportations, fund abortion on demand, and punish anyone who dissents from pro-trans orthodoxy. "But OMG," screams the base of the stupid party, "We must have the SAVE Act, so kill the filibuster. They'll do it anyway." Pay no attention to the repeated failure by the other party to kill the filibuster. Palpatine over here like

@nickgillespie @walterolson @Sec_Noem @JDVance Except, surprise, the CNN caption does not summarize at all what she said. It is false.

Serious question for the MAGAverse: Did you vote for a country in which you need to show your papers whenever you go outside? HT @walterolson

It is not just that housing prices go up, therefore more taxes, it is everything goes up, hence more taxes. If you look at these studies and then step back, they boil down to: 1) The bulk of immigrants are actually a net negative for at least one to two generations. 2) BUT to support this net-negative population, housing, medical care, education, goods, and services must be provided to them by the rest of the population. As a result, GDP increases, hence taxes. 3) Eventually, in the third or later generations, their numerous descendants do become net-positive contributors, compensating for the original two... eventually. i.e., the third generation’s 16 or so descendants (and their eventual descendants) will eventually compensate for the original two. The remainder of their net-positive contribution can then be used to bring in more net-negative immigrants, who will in turn demand further goods and services, hence more GDP, hence more taxes. And so it goes... The ENTIRE premise of these "institute of" studies is that more people require more goods and services, ergo GDP, ergo taxes, ergo infinite immigration is optimal. It is population growth for the sake of even further growing the population ad infinitum. Common sense immediately tells you this would be false. Why do the studies not show this? Selective inputs that ignore any negatives from ever increasing, massive population growth. Inputs which would bend the curve back down. These studies ignore all negatives. Check it out. Why? Because the "institutes" do not do "real" research and analysis. They are there to provide "sham" studies with predetermined outcomes to be used as political cover. It is so a political party can gaslight into the camera "studies say". One can validate this for oneself. Download a Cato study, page through it, read a bit here and there about the methodology, and get a feel for what "inputs" they are looking at. Go to Google Scholar and download a few "real" studies; surprise, the bulk of which will not align with the Cato study. The "real" research is much more robust and takes into account a far wider breadth of inputs. Based on the Cato "study" alone, it is far wiser and a better bang for the buck for the US to financially incentivize much larger families by existing citizens.

@PolitiBunny The zombie filibuster wasn't codified until 1975. Now, all of a sudden, there are ramifications that will cause one of the most important pieces of legislation in U.S. history—supported by 80% of the population—to fail without a vote.

They can’t pass a bill 80%+ of Americans support and want. Why are Republicans so BAD at this?

@BasedMikeLee The zombie filibuster wasn't a thing until 1975. Now all of a sudden there are "ramifications" that must be understood before dropping it? Screw that.

Time is all we have We won’t always have a majority Especially if we leave the Talking Filibuster off the table

@BasedMikeLee Having Schumer do an IRL Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, defending illegal voting to his last breath and undermining trust in American elections, is popcorn-worthy.

I’m thrilled that there’s been so much talk today about reinstating the so-called “Talking Filibuster,” the antidote to the “Zombie Filibuster,” in which senators can delay legislation indefinitely without having to speak. It’s past time to return to the Talking Filibuster, especially for legislation overwhelmingly supported by the American people but stuck in Senate gridlock. And it’s past time for the Senate to pass the SAVE America Act to protect our elections from foreign interference.