4463 replies to this topic

[freedom78]

I think we are moving the country forward.  Our current immigration policy is not only unsustainable, it's not even enforced.  Admitting millions of people who don't speak english and lack a discernible skill isn't a prudent immigration policy.  The true irony is that what Trump is doing was advocated by Bill Clinton in 1995 and Harry Reid in the early 2000s.  Plenty of videos on facebook showing each making these exact comments.

 

Putting a judge on the court that believes in the founder's intent is important too.  I don't want a justice who thinks the 14th amendment was written to give citizenship to the children of people who illegally enter and then put in for social welfare benefits immediately, crying if we send them home we're breaking up families.  No we're not, you can take your child with you when you go back to China or Guatemala.  Justices who believe in free speech and all of the 27 amendments.

 

I didn't vote for Trump, but I'm 100% behind everything he has done so far.

 

I absolutely believe we need to address immigration.  Putting up a wall, deporting millions, and banning Muslims (excuse me..."religious non-minorities from seven Muslim majority countries") isn't addressing immigration.  Immigrants aren't rodents or cockroaches to be driven out.  They're a natural response to our economic model.  Let's have a serious discussion about what skills they should have.  Let's talk about the value in bringing over extended families.  Let's even talk about the role of the English language.  What Trump has done addresses none of this.  For 16 years, under two Presidents of two parties, we've tried to have a serious discussion about immigration, to no avail.  That is the fault of Congress, which insists on looking at it ideologically, whereas most presidents look at it practically (since they're not up for election again, for any other office).

[PERM BANNED]

I absolutely believe we need to address immigration.  Putting up a wall, deporting millions, and banning Muslims (excuse me..."religious non-minorities from seven Muslim majority countries") isn't addressing immigration.  Immigrants aren't rodents or cockroaches to be driven out.  They're a natural response to our economic model.  Let's have a serious discussion about what skills they should have.  Let's talk about the value in bringing over extended families.  Let's even talk about the role of the English language.  What Trump has done addresses none of this.  For 16 years, under two Presidents of two parties, we've tried to have a serious discussion about immigration, to no avail.  That is the fault of Congress, which insists on looking at it ideologically, whereas most presidents look at it practically (since they're not up for election again, for any other office).

 

 

I don't disagree with any of this.  But allowing people to illegally enter and claim citizenship is a non-starter.  Secure the border, remove birthright citizenship, and we can have a discussion.  As long as the left's only response is to march out a valedictorian and claim this person represent illegal immigrants while ignoring the other 99.9%, there's nothing to discuss.  And the GOP has all the power.  All of it. 100%.  Democrats can either get on team America or Schumer can manufacture fake tears (something the left ridiculed Boehner for).  I really don't care any more.  Democrats had 2 years to do whatever they wanted under Obama.  And they could barely get a consensus in their own party to pass the ACA.  There's a reason 2/3 of the country is run by the GOP at the state level and it has nothing to do with gerrymandering.  

 

Your party bought the identity politics hook line and sinker.  Now watch as it tears the Democratic Party apart.

[PERM BANNED]

https://www.yahoo.co...-194138305.html

 

 

There you go.  Republicans stopping Trump's retard nominee for Education Secretary.  

[freedom78]

https://www.yahoo.co...-194138305.html

 

 

There you go.  Republicans stopping Trump's retard nominee for Education Secretary.  

 

That makes it 50/50...will Pence be the first VP to have to tie break a cabinet confirmation vote?  Can ANYONE really say that the "right choice" for a cabinet position can only get 50 votes?  Trump could drop her to take pressure off somewhere else...but he doesn't strike me as being that type.

[freedom78]

Secure the border, remove birthright citizenship, and we can have a discussion. 

 

Nothing like a discussion that begins with one side getting all of its demands.  With that in mind, here are a few of my new ideas:

 

#1: Ban private K-12 education, including charter schools, and then we can have a discussion about vouchers.

#2: Get rid of that bloated military and then we can have a discussion about the national debt.

#3: Institute single payer healthcare and then we can have a discussion about the need for Medicaid.

 

I never realized it was so easy to be reasonable!

[PERM BANNED]

Nothing like a discussion that begins with one side getting all of its demands. With that in mind, here are a few of my new ideas:

#1: Ban private K-12 education, including charter schools, and then we can have a discussion about vouchers.
#2: Get rid of that bloated military and then we can have a discussion about the national debt.
#3: Institute single payer healthcare and then we can have a discussion about the need for Medicaid.

I never realized it was so easy to be reasonable!

Hey, I'm with you on #1 and #2. But securing the border is required in the constitution. The 14th amendment doesn't give citizenship to the children of illegals. Uphold existing law before you move forward.

[freedom78]

Hey, I'm with you on #1 and #2. But securing the border is required in the constitution. The 14th amendment doesn't give citizenship to the children of illegals. Uphold existing law before you move forward.

 

I can't begin to imagine that the constitutional requirement to protect against invasion meant to protect against poor migrant workers.  And there were virtually no immigration laws in the 18th century except, ironically, a "path to citizenship" for those without it.  While we should secure our borders, the framers meant against the redcoats, not against Juan, the Guatamalan immigrant. 

[PERM BANNED]

There also was no social security, disability, WIC and welfare in the 19th century.  People didn't expect the state to pay their doctor and people who refused to work, either changed their mind or starved.  Spending billions on people who don' belong here to make limousine liberal feel comfortable from the comfort of their homes isn't sound policy.

[freedom78]

That's all fair, except that you're the one arguing original intent and a constitutional requirement to, in modern parlance, build a wall.  Even though I find original intent an inherently flawed model of constitutional interpretation, I still don't believe you can make an original intent argument that the constitutional requirement to secure the border against invasion is an immigration issue.  The only reason I raised the issue of actual legislation is to illustrate that if such intent existed, it certainly wasn't manifested in the laws of the era.   

[PERM BANNED]

That's all fair, except that you're the one arguing original intent and a constitutional requirement to, in modern parlance, build a wall.  Even though I find original intent an inherently flawed model of constitutional interpretation, I still don't believe you can make an original intent argument that the constitutional requirement to secure the border against invasion is an immigration issue.  The only reason I raised the issue of actual legislation is to illustrate that if such intent existed, it certainly wasn't manifested in the laws of the era.   

 

 

I'm not saying there is a constitutional requirement to build a wall.  I'm saying there is a constitutional requirement to secure the border.  Securing the border can be accomplished in numerous ways.  But a border that allows millions to cross illegally certainly isn't secured.  Pass e-verify and remove anchor babies, and you just made illegally entering the US a hell of a lot less appealing.  We don't need months to determine a bullshit asylum status either.  Either we consider your country a warzone worthy of refugee status or we don't.  If you can't provide evidence you came from these pre-determined areas, we send your ass home.  

[freedom78]

 I'm saying there is a constitutional requirement to secure the border.

 

Not really.  Trump just nominated a textualist, so let's get textual (cue Olivia Newton John melody).  Here's the language of Article IV, Section 4, with relevant section in red:

 

"The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence."

 

It says literally nothing about securing the border, about immigrants, etc.  Rather, in the instance or threat of invasion, which can only mean by a foreign army, it is the duty of the United States to defend the territory of each state. 

 

Sadly, I think if such an ACTUAL invasion (rather than a perceived one because the invaders hablan espanol) were to occur, it's questionable whether Trump could even live up to this.

 

Fictional Trump tweet:

 

Minnesota didn't support me in the last election, where I did great. 

Shameful! NO DEFENDING THEM AGAINST CANADIAN INVASION? 

[PERM BANNED]

So millions invading our country and being handed free shit from idiots on the left somehow doesn't make it an invasion?  Our demographics aren't being changed dramatically since Kennedy's 65 immigration act?  I guess you have a weird definition of invasion.  Just because you'd welcome Trotsky with open arms if he rose from the dead, doesn't mean it wouldn't be an invasion.  

 

 

The left thought it was so clever changing the demographics of the country to win elections since it couldn't convince the native Americans of their policy.  Now the right has achieved total power, and they too can use the rules to win.  

[freedom78]

lol @ "Trotsky", though I don't know if you're calling me a Marxist-Leninist or making a crack about him dying in Mexico. 

 

Our demographics aren't being changed dramatically since Kennedy's 65 immigration act?

 

[...]

 

Now the right has achieved total power, and they too can use the rules to win.  

 

You act as though the Dems took power in the 60s and it's only now that the GOP finally has its chance to govern (I use the term "govern" with extreme irony).  Shit, they had all branches in 2001-2003.  They've had Congress, at least in part, since 2010.  This is hardly a watershed year when a party wandering the wilderness finally returns to power after a long absence.  The only difference is that it's more racist.  Prior Republicans wanted to actually address immigration issues in a substantive way.  "Build a wall" and "no Muslims" aren't substantive or serious policy proposals.  If your plan for immigration can be defeated with a ladder, it ain't worth much.

 

But, no, I don't count immigration as an invasion, unless it's intended as such.  A dude who wants to bus tables or pick crops isn't an "invader".
 

[PERM BANNED]

When did wanting to keep your identity and community become a vice. Why is saying I want immigrants that make my country better and want to join us rather than change us, compared to the country bumpkin who yells the N word or calls Mexicans "wetbacks".

Trump's not advocating or legislating any act that treats someone differently just because of their race or religion. The majority of Arabs and Muslims were unaffected by this. To conflate denying immediate entry from areas with high concentrations of radical Islamists, to internment camps or the holocaust is offensive. You're not directly doing it, but comments such as fascism or authoritarian are allusions to these past horrors.

I believe it's because you can't argue why we shouldn't take a better look at people coming from Sudan, so the argument becomes about Trump's plan to round up 30 million undesirables and send them to the showers.

[freedom78]

When did wanting to keep your identity and community become a vice. Why is saying I want immigrants that make my country better and want to join us rather than change us, compared to the country bumpkin who yells the N word or calls Mexicans "wetbacks".

 

There's no vice to wanting to protect one's culture.  What I dispute is that we have such a shared national culture.  At best we're majority "white", which isn't a culture.  And I agree that we should want immigrants who improve our country.  You want the simplest solution to our southern border immigration problem?  MORE WORK VISAS!  Since so many come over for work, put them into the system of legal migrant workers.  They are already meeting a demand in our economy...let's make them official and then we can focus on those who are not contributing in any way, which is a considerably smaller group.

 

Trump's not advocating or legislating any act that treats someone differently just because of their race or religion. The majority of Arabs and Muslims were unaffected by this. To conflate denying immediate entry from areas with high concentrations of radical Islamists, to internment camps or the holocaust is offensive. You're not directly doing it, but comments such as fascism or authoritarian are allusions to these past horrors.

 

Of course he is advocating for different treatment by religion.  He called for a Muslim ban.  Just because he found a way to do most of what he wanted without actually making it an explicit Muslim ban doesn't alter the intent.  This is akin to saying that, just because Jim Crow laws didn't specifically mention blacks, they weren't racist laws. 

 

I believe it's because you can't argue why we shouldn't take a better look at people coming from Sudan, so the argument becomes about Trump's plan to round up 30 million undesirables and send them to the showers.

 

Take a better look at people coming from Sudan.  Be my guest.  I have no issue with that.  But if our policy is so dumb as to just be "no people from Sudan" which. by the way, has not been a source of trouble for the US, then we will fail.  As you can see from the ISIS playbook, the plan is not to infiltrate with foreign operatives, but to inspire the downtrodden.  This law will take our Muslim community and make it feel more targeted.  It will make it MORE likely for members of that community to radicalize in response.  When those attacks come, they will come from Americans, not Sudanese.  They will be people born in Chicago and married to Pakistanis, as with San Bernadino.  They will be New York born, as in the Orlando shooting.  They will have ties to our new pal Russia, as in the case of Boston 2013.  This dumb law would have done NOTHING to stop such incidents.  As I said, it's the stupidest kind of law.  One attacks so all are bad?  We will have to be much smarter than that to win this fight.