President Trump: Making America Great Again...

[Commando]

Violence is actually down: 56 incidents in 2015, 38 in 2016, and 19 in 2017. Total "incidents" is the number that is up substantially. Harassment and vandalism have doubled since 2015. Also, the shooter was not a Trump lover; he was quoted as saying Trump was a globalist and controlled by Jews. Trump is responsible for a lot of stupid stuff, but pinning anti-semitism on him is a stretch.

Alternatively, an executive order overturning the constitution as interpreted by the SCOTUS is all him. This action probably ranks at the top of the stupidity list, which is quite an accomplishment.

Thanks for bringing this up. In addition to the wall, taking away birthright citizenship is a hall-of-fame White Nationalist platform piece. Trump is either a White Supremacist or the dumbest pawn the White Supremacist movement has ever manipulated so easily. If the latter is the case, I don't know how you explain the birther movement when he had no political stake in anything. I think he's just a racist POS.

[Commando]

I was having a conversation with my wife this morning regarding immigration and the whole caravan thing.

I guess I'm curious as to what people think the right answer is as far as making immigration easier and accepting folks like those in the caravan into the country.

I think it's really easy to say that we don't want to bring in criminals. OK. And it's easy to say that anyone who wants to come here to escape violence and other bad things in their homeland and contribute to society here is welcome. OK.

But what are the limits? Should there be any? What is the capacity of the US to absorb groups like this? Quite frankly, during my time as a missionary in Guatemala I knew of many people who wanted to move to the US. Some had applied and were on waiting lists. Others were saving up money for a coyote. And many others talked about it longingly, though they didn't have the money to apply and weren't willing to take the risks of hiring a coyote. And that was just in one country!

Many people say we need to accept and process this caravan when they arrive. Who are we to not share what we have and to limit who else can have it based solely on winning the lottery of being born in the right country. And I agree - I really don't believe I deserve what I've got here any more than anyone else.

But what is our capacity? And if this group is fully accepted in, does that bring other groups - perhaps larger groups? If I was living in Guatemala and learned that by making my way to the US I would be accepted at the border - I'd be packing my backpack for the trek.

So - should there be limits? And what should those limits be? (I accept that they are likely much higher than the current acceptance rate) - and will the limits EVER be high enough to meet the demand? Or will it just allow more people in, without really reducing the number of people who aren't accepted and aren't going to wait and/or deal with a crazy bureaucracy?

The standard is actually pretty high for asylum. I have a lot of asylum clients who frankly don't pass muster. But they are in the process and have the right to argue their case because it is viable and not frivolous, so they do. It's not like they just pass a quiz at the border and they're in for life with a roll of food stamps like the anti-immigrant crowd seems to think. The people of Guatemala that make it here specifically are typically indigenous, quiet, fleeing the unanswered horrors of being indigenous in Guatemala. They get around by ass-achingly slow public transport or by bicycle and are very industrious and on top of their responsibilities with me and with the court. You can't fathom my frustration when some redneck racist asshole denigrates one of these people or their character or paints them as a criminal or a danger. I'd rather be neighbors with a Guatemalan than an Idahoan every day of the week without thinking about it.

[Uncle Ted]

Thanks for bringing this up. In addition to the wall, taking away birthright citizenship is a hall-of-fame White Nationalist platform piece. Trump is either a White Supremacist or the dumbest pawn the White Supremacist movement has ever manipulated so easily. If the latter is the case, I don't know how you explain the birther movement when he had no political stake in anything. I think he's just a racist POS.

This makes sense why Harry Reid was pushing it... That F’n racist Nazi POS!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Commando]

This makes sense why Harry Reid was pushing it... That F’n racist Nazi POS!

Hey if the shoe fits! I've heard a lot of racist comments in church. He doesn't get a pass from me just b/c he's LDS.

[Pelado]

I'd rather be neighbors with a Guatemalan than an Idahoan every day of the week without thinking about it.

Then Guatemalans must be pretty awesome.

[Commando]

Then Guatemalans must be pretty awesome.

And Idahoans aren't that great. I should know- I'm one of em.

[snowcat]

I was having a conversation with my wife this morning regarding immigration and the whole caravan thing.

I guess I'm curious as to what people think the right answer is as far as making immigration easier and accepting folks like those in the caravan into the country.

I think it's really easy to say that we don't want to bring in criminals. OK. And it's easy to say that anyone who wants to come here to escape violence and other bad things in their homeland and contribute to society here is welcome. OK.

But what are the limits? Should there be any? What is the capacity of the US to absorb groups like this? Quite frankly, during my time as a missionary in Guatemala I knew of many people who wanted to move to the US. Some had applied and were on waiting lists. Others were saving up money for a coyote. And many others talked about it longingly, though they didn't have the money to apply and weren't willing to take the risks of hiring a coyote. And that was just in one country!

Many people say we need to accept and process this caravan when they arrive. Who are we to not share what we have and to limit who else can have it based solely on winning the lottery of being born in the right country. And I agree - I really don't believe I deserve what I've got here any more than anyone else.

But what is our capacity? And if this group is fully accepted in, does that bring other groups - perhaps larger groups? If I was living in Guatemala and learned that by making my way to the US I would be accepted at the border - I'd be packing my backpack for the trek.

So - should there be limits? And what should those limits be? (I accept that they are likely much higher than the current acceptance rate) - and will the limits EVER be high enough to meet the demand? Or will it just allow more people in, without really reducing the number of people who aren't accepted and aren't going to wait and/or deal with a crazy bureaucracy?

The latest numbers I can find set a total annual limit for immigration of unskilled labor (not coming under a family immigration) at 5,000 per year max. The latest limit for asylum seekers from Latin America is at 3,000 per year. We have a system in place to limit legal immigration, it is just set at limits that I believe are way too low. We have a serious labor shortage right now.

[frank ryan]

The latest numbers I can find set a total annual limit for immigration of unskilled labor (not coming under a family immigration) at 5,000 per year max. The latest limit for asylum seekers from Latin America is at 3,000 per year. We have a system in place to limit legal immigration, it is just set at limits that I believe are way too low. We have a serious labor shortage right now.

Trump’s understanding of the economy as evidenced by his 3 hour work days and strange and arbitrary trade wars is very limited. His decisions to restrict immigrants is an idealogical one based on race.

He was never a good business man. He was good at getting attention and branding and that is what he is successfully doing now, branding and getting attention with divisive policies and whining about the media.

[Eddie]

Trump’s understanding of the economy as evidenced by his 3 hour work days and strange and arbitrary trade wars is very limited....

Honestly? I hope he keeps his work days to 3 hours. I'd even be OK with him going to a 3 hour work week.

[swampfrog]

Those senators help created the 13th and 14th amendments, as I understand it, so they were asked to give what they meant.

While that's of interest, it still is only within the jurisdiction of the courts to interpret. In this case it may be that judges will give greater weight to the practice in English common law rather than what the intent of the sponsors/drafters may have been. The intent is obviously of interest, and should be influential, but it isn't the only source (and shouldn't be) that is consulted for interpretation. It's a rather gray area, rife with the possibility of corruption. The claims of legislating from the bench are not completely unfounded.

[Eddie]

While that's of interest, it still is only within the jurisdiction of the courts to interpret. In this case it may be that judges will give greater weight to the practice in English common law rather than what the intent of the sponsors/drafters may have been. The intent is obviously of interest, and should be influential, but it isn't the only source (and shouldn't be) that is consulted for interpretation. It's a rather gray area, rife with the possibility of corruption. The claims of legislating from the bench are not completely unfounded.

So- Nancy Pelosi wasn't all that far off when she said that Congress has to pass a law before we can see what's in it. I mean - intent of the law isn't all that relevant. What's important is how it is interpreted by the courts. And they won't be interpreting it until it becomes law.

[BlueK]

So- Nancy Pelosi wasn't all that far off when she said that Congress has to pass a law before we can see what's in it. I mean - intent of the law isn't all that relevant. What's important is how it is interpreted by the courts. And they won't be interpreting it until it becomes law.

Any judge or justice who would give Trump a pass should he try to sign the order Stephen Miller is going to write for him on this should be impeached. The language of the constitution is clear enough, along with precedents already set on the matter.

[Uncle Ted]

While that's of interest, it still is only within the jurisdiction of the courts to interpret. In this case it may be that judges will give greater weight to the practice in English common law rather than what the intent of the sponsors/drafters may have been. The intent is obviously of interest, and should be influential, but it isn't the only source (and shouldn't be) that is consulted for interpretation. It's a rather gray area, rife with the possibility of corruption. The claims of legislating from the bench are not completely unfounded.

LOL... The English don't recognized the children of born of non-British parents in England as citizens (or subjects of the crown). Just kidding.

Has the supreme court ruled on children born of illegal immigrates in the US being given automatic citizenship? I have search but can't find such a case.

Here is another quote from another author (Sen. Jacob M. Howard, MI) of the 14th amendment:

The first amendment is to section one, declaring that "all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside." I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been so fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.

https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:...dc30867/m1/12/

[Uncle Ted]

So- Nancy Pelosi wasn't all that far off when she said that Congress has to pass a law before we can see what's in it. I mean - intent of the law isn't all that relevant. What's important is how it is interpreted by the courts. And they won't be interpreting it until it becomes law.

Apparently Drumpf is doing the same thing... making an executive order so we can all see what's in it.

[swampfrog]

So- Nancy Pelosi wasn't all that far off when she said that Congress has to pass a law before we can see what's in it. I mean - intent of the law isn't all that relevant. What's important is how it is interpreted by the courts. And they won't be interpreting it until it becomes law.

I'm pretty sure that's the way it was purposefully designed. Congress does the best it can (which lately hasn't set the bar very high) to commit to writing its intent. When something is brought before the court, a judge decides whether the law as written applies or not--and if the law violates constitutional directives. Allowing a drafter to influence policy outside of what a law specifically states in writing is a disaster waiting to happen. A single drafter (or committee) does not have the right to create law, only the full body of Congress signed by the executive branch. The vote was on what was written, not on the intent of the original drafters. It's often a compromise position, regardless of the intent or desires of the original promoters. Maybe that's not interpret, could be there's a better word.

That Congress seems to continue to abdicate its position as lawmakers in recent years is a separate problem. Often resulting in the courts being forced to interpret ambiguous language.