President Trump: Making America Great Again...

[Commando]

So arriving aliens are held without bail and can not leave under their own freewill... that is what you are telling me. No wonder they just jump the fence! Undocumented immigrants can at least post bail!

Arriving aliens is a class. Undocumented arriving at the border or those applying for admission somehow. Just stop.

[Eddie]

or maybe we shouldnt be holding indefinitely while waiting for a month long trial process. Was he a danger to society?

You told us he was there due to "doing something stupid" - a DUI. As someone who knows a family who had 2 of their children killed when they were hit by an undocumented immigrant who was driving under the influence - I'd consider that a danger. Enough to lock him up for 8 months? I don't know about that. But certainly a danger. I know I'm biased as a teetotalling LDS'er who doesn't drink - but I have a super low tolerance for DUI's.

I'm pretty open about immigration reform. Simplify the process, accept more applicants, make an easy process for those who are here already, a pathway to citizenship for DACA kids, etc. But I'm not quite as forgiving when those immigrants put our citizens at risk. Any violent crime, sexual crime, or crime that puts US citizens at risk (And I would include DUI) - I view those as reasons to revoke residency and send people back where they came from.

I agree 100%. But they won't because they're terrified to just do their job, which many of them are about to lose in November.

I get what you're saying. I also think this is one of those issues that the general citizenry would get behind. You write a bill that both sides that can accept - that keeps families together, processes them quickly, and doesn't necessarily incentivize either sending children or crossing the border with children, and most everyone would agree with that. Some would still want the fence. Others would still want open borders. But everyone agrees with the basics - and no one is going to say "don't re-elect him! He voted against taking kids from their parents and locking them up in dog kennels!" Very easy position to defend - regardless of party.

I'm sure there is some possible negative. There always is. But it sure seems the positive would WAY outweigh it.

[Commando]

Any violent crime, sexual crime, or crime that puts US citizens at risk (And I would include DUI) - I view those as reasons to revoke residency and send people back where they came from.

lol so you are ok with INA section 237(2). Phew!

[Moliere]

Commando is mopping the floor with uncle ted. Sad!

[Commando]

Another couple of questions for Commando:

1) How many unattended minors present themselves at the border, and what process is in place to ensure their protection and care? Specifically, if it is a high volume event, it seems like DFS or whomever would be overwhelmed pretty easily. How do they place these kids and what do (or should they do) to protect and care for them in the meantime?

2) What proportion of families are split up at the border? Is it all of them, most of them, or some of them? If not all, how does ICE decided who draws the short straw and why?

There are so many different reports that the truth is really hard determine.

I promise I'll answer this when my headache goes away. I'm way to susceptible to trolling on fb apparently.

[Eddie]

lol so you are ok with INA section 237(2). Phew!

I have no idea what INA section 237(2) is. So I have no idea if I'm OK with it or not.

But I can play your game.

You don't think people driving DUI is dangerous? Phew!

[Flystripper]

I have no idea what INA section 237(2) is. So I have no idea if I'm OK with it or not.

But I can play your game.

You don't think people driving DUI is dangerous? Phew!

I think you misunderstand. To be consistent with what commando posted you should have said, so you think people diving under the influence should get a DUI? phew

[Eddie]

I think you misunderstand. To be consistent with what commando posted you should have said, so you think people diving under the influence should get a DUI? phew

I'm not very good at this. Thanks for the help.

[BlueK]

You told us he was there due to "doing something stupid" - a DUI. As someone who knows a family who had 2 of their children killed when they were hit by an undocumented immigrant who was driving under the influence - I'd consider that a danger. Enough to lock him up for 8 months? I don't know about that. But certainly a danger. I know I'm biased as a teetotalling LDS'er who doesn't drink - but I have a super low tolerance for DUI's.

I'm pretty open about immigration reform. Simplify the process, accept more applicants, make an easy process for those who are here already, a pathway to citizenship for DACA kids, etc. But I'm not quite as forgiving when those immigrants put our citizens at risk. Any violent crime, sexual crime, or crime that puts US citizens at risk (And I would include DUI) - I view those as reasons to revoke residency and send people back where they came from.



I get what you're saying. I also think this is one of those issues that the general citizenry would get behind. You write a bill that both sides that can accept - that keeps families together, processes them quickly, and doesn't necessarily incentivize either sending children or crossing the border with children, and most everyone would agree with that. Some would still want the fence. Others would still want open borders. But everyone agrees with the basics - and no one is going to say "don't re-elect him! He voted against taking kids from their parents and locking them up in dog kennels!" Very easy position to defend - regardless of party.

I'm sure there is some possible negative. There always is. But it sure seems the positive would WAY outweigh it.

Also, "open borders" to me means something different than establishing a system where you know who is coming in and why, but you still allow a good number of people to take jobs if they have no history of criminal activity, aren't bringing drugs, etc. But I agree with you on what immigration policy should look like.

[Commando]

I have no idea what INA section 237(2) is. So I have no idea if I'm OK with it or not.

But I can play your game.

You don't think people driving DUI is dangerous? Phew!

wow you think I'm playing a weird game...

[Commando]

I have no idea what INA section 237(2) is. So I have no idea if I'm OK with it or not.

It articulates and sets forth exactly what your 'views' are. I just thought it was funny.

[Maximus]

Like they didn't want a wall... https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/109-2006/s262



There are a lot of interesting "yeas", including:

Obama, Barack
Schumer, Chuck
Clinton, Hillary
Boxer, Barbara
Feinstein, Dianne

You should do a couple minutes of google'ing before making a claim!

As for treating human beings like garbage, you should ask the ACLU about that... Apparently they was "widespread abuse" of children going on during the Obama administration that no one wants to talk about for some reason.

Dems offered the wall for DACA and trump didnt take it.

[PaloAltoCougar]

I get why those who despise Trump (and they are legion) are crowing about his quick about-face on the kids separation issue. But wouldn't it be tactically smarter to give the President credit (painful though it would be) for making that decision? If one really wants to get something done with our intellectually challenged and narcissistic president, the best way to do it would be to praise him on those infrequent occasions when he does things like this, thus encouraging more such behavior on his part. But by pointing out his hypocrisy or inconsistency, or mocking him for actually having done something good, his foes merely encourage him to dig in his heels for future battles. I'd love to see greater intelligence on both sides.

[Uncle Ted]

a fix the fence/put a bandaid on the problem may have been well meaning but it didn't work. It isn't the law that is the real problem which was passed 36 years ago. And what went wrong with that one was that it made it pretty darn hard for lower skilled laborers to enter legally. Just the fact that a few dems voted for some bandaid border security bill Bush pushed through means what? That they can never say anything about what's not working today?

The fact is more than "a few dems" voted for that immigration bill. I am sorry if you can't understand the link I posted. In short, dems are clearly hypocrites when it comes to immigration... what they say and do are clearly two different things.

Here's an analogy for you. Explain to me why it doesn't apply.

The zero tolerance war on drugs has gone on forever and had billions of dollars thrown at it, and yet it has not kept dangerous drugs out. Why not? Do we need even tougher laws? Would they even work? This is your quiz to see if you're still a libertarian.

Why are "tough" immigration laws going to do any better as long as there is a labor demand that immigrants can fill as Cowboy has eloquently explained?

Why is current Republican, I mean Trumpian policy so hell bent on keeping basically almost everyone out? Is there no possible middle ground? His own statements make it hard not to think it's mostly about him just not liking people from certain countries vs. others.

Finally, assuming he gets a change to immigration law he likes, it's only a matter of time before it combined with Trump's other dopey ideas around trade bring on a recession.

War on drugs doesn't work but that is not the topic here. The right immigration policy is good for the labor market and the economy. Also, young working immigrates that contribute are good for PAC's social security. One of the links I included above talks about all of that but how the dems have totally lost their way when it comes to immigration. It seems that all they do now is just bitch about it and don't actually even try to fix anything.

If you have read anything besides the blinded liberal rags then you know that he has proposed a merit-based system to immigration. (So tell your argument why the current lottery system is so much better.) So how is that keeping basically almost everyone out as you claim Drumpf is thinking? It seems to me he wants immigrates to supply the labor shortage? So where did you get the idea that he wants to keep almost everyone out?

Embedded Tweet

Obama and the dems has their chance to change the immigration laws to the way they would like... Why didn't they? They owned congress and the white house but didn't do a damn thing about immigration. Why not? Clearly the democratic party is the the party of hypocrites. What is their excuse? They could have fixed this immigration thing a long time ago.

[Uncle Ted]

I get why those who despise Trump (and they are legion) are crowing about his quick about-face on the kids separation issue. But wouldn't it be tactically smarter to give the President credit (painful though it would be) for making that decision? If one really wants to get something done with our intellectually challenged and narcissistic president, the best way to do it would be to praise him on those infrequent occasions when he does things like this, thus encouraging more such behavior on his part. But by pointing out his hypocrisy or inconsistency, or mocking him for actually having done something good, his foes merely encourage him to dig in his heels for future battles. I'd love to see greater intelligence on both sides.

Amen to that but I think we will need a different party before that will happen.

Ben Shaprio sums it up pretty well...

The Utter Hypocrisy And Stupidity Of The Illegal Immigrant Parent-Child Separation Debate

The Utter Hypocrisy And Stupidity Of The Illegal Immigrant Parent-Child Separation Debate

On the one hand, you have the Left arguing that policy must change with regard to family separation at the border. That would be the same Left that argued in 2014 that it was utterly inhumane to keep children locked up with their illegal immigrant parents, and sued to have that policy changed.

On the other hand, you have the Trump administration arguing that “zero tolerance” at the border was good policy, and that family separation was merely a byproduct of the legal workings of the system; the Trump administration also argued that they didn’t have the legal authority to unilaterally overrule Ninth Circuit rulings on the Flores settlement. That would be the same Trump administration now arguing that Trump can unilaterally change policy through executive action.

On that first hand again, the Left argues that separation policy is essentially Nazi-esque evil. These would be the same people on the Left rejecting a legislative fix in order to “keep the focus” on President Trump, as Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) so charmingly put it.

On that other hand again, the Right argues that separating parents from children is a deterrent, while at the same time arguing that the policy is an Obama holdover for which the Trump administration bears no responsibility.

So, here’s the simple reality.

1. The Trump administration did not create separation policy. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals did.
2. The Trump administration did push a zero-tolerance policy on border crossing, treating all those who enter the country illegally as criminals.
3. The Trump administration does not have the executive authority to unilaterally change law, as ruled by the Ninth Circuit.
4. The policy should be changed, and should never have been discussed as a deterrent.

[...]