President Trump

[detltu]

Did I read correctly that the 14th amendment was written concerning slaves, brought here against their will? It’s not for illegals who weren’t forced into the decision.

I haven't ever heard that, but to Guislapp's point I don't think that Trump signing an EO to remove birthright citizenship from children of illegal aliens is a good idea. I don't however think it's as cut and dry as it's made out to be. I have a few problems with the proposed executive action.
1. If the majority really want to remove automatic citizenship for children of people here illegally, the proper path is a constitutional amendment.
2. While I agree that it's a problem that needs to be solved, I don't think this is the correct way to do it. We need to focus on stopping illegal immigration in the first place and it won't be an issue.
3. Trying to solve problems with executive order is just circumventing our own processes and protections and is a continuation of Obama's legacy. This power is ripe for abuse and I think this would be an example.

[Guisslapp]

Did I read correctly that the 14th amendment was written concerning slaves, brought here against their will? It’s not for illegals who weren’t forced into the decision.

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

Slavery is what brought about the 13th/14th amendments, but the 14th Amendment has always been much broader than slavery.

[johnnylightnin]

I haven't ever heard that, but to Guislapp's point I don't think that Trump signing an EO to remove birthright citizenship from children of illegal aliens is a good idea. I don't however think it's as cut and dry as it's made out to be. I have a few problems with the proposed executive action.
1. If the majority really want to remove automatic citizenship for children of people here illegally, the proper path is a constitutional amendment.
2. While I agree that it's a problem that needs to be solved, I don't think this is the correct way to do it. We need to focus on stopping illegal immigration in the first place and it won't be an issue.
3. Trying to solve problems with executive order is just circumventing our own processes and protections and is a continuation of Obama's legacy. This power is ripe for abuse and I think this would be an example.

I fully agree...especially with the bolded portion. We also shouldn't forget that 2/3 of these illegals entered legally (meaning a wall only "solves" 1/3 of the problem).

[detltu]

I fully agree...especially with the bolded portion. We also shouldn't forget that 2/3 of these illegals entered legally (meaning a wall only "solves" 1/3 of the problem).

That's an interesting point. I don't think the ones who entered legally are as big of an issue as the ones who entered illegally. The ones who overstay their visa's at least went through some minimal (very minimal) vetting process to obtain the visas. I'm genuinely more concerned with people who come in and we have absolutely no idea about. Not to say that they are bad people, but we should absolutely have some say in who comes into our country.

[Guisslapp]

That's an interesting point. I don't think the ones who entered legally are as big of an issue as the ones who entered illegally. The ones who overstay their visa's at least went through some minimal (very minimal) vetting process to obtain the visas. I'm genuinely more concerned with people who come in and we have absolutely no idea about. Not to say that they are bad people, but we should absolutely have some say in who comes into our country.

What about ladders and tunnels, which are ready used in areas where we have walls?

The wall has always been about its symbolic effect.

[dawg80]

What about ladders and tunnels, which are ready used in areas where we have walls?

The wall has always been about its symbolic effect.

There is technology that easily detects tunneling. Then when you determine where the tunnel will emerge, you set out mines and set up motion-detector machine guns. They pop out of the ground...and get put right back into it.

As for the ladders, drones with machine guns covers that.

After a few dozen....or if they're really slow learners....a few thousand invaders are rebuffed at the border, the rest will stop trying to enter that way, and will get in line to come in legally.

[detltu]

What about ladders and tunnels, which are ready used in areas where we have walls?

The wall has always been about its symbolic effect.

I didn't bring up the wall in this instance, but the items you talked about are why the wall has to be so draconian. It's unlikely that we will ever be able to completely stop people from getting in illegally, but we should at least try to make it more difficult. You can make it more difficult to use a ladder or tunnel under with wall design. That's why they test different designs out and don't just put up a picket fence.

It's never been about it's symbolic effect, at least not for it's supporters. For it's detractors, it's always been about it's always been more about it's symbolic effect rather than it's effectiveness or cost. If you can prove to me that it would not be effective, or that the costs associated with it could be better used in other ways to reduce illegal immigration I would be absolutely willing to consider other solutions. I don't honestly care whether we have a wall or not. I do think we need to do something to stifle illegal immigration.

[techman05]

I haven't ever heard that, but to Guislapp's point I don't think that Trump signing an EO to remove birthright citizenship from children of illegal aliens is a good idea. I don't however think it's as cut and dry as it's made out to be. I have a few problems with the proposed executive action.
1. If the majority really want to remove automatic citizenship for children of people here illegally, the proper path is a constitutional amendment.
2. While I agree that it's a problem that needs to be solved, I don't think this is the correct way to do it. We need to focus on stopping illegal immigration in the first place and it won't be an issue.
3. Trying to solve problems with executive order is just circumventing our own processes and protections and is a continuation of Obama's legacy. This power is ripe for abuse and I think this would be an example.

I agree as well that an EO, like most EO’s is not the way to do anything. I get Trump’s frustration because Libs and RINO’s greatly outnumber conservatives in Congress. He can’t get anything done legislatively because both sides are too busy breaking out rulers and having measuring contests.

[johnnylightnin]

If you can prove to me that it would not be effective, or that the costs associated with it could be better used in other ways to reduce illegal immigration I would be absolutely willing to consider other solutions. I don't honestly care whether we have a wall or not. I do think we need to do something to stifle illegal immigration.

That's where I am (though I think the "dangerous illegals" propaganda is disingenuous and not supported by the actual statistics). Why don't we have e-verify? Why aren't we seeing harsh penalties for those that hire illegals being used to dissuade illegal immigration? 99% of the walls in our lives are technological and yet we're insisting on a physical wall that the actual bad people (cartels and the like) will have no trouble flying over or tunneling under.

That's why I see the wall as mainly a symbol...and it's a pricy one at that.

[Guisslapp]

I agree as well that an EO, like most EO’s is not the way to do anything. I get Trump’s frustration because Libs and RINO’s greatly outnumber conservatives in Congress. He can’t get anything done legislatively because both sides are too busy breaking out rulers and having measuring contests.

He can’t get those things done because he is a piss poor leader. The worst I have ever seen at this level. He is a terrible example of leadership (and pretty much everything else for that matter). He is reckless, divisive, ugly, authoritarian and plays on all the sensitive touchpoints that make Americans angry and distrust one another (mostly unjustifiably) for his own political gain. The wake of destruction that he leaves in his path is that of bedrock American principles (the press, the rule of law, ethics, personal accountability, openness to others) and more important public (rather than government) civility. He is encouraging people to treat each other poorly, to bully others, to name call, to settle scores with violence. He is absolutely terrible.

[techman05]

I agree that he is manipulative and divisive. I would argue Hillary would have been equally so. We had two bowls of crap to choose from. Who can we blame but ourselves for nominating the 2 worst possibilities for America?

[johnnylightnin]

I agree that he is manipulative and divisive. I would argue Hillary would have been equally so. We had two bowls of crap to choose from. Who can we blame but ourselves for nominating the 2 worst possibilities for America?

Nobody to blame but the collective "we". The solution is not to double down on divisive manipulation.

[detltu]

That's where I am (though I think the "dangerous illegals" propaganda is disingenuous and not supported by the actual statistics). Why don't we have e-verify? Why aren't we seeing harsh penalties for those that hire illegals being used to dissuade illegal immigration? 99% of the walls in our lives are technological and yet we're insisting on a physical wall that the actual bad people (cartels and the like) will have no trouble flying over or tunneling under.

That's why I see the wall as mainly a symbol...and it's a pricy one at that.

We are probably on the same page on this. I would argue that most of the walls in our life are physical though but I agree that technology could be used more effectively to limit the issue.
I'm not against punishing those who hire IAs, but I'm not sure if that would really be a deterrent and might cause more problems if the people can't find work. I think it's worth considering.

Saying they have no trouble flying over or tunneling under the walls I think is oversimplified. Sure they could still do that, but a tunnel is still a choke point and flying over can only move so many people and at a high cost. If those were the only means of crossing the border illegally, it would still greatly reduce the number of crossings.

I also agree that the dangerous illegals is at least misunderstood. I honestly don't care about most of the people that are just coming here to have a better life for themselves or their families. I would certainly prefer they come legally, which would require some much needed changes to our immigration laws. The problem is that when we have no say in who comes in the gang members and potential terrorists can use the same methods to avoid detection that the "dreamers" use.
The issue for me isn't that the number of "bad hombres" is a small percentage of the total illegal immigrant community. I think the stats bear that out for sure. I think the percentages of "bad hombres" that get in could be greatly reduced if they had to go through a screening process. While we wont' eliminate bad guys getting into the country (or being born here), I think we should do everything we can to minimize the number of bad guys.

[detltu]

He can’t get those things done because he is a piss poor leader. The worst I have ever seen at this level. He is a terrible example of leadership (and pretty much everything else for that matter). He is reckless, divisive, ugly, authoritarian and plays on all the sensitive touchpoints that make Americans angry and distrust one another (mostly unjustifiably) for his own political gain. The wake of destruction that he leaves in his path is that of bedrock American principles (the press, the rule of law, ethics, personal accountability, openness to others) and more important public (rather than government) civility. He is encouraging people to treat each other poorly, to bully others, to name call, to settle scores with violence. He is absolutely terrible.

This is a perfect example of putting emotion over reason. Trump can't get those things done. That's true. No one else has either and they all say they want to. Not Obama, not Bush, not Clinton. None of them have gotten them done because there are opposing viewpoints that make reaching a consensus very difficult. The reality is that while everyone says they want immigration reform, it's very difficult to agree on the details of what that would entail.

[Guisslapp]

This is a perfect example of putting emotion over reason. Trump can't get those things done. That's true. No one else has either and they all say they want to. Not Obama, not Bush, not Clinton. None of them have gotten them done because there are opposing viewpoints that make reaching a consensus very difficult. The reality is that while everyone says they want immigration reform, it's very difficult to agree on the details of what that would entail.

Even if he were an effective leader measured by getting those things done, my main beef is the things I mentioned. The damage that they do is not worth anything he can achieve from a policy standpoint.