The President Trump Immigration Thread

[ArcadiaGP]

Another media fiasco:The Muslim Olympian 'detained because of President Trump's travel ban' was detained under Obama

 

[actaeon277]

Say it isn't so.
Media no longer checks their information in an effort to push an agenda and/or be the first to get a story out...

I find that hard to believe.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Say it isn't so.
Media no longer checks their information in an effort to push an agenda and/or be the first to get a story out...

I find that hard to believe.

Honestly, what difference does it make? Sure we can say this was incorrectly attributed to Trump's actions, rather than Obama's (and that's a fair criticism) BUT, this woman IS an American citizen... which in these times, apparently takes a backseat to her faith, look, and name.

 

[actaeon277]

Honestly, what difference does it make? Sure we can say this was incorrectly attributed to Trump's actions, rather than Obama's (and that's a fair criticism) BUT, this woman IS an American citizen... which in these times, apparently takes a backseat to her faith, look, and name.

Well, I would say laying the blame at the wrong person is wrong.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Honestly, what difference does it make? Sure we can say this was incorrectly attributed to Trump's actions, rather than Obama's (and that's a fair criticism) BUT, this woman IS an American citizen... which in these times, apparently takes a backseat to her faith, look, and name.

This is from the article:

"She comes and goes many times. She travels quite extensively. She has never been stopped before," the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said Monday in an interview with the Washington Examiner, confirming that she was indeed detained. "She wasn't targeted. The checks are totally random; random checks that we all might be subject to."

Muhammad was also not held for two hours, he said, adding that the entire ordeal wrapped up in under an hour.

If you travel enough, you will be RANDOMLY detained... but if you are muslim, then it's because you're muslim. BS!

 

[T.Lex]

So we are ok with citizens being randomly detained for an up to an hour by unnamed government sources?

I've been pulled aside for the special search, which was about 5 minutes at the max. Coming back from the Bahamas in about 2003, I was pulled aside for special treatment on 2 consecutive connecting flights.

And, in fairness to TSA, I'm a bit swarthy. Especially when I'm tan.

 

[Twangbanger]

...Personally, I have a radical idea that INGO would totally hate. And yes, it includes amnesty. It would also create more Republican voters, if a Republican party remains.

Since you're being coy, I'll just present mine.

Build a Wall. Don't let more in. Allow the ones who are already here, to continue to live their lives in the shadows, per the murky arrangement they chose to accept when they came in illegally. We won't make heroic efforts to find you; nor will we grant you any sort of legal status, in exchange for fighting neverending neocon wars, or any other special hoops lawyers dream up for you to jump through. (Amnesty begets more amnesty; war begets more war, and all that. Not having it).

Human lifespan is 74 years. Give or take. As long as we don't let many more in, people will live out their lives under the terms they accepted when they jaywalked, and the problem eventually takes care of itself.

Building a Wall, then doing nothing, is an option. Quite a good one I think.

 

[Kutnupe14]

This is from the article:



If you travel enough, you will be "RANDOMLY" detained... but if you are muslim, then it's because you're muslim. BS!

FIFY....and She's still an American citizen. If her documents don't check out, sure detain her. If you have RS she is up to something, detain her. Random compliance check, nope.... you know that this stuff technically violates the 4th Amendment, as originally intended right?

 

[Kutnupe14]

Since you're being coy, I'll just present mine.

Build a Wall. Don't let more in. Allow the ones who are already here, to continue to live their lives in the shadows, per the murky arrangement they chose to accept when they came in illegally. We won't make heroic efforts to find you; nor will we grant you any sort of legal status, in exchange for fighting neverending neocon wars, or any other special hoops lawyers dream up for you to jump through. (Amnesty begets more amnesty; war begets more war, and all that. Not having it).

Human lifespan is 74 years. Give or take. As long as we don't let many more in, people will live out their lives under the terms they accepted when they jaywalked, and the problem eventually takes care of itself.

Building a Wall, then doing nothing, is an option. Quite a good one I think.

How high in the sky and low into the ground does that wall go? But seriously, does anyone know of a case where a potentially illegal immigrant approached a wall, and said "Damn, there's a wall here. I guess we can't get in. Let's go home and pick some vegetables"?

 

[Route 45]

you know that this stuff technically violates the 4th Amendment, as originally intended right?

No, it doesn't. Administrative search exception, deemed reasonable by the courts.

 

[Twangbanger]

While the focus of this thread is Trump, that focus distracts from the fact that the Democrats do have an immigration problem of their own, and that Trump has made it more acute for them:

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-02-10/the-democrats-immigration-problem-s

Something which is not being sufficiently appreciated is that for the first time, people can clearly see WHICH party is against the Wall. This was not always the case; opposition to it used to be Bipartisan. But Trump created a split, and forced the Democrats out into the open. Now the Democrats own this issue, free and clear. They support what basically reduces to unlimited immigration, and can no longer hide behind the skirts of business-friendly Republicans on this issue.

 

[Kutnupe14]

While the focus of this thread is Trump, that focus distracts from the fact that the Democrats do have an immigration problem of their own, and that Trump has made it more acute for them:

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-02-10/the-democrats-immigration-problem-s

Something which is not being sufficiently appreciated is that for the first time, people can clearly see WHICH party is against the Wall. This was not always the case; opposition to it used to be Bipartisan. But Trump created a split, and forced the Democrats out into the open. Now the Democrats own this issue, free and clear. They support what basically reduces to unlimited immigration, and can no longer hide behind the skirts of business-friendly Republicans on this issue.

"Unlimited regulation?" Uhhhh.... I think you'd have a hard time convincing the general public of that. It's not a reasonable argument for anybody that understands the issue; which thankfully for many who support this wall don't have a clue.

 

[jamil]

"Unlimited regulation?" Uhhhh.... I think you'd have a hard time convincing the general public of that. It's not a reasonable argument for anybody that understands the issue; which thankfully for many who support this wall don't have a clue.

I took it that he's referring to the "open boarders" proponents. And yes, they've outed themselves. If you think most Americans support that and sanctuary cities, then I think you don't understand why Trump won.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Judge grants injunction against Trump travel ban in Virginia

"The overwhelming evidence shows that this ban was conceived in religious bigotry."

Get ready for 4 years of this.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I took it that he's referring to the "opeen boarders" proponents. And yes, they've outed themselves. If you think most Americans support that and sanctuary cities, then I think you don't understand why Trump won.

Perhaps "unlimited" holds a different meaning to me. Can you point me to the direction of the Democrat that has called for this type of immigration? Oh, and also how Trump turned the lightbulb on in people's heads, who hadn't noticed that sanctuary cities existed prior to his election?

Kut (thinks we're dealing with a creative chronology)

 

[T.Lex]

Since you're being coy, I'll just present mine.

Build a Wall. Don't let more in. Allow the ones who are already here, to continue to live their lives in the shadows, per the murky arrangement they chose to accept when they came in illegally. We won't make heroic efforts to find you; nor will we grant you any sort of legal status, in exchange for fighting neverending neocon wars, or any other special hoops lawyers dream up for you to jump through. (Amnesty begets more amnesty; war begets more war, and all that. Not having it).

Human lifespan is 74 years. Give or take. As long as we don't let many more in, people will live out their lives under the terms they accepted when they jaywalked, and the problem eventually takes care of itself.

Building a Wall, then doing nothing, is an option. Quite a good one I think.

So, in an effort to find common ground, I absolutely agree with closing off illegal immigration. I'm not sure a concrete and chain link fence is a good use of public money, but some kind of deterrent should be created. Shoot on sight might not be bad.

But anyway, people will sacrifice anything to come to the US from whatever ****hole they're from. And that's probably a good thing. We want people to continue to come here. But, we will never get to zero. Doesn't mean we don't try, but we also have to be realistic.

Where you and I primarily depart is status of those already here. I'd be ok with instant amnesty (or near-instant, pay a fine, stay out of trouble for a year). I'd also be ok with a different deportation system. Leaving them in a legal gray area is bad policy. Plus, as soon as they have citizen-kids, there's a path for them to stay anyway. Let's just make it simple.

We're going to partner with some ****hole to pay them to take the illegals that we do find. You may not like the ****hole you came from, but you're REALLY not going to like the ****hole we'll send you to.

Can't really discuss this without bringing up public assistance programs. We need to cut those. Too many Americans are dis-incented to work. Labor rates will go down, because there'll be more people in the workforce, but with all the corporate winning we're supposedly going to be doing, we'll need worker bees.

I'd shift the money from public assistance to spend more on worker training and education.

To sidetrack for a minute, there's a conservativism issue: what makes someone's immigration status your concern? (Not directly at you, specifically, Twangbanger, but the generic INGO-you.) Are they taking "your" job that you're not entitled to anyway? Are they keeping the labor rate low so you don't make "what you deserve"? Aren't you a special snowflake. None of those things are promised (other than minimum wage).

No. You care if they make the burger hygienically, pay taxes, and don't commit crimes.

 

[KLB]

Judge grants injunction against Trump travel ban in Virginia

"The overwhelming evidence shows that this ban was conceived in religious bigotry."

Get ready for 4 years of this.

It still comes down to this though.

Brinkema chided the federal government for offering no evidence to support its rationale for the ban, other than arguing the president's authority for issuing such an order.

By now they should realize that they should put a little more effort into their arguments than that.

 

[T.Lex]

It still comes down to this though.

By now they should realize that they should put a little more effort into their arguments than that.

Kinda makes you wonder if the attorneys are that bad or if they're arguing what they've been told to argue.

 

[HoughMade]

Kinda makes you wonder if the attorneys are that bad or if they're arguing what they've been told to argue.

Or if they don't care that much.

 

[KLB]

Kinda makes you wonder if the attorneys are that bad or if they're arguing what they've been told to argue.

Yeah. Or I still wonder if some are not trying very hard because they don't like it.

Whatever the reason, it is pretty amazing