The President Trump Immigration Thread

[bwframe]

The dems aren't gonna give an inch. The pres could offer citizenship to DACA with six degrees of relations and no wall, they still wont take it. The dems think this can be their election savior.

The best move for the pres is to give them their wish. Yes, lets make this an election issue, for all of us. DACA will be acted on in November.

Tell these activist judges they have until Nov 15th to get this settled. Then, just like the man who hired them, President Trump will start deporting regardless of the judges orders/wishes/beliefs.

If congress has not solved the immigration issue president Trump will, with the blessing of the American people.

 

[actaeon277]

"U.S. District Judge Nicholas Garaufis in New York ruled Tuesday that Attorney General Jeff Sessions had "erred in concluding that DACA is unconstitutional" and granted a preliminary injunction sought by state attorneys general and immigrants who had sued the administration."


DACA was an executive order. Undoing an executive order is the prerogative of the President. The only honest case they have against it is they disagree with ending it.

They do not believe in rule of law anymore.

 

[jamil]

They do not believe in rule of law anymore.

Congress could pass a law. Of course that takes compromise and the Democrats say they want a clean DACA bill. So they get nothing. And it's okay. That still works for them when they have activist judges to make **** up as they go.

 

[Twangbanger]

The dems aren't gonna give an inch. The pres could offer citizenship to DACA with six degrees of relations and no wall, they still wont take it. The dems think this can be their election savior...

I actually don't believe this. The Dems would take a clean DACA bill in a heartbeat. It would crush Trump's base and decimate what support he has left.

They will not accept a wall, because they do not believe what they would be giving up is equal in value to what they're getting in a DACA compromise. On a symbolic level, a wall is too big a stretch for them because it means "Angela Merkel Values" on immigration have been rejected.

But it's also a problem on a more concrete level. Remember, their plan is to "Turn Texas Blue." If that happens, game is over and nothing else matters. DACA is just 8~900,000 individual people with finite life spans who will someday be gone. Nobody is going to actually deport them. They are going to live out the remainder of their human lifespans in America, one way or the other. Whether they do so with a certain status, or without, is small taters in the greater scheme.

But turning Texas blue is forever. It means they no longer need to persuade anybody, on anything. Putting up an effective wall makes that harder to achieve, and Democrats are not going to knowingly agree to anything which puts Blue Texas farther out of reach.

 

[jamil]

I actually don't believe this. The Dems would take a clean DACA bill in a heartbeat. It would crush Trump's base and decimate what support he has left.

They will not accept a wall, because they do not believe what they would be giving up is equal in value to what they're getting in a DACA compromise. On a symbolic level, a wall is too big a stretch for them because it means "Angela Merkel Values" on immigration have been rejected.

But it's also a problem on a more concrete level. Remember, their plan is to "Turn Texas Blue." If that happens, game is over and nothing else matters. DACA is just 8~900,000 individual people with finite life spans who will someday be gone. Nobody is going to actually deport them. They are going to live out the remainder of their human lifespans in America, one way or the other. Whether they do so with a certain status, or without, is small taters in the greater scheme.

But turning Texas blue is forever. It means they no longer need to persuade anybody, on anything. Putting up an effective wall makes that harder to achieve, and Democrats are not going to knowingly agree to anything which puts Blue Texas farther out of reach.

That explanation helps make sense of why the southern border is so important to progressives to keep open, beyond all the political hyperbole.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Judge rules that ending DACA legal, but it doesn't overturn other courts rulings.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/mar/5/trump-daca-phaseout-legal-judge-rules/

 

[BugI02]

Disparate rulings from the Federal bench I believe can increase the likelihood of review by SCOTUS, which is almost certainly where this has to end up

 

[T.Lex]

Disparate rulings from the Federal bench I believe can increase the likelihood of review by SCOTUS, which is almost certainly where this has to end up

This is true.

It is called a circuit split. IMHO, it is one of the most important factors for SCOTUS review.

 

[Libertarian01]

I heard a story on NPR a week or so ago talking about immigration. One of the key issues keeping people in a holding pattern for years is the limit on the number of immigrants we will allow from one country or another. The limit get hit thus creating a backlog. To me this is unconscionable when we are talking about keeping families apart for years.

I think an easy solution would involve two (2) parts. First, reduce the number of immigrants from countries. This is what Pres Trump wants, so he would be happy. But, say that Juan Immigrant from Mexico is legally allowed citizenship. When Juan Immigrant brings his wife and two (2) daughters, now legally, these three (3) don't count against the quota! Juan Immigrant is the only one that is counted. Voila! Now the democrats are happy! You can reduce the number of legal immigration but allow families to remain intact.

Put in a third rule that says anyone that was sponsored as a family member may not sponsor someone else, thus ending any extended chain.

To me it would be a decent thing to keep families together while at the same time reducing the numbers allowed.

Thoughts?

Doug

 

[T.Lex]

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/im...lifornia-over-immigration-enforcement-n854331

This lawsuit seems like a really bad idea.

First, "more dangerous for federal officers" isn't really a thing. At least, it isn't a constitutional issue. Federalism would suggest it isn't the state's obligation to make federal LEOs' jobs easier.

Second, the ONE area that it might make sense is the argument that Cali is engaging in foreign policy. At face value, I don't see how that would stick. The laws seem focused on what people do when they are in the country.

Third, the Cali laws are terrible policy IMHO. But, that doesn't seem like it should be a federal case.

The best outcome is that it keeps the DOJ lawyers distracted enough so they don't mess with NFA definitions.

 

[KLB]

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/im...lifornia-over-immigration-enforcement-n854331

This lawsuit seems like a really bad idea.

First, "more dangerous for federal officers" isn't really a thing. At least, it isn't a constitutional issue. Federalism would suggest it isn't the state's obligation to make federal LEOs' jobs easier.

Second, the ONE area that it might make sense is the argument that Cali is engaging in foreign policy. At face value, I don't see how that would stick. The laws seem focused on what people do when they are in the country.

Third, the Cali laws are terrible policy IMHO. But, that doesn't seem like it should be a federal case.

The best outcome is that it keeps the DOJ lawyers distracted enough so they don't mess with NFA definitions.

If only there were so few of them that this could possibly be true.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

I heard a story on NPR a week or so ago talking about immigration. One of the key issues keeping people in a holding pattern for years is the limit on the number of immigrants we will allow from one country or another. The limit get hit thus creating a backlog. To me this is unconscionable when we are talking about keeping families apart for years.

I think an easy solution would involve two (2) parts. First, reduce the number of immigrants from countries. This is what Pres Trump wants, so he would be happy. But, say that Juan Immigrant from Mexico is legally allowed citizenship. When Juan Immigrant brings his wife and two (2) daughters, now legally, these three (3) don't count against the quota! Juan Immigrant is the only one that is counted. Voila! Now the democrats are happy! You can reduce the number of legal immigration but allow families to remain intact.

Put in a third rule that says anyone that was sponsored as a family member may not sponsor someone else, thus ending any extended chain.

To me it would be a decent thing to keep families together while at the same time reducing the numbers allowed.

Thoughts?

Doug

They would have to massively cut the quota numbers, at least most likely to keep the numbers the same. Figuring a spouse and one child being average, to keep the numbers coming in the same you would have to cut the quota to a 1/3rd of the current number. But for a lot of the countries 1 child isn't average, especially for countries that are what is considered 3rd world. Could you imagine the screams if it was proposed to cut it by that much? The left would have a field day saying how the right just wants to keep out minorities.

I don't know if there is currently such a thing (I don't think there is, but not positive), but how about a group family application? Spouse and any children are all on the same ap, and all count towards the quota? If you have another child before the original ap is approved, they have to amend the ap. Any additional that are put on the amended ap also count towards the total. This and ending all "chain migration", would keep families together and allow for a set number without the guess work of how many sponsorship's might happen in your proposed rule.

Your proposed 3rd rule, I'd say that would be great regardless of any other changes. Although I would also limit sponsorship to spouse, children, and perhaps parents if the sponsor can show proof of ability to support them or the ability for them to support themselves. Although that should probably apply to all sponsorship. Including spouse and children.

ETA If it's unconscionable keeping the families apart, that would be on the original family member immigrating. They know how long it can take and choose to do so. That's not on us, it's all on them.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/im...lifornia-over-immigration-enforcement-n854331

This lawsuit seems like a really bad idea.

First, "more dangerous for federal officers" isn't really a thing. At least, it isn't a constitutional issue. Federalism would suggest it isn't the state's obligation to make federal LEOs' jobs easier.

Second, the ONE area that it might make sense is the argument that Cali is engaging in foreign policy. At face value, I don't see how that would stick. The laws seem focused on what people do when they are in the country.

Third, the Cali laws are terrible policy IMHO. But, that doesn't seem like it should be a federal case.

The best outcome is that it keeps the DOJ lawyers distracted enough so they don't mess with NFA definitions.

Immigration policy, law and enforcement is strictly a federal purview. Period. Full stop.

State laws attempt to extend (Arizona), interfere (Cali) or co-opt federal immigration law are unconstitutional on their face.

 

[T.Lex]

Immigration policy, law and enforcement is strictly a federal purview. Period. Full stop.

State laws attempt to extend (Arizona), interfere (Cali) or co-opt federal immigration law are unconstitutional on their face.

Have you read the Cali laws? They are not unconstitutional on their face. They regulate behavior of residents - both human and entities - within Cali.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Have you read the Cali laws? They are not unconstitutional on their face. They regulate behavior of residents - both human and entities - within Cali.

Yes, I have.

There are some (small) parts of the law that could reasonably be interpreted as the State of California electing not to spend state funds cooperating with the federal government in enforcing immigration laws. Those are absolutely constitutional.

But that is a small fraction of what spewed out of Sacramento.

The rest of it, especially after the Arizona ruling, absolutely is not. Edicts that specifically seek to bar county and local officials, as well as companies, from voluntarily cooperating with the feds are not. Applying state "protections" to immigration status, going so far as to specifically bar reporting to the feds should be a 9-0 slam dunk, no way, no how. The parts that federal facilities and officials will bend to the new state laws, abdicating their powers conferred under federal law, are not only unconstitutional, but childishly silly of them to even think that they'll stand any level of constitutional scrutiny.

Else:
[video=youtube;V1FFVWEQnSM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1FFVWEQnSM[/video]

 

[Route 45]

Trump calls for 'tough' immigration reform after report of caravan with Central Americans heading to US | Fox News

 

[ghitch75]

this is why Mexico needs to pay for the wall....

 

[OakRiver]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...tch-and-release-immigration-policy/ar-AAvzn69

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Ground broken on high-priority stretch of Trump's border wall in New Mexico | Fox News

 

[ghitch75]

'We Need Help, Mr. President': CA Mayor Blasts Sanctuary Law at Roundtable With Trump | Fox News Insider