• Same story, different day...........year ie more of the same fiat floods the world
  • There are no markets
  • "Spreading the ideas of freedom loving people on matters regarding high finance, politics, constructionist Constitution, and mental masturbation of all types"

Immigration & Trumps Wall

searcher

Mother Lode Found
Mother Lode
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
149,700
Likes
40,226
Border Wall Prototype Construction Site
Nuclear Vault


Published on Oct 19, 2017
Video by Mani Albrecht U.S. Customs and Border Protection Office of Public Affairs - Visual Communications Division

Various aerial views of the Border Wall Prototype construction site near Otay Mesa Port of Entry.

The appearance of U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) visual information does not imply or constitute DoD endorsement.
 

Goldhedge

Moderator
Site Mgr
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
30,506
Likes
37,186
Location
Planet Earth
I like the one where you can see through the wall at the bottom. Seems to be the most revealing.
 

Po'boy

Midas Member
Midas Member
Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 6, 2010
Messages
4,582
Likes
2,272
Repeal the immigration act and save the taxpayers billions since Mexico isn't paying.

The wall will be used to prevent the slaves from escape when the dollar crashes.

Current executive orders can take all your stuff if government wants.

Will Trump rescind those?
 

searcher

Mother Lode Found
Mother Lode
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
149,700
Likes
40,226
Cards Against Humanity party game buys a vacant section of the US-Mexico border to prevent Trump from building his wall
  • The card game company says it has bought land along the US-Mexico border
  • The campaign 'Cards Against Humanity Saves America' was announced Tuesday
  • For $15, customers can receive an illustrated map of the land, a certificate of promise to fight the wall and other 'surprises'
  • Reportedly, the Trump administration is hiring several attorneys to fight landowners to seize property needed to build the border wall
  • If landowners refuse the government's price, the attorney general can call 'eminent domain', which turns the land from private to public use


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5083143/Cards-Against-Humanity-stops-Trump-border-wall.html#ixzz4yVF4DHJk
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
 

Ensoniq

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 9, 2013
Messages
6,770
Likes
11,044
Location
North Carolina
Cards Against Humanity party game buys a vacant section of the US-Mexico border to prevent Trump from building his wall
  • The card game company says it has bought land along the US-Mexico border
  • The campaign 'Cards Against Humanity Saves America' was announced Tuesday
  • For $15, customers can receive an illustrated map of the land, a certificate of promise to fight the wall and other 'surprises'
  • Reportedly, the Trump administration is hiring several attorneys to fight landowners to seize property needed to build the border wall
  • If landowners refuse the government's price, the attorney general can call 'eminent domain', which turns the land from private to public use


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5083143/Cards-Against-Humanity-stops-Trump-border-wall.html#ixzz4yVF4DHJk
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
99 times out of 100 eminent domain is a bad thing

This is the one time
 

goldielox1

Silver Miner
Seeker
Joined
Jun 20, 2013
Messages
972
Likes
653
Cards Against Humanity party game buys a vacant section of the US-Mexico border to prevent Trump from building his wall
  • The card game company says it has bought land along the US-Mexico border
  • The campaign 'Cards Against Humanity Saves America' was announced Tuesday
  • For $15, customers can receive an illustrated map of the land, a certificate of promise to fight the wall and other 'surprises'
  • Reportedly, the Trump administration is hiring several attorneys to fight landowners to seize property needed to build the border wall
  • If landowners refuse the government's price, the attorney general can call 'eminent domain', which turns the land from private to public use


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5083143/Cards-Against-Humanity-stops-Trump-border-wall.html#ixzz4yVF4DHJk
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Wierd, I didn't even know one could buy land that is right along the border. How is this possible? Can you buy land and build a house sitting up against the border fence?
 

Joe King

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
5,819
Likes
5,726
Location
Instant Gratification Land
Wierd, I didn't even know one could buy land that is right along the border. How is this possible? Can you buy land and build a house sitting up against the border fence?
What do you think much of the issues with the wall in Texas are about? Yep, private property Rights of people who own the land along the border.
You don't get out much, do you?


Also, I do not believe that the wall will be built exactly and directly on the border itself. Especially not along any part where the river is the border. It'll be back a fair amount creating a type of "no mans land", so to speak.
 

Ensoniq

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 9, 2013
Messages
6,770
Likes
11,044
Location
North Carolina
What do you think much of the issues with the wall in Texas are about? Yep, private property Rights of people who own the land along the border.
You don't get out much, do you?


Also, I do not believe that the wall will be built exactly and directly on the border itself. Especially not along any part where the river is the border. It'll be back a fair amount creating a type of "no mans land", so to speak.
Pretty easy fix

Mr property owner gets a choice

The wall is coming through do you want it to the north or south of your property
 

searcher

Mother Lode Found
Mother Lode
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
149,700
Likes
40,226
How Trump is building a border wall that no one can see

Maria Sacchetti, Nick Miroff
14 hrs ago





President Trump's vision of a "big, beautiful" wall along the Mexican border may never be realized, and almost certainly not as a 2,000-mile physical structure spanning sea to sea.

But in a systematic and less visible way, his administration is following a blueprint to reduce the number of foreigners living in the United States those who are undocumented and those here legallyand overhaul the U.S. immigration system for generations to come.

Across agencies and programs, federal officials are wielding executive authority to assemble a bureaucratic wall that could be more effective than any concrete and metal one. While some actions have drawn widespread attention, others have been put in place more quietly.

The administration has moved to slash the number of refugees, accelerate deportations and terminate the provisional residency of more than a million people, among other measures. On Monday, the Department of Homeland Security said nearly 60,000 Haitians allowed to stay in the United States after a devastating 2010 earthquake have until July 2019 to leave or obtain another form of legal status.

"He's building a virtual wall by his actions and his rhetoric," said Kevin Appleby, migration policy director for the Center for Migration Studies, a nonprofit think tank.

Trump administration officials say they are simply upholding laws their predecessors did not and preserving American jobs. Previous Republican and Democratic administrations were too soft on enforcement, they say, and too rosy in their view of immigration as an unambiguously positive force.

"For decades, the American people have been begging and pleading with our elected officials for an immigration system that's lawful and serves the national interest," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said in Austin last month. "Now we have a president who supports that."

Bob Dane, executive director of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which has pushed for many of the Trump administration's main goals on immigration, said the president has "really scaled back this expansive view of immigration that occurred under the Obama administration."

The new restrictions could significantly reduce the number of foreign-born workers in the U.S. labor force, but demographic experts say there is little chance they will alter the country's broader racial and ethnic transformation, which Trump's critics say is his goal. Census projections show the United States will no longer have a single racial or ethnic majority by mid-century, according to the Pew Research Center.

Still, by erecting tougher, taller administrative hurdles for foreigners seeking to move to the United States or remain in the country after arriving illegally, the White House is attempting to shift the country back toward the tighter controls on immigration in place before the 1960s.

"Within the administration there are a number of key players who are just looking for every opportunity, every program . . . every administrative or regulatory leeway they have to restrict entry into the United States," said Linda Hartke, president and chief executive of the Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, which resettles refugees.

Even as they fight court orders seeking to halt parts of Trump's immigration agenda, Sessions, White House senior adviser Stephen Miller and other key players are finding ways to shrink the immigration system. Miller was an aide to Sessions before both men joined the administration; in less than a year, their immigration policy prescriptions have moved from the realm of think-tank wish lists to White House executive orders.

In October, the White House — in a plan led by Miller — said it had conducted a "bottom-up review of all immigration policies" and found "dangerous loopholes, outdated laws, and easily exploited vulnerabilities in our immigration system — current policies that are harming our country and our communities."

Trump has endorsed GOP legislation to cut annual, legal immigration by half, reducing the number of green cards issued annually from about 1 million to 500,000. More weight would be given to immigrants with job skills, as opposed to those with extended family in the United States.

The president cut the number of refugees the United States is willing to accept annually from 110,000 to 45,000, the lowest level since 1980, and ordered the implementation of a time-consuming "extreme vetting" system that could mean the number of refugees cleared each year is much lower. In October, 1,242 refugees arrived in the United States, down from 9,945 in October 2016.

Trump also eliminated a smaller program specifically for refugees fleeing violence in Central America. The Pentagon, citing concerns about vetting, suspended a recruitment program offering skilled foreigners a fast track to citizenship if they serve in uniform.

Muzaffar Chishti, the director of the Migration Policy Institute at the New York University School of Law, said nearly 350,000 of the newcomers who arrive legally to the United States each year are the spouses and minor children of U.S. citizens and permanent residents. Since barring those arrivals is not under consideration, Chishti said, the government would have to eliminate or sharply restrict almost all other avenues to reduce the annual number of immigrants to 500,000.

In addition to this week's decision on Haitians, the government earlier this month declined to renew Temporary Protected Status, a form of provisional residency, for about 2,500 Nicaraguans. The State Department says conditions in Central America and Haiti that had been used to justify the protection for as long as two decades no longer necessitate a reprieve. Decisions on more than 250,000 Hondurans and Salvadorans with the provisional residency permits are pending.

Trump is also ending Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, the Obama administration program that granted work permits to 690,000 young immigrants brought here as children. Trump's administration is expanding immigration courts and detention centers and has ratcheted up deportations from the interior of the United States, where millions of undocumented immigrants with U.S.-born children and no serious criminal records held little fear of expulsion under President Barack Obama.

Arrests by Immigration and Customs Enforcement are up more than 40 percent this year, and the agency wants to more than double its staff by 2023, according to a federal contracting notice published this month. ICE is calling for a major increase in workplace raids and has signed more than two dozen agreements with state and local governments that want to help arrest and detain undocumented residents.

"If you're in this country illegally and you committed a crime by entering this country, you should be uncomfortable," Thomas Homan, the top official at ICE, told lawmakers this year. "You should look over your shoulder. And you need to be worried."

The president and his aides have pressed forward despite an outcry from advocates and Democratic lawmakers, who in states such as California and Illinois have instructed police and public officials to shun cooperation with ICE. The Trump administration has threatened to strip such "sanctuary" jurisdictions of federal funding in an escalating legal standoff.

Trump's tough talk alone appears to be one of the administration's best bulwarks: Illegal crossings along the border with Mexico have plunged to their lowest level in 45 years, and U.S. agents are catching a far greater share of those attempting to sneak in. Applications for H-1B skilled visas and new foreign-student enrollment have also declined.

William Frey, a demographer at the Brookings Institution, said that until now U.S. immigration rates have largely spared the country from the challenges facing advanced industrial nations such as Japan and Germany that can't replace aging workers fast enough. By slashing immigration, Frey said, the country could end up with labor shortages and other workforce issues.

But although some of Trump's most fervent supporters see curbing immigration as a way to turn back the United States' rapid racial and ethnic transformation, Frey said it is an unrealistic goal. By 2020, census projections show minorities will account for more than half of the under-18 U.S. population, because of higher birthrates in nonwhite populations. And by 2026, the number of whites is projected to begin declining in absolute numbers, he said, as deaths exceed births.

"You can slow the rate of Latino and Asian immigration, but it won't make the population whiter," Frey said. "It will just become less white at a slower pace."

Trump continues to insist his administration will build a border wall, despite exorbitant cost projections and senior DHS officials saying a 2,000-mile structure is impractical. His supporters say they admire the president for plowing ahead in his overhaul efforts and see a historic, generational shift underway.

"There is more than one way to get to the goal," Dane said. "Legislative solutions are all great, but clearly the administration has done things behind the scenes. . . . The results have been dramatic."

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...o-one-can-see/ar-BBFsHUY?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=iehp
 

searcher

Mother Lode Found
Mother Lode
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
149,700
Likes
40,226
'Need the WALL, need the BAN! ' Trump renews call to ban immigrants from some Muslim-majority nations after condemning terror attack in Egypt (which isn't on the list)
  • More than 235 people killed after gun and bomb attack at Egyptian mosque
  • Trump responded with a tweet about the wall he wants built on the southern U.S. border and the 'travel ban' he wants in place covering eight countries
  • Six of those countries are majority-Muslim but Egypt isn't among them
  • The mosque in Egypt's Northern Sinai region was packed for Friday prayers when the gunmen began their attack by exploding a bomb at a children's creche
  • Sufi Muslims operate the mosque; Sufis revere saints and shrines, making then targets of ISIS over claims of apostasy and heresy
  • At least 130 are also reported injured, making it Egypt's worst modern terror attack
  • WARNING: GRAPHIC CONTENT


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5115291/Trump-renews-travel-ban-call-Egypt-mosque-attack.html#ixzz4zS08cI8Q
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
 

Ensoniq

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 9, 2013
Messages
6,770
Likes
11,044
Location
North Carolina
We could save money if we didn't invest in the GoPro or the parachutes
 

searcher

Mother Lode Found
Mother Lode
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
149,700
Likes
40,226
Aerial Views of the Border Wall Prototypes
okrajoe


Published on Dec 29, 2017
Aerial Views of the 8 Border Wall Prototypes - B-Roll. HD Video by Mani Albrecht | U.S. Customs and Border Protection Office of Public Affairs - Visual Communications Division | 10.19.2017 -- Aerial views of 8 different Border Wall Prototypes as they take shape in week 4 of the Border Wall Prototype Construction Project near the Otay Mesa Port of Entry.

More aviation videos at http://www.youtube.com/user/okrajoe

Please visit our channel to subscribe.
 

searcher

Mother Lode Found
Mother Lode
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
149,700
Likes
40,226
Trump warns: no deal to protect Dreamers without cash for border wall
  • President says any deal must be paired with funding for controversial wall
  • Democrats in Congress insist wall alongside border with Mexico is a non-starter


Lauren Gambino in Washington
Fri 29 Dec ‘17 10.56 EST First published on Fri 29 Dec ‘17 10.47 EST


Donald Trump demanded on Friday that any deal to resolve the fate of young undocumented migrants must be paired with funding for a wall along the southern US border.

It was not immediately clear if Trump’s intervention would derail attempts to find a compromise on the issue, or negotiations over government funding.

Spokespeople for Democratic leaders said they looked forward to resuming “a serious negotiation” on immigration when Congress returns next week.

Trump tweeted his demand among a volley of similarly strident messages, the morning after he spoke to the New York Times in a surprise and wide-ranging interview that included remarks on immigration and Daca. Shortly after his morning tweets, he left his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida for one of his golf courses.

There are about 700,000 so-called Dreamers, undocumented migrants brought to the US as children. In September. Trump announced that he was rescinding the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, or Daca, a policy implemented by Barack Obama in 2012 that allowed Dreamers to come out of the shadows to study and work legally in the US.

Trump placed the fate of the young immigrants squarely in the hands of Congress, giving lawmakers until 5 March to find a legislative solution.

On Friday, the president wrote: “The Democrats have been told, and fully understand, that there can be no Daca without the desperately needed WALL at the Southern Border and an END to the horrible Chain Migration & ridiculous Lottery System of Immigration etc. We must protect our Country at all cost!”

Trump staked a similar position in his New York Times interview: “I wouldn’t do a Daca plan without a wall. Because we need it. We see the drugs pouring into the country, we need the wall.”

“Chain migration”, referred to in Trump’s tweet, is a family-based immigration policy that allows naturalized citizens and certain immigrants to petition for relatives to come to the US. Trump also called for the elimination of the Diversity Visa Lottery, a state department program that helps citizens of countries with historically low rates of immigration to come to the US.

Trump has been vocal on both issues in the wake of terror attacks in New York.

Akayed Ullah, a 27-year-old from Bangladesh accused of detonating a bomb in a subway tunnel earlier this month, came to the US in 2011 on a visa available to relatives living in the country.

Sayfullo Saipov, a 29-year-old from Uzbekistan accused of killing eight people with a pickup truck on a bike path in October, was allowed into the country on a visa obtained through the lottery program in 2010.

“They take the worst people in the country, they put ‘em into the lottery, then they have a handful of bad, worse ones, and they put them out. ‘Oh, these are the people the United States…’” Trump said. “We’re gonna get rid of the lottery, and by the way, the Democrats agree with me on that. On chain migration, they pretty much agree with me.”

The wall, one of Trump’s central campaign promises and the centerpiece of his hardline immigration platform, is a non-starter for Democrats. The Senate minority leader, Chuck Schumer ,and House minority leader, Nancy Pelosi, are resolutely opposed to any immigration legislation or government funding plan that includes funding for a wall.

Democrats are, however, under increasing pressure to pass legislation that would permanently shield Dreamers from deportation.

Immigration advocates and liberal groups are furious with lawmakers who left Washington last week despite having promised to force a vote on the issue before the end of the year. Some groups have vowed to retaliate against Democrats who supported a spending bill to keep the federal government open that did not address the Dreamers issue.

A bipartisan group of senators are scrambling to find a compromise. Jeff Flake of Arizona, a Trump critic and Republican member of the working group who is a longtime proponent of immigration reform, has said that plan will receive a vote next month.

Pelosi and Schumer, along with the House speaker, Paul Ryan, and Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, are due to meet the White House chief of staff, John Kelly, on Wednesday to discuss the year’s priorities, including immigration, according to two sources familiar with the plans for meeting.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/dec/29/trump-dreamers-daca-immigration-border-wall
 

goldielox1

Silver Miner
Seeker
Joined
Jun 20, 2013
Messages
972
Likes
653
Common Sense Immigration rules:

1) Mexico is paying for the wall, why do we need to pass a bill to pay for it? However, even if we pay ourselves, costs of the wall should not be a deterrant to paying for it. It will easily pay for itself with just a few years of decreased societal costs (crime/welfare/ESL programs/cuts to border patrol officers/etc)

2) All illegals should be deported immediately.

3) Any one employing an illegal is guilty of a crime and the fines should be substantial. Any one knowingly housing an illegal is also guilty of a crime and should be fined as well.

4) If an illegal wants to try to gain entry legally, he may apply to do so after a 1-year probation period which gives those that have been playing by the rules priority over the cheaters. Illegals caught re-entering the country after being deported are forever barred from applying for citizenship. We don't need any more people here that can't follow the law.

5) All immigrants must pass standard tests such as:
A) Ability to find work (perhaps give them a 90 day probation window--check in in 90 days. If you found work you get approved, if you didn't you get the boot)
B) No government assistance will be granted to any immigrant
C) Must be able to pass a standard citizenship and give up allegiance to previous country (no mexican flags waving...if you love Mexico more than US stay there)
D) Must prove proficiency in the native tongue (English). No more foreign language ballots/courts/schools.
E) Must prove a desire to assimilate with the American culture. e.g. If you want to come to the US and turn your city into Dearborn, MI you're not welcome. There are enough mosques and sharia law places in the middle east.
F) Must go through a 2 week quarantine and a full medical exam proving your health at your expense. If you have a chronic disease or a communicable disease, don't bother. Ellis Island had such a model and things worked pretty well there.
G) No one with a criminal record will be admitted, unless it can be proven that the crimes were political or crimes of resistance to tyranny. e.g. Drug dealers, rapists, murderers, don't bother. If you were imprisoned for something like preaching the gospel in a communist nation that's not an exclusionary offense.
H) Must be able to recite the pledge of allegiance and do so in a respectful manner. We have enough disrespectful thugs that were born here, we don't need to import more.

Further notes:

1) Priority will be given to those of the Christian religion being persecuted in muslim/communist/etc nations. The US is a Christian nation and should serve as a safe haven to those that are part of our religion

2) Priority will be given to those that have something to contribute to our nation. e.g. You are a nobel laureate in science, a professional, an inventor, have established business acumen, etc. If you are a welfare mom with a degree in female studies, it's not looking good for you.

3) Immigrants should be of high moral character. Priority should be given to those that can show a high moral character. If you're a sodomite, communist, atheist, don't bother. We have enough of these cancers already in the body. We don't need to bring in more.

4) Priority to those that understand that capitalism is what made our system work. If you don't understand why capitalism has made this country successful, then why come here? There's dozens of communist/socialist countries that you can look to...you're probably already living on one actually.

5) Priority to young families and young adults. We have enough retirees living off the government. If we're going to bring you in, we need you to contribute to alleviating our over burdened senior system, not add to it.

6) There will A) an application fee and B) a citizenship fee. Nothing outlandish, just enough to cover the costs of the programs.
 
Last edited:

mtnman

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Messages
3,697
Likes
5,601
Location
East Tennessee
Common Sense Immigration rules:

1) Mexico is paying for the wall, why do we need to pass a bill to pay for it? However, even if we pay ourselves, costs of the wall should not be a deterrant to paying for it. It will easily pay for itself with just a few years of decreased societal costs (crime/welfare/ESL programs/cuts to border patrol officers/etc)

2) All illegals should be deported immediately.

3) Any one employing an illegal is guilty of a crime and the fines should be substantial. Any one knowingly housing an illegal is also guilty of a crime and should be fined as well.

4) If an illegal wants to try to gain entry legally, he may apply to do so after a 1-year probation period which gives those that have been playing by the rules priority over the cheaters. Illegals caught re-entering the country after being deported are forever barred from applying for citizenship. We don't need any more people here that can't follow the law.

5) All immigrants must pass standard tests such as:
A) Ability to find work (perhaps give them a 90 day probation window--check in in 90 days. If you found work you get approved, if you didn't you get the boot)
B) No government assistance will be granted to any immigrant
C) Must be able to pass a standard citizenship and give up allegiance to previous country (no mexican flags waving...if you love Mexico more than US stay there)
D) Must prove proficiency in the native tongue (English). No more foreign language ballots/courts/schools.
E) Must prove a desire to assimilate with the American culture. e.g. If you want to come to the US and turn your city into Dearborn, MI you're not welcome. There are enough mosques and sharia law places in the middle east.
F) Must go through a 2 week quarantine and a full medical exam proving your health at your expense. If you have a chronic disease or a communicable disease, don't bother. Ellis Island had such a model and things worked pretty well there.
G) No one with a criminal record will be admitted, unless it can be proven that the crimes were political or crimes of resistance to tyranny. e.g. Drug dealers, rapists, murderers, don't bother. If you were imprisoned for something like preaching the gospel in a communist nation that's not an exclusionary offense.
H) Must be able to recite the pledge of allegiance and do so in a respectful manner. We have enough disrespectful thugs that were born here, we don't need to import more.

Further notes:

1) Priority will be given to those of the Christian religion being persecuted in muslim/communist/etc nations. The US is a Christian nation and should serve as a safe haven to those that are part of our religion

2) Priority will be given to those that have something to contribute to our nation. e.g. You are a nobel laureate in science, a professional, an inventor, have established business acumen, etc. If you are a welfare mom with a degree in female studies, it's not looking good for you.

3) Immigrants should be of high moral character. Priority should be given to those that can show a high moral character. If you're a sodomite, communist, atheist, don't bother. We have enough of these cancers already in the body. We don't need to bring in more.

4) Priority to those that understand that capitalism is what made our system work. If you don't understand why capitalism has made this country successful, then why come here? There's dozens of communist/socialist countries that you can look to...you're probably already living on one actually.

5) Priority to young families and young adults. We have enough retirees living off the government. If we're going to bring you in, we need you to contribute to alleviating our over burdened senior system, not add to it.

6) There will A) an application fee and B) a citizenship fee. Nothing outlandish, just enough to cover the costs of the programs.
Goldielox1's post sounds like Mexico's current immigration law.

Mexico has a radical idea for a rational immigration policy that most Americans would love. However, Mexican officials haven’t been sharing that idea with us as they press for our Congress to adopt the McCain-Kennedy immigration reform bill.

That’s too bad, because Mexico, which annually deports more illegal aliensthan the United States does, has much to teach us about how it handles the immigration issue. Under Mexican law, it is a felony to be an illegal alien in Mexico.


At a time when the Supreme Court and many politicians seek to bring American law in line with foreign legal norms, it’s noteworthy that nobody has argued that the U.S. look at how Mexico deals with immigration and what it might teach us about how best to solve
our illegal immigration problem. Mexico has a single, streamlined law that ensures that foreign visitors and immigrants are:



  • in the country legally;
  • have the means to sustain themselves economically;
  • not destined to be burdens on society;
  • of economic and social benefit to society;
  • of good character and have no criminal records; and
  • contributors to the general well-being of the nation.
The law also ensures that:

  • immigration authorities have a record of each foreign visitor;
  • foreign visitors do not violate their visa status;
  • foreign visitors are banned from interfering in the country’s internal politics;
  • foreign visitors who enter under false pretenses are imprisoned or deported;
  • foreign visitors violating the terms of their entry are imprisoned or deported;
  • those who aid in illegal immigration will be sent to prison.
Who could disagree with such a law? It makes perfect sense. The Mexican constitution strictly defines the rights of citizens — and the denial of many fundamental rights to non-citizens, illegal and illegal. Under the constitution, the Ley General de Población, or
General Law on Population, spells out specifically the country’s immigration policy.

It is an interesting law — and one that should cause us all to ask, Why is our great southern neighbor pushing us to water down our own immigration laws and policies, when its own immigration restrictions are the toughest on the continent? If a felony is a
crime punishable by more than one year in prison, then Mexican law makes it a felony to be an illegal alien in Mexico.

If the United States adopted such statutes, Mexico no doubt would denounce it as a manifestation of American racism and bigotry.

We looked at the immigration provisions of the Mexican constitution. [1] Now let’s look at Mexico’s main immigration law.

Mexico welcomes only foreigners who will be useful to Mexican society:

  • Foreigners are admitted into Mexico “according to their possibilities of contributing to national progress.” (Article 32)
  • Immigration officials must “ensure” that “immigrants will be useful elements for the country and that they have the necessary funds for their sustenance” and for their dependents. (Article 34)
  • Foreigners may be barred from the country if their presence upsets “the equilibrium of the national demographics,” when foreigners are deemed detrimental to “economic or national interests,” when they do not behave like good citizens in their own country, when they have broken Mexican laws, and when “they are not found to be physically or mentally healthy.” (Article 37)
  • The Secretary of Governance may “suspend or prohibit the admission of foreigners when he determines it to be in the national interest.” (Article 38)
Mexican authorities must keep track of every single person in the country:

  • Federal, local and municipal police must cooperate with federal immigration authorities upon request, i.e., to assist in the arrests of illegal immigrants. (Article 73)
  • A National Population Registry keeps track of “every single individual who comprises the population of the country,” and verifies each individual’s identity. (Articles 85 and 86)
  • A national Catalog of Foreigners tracks foreign tourists and immigrants (Article 87), and assigns each individual with a unique tracking number (Article 91).
Foreigners with fake papers, or who enter the country under false pretenses, may be imprisoned:

  • Foreigners with fake immigration papers may be fined or imprisoned. (Article 116)
  • Foreigners who sign government documents “with a signature that is false or different from that which he normally uses” are subject to fine and imprisonment. (Article 116)
Foreigners who fail to obey the rules will be fined, deported, and/or imprisoned as felons:

  • Foreigners who fail to obey a deportation order are to be punished. (Article 117)
  • Foreigners who are deported from Mexico and attempt to re-enter the country without authorization can be imprisoned for up to 10 years. (Article 118)
  • Foreigners who violate the terms of their visa may be sentenced to up to six years in prison (Articles 119, 120 and 121). Foreigners who misrepresent the terms of their visa while in Mexico — such as working with out a permit — can also be imprisoned.
Under Mexican law, illegal immigration is a felony. The General Law on Population says,

  • “A penalty of up to two years in prison and a fine of three hundred to five thousand pesos will be imposed on the foreigner who enters the country illegally.” (Article 123)
  • Foreigners with legal immigration problems may be deported from Mexico instead of being imprisoned. (Article 125)
  • Foreigners who “attempt against national sovereignty or security” will be deported. (Article 126)
Mexicans who help illegal aliens enter the country are themselves considered criminals under the law:

  • A Mexican who marries a foreigner with the sole objective of helping the foreigner live in the country is subject to up to five years in prison. (Article 127)
  • Shipping and airline companies that bring undocumented foreigners into Mexico will be fined. (Article 132)
All of the above runs contrary to what Mexican leaders are demanding of the United States. The stark contrast between Mexico’s immigration practices versus its American
immigration preachings is telling. It gives a clear picture of the Mexican government’s agenda: to have a one-way immigration relationship with the United States.

Let’s call Mexico’s bluff on its unwarranted interference in U.S. immigration policy. Let’s propose, just to make a point, that the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) member nations standardize their immigration laws by using Mexico’s own law as a model.
http://humanevents.com/2006/05/08/mexicos-immigration-law-lets-try-it-here-at-home/
 

goldielox1

Silver Miner
Seeker
Joined
Jun 20, 2013
Messages
972
Likes
653
Goldielox1's post sounds like Mexico's current immigration law.
....
Let’s call Mexico’s bluff on its unwarranted interference in U.S. immigration policy. Let’s propose, just to make a point, that the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) member nations standardize their immigration laws by using Mexico’s own law as a model.
http://humanevents.com/2006/05/08/mexicos-immigration-law-lets-try-it-here-at-home/
Interesting. I was unaware of their policy but it's certainly an improvement of our wide open national socialist party's desires.
 

searcher

Mother Lode Found
Mother Lode
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
149,700
Likes
40,226
A VERY 'big, beautiful wall'! Trump seeks $18 billion to extend border wall by 316 miles over 10 years
  • The proposal by Customs and Border Protection calls for 316 miles of additional barrier by September 2027
  • It would bring the total coverage to 970 miles and also calls for 407 miles of replacement or secondary fencing
  • Trump has promised 'a big, beautiful wall' with Mexico as a centerpiece of his presidency but offered few details of where it would be built and at what cost
  • His administration asked for $1.6 billion this year to build or replace 74 miles of fencing in Texas and California and will also seek $1.6 billion next year


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5240533/Trump-seeks-18-billion-extend-border-wall-10-years.html#ixzz53OvCnh5n
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
 

nickndfl

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Jan 7, 2011
Messages
12,263
Likes
10,336
Location
Florida
Two parallel rows of fencing along the entire border with about 35' of space between each fence would do nicely. Then fill the empty space with more mines than Cambodia. Can use drones to clean up the bodies.
 

Ensoniq

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 9, 2013
Messages
6,770
Likes
11,044
Location
North Carolina
A VERY 'big, beautiful wall'! Trump seeks $18 billion to extend border wall by 316 miles over 10 years
  • The proposal by Customs and Border Protection calls for 316 miles of additional barrier by September 2027
  • It would bring the total coverage to 970 miles and also calls for 407 miles of replacement or secondary fencing
  • Trump has promised 'a big, beautiful wall' with Mexico as a centerpiece of his presidency but offered few details of where it would be built and at what cost
  • His administration asked for $1.6 billion this year to build or replace 74 miles of fencing in Texas and California and will also seek $1.6 billion next year


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5240533/Trump-seeks-18-billion-extend-border-wall-10-years.html#ixzz53OvCnh5n
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
This is woefully under ambitious

I'm thinking fund it all now and have it built within the year

I'll bet it's in the infrastructure deal. Tell the unions you've got jobs galore for them on the wall and suggest they call the Dems to ask why they're blocking things

Much like dawn, this is going to happen whether the snowflakes like it or not

Winning!
 

goldielox1

Silver Miner
Seeker
Joined
Jun 20, 2013
Messages
972
Likes
653
$20 billion and be done with it. Will pay for itself within a week of not having to pay illegals health care, bilingual education, law enforcement, welfare, etc.
 

searcher

Mother Lode Found
Mother Lode
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
149,700
Likes
40,226
In next round of budget talks, ‘dreamers’ are set to dominate


By Ed O'Keefe, Mike DeBonis and Erica Werner By Ed O'Keefe, Mike DeBonis and Erica Werner
Politics
January 7 at 6:47 PM

With a potential government shutdown less than two weeks away, congressional leaders and the White House will meet this week to discuss ways to end an impasse over the legal status of young immigrants, which has become a primary obstacle to a spending deal.

Over the weekend, President Trump reiterated his campaign pledge to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border, warning that any plan to address the fate of immigrant “dreamers” won’t happen without it. Democrats once again balked at such demands, but the party is split over whether to force a government shutdown to get its way.

A bipartisan meeting on immigration policy at the White House on Tuesday is designed to bring the sides together. If Trump and lawmakers can strike an immigration deal, negotiators on both sides think that other issues, including how to fund a children’s health insurance program and a roughly $80 billion package to pay for disaster relief, could be resolved.

Ahead of the meeting, the Trump administration released to lawmakers a request to pay $18 billion over 10 years for a mix of walls, fencing and other security technology. GOP lawmakers have said they were waiting for the plan to know the parameters of talks with Democrats.

“Instead of the saber-rattling, let’s get in a room and figure out reasonable, sound policy for securing the border, helping [dreamers] . . . and solving this problem for the first time in two decades,” Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), a lead GOP immigration negotiator, told Fox News Channel on Sunday.

‘A giant symbol’: In fight over Trump’s wall, Democrats who once supported a border barrier now oppose it]

Republicans control Congress but Democrats hold significant leverage over spending talks. In the House, hard-liners on the right have regularly voted against recent spending bills, requiring GOP leaders to rely on at least some Democratic votes to pass. In the Senate, spending bills require at least 60 votes to avoid procedural hurdles, and Republicans only hold 51 seats.

Sen. Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, a lead Democratic negotiator on immigration, called Trump’s detailed request “outrageous” and said he would continue working instead with Republicans “who understand what is at stake” in hopes of striking a bipartisan deal.

Progressives such as Rep. Adriano Espaillat (D-N.Y.), whose Harlem-area district is home to more than 2,000 constituents protected by the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, known as DACA, said he will continue voting against GOP spending plans that don’t include protections. Over the holiday recess, he said DACA “was the issue I heard about the most when I’m walking in my district.”

“Every time it’s delayed, the movement just gets stronger, the outcry gets louder,” he added.

Progressive groups are planning to apply fresh pressure on Democrats who voted to temporarily extend government funding in December without addressing DACA — a mix of moderates facing reelection this year in states Trump won in 2016 and others from states with sizable populations of federal government workers.

“We are laser-focused on January 19 as a do-or-die moment,” said Greisa Martinez, advocacy director for United We Dream, an immigrant advocacy group organizing protests on Capitol Hill against Republicans and Democrats who have voted for previous GOP spending bills.

Although the situation facing dreamers is “a crisis that was created by Donald Trump,” Martinez said Democrats “are not without power,” especially now that Sen. Doug Jones (D-Ala.) has joined the caucus. “They have a closer margin now, and we expect them to meet their public and private commitment to us that they’ll use every leverage they have.”

Indivisible, the progressive grass-roots network of citizen groups, said it will focus its efforts on six Democratic senators from left-leaning states — Gary Peters and Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, Martin Heinrich and Tom Udall of New Mexico and Tim Kaine and Mark R. Warner of Virginia. Kaine, Stabenow and Heinrich face reelection this year.

“Democrats have done a poor job of playing hardball,” said Angel Padilla, the group’s policy director. “They said for three months they would use their leverage in December to get this done, and that didn’t happen. In order to have leverage, the other side has to believe you’ll use that leverage, and I don’t think that [Republicans] think that [Democrats] will use that leverage.”

Spokesmen for the senators said the lawmakers support dreamers but had various reasons for backing the last spending bill.

Udall said a government shutdown “would be a disaster for New Mexico” and the 45,000 residents who work for the federal agencies and research labs in his state.

A spokeswoman for Kaine, whose state is home to hundreds of thousands of federal employees, said he will keep pushing for a solution for dreamers and “he’ll evaluate a deal once he’s seen it.”

Despite Trump’s renewed calls for a border wall, Republicans remain frayed over how to move forward. Some moderates are willing to either pass a bill giving dreamers a path to citizenship or craft a deal with Democrats that would include some border security measures. But the bulk of the conservative rank-and-file want more in exchange for accepting an immigration policy that much of the Republican base opposes.

As the fulcrum of the immigration talks has shifted decisively toward the Senate, lawmakers on the hard right are pressuring House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) to be more assertive. They are wary that House members will get “jammed” with a Senate bill that they will have no choice but to pass mainly with Democratic votes.

Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), chairman of the House Freedom Caucus, said it was essential that House Republicans pass a stand-alone immigration bill that promotes conservative priorities in line with Trump’s agenda.

“If the only thing you do is wait for something the Senate can pass, then what we might as well do is have the House recess for the next nine months,” he said. Allowing Democrats to dictate immigration policy at a time of Republican control of Congress and the White House is “distasteful and certainly not in keeping with what we promised the American people.”

Amid a slate of partisan and bipartisan proposals, another conservative immigration plan may emerge in the coming days. According to a lawmaker and a GOP aide familiar with the plans, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) is expected to unveil a bill as soon as this week that would address DACA in exchange for a raft of conservative priorities on immigration.

Goodlatte’s plan would grant legal status to DACA recipients, provide funding for a border wall, end a visa lottery program criticized by Trump, take action against “sanctuary cities” that do not cooperate with federal immigration enforcement and roll back rules allowing legal immigrants to sponsor the entry of certain family members. But House Republican leaders do not think the bill will be able to garner enough support to pass by the deadline.

A spokeswoman for Goodlatte declined to comment.

[First phase of Trump border wall gets $18 billion price tag, in new request to lawmakers]

Bipartisan immigration talks in the House have produced little visible progress. A bipartisan group of moderates, the Problem Solvers Caucus, created an immigration task force that formed the outlines of a deal, said Rep. Mike Coffman (R-Colo.), one of the participants, but the larger caucus wouldn’t sign on.

“We’re not there right now, and we’re going to start working on it again when we come back,” Coffman said.

AshLee Strong, a Ryan spokeswoman, said he was continuing to speak with lawmakers in both chambers but isn’t committed to permitting a vote on a bill granting dreamers a path to citizenship.

Beyond DACA, Republicans and Democrats say they’re making progress over how much money should go to the military vs. domestic programs, something that has to be settled to raise automatic spending caps.

The White House wants to set discretionary defense spending levels at about $603 billion, which would exceed current automatic spending caps by $54 billion. Republicans think non-defense levels should see less of an increase, closer to $35 billion. But Democrats are insisting on “parity,” arguing in recent weeks that non-defense spending bolsters programs to fight opioid addiction and terrorism and protect the southern border.

Sanders said he would urge Congress to reject any deal that increases military spending by more than what is spent on domestic programs. “If we’re going to spend a dollar more in the military, we must spend a dollar more on the enormously important issues facing working families. All of these issues are in crisis mode, and they have to be dealt with right now.”

Jeff Stein contributed to this report.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...b90a706e175_story.html?utm_term=.fdddfcb6c69c
 

nickndfl

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Jan 7, 2011
Messages
12,263
Likes
10,336
Location
Florida
When Bill was president the dems were crying about too many mexicans crossing into the USA. Why don't they just dig up video clips on Schumer and Pelosi and put them on a loop on YouTube? Then have Trump hit the trail and ask why the dems keep blocking what's good for American citizens, especially workers?
 

goldielox1

Silver Miner
Seeker
Joined
Jun 20, 2013
Messages
972
Likes
653
In next round of budget talks, ‘dreamers’ are set to dominate


By Ed O'Keefe, Mike DeBonis and Erica Werner By Ed O'Keefe, Mike DeBonis and Erica Werner
Politics
January 7 at 6:47 PM

With a potential government shutdown less than two weeks away, congressional leaders and the White House will meet this week to discuss ways to end an impasse over the legal status of young immigrants, which has become a primary obstacle to a spending deal.

Over the weekend, President Trump reiterated his campaign pledge to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border, warning that any plan to address the fate of immigrant “dreamers” won’t happen without it. Democrats once again balked at such demands, but the party is split over whether to force a government shutdown to get its way.

A bipartisan meeting on immigration policy at the White House on Tuesday is designed to bring the sides together. If Trump and lawmakers can strike an immigration deal, negotiators on both sides think that other issues, including how to fund a children’s health insurance program and a roughly $80 billion package to pay for disaster relief, could be resolved.

Ahead of the meeting, the Trump administration released to lawmakers a request to pay $18 billion over 10 years for a mix of walls, fencing and other security technology. GOP lawmakers have said they were waiting for the plan to know the parameters of talks with Democrats.

“Instead of the saber-rattling, let’s get in a room and figure out reasonable, sound policy for securing the border, helping [dreamers] . . . and solving this problem for the first time in two decades,” Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), a lead GOP immigration negotiator, told Fox News Channel on Sunday.

‘A giant symbol’: In fight over Trump’s wall, Democrats who once supported a border barrier now oppose it]

Republicans control Congress but Democrats hold significant leverage over spending talks. In the House, hard-liners on the right have regularly voted against recent spending bills, requiring GOP leaders to rely on at least some Democratic votes to pass. In the Senate, spending bills require at least 60 votes to avoid procedural hurdles, and Republicans only hold 51 seats.

Sen. Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, a lead Democratic negotiator on immigration, called Trump’s detailed request “outrageous” and said he would continue working instead with Republicans “who understand what is at stake” in hopes of striking a bipartisan deal.

Progressives such as Rep. Adriano Espaillat (D-N.Y.), whose Harlem-area district is home to more than 2,000 constituents protected by the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, known as DACA, said he will continue voting against GOP spending plans that don’t include protections. Over the holiday recess, he said DACA “was the issue I heard about the most when I’m walking in my district.”

“Every time it’s delayed, the movement just gets stronger, the outcry gets louder,” he added.

Progressive groups are planning to apply fresh pressure on Democrats who voted to temporarily extend government funding in December without addressing DACA — a mix of moderates facing reelection this year in states Trump won in 2016 and others from states with sizable populations of federal government workers.

“We are laser-focused on January 19 as a do-or-die moment,” said Greisa Martinez, advocacy director for United We Dream, an immigrant advocacy group organizing protests on Capitol Hill against Republicans and Democrats who have voted for previous GOP spending bills.

Although the situation facing dreamers is “a crisis that was created by Donald Trump,” Martinez said Democrats “are not without power,” especially now that Sen. Doug Jones (D-Ala.) has joined the caucus. “They have a closer margin now, and we expect them to meet their public and private commitment to us that they’ll use every leverage they have.”

Indivisible, the progressive grass-roots network of citizen groups, said it will focus its efforts on six Democratic senators from left-leaning states — Gary Peters and Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, Martin Heinrich and Tom Udall of New Mexico and Tim Kaine and Mark R. Warner of Virginia. Kaine, Stabenow and Heinrich face reelection this year.

“Democrats have done a poor job of playing hardball,” said Angel Padilla, the group’s policy director. “They said for three months they would use their leverage in December to get this done, and that didn’t happen. In order to have leverage, the other side has to believe you’ll use that leverage, and I don’t think that [Republicans] think that [Democrats] will use that leverage.”

Spokesmen for the senators said the lawmakers support dreamers but had various reasons for backing the last spending bill.

Udall said a government shutdown “would be a disaster for New Mexico” and the 45,000 residents who work for the federal agencies and research labs in his state.

A spokeswoman for Kaine, whose state is home to hundreds of thousands of federal employees, said he will keep pushing for a solution for dreamers and “he’ll evaluate a deal once he’s seen it.”

Despite Trump’s renewed calls for a border wall, Republicans remain frayed over how to move forward. Some moderates are willing to either pass a bill giving dreamers a path to citizenship or craft a deal with Democrats that would include some border security measures. But the bulk of the conservative rank-and-file want more in exchange for accepting an immigration policy that much of the Republican base opposes.

As the fulcrum of the immigration talks has shifted decisively toward the Senate, lawmakers on the hard right are pressuring House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) to be more assertive. They are wary that House members will get “jammed” with a Senate bill that they will have no choice but to pass mainly with Democratic votes.

Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), chairman of the House Freedom Caucus, said it was essential that House Republicans pass a stand-alone immigration bill that promotes conservative priorities in line with Trump’s agenda.

“If the only thing you do is wait for something the Senate can pass, then what we might as well do is have the House recess for the next nine months,” he said. Allowing Democrats to dictate immigration policy at a time of Republican control of Congress and the White House is “distasteful and certainly not in keeping with what we promised the American people.”

Amid a slate of partisan and bipartisan proposals, another conservative immigration plan may emerge in the coming days. According to a lawmaker and a GOP aide familiar with the plans, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) is expected to unveil a bill as soon as this week that would address DACA in exchange for a raft of conservative priorities on immigration.

Goodlatte’s plan would grant legal status to DACA recipients, provide funding for a border wall, end a visa lottery program criticized by Trump, take action against “sanctuary cities” that do not cooperate with federal immigration enforcement and roll back rules allowing legal immigrants to sponsor the entry of certain family members. But House Republican leaders do not think the bill will be able to garner enough support to pass by the deadline.

A spokeswoman for Goodlatte declined to comment.

[First phase of Trump border wall gets $18 billion price tag, in new request to lawmakers]

Bipartisan immigration talks in the House have produced little visible progress. A bipartisan group of moderates, the Problem Solvers Caucus, created an immigration task force that formed the outlines of a deal, said Rep. Mike Coffman (R-Colo.), one of the participants, but the larger caucus wouldn’t sign on.

“We’re not there right now, and we’re going to start working on it again when we come back,” Coffman said.

AshLee Strong, a Ryan spokeswoman, said he was continuing to speak with lawmakers in both chambers but isn’t committed to permitting a vote on a bill granting dreamers a path to citizenship.

Beyond DACA, Republicans and Democrats say they’re making progress over how much money should go to the military vs. domestic programs, something that has to be settled to raise automatic spending caps.

The White House wants to set discretionary defense spending levels at about $603 billion, which would exceed current automatic spending caps by $54 billion. Republicans think non-defense levels should see less of an increase, closer to $35 billion. But Democrats are insisting on “parity,” arguing in recent weeks that non-defense spending bolsters programs to fight opioid addiction and terrorism and protect the southern border.

Sanders said he would urge Congress to reject any deal that increases military spending by more than what is spent on domestic programs. “If we’re going to spend a dollar more in the military, we must spend a dollar more on the enormously important issues facing working families. All of these issues are in crisis mode, and they have to be dealt with right now.”

Jeff Stein contributed to this report.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...b90a706e175_story.html?utm_term=.fdddfcb6c69c
It's all a dog and pony show. $1.8 billion/year?!? These guys spend that much in a week on military toilet seats. The budget already allows for border control/enforcement. Just cut some patrols and build the wall. We may temporarily see an influx of aliens, but we can worry about kicking them out once the wall is up. Border patrol agents will be able to be cut by 95% once the wall is up, or better yet should be reassigned to finding and booting the illegals hiding within our borders already.
 

searcher

Mother Lode Found
Mother Lode
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
149,700
Likes
40,226
It's all a dog and pony show. $1.8 billion/year?!? These guys spend that much in a week on military toilet seats. The budget already allows for border control/enforcement. Just cut some patrols and build the wall. We may temporarily see an influx of aliens, but we can worry about kicking them out once the wall is up. Border patrol agents will be able to be cut by 95% once the wall is up, or better yet should be reassigned to finding and booting the illegals hiding within our borders already.
Better yet let's get our troops outta the middle east and have them stationed along our southern border. Also end all "aid" to every single middle eastern country. We could use the money we'd save on our own infrastructure and health care.
 

goldielox1

Silver Miner
Seeker
Joined
Jun 20, 2013
Messages
972
Likes
653
End aid to every country period. Not sure I like the idea of a standing army in our country. Seems a bit unconstitutional to me...but what do I know?
 

searcher

Mother Lode Found
Mother Lode
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
149,700
Likes
40,226
Federal judge blocks Trump from ending DACA program and says administration must accept renewal applications from those already in the program
  • US District Judge William Alsup granted a request on Tuesday to prevent Donald Trump from ending the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program
  • DACA has protected about 800,000 minor who were brought to the US illegally as children or came with families who overstayed visas
  • Alsup said the administration must resume accepting renewal applications from individuals who were already enrolled in the program
  • Trump brought twenty legislators from both parties to the White House to discuss a deal
  • Democrats are refusing Trump's demands for a border wall and a total immigration overhaul
  • They may hold up a must-pass spending bill in an attempt to get standalone Dream Act legislation
  • Sen. Chuck Grassley declared the negotiations 'doomed to failure' if Democrats refuse to compromise in a floor speech on Monday
  • The White House remains optimistic that Democrats will come around


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5253265/Federal-judge-blocks-Trump-ending-DACA-program.html#ixzz53mOWYJt5
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
 

searcher

Mother Lode Found
Mother Lode
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
149,700
Likes
40,226
‘Bill of love’: Trump to approve migration law only if it includes border law
RT


Published on Jan 10, 2018
In the US, debate is heating up over a migration initiative aimed at protecting young illegal migrants also known as 'The Dreamers'. Donald Trump says he's ready to approve a law on them on certain conditions. READ MORE: https://on.rt.com/8wjf
 

searcher

Mother Lode Found
Mother Lode
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
149,700
Likes
40,226
White House "Outraged" After Judge Blocks Trump's DACA Decision

by Tyler Durden
Wed, 01/10/2018 - 08:46


Update: White House spokeswoman Sarah Sanders has responded:

We find this decision to be outrageous, especially in light of the President’s successful bipartisan meeting with House and Senate members at the White House on the same day,”

“An issue of this magnitude must go through the normal legislative process

“President Trump is committed to the rule of law, and will work with members of both parties to reach a permanent solution that corrects the unconstitutional actions taken by the last administration”


A federal judge has once again foiled President Donald Trump's efforts to limit both legal and illegal immigration: Late Tuesday night, a US judge in San Francisco issued a temporary injunction against the president's decision to end a program shielding young people brought to the US illegally by their parents from deportation.

The Trump administration announced in September it would rescind Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, a decision that was challenged in multiple federal courts by a variety of Democratic state attorneys general, organizations and individuals, as Reuters reported.

This time, the administration's antagonist is US District Judge William Alsup, who ruled the program must remain in place while the litigation is resolved. The ruling could complicate negotiations between Trump and congressional leaders over immigration reform.

The White House responded Thursday morning, saying the ruling was "outrageous."

“We find this decision to be outrageous, especially in light of the President’s successful bipartisan meeting with House and Senate members at the White House on the same day. An issue of this magnitude must go through the normal legislative process."

Per the Washington Post, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced the decision to terminate the program on Sept. 5 and said no renewal applications would be accepted after Oct. 5. Under the administration’s plan, permits that expired after March 5 cannot be renewed.

According to WaPo, nearly 690,000 people who were brought to the US as children will continue to be covered by DACA as long as they were previously registered before Sessions made his September announcement.

A spokesman for the Department of Justice said the ruling "doesn't change...its position".

"Today’s order doesn’t change the Department of Justice’s position on the facts," said the department’s spokesman Devin M. O’Malley. The department "will continue to vigorously defend this position," he said.

However, so-called Dreamers who haven't already registered for protected status no longer can: Alsup ruled that the federal government did not need to process new applications from people who had never before received protection under the program. However, the judge ordered the government to continue processing renewal applications from people who had previously been covered.

“DACA gave them a more tolerable set of choices, including joining the mainstream workforce,” Alsup wrote. “Now, absent an injunction, they will slide back to the pre-DACA era and associated hardship.”

And as the Wall Street Journal reminds us, a different federal judge in San Francisco in November issued a permanent, nationwide injection barring the administration from withholding some federal grant money from so-called sanctuary cites, which don’t cooperate with immigration authorities.

Democrats are pushing to enshrine DACA protections into law as part of an immigration deal with the White House. This ruling presumably gives them more time to reach such a deal.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018...orarily-stops-doj-cancelling-daca-protections
 

searcher

Mother Lode Found
Mother Lode
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
149,700
Likes
40,226
Judge blocks Trump decision to end young immigrant program


By Sudhin Thanawala And Andrew Dalton, The Associated Press
Wednesday
Posted at 12:11 AM Updated at 1:48 AM


SAN FRANCISCO (AP) ” A federal judge on Tuesday night temporarily blocked the Trump administration’s decision to end a program protecting young immigrants from deportation.

U.S. District Judge William Alsup granted a request by California and other plaintiffs to prevent President Donald Trump from ending the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program while their lawsuits play out in court.

Alsup said lawyers in favor of DACA clearly demonstrated that the young immigrants “were likely to suffer serious, irreparable harm” without court action. The judge also said the lawyers have a strong chance of succeeding at trial.

DACA has protected about 800,000 people who were brought to the U.S. illegally as children or came with families who overstayed visas. The program includes hundreds of thousands of college-age students.

U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced in September that the program would be phased out, saying former President Barack Obama had exceeded his authority when he implemented it in 2012.

On Tuesday, the Department of Justice said the judge’s decision doesn’t change the fact that the program was an illegal circumvention of Congress, and it is within the agency’s power to end it.

“The Justice Department will continue to vigorously defend this position, and looks forward to vindicating its position in further litigation,” department spokesman Devin O’Malley said in a statement.

Sessions’ move to phase pout DACA sparked a flurry of lawsuits nationwide.

Alsup considered five separate lawsuits filed in Northern California, including one by the California and three other states, and another by the governing board of the University of California school system.

“DACA covers a class of immigrants whose presence, seemingly all agree, pose the least, if any, threat and allows them to sign up for honest labor on the condition of continued good behavior,” Alsup wrote in his decision. “This has become an important program for DACA recipients and their families, for the employers who hire them, for our tax treasuries, and for our economy.”

That echoed the judge’s comments from a court hearing on Dec. 20, when he grilled an attorney for the Department of Justice over the government’s justification for ending DACA, saying many people had come to rely on it and faced a “real” and “palpable” hardship from its loss.

Alsup also questioned whether the administration had conducted a thorough review before ending the program.

Brad Rosenberg, a Justice Department attorney, said the administration considered the effects of ending DACA and decided to phase it out over time instead of cutting it immediately.

DACA recipients will be allowed to stay in the U.S. for the remainder of their two-year authorizations. Any recipient whose status was due to expire within six months also got a month to apply for another two-year term.

The Justice Department said in court documents that DACA was facing the possibility of an abrupt end by court order, but Alsup was critical of that argument.

People took out loans, enrolled in school and even made decisions about whether to get married and start families on the basis of DACA and now face “horrific” consequences from the loss of the program, said Jeffrey Davidson, an attorney for the University of California governing board.

“The government considered none of this at all when they decided to rescind DACA,” he said at the hearing.

The University of California said in a statement after the decision that “UC’s DACA students represent the very best of our country and are a key part of California and our nation’s future.”

The statement says the UC system will persist in legal challenges to the end of the program and will seek permanent protection for the young immigrants.

DACA recipients are commonly referred to as “dreamers,” based on never-passed proposals in Congress called the DREAM Act that would have provided similar protections for young immigrants.

“Dreamers lives were thrown into chaos when the Trump administration tried to terminate the DACA program without obeying the law,” California Attorney General Becerra said in a statement after Tuesday’s decision. “Tonight’s ruling is a huge step in the right direction.”

___

Dalton reported from Los Angeles.

http://www.buckscountycouriertimes....trump-decision-to-end-young-immigrant-program
 

searcher

Mother Lode Found
Mother Lode
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
149,700
Likes
40,226
'Any solution has to include the wall,' says Trump, a day after his televised immigration meeting left the door open to a separate deal for 800,000 DACA recipients
  • President Donald Trump got asked if the wall was a 'red line' for him
  • Trump campaigned on the wall and has repeatedly insisted on building one
  • His administration wants $18 billion to build it
  • 'Any solution has to include the wall because without the wall, it doesn’t work'
  • Trump has said it wouldn't go where there are 'rivers and mountains' on the border
  • No indications Mexico will pay for the wall


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5256273/Trump-says-immigration-deal-include-wall.html#ixzz53pWgwxku
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
 

searcher

Mother Lode Found
Mother Lode
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
149,700
Likes
40,226
Rand Paul: 'We don't have money to spend' for Trump's border wall

The Hill

Brett Samuels
3 hrs ago




Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said Wednesday that while he supports additional barriers at the U.S.-Mexico border, he believes some of the estimated costs for President Trump's border wall are too high to justify.

"I remain a fiscal conservative, even on the wall, so I'm not excited about spending $20, $30, $40 billion on a wall. I'm still a believer that we don't have money to spend. We're $700 billion in the hole," Paul said on CNN.

"And while I will vote for money for barriers, I'm not voting for $40 billion for barriers," Paul added.

A report last week detailed Trump's plan to ask Congress for $18 billion to fund a wall along the border. A wall was among his signature campaign promises.

The Trump administration is seeking $33 billion in total to increase southern border security, with the remaining $15 billion going to fund technology, personnel and other improvements.

Another $8.5 billion over seven years would be used to pay for 5,000 new Border Patrol agents.

Paul said Wednesday he supports having barriers in certain locations along the border, but that the price tag of those barriers should be debated. He also advocated for using technology to improve border security, which he argued is a cheaper alternative.

"The barriers, I think we need to look at the cost of them. The people advocating for it are forgetting they're fiscally conservative and are just giving enormous numbers," Paul added.

Lawmakers met Tuesday to discuss immigration, including border security and the future of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.

Trump has said funding for the border wall is a requirement for his agreement on a legislative fix for DACA, which allows certain immigrants brought to the U.S. illegally as children to live and work in the country without fear of deportation.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...s-border-wall/ar-BBIdtLW?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=iehp
 

searcher

Mother Lode Found
Mother Lode
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
149,700
Likes
40,226
DACA & the border wall: Deal or no deal?
RT America


Published on Jan 10, 2018
President Donald Trump has renewed calls for a border wall as part of the compromise on a bipartisan immigration deal. For more, RT America’s Ed Schultz is joined by conservative commentator and author Doug Wead.
 

Ensoniq

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 9, 2013
Messages
6,770
Likes
11,044
Location
North Carolina
When Bill was president the dems were crying about too many mexicans crossing into the USA. Why don't they just dig up video clips on Schumer and Pelosi and put them on a loop on YouTube? Then have Trump hit the trail and ask why the dems keep blocking what's good for American citizens, especially workers?
Faux was doing this all day, Obozo, Piglosi, and Schmuckie railing against the "illegals" flowing over the border. Something must be done - lol