Trump Thread

[HopAlongBunny]

Lies From the White House!
For we are shocked

The silver haired angel; perhaps the next President; is in deep.
Is the stain to deep for a wash and a rinse? You decide!:

https://wonkette.com/622484/what-the...ke-another-fib

Poor mikey; he knows it all but ya dance wit de one who brung ya...

[HopAlongBunny]

The Death of Daca

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41165513

Trump gets to soft peddle this move. The six-month hiatus puts the onus on Congress: If you like it and want to keep it, pass the necessary laws; Trump covers himself with a fig-leaf for now, Congress will have the tough job.

PS. so much for building a trust relationship with the undocumented community:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/the-tru...o-weaponize-it

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Trump's relationship with that community was never going to be good. Trump wants the laws on immigration enforced more or less and they don't and would prefer amnesty/unrestricted immigration. Not a lot of 'love' there.

[Montmorency]

Trump's relationship with that community was never going to be good. Trump wants the laws on immigration enforced more or less and they don't and would prefer amnesty/unrestricted immigration. Not a lot of 'love' there.

Following the era of national quotas, Congress has tended to defer to the executive branch in setting immigration security policy and priorities.

The immigration laws have not gone unenforced. Otherwise we would have to believe that no laws with potential of violation or circumvention or qualification have been enforced in history - in which case we won't plausibly be starting now.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Following the era of national quotas, Congress has tended to defer to the executive branch in setting immigration security policy and priorities.

The immigration laws have not gone unenforced. Otherwise we would have to believe that no laws with potential of violation or circumvention or qualification have been enforced in history - in which case we won't plausibly be starting now.

Congress has deferred damn near everything except for pork spending to the Presidency. In practice, the President is expected to set out the budget, establish policies on 9/10 issues, and serve as the "image" of America to the world. I even recall Congress granting Dubya the power to wage war more or less as he saw fit without bothering to do much more then send them a note. I more or less think they forswore their own oaths of office on that one.

I agree that immigration law are not unenforced -- but they are under-enforced and contain too many provisions and practices that serve to encourage rather than discourage illegals as well as permit too few workers into the country on a legal basis.

[Montmorency]

I agree that immigration law are not unenforced -- but they are under-enforced and contain too many provisions and practices that serve to encourage rather than discourage illegals as well as permit too few workers into the country on a legal basis.

Fair enough, but legislation from Congress can only set parameters for the executive on this issue, unless you figure there should be a special Congressional committee with direct oversight over minutiae. Yet what policy or enforcement can there be - what would it look like - that would "discourage" unauthorized residency either in the face of or to a greater extent than global economic trends? It seems like historically out of our hands once we let down the gates to Fortress Amerika - and I'm not in favor of the country bending to refortify itself against the world.

I think sooner or later border security calculations will have to be considered against the backdrop of negotiations toward a Schengen-type treaty for North America.

[drone]

Yet what policy or enforcement can there be - what would it look like - that would "discourage" unauthorized residency either in the face of or to a greater extent than global economic trends?

Enforcement on businesses that use illegals. They are undercutting legal workers and they are dodging employment taxes. Enforce that and the problem sorts itself out. Thing is, both parties have interests that don't want to see that...

[spmetla]

I think sooner or later border security calculations will have to be considered against the backdrop of negotiations toward a Schengen-type treaty for North America.

A Schengen type treaty might be done with Canada but not Mexico which is treated largely like Turkey. We like more free-trade with them but free movement of peoples would be seen as opening the flood gates to the 'barbarians.'

I personally support a stronger visa and border enforcement, I support a fence, not a wall. I also support seasonal guest worker permits but those would need to be tied to visa controls.

As for all the people illegally residing in the US, I support a very generous amnesty program with path toward citizenship. There are no shortage of illegal aliens that have been upright citizens minus their initial infraction, some of which own land and legitimate businesses and have paid taxes as such.
As for everyone sneaking 'after the lock' I'd continue deportations and have the laws very stringent then.

As for the people that say the US has always welcomed immigrants its true but until the 1960s that applied pretty much only to Europeans. All others were strongly discouraged, asians especially. Immigration is good for the economy but it should be tied to the needs of the economy. Allowing too much immigration when unemployment is already too high means wages stay depressed, crime and blackmarkets thrive(in general not just because of immigrants) , and immigrants that are stuck on the bottom rung of society without a way up will generally not integrate creating insular communities outside of civic society.