Trump uses State of the Union to go all in on immigration reform

[IsailedawayfromFR]

I didn't miss *your* point @libertybele  I disagree with it.  The deportation you are screaming for will not make us safer or stronger.   We're only "screwed" if we fail to get immigration REFORM. 

To be clear, I am not giving the President a pass .... I am giving him a thumbs up for developing four pillars that will give America control of her borders again and close the immigration loopholes that harm us.  Thumbs up for putting America first now .... and for generations.

My point is: You're throwing the baby out with the bathwater. ... and that's a foolish and non-productive strategy.

And you have yet to come up with the defense of the lie you told of frog-marching people out of this country.

You are a dishonest individual, the likes of which Pelosi and Schumer would be so proud.

That 'screwing' your screed denounces is the screwing of the laws of this country which you apparently happily wish to be disobeyed.

[Right_in_Virginia]

And you have yet to come up with the defense of the lie you told of frog-marching people out of this country.

 ... @libertybele  has posted several times she wants illegals  rounded up and deported ... and my posts were responding to her remarks. 

I didn't lie @IsailedawayfromFR... However, I'm still not sure if the same can be said of you.   

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Sneaky, a minor does not have "capacity" under the law, so whatever happened in their youth was no fault of their own.

I say vet them carefully, kick the gangbangers out but let the good ones stay.

Granting them citizenship in 12 years time, is the same time table as putting them at the back of the line.

Finally since the prospects of physically deporting large numbers is virtually zero, the benefits 0f the wall, ending the lottery and ending chain immigration, come with little to no actual costs.

No.

Those waiting in line bye and large were not complicit in breaking our laws to begin with.  False analogy.

If any of them brought here are no longer minors, they are fully chargeable as breaking the law as an adult.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

... @libertybele  has posted several times she wants illegals  rounded up and deported. 

I didn't lie @IsailedawayfromFR... However, I'm still not sure if the same can be said of you.   

You lie.  First you said http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,301888.msg1590738.html#msg1590738

Then you said the basis for that statement of frog-marching is the SOU last night.

Since you apparently can read, then I cannot excuse incompetency.

[corbe]

   H/T @truth_seeker

You are arguing with #trumpers, that as a group start out each day looking to find some fault with the Conservatives that didn't vote for their Republican elected President, on a site with a picture of Reagan and the letters GOP in the name.

They take pride in claiming they voted for Trump, but are full of wisdom and reasons and opinions, almost all of which have proved profoundly and consistently wrong for around 20 months.

Yesterday it was Trump saying "Deport them ALL" and today it is "Amnesty", was he lying then or is he lying now?

Tomorrow?

[sneakypete]

It needs to be said, we have been a generous nation in welcoming new immigrants. We do not need immigration that is 70% from one country. We need to think about Americans too.

Note:

@TomSea

Plainly put,we don't need anybody here that doesn't come here because he or she WANTS TO BE AN AMERICAN!.

If you just want to come here for the better life and remain an Italian,German,Mexican,or anything else,keep your ass where your heart is!

[Right_in_Virginia]

You lie.  First you said http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,301888.msg1590738.html#msg1590738

Then you said the basis for that statement of frog-marching is the SOU last night.

Since you apparently can read, then I cannot excuse incompetency.

@IsailedawayfromFR   I'm not "getting" what your complaint against me is. What is it you think I'm saying or advocating? I think you're misunderstanding something, but I'm not sure what ... so please, calm down and explain it to me. 

I think you'll be pleasantly surprised at how similar our opinions are.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

@IsailedawayfromFR   I'm not "getting" what your complaint against me is. What is it you think I'm saying or advocating? I think you're misunderstanding something, but I'm not sure what ... so please, calm down and explain it to me. 

I think you'll be pleasantly surprised at how similar our opinions are.

your post I responded to

http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,301888.msg1590772.html#msg1590772

look for the bold

[Right_in_Virginia]

your post I responded to

http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,301888.msg1590772.html#msg1590772

look for the bold 

Okay ... what is your objection @IsailedawayfromFR    Again, what do you think I'm saying in that post?

[NavyCanDo]

We're not going to frog march 1.8 million people into boats and send them back to the country of origin.

It is just not going to happen.

What the President has proposed is a path to citizenship over a 12 year period for the children brought to America at a young age, subject to education, work and good moral character requirements.

It is not immediate .. but a chance for citizenship.

In exchange for this the President wants

1. a fully secured border:  the wall, more "heroes like CJ" and an end to catch and release
2. an end to the Visa lottery and a move toward a merit based system
3. an end to extended chain migration; limiting it to spouse and minor children

That the democrats will go to their political graves opposing #1 -3 tells us the profound affect these changes will have on migration to the US.  It also tells us how badly the changes are needed and effective they will be.

Why I didn't vote for him was his off the wall  campaign rhetoric. Said he would "frog march" them back over the border. Every last one. Glad to see he has shifted to a more sane approach to tackling the problem. If he is trying to win my vote in 2020, he made a huge step forward last night.

[TomSea]

I'm not sure Trump ever used the term "frog march".  A websearch does not show that.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Okay ... what is your objection @IsailedawayfromFR    Again, what do you think I'm saying in that post?

This is getting very tiring as you refuse to answer the question on this comment:

We're not going to frog march 1.8 million people into boats and send them back to the country of origin.

I have asked you repeatedly what source you use to state this, and all I got was a ling to Trump's SOU and some nonsense.

[TomSea]

Trump directly mentioned "chain migration" in the SOTU; that can only be taken out of the 1965 INS immigration bill with 60 votes. I can see how, at the least, one would have to see a possible threat with 1,000,000 new immigrants coming in each year through chain migration. That would seem to even exceed the one time deal of 1.8 million dreamers, who would have to satisfy requirements for citizenship.

[Right_in_Virginia]

This is getting very tiring as you refuse to answer the question on this comment:

We're not going to frog march 1.8 million people into boats and send them back to the country of origin.

I have asked you repeatedly what source you use to state this, and all I got was a ling to Trump's SOU and some nonsense.

@IsailedawayfromFR    By "frog march" I mean "deport" --- I used a little creative license there.

Back to the point ... we are not going to deport dreamers or whatever the hell they're called. As the source of my statement I posted part of the President's speech where he talks about about a 12 year path to citizenship for those who came here as young children.  He is not proposing deportation.

I happen to agree with this 12 year path to citizenship (essentially putting them at the back of the line) subject to education, employment and moral (law abiding) living ---  providing we achieve the remaining three pillars of immigration reform, including the wall, as the President outlined last evening (also in the video).

Now that we've beaten this to death ... I hope we can move on to other discussions.

Thanks.   

[IsailedawayfromFR]

@IsailedawayfromFR    By "frog march" I mean "deport" --- I used a little creative license there.

Back to the point ... we are not going to deport dreamers or whatever the hell they're called. As the source of my statement I posted part of the President's speech where he talks about about a 12 year path to citizenship for those who came here as young children.  He is not proposing deportation.

I happen to agree with this 12 year path to citizenship (essentially putting them at the back of the line) subject to education, employment and moral (law abiding) living ---  providing we achieve the remaining three pillars of immigration reform, including the wall, as the President outlined last evening (also in the video).

Now that we've beaten this to death ... I hope we can move on to other discussions.

Thanks.   

No, this is not 'beaten to death'.

A 'frog march' is not some type of creative licensing. It is a deliberate attempt to portray some type of excessive, inhuman force be used to enforce our laws.

It also is not accurate that a 12 year period to apply for citizenship places these folks to 'the back of the line'.

A felony has been committed.  They are beneficiaries of that felony.  There should be no allowance whatsoever to extend to these people the opportunity to pass up others who were not beneficiaries of a crime.

And deportation takes many forms.  Enforcing our laws not to hire those here illegally will certainly deport, voluntarily, many.

[aligncare]

@IsailedawayfromFR    By "frog march" I mean "deport" --- I used a little creative license there.

Back to the point ... we are not going to deport dreamers or whatever the hell they're called. As the source of my statement I posted part of the President's speech where he talks about about a 12 year path to citizenship for those who came here as young children.  He is not proposing deportation.

I happen to agree with this 12 year path to citizenship (essentially putting them at the back of the line) subject to education, employment and moral (law abiding) living ---  providing we achieve the remaining three pillars of immigration reform, including the wall, as the President outlined last evening (also in the video).

Now that we've beaten this to death ... I hope we can move on to other discussions.

Thanks.   

I’ve settled on calling them DACA applicants. An important point, as they no longer are “in the shadows.” They’ve come forward, declared themselves documented. Now what remains is that something humane be done about their status.

[libertybele]

... @libertybele  has posted several times she wants illegals  rounded up and deported ... and my posts were responding to her remarks. 

I didn't lie @IsailedawayfromFR... However, I'm still not sure if the same can be said of you.   

RIV, what I DO NOT want is our President giving the sovereignty of our country away.  What I don't want is for our President to hand over at least 1.8 million new voters to the DEM; giving them a significant, and more than likely unbeatable advantage to where a GOP candidate won't be seated for a very long time.  What I don't want is our President who gathered much of his support by stating that he would build a wall and grant NO amnesty, backpedaling. So, RIV, back to the question that I asked and you refused to answer; are you denying that Trump campaigned on "No Amnesty"?   

What I find disheartening is Trump supporters continue to rally around someone who has out and out lied to them - he's either lying now, or lied during his campaign.  NO amnesty doesn't mean giving illegals a pathway to citizenship.  He told us he would build the wall and now he's stating that he wants money to put into a slush fund to build a wall in the future.  Sorry, but on this so far the GOP didn't get squat out of this deal.  Quite the opposite.

As for the $1T in infrastructure, I still stand by my statement when he was campaigning that he's not going to do anything that isn't going to make him a lot of money and he and his buddies are going to make a ton of money; yes, he will get the economy going, but we may not like how he does it.  I will lay odds that infrastructure will connect the U.S. with Mexico and Canada forever changing our borders.  I sense quite a few reading this are raising their eyebrows and rolling their eyes on this one ... we'll have to see what happens.

He doesn't seem to have any problems with giving away our sovereignty and stomping on the conservative, no open borders, no amnesty crowd   NO, I am NOT ok with that!  The people who seem to be ok with that are the same people who wouldn't care if he stood in the middle of 5th avenue and shot someone!

[TomSea]

RIV, what I DO NOT want is our President giving the sovereignty of our country away.  What I don't want is for our President to hand over at least 1.8 million new voters to the DEM; giving them a significant, and more than likely unbeatable advantage to where a GOP candidate won't be seated for a very long time.  What I don't want is our President who gathered much of his support by stating that he would build a wall and grant NO amnesty, backpedaling. So, RIV, back to the question that I asked and you refused to answer; are you denying that Trump campaigned on "No Amnesty"?   

What I find disheartening is Trump supporters continue to rally around someone who has out and out lied to them - he's either lying now, or lied during his campaign.  NO amnesty doesn't mean giving illegals a pathway to citizenship.  He told us he would build the wall and now he's stating that he wants money to put into a slush fund to build a wall in the future.  Sorry, but on this so far the GOP didn't get squat out of this deal.  Quite the opposite.

As for the $1T in infrastructure, I still stand by my statement when he was campaigning that he's not going to do anything that isn't going to make him a lot of money and he and his buddies are going to make a ton of money; yes, he will get the economy going, but we may not like how he does it.  I will lay odds that infrastructure will connect the U.S. with Mexico and Canada forever changing our borders.  I sense quite a few reading this are raising their eyebrows and rolling their eyes on this one ... we'll have to see what happens.

He doesn't seem to have any problems with giving away our sovereignty and stomping on the conservative, no open borders, no amnesty crowd   NO, I am NOT ok with that!  The people who seem to be ok with that are the same people who wouldn't care if he stood in the middle of 5th avenue and shot someone!

It's either that or keep chain migration which allows one million new immigrants a year. All Trump said was he'd let congress deal with DACA, oh, we see now, the Senators could not effectively deal with it. And let's go with Ted "no pathway to citizenship for dreamers" Cruz who in turn, then, would allow the continuation of chain migration. I think he's talking for his constituency but I'm not sure if the logic is sound. We will find out.

[TomSea]

I’ve settled on calling them DACA applicants. An important point, as they no longer are “in the shadows.” They’ve come forward, declared themselves documented. Now what remains is that something humane be done about their status.

1.8 million

or 300 million.

I think this is why Schumer's position is not going over with the American people. It's America first my friend. Not some little group.

[Right_in_Virginia]

RIV, what I DO NOT want is ....

Got it.  Thanks.

[Right_in_Virginia]

Why I didn't vote for him was his off the wall  campaign rhetoric. Said he would "frog march" them back over the border. Every last one. Glad to see he has shifted to a more sane approach to tackling the problem. If he is trying to win my vote in 2020, he made a huge step forward last night.

Actually @NavyCanDo "frog march" is my creative writing.  It's what I've called "deportation". 

I think I'll put aside further attempts at creativity.   

[Formerly Once-Ler]

@Emjay @Right_in_Virginia @aligncare I'm delighted be agreeing with your posts.  Not 100%, but I support this proposal.  I don't like parts of President Trump's DACA solution.  I see no purpose in building a physical wall unless we expect the Mexican army to invade...JMO.  However if an expensive wall needs to be be built to make Americans feel safer I can think of stupider Federal boondoggles.  I am against lowering our limit of legal immigrants.  Reducing our population at a time of exploding entitlement costs seems suicidal to me, and the first thing I would like to see removed but not off the table.  More money for ICE and Border Patrol makes sense in an age of violent gangs and terrorism.  I really don't care much about chain migration one way or the other.

I think removing DACA, as an issue removes the rats most powerful argument against immigration limits and increased border enforcement  I wish I had hope for its passage, but republicans just have not had the stamina to do anything about the immigration issue since 86 and their legislative performance last year was anemic.  Worse still, passing this package can't be done with just republican's.  It will require rat votes because some republicans will not vote for it.  It may require making it more liberal to get rat votes, and someone else can't just write the speech for President Trump.  It would require him to spend political capital he doesn't have, and get off his butt and lobby for the bill instead of waiting for it to come to him to sign.

[Formerly Once-Ler]

You are a dishonest individual, the likes of which Pelosi and Schumer would be so proud.

Get some help.

[TomSea]

A trust fund to build the wall, not a slush fund. I heard this is the way, you can keep the government's hands out of it. Ed Rollins who was in the Reagan/Bush campaign was saying we need to get the wall built before allowing citizenship, so that 12 year window, may be taking that into consideration as well.

[Chosen Daughter]

Also, let us not forget, it is never just the one citizen, at a minimum,  it is immediate family, so their one vote can now mean 4 votes X 1.8 million.

Is it any wonder that Pelosi was wearing such a sour face?  They know exactly what is at stake and its all about Democratic voters. 

Check this story.  A whole new visual of "chain" migration from those wonderful "dreamers".

http://start.att.net/news/read/category/news/article/fox_news-third_daca_recipient_in_a_week_arrested_on_human_s-rfoxnews