Posted on 08/19/2015 8:17:48 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
I happen to support nearly all of Trump’s CURRENT policy positions.
It’s his past positions and political campaign contributions which I find of most concern.
We have to deport all illegals and reduce legal immigration or the USA is done
The media hides that there was hardly no immigration from 1925 - 1965,
Ann Coulter in her book explains it better than anyone how immigrants are destroying the USA
http://www.amazon.com/Adios-America-Ann-Coulter/dp/1621572676
It was only until 1965 that ted kennedy used JFK’s deathh to pass the current immigration laws that flood us with 3rd world immigrants. JFK and the kenedys destroyed America
Nobody ever talks about arresting employers. I wonder why?
“You can’t....”
I can’t listen to B.O.
Either one.
This is a misleading title
I promise you Trump never said he’d deport legal citizens
If OReilly accused him of that then during his vacation Ailes gave him his orders to attack
All Trump had to do was box O’Reilly into a corner by asking him, if his “if you’re born here you’re a citizen” belief is true, why the children of foreign diplomats born here aren’t granted cirizenship.
Thats it. Turn it on O’Reilly and make him fight his way out of that particulsr box. At the very least “Mr. No Spin” would have to admit that the matter is much more complicated than the way he was, himself, spinning it.
Sure. And only a "well-regulated militia" has the right to bear arms.
So then deport the parents. Are they going to leave the kids behind?
1. Build the fence.
2. Enforce e-verify and perfect a visa overstay trackdown program.
3. Calculate the court costs of the average deportation case. Offer half that amount (plus travel costs) to illegals willing to self-deport AND renounce their anchor babies’ U.S. citizenship “birthright.” Be sure to get DNA samples. Offer those who self-deport a spot at the front of the line to reenter legally (still gotta get rid of the anchor baby interpretation). Prohibit legal reentry for anyone deported by legal process.
4. Offer illegals who don’t have an anchor baby a slightly smaller sum for self-deporting.
5. No grants for convicted felons and no reentry.
Maybe you pay out the grants in 3 and 4 above in two portions: 30% at the border, the remaining 70% over 10 years (so payments could be forfeited upon another illegal entry). Include a repudiation of any claim to SS benefits on illegally earned wages.
Does anyone doubt this system would save tax dollars? Incentives work better than restrictions. Maybe some of those illegals would take principles they were exposed to in America back to Mexico with them and form the foundation of a peaceful revolution.
I used to be soft-hearted about this..."The kid didn't have anything to do with the decision! It's wrong to break up families. Heartless! Cruel!" and so on.
Then, I had an epiphany. If I committed a felony, would the court system say, "But he's a father! His family would be unduly harmed by him going to prison! Think of his children!" and so on??
Nope. Judge would lock me up and toss the key, without a thought. "Tough luck, WBill. If you can't do the time, don't do the crime."
Why should illegals be held to any different standard?
Is a law that has been misinterpreted subject to Ex post facto restrictions. And Bill Clinton secured an Ex post facto law when he passed a retroactive tax increase in 1993’.
All the established media organs are asserting the same error. Judge Napolitano, the other pundits that appear on the idiot box, etc. All say that anchor babies is a constitutional construction.
I find myself in the same situation as you. My previous reply to you was more general in nature that specific to Trump. I am not currently for Trump, but I have spent time defending is stance on issues. I have done the same for other candidates. I am currently for Trump's immigration plan.
O’Reily is full of something other than smarts when it comes to the Constitution, and other matters as they come and go. He and the FOX judge don’t see by intent or ignorance that included in the wording of the 14th Amendment is the wording ‘and subject to the jurisdiction thereof’. When a one day US parent goes back to her native country with the child out of the jurisdiction of the US government the mother has automatically disenfranchised the child from US citizenship. No pandering or feely-goody opinion applies.
You may have to offer slightly more so they are not motivated to have a baby to maximize the handout.
Trump is right and everyone knows it.
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
If the parents are illegals and NOT subject to the jurisdiction of the US then how could their dependent baby be?
The amendment was clearly written to address the status of slaves during the civil war.
I agree, but would expect SCOTUS to decide wrongly, and find that the 14th amendment establishes jus soli citizenship, for EVERYBODY except diplomats and invading armies in a declared war.
We have 50 million legal visitors to this country annually, most of them on tourist visas. Citizenship should be conferred on children born to parents who are legal permanent residents.
In my situation, the nominee of the Party will probably be made long before I get to vote on it. I live in CA and our primary is June, one of the last. So I’ll just sit back and watch the show. Although I am wary of Trump, he does at least add a lot of entertainment and interest to the campaign which otherwise wouldn’t be there. Our politics, not unlike that of ancient Rome, has degenerated into a circus, and Trump benefits from that. People want interesting personalities and entertainment. No shortage of that from DT.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.