A Comprehensive Immigration Compromise

My Recent Posts

You know, as a conservative... I'm really interested in trying to find compromise and consensus on immigration in the U.S.  This is my rough draft proposal, organized as follows...

1) The Position of Conservatives on the Issue

2) The Position of Liberals on the Issue

3) The Compromise Goals

4) The Proposed Compromise

 

 

1. Conservative Positions:

Border Security: The right wants the borders secure.  We want this for two reasons 1) to properly control immigration and 2) security from those who would do us great harm (including criminals and terrorists). 

 

The polarizing buzzword around this is "the wall".  As a concept... I support the wall as a very important part of the overall solution, as is surveillance and manpower, and policy/penalties for trying to illegally cross our borders.

 

No Amnesty: By this, conservatives mean, no automatic citizenship for those here illegally (by their own volition or not).  Some extend this even to legal residence... I do not.  So please note that I said no automatic citizenship... over residency (there is a difference).  But I think conservatives could find consensus and compromise on this with certain concessions (such as weeding out the criminals, etc.)

 

Merit Based Immigration: By this the right means we need to change our overall immigration policy to look at the people we are legally letting in.  We want the best educated and the best able to assimilate into American society.  Overall, we believe immigration policy should be set up to accomplish this.  This would mean a complete end to expansive chain migration (allow spouse, minor children, that's it).  This would also mean a complete end to random lottery immigration.

 

The Sins of the Conservatives: The conservatives have ignored immigration issues in the past because they want cheap labor for business. Conservatives need to give this up as part of the compromise.

 

 

2. Liberal Positions: (please excuse conservative perspective)

 

Amnesty: The left wants almost all illegal aliens currently in the nation legalized even to the extent of automatic citizenship to most of them (see DACA)

 

Porous Border Security: The left likes the past and current porous border, they see it as the source of the new voters they currently seek the legalize and hope to repeat the process every ten to twent years.  (This is at least the 2nd go-round.)  This policy is all about "fundamentally transforming" America by diluting the culture.  Some on the ultra-fringe-left go so far as to advocate for completely open borders (This is a non-starter).

 

Open Immigration: The left likes immigration policy the way it is (except maybe for wanting increased volume).  The more means (chain, lottery, etc…) of bringing in more immigrants the better, with no consideration to much of anything (skills, language, disposition, etc.)

 

The Sins of the Liberals: The liberals have ignored immigration issues because they want to use policy to import new liberal (government dependent) voters.  Liberals need to give this up as part of the compromise.

 

3. Compromise Goals:

I recommend that both sides give and take with the following goals in mind...

-- Secure the borders

-- Fair and equitable disposition of current illegal aliens

-- Overhaul of current immigration policy and procedure

 

4. Proposed Compromise:

I generally like legislation to be done piece meal.  "Comprehensive" generally means so complex and convoluted that nobody understands it making it ineffective or worse.  BUT in this case, we have little choice.  If one side gets what it wants (the left amnesty or the right the wall), there is no longer any need or inclination to help the other side with its goals and concerns.  So, I propose (as a starting point) the following compromise...

 

Border Security:

The right gets: Greatly expanded border security, including walls where walls make sense.  Security is greatly enhanced by other means, including surveillance, man-power, and new policies (like immediate deportation of those apprehended).  Measurable minimum success rates are coded into law.  The borders must be secure in substance, not just appearance.

 

The right gives up: The concept of a big comprehensive physical wall along the southern border.

 

The right gives up: The current porous border supplying them with current and future cheap labor.

 

The left gets: The moral victory of stopping the big comprehensive physical wall along the southern border.

 

The left gives up: The current porous border supplying them with current and future voters.

 

 

Amnesty:

A means of settling once and for all the legal status of all current illegal aliens needs to be implemented.

 

1) DACA members will be given permanent legal residence (not citizenship), green cards, etc...  The caveat is that each must pass a criminal background check (see below).  Their children will be citizens. A means (pathway) for DACA members to become citizens will be available.  That means (to become citizens) will be the exact same process that all other immigrants go though.  No jumping in line is only fair.

 

2) Other illegal aliens (not covered by DACA) will be given a certain about of time to go through the existing process to apply for residency or citizenship.  They must do that or leave the country.  All who are still here illegal after that time as subject to expedited deportation.

 

With the above in mind the current immigration application process needs to be overhauled.  It is a bureaucratic nightmare.  The process should not take more than 6 months and not require herds of lawyers to navigate.  This little edge of the swamp needs to be immediately drained (and those responsible for the mess, fired).

 

Also, with the above in mind all illegal immigrants (DACA and otherwise) need to pass a criminal background check before they are eligible for residence or citizenship.  If you have been convicted of a certain level of crime and higher (say theft, robbery, gang activity, etc.), you are not eligible for residence or citizenship and must leave or face deportation.

 

The left gets: Legalized status for a substantial subset of current illegal aliens.

 

The left gives up: Immediate citizenship (and thus votes) of any illegal aliens in the short term.

 

The right gets: Culling out the criminal element from the illegal aliens now legalized.

 

The right gives up: Mass deportations

 

America gets: The immigration processing swamp drained.

 

Legal Immigration Overhaul:

We need to completely revamp the purpose of our immigration policy.  Many from all over the world want to come here.  We should be very selective.

 

1) We need to set a specific number of legal immigrants allowed in on a yearly basis.  (Side Note: As an incentive to securing the border, I would add reducing this number by the number of illegal immigrants that are allowed in.)

 

2) Preference should be given based on merits such as education, language, and disposition to assimilate.

 

As stated above the legal immigration process is currently a bureaucratic nightmare rife with corruption; that needs to be town up by the roots and rebuilt from scratch.

 

America gets: The immigration processing swamp drained.

 

America gets: Fewer low skilled workers, less drain on resources, more higher skilled workers, and greater contribution to the prosperity of the nation.

 

The right gets: A new logical, sane immigration policy based on merit.

 

The right gives up: The abundance of cheap new immigrant labor.

 

The left gets: A new logical, sane immigration policy based on merit.

 

The left gives up: The decades old system designed to fundamentally transform America through cultural dilution.

 

Conclusion:

If you have made it this far, thank you for reading.  I would be very much interested in knowing...

-- What did I get wrong (assumptions, etc)...

-- If this is even feasible as a starting point from your political perspective.

-- What you would change or tweak on the proposal.

 

Comments

Thomas Sutrina Added Jan 11, 2018 - 11:04pm
The reason why lobbyist are dumping money in to the coffers of the congressmen.   GOP congressmen get money because they want cheep labor and can not complain about being also abused.  Work long hours and very hard jobs.   Thus e-verify is a joke.
 
The Dems starting with FDR purchased the votes of the poor with welfare.  However; as the Romans found out that those receiving welfare start treating it as a right.  So the amount has to be increased.  National health care they thought was a cheaper way of purchasing votes.  They let the really sick, old, and the rare illnesses die.  Democrats sees chronic illness as votes.  Unlike welfare will get cheapers with time so long as they need constant care.  
 
Rome collapse was significantly helped by the cost of welfare.  So they need to decrease the cost which is where illegal immigrants enter into the mix.   Why do you think the Democrats do not want photo ID to vote.   These are votes to prevent them from being deported.  That is why Obama did not take care of the immigration problem.  He wants to hold deportation over their heads, cheaper then welfare. 
wsucram15 Added Jan 11, 2018 - 11:29pm
Lynn;
I  agree to some extent, except with your perspective of liberals ideals. I have with the exception of the "wall" a somewhat conservative view on this.
I do believe ALL in Congress agree on some type of border security.  The problem is the type of security. I do not agree with the expenditures for a "border wall" costing billions, when the drugs fentanyl,  carfentanyl and flaxx among multitudes of other lethal drugs our officials are jut now meeting with China over. I believe more monies need to be focused here.
I mean the stuff comes in via FedEx and until March/April 2017 you could order it online.
Now this is the ideal Trump drives home that upsets me...but while he has some point the entry points are incorrect. But he goes on what he is told by those who are also ill informed and want what they promised people who are racist and think all people who arent white Americans are stealing their jobs. 
Which is fine..but impractical. Monies can be better spent elsewhere regarding security. But it is needed, for other reasons and no one contests that.  Not even liberals.
 
As far as illegals, have you seen the roundups? I believe that those,  continued fence..with electronic surveillance and effectively trained manpower will be much more effective than a very expensive wall.
I dont want to live within a concrete border..that is some 15th century communist type crap.   I want no part of that...if you think its to keep people out, you are really not thinking this through. Its my thoughts on this..sorry.
 
I want security and have crossed the border many times..coming back in is NOT fun, especially now.  I think tightening up on Visas ESPECIALLY since more people stay on Visas NOW than cross borders.
 
So I agree we need to compromise on the Southern Border..but we need other protections in place in addition to a compromise on this plan.
Oh and DACA.. should become permanent US residency.  Period, Last ones.  As long as they are working and contributing to the US as citizens and can pass the test to citizenship. Many of them are very educated so it should not be an issue.
 
Anyone else is on a Visa that is monitored for intellectual purposes and without educational or work purposes, that person must go home.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Benjamin Goldstein Added Jan 12, 2018 - 1:03am
I would compromise on the 'compromise' idea. Just build the wall for Christ's sake.
The Burghal Hidage Added Jan 12, 2018 - 5:41am
Lynn -
 
 A well thought and reasoned approach. I have commented on this same thing in other threads and would offer it here as well. I believe that it is a dangerously short-sighted assumption that what is a largely latino population will accept the secular, social engineering platform of the democrats indefinitely.
 
I would venture that most of those come from places where they were not handed anything. They weren't shopping for someone who could offer a better "goodies" package than what they were already getting. They came from places where they might have to work very hard for nothing or next to nothing. The incentive in coming here was to be in a place where they might work hard and get more for it.  I strongly suspect that as these folks get settled in, raising families, starting businesses, as they become a part of society, they will figure out that the democrat platform will only get in their way.
The Burghal Hidage Added Jan 12, 2018 - 5:42am
or put more succinctly:  You can't keep them on the plantation if they've never been on it
Leroy Added Jan 12, 2018 - 6:59am
Great article, Lynn.
 
The key is not giving the DACAs legal status.  Once there is legal status, the chain migration can't be stopped.  I would go further and say that the offspring should never receive legal status, but that will require a change to the anchor baby concept.  Ultimately, it might become too complicated to enforce, but the incentive to come to the US must be broken.  One suggestion I heard this morning is that they would have to reapply every three years.  It's a hassle, but if they want to stay, they should do it.  If they commit a felony in the meantime, they get shown the door.
 
Dino Manalis Added Jan 12, 2018 - 8:39am
Good job, I agree, some Democrats supported the idea of a wall in the past.  Trump should remind them and implement in a bipartisan manner.  Family is important, but individuals must be screened to reassure Americans they will be safe.  
opher goodwin Added Jan 12, 2018 - 10:47am
Lynn - I like consensus and compromise. Despite having some issues with your definitions I would go along with the basis of your compromise. Good move.
Lynn Johnson Added Jan 12, 2018 - 12:06pm
Thomas, I think you and I are largely on the same page.
 
Thomas >> e-verify is a joke
 
Yes, a better means of verification is needed.
 
The employer is caught in a catch 22.  He is expected to "verify" legal status, but the system provided doesn't work.  Even when it gives false positive (informing him the individual applying is legal whe he is not), the employer is often held responsible.  But then if he goes on his gut feel, he opens himself up for lawsuits.
 
I might add to my proposal that verification of legal working status is the sole responsibility of the federal government.  As long as the employer goes through the fed system and get verification from the feds, he is not liable.
 
Thomas >> Rome collapse was significantly helped by the cost of welfare.
 
Yes, a very large part of the fall of Rome was the massive corrupt bureaucracy and the welfare state it created to pacify the masses; thus we have the term "bread and circuses".  The barbarians came in and looted what remained after the fall.
 
We are on the same path.
 
Thomas >> That is why Obama did not take care of the immigration problem.  He wants to hold deportation over their heads, cheaper then welfare.
 
I'm not sure if I agree with this one.  I would think Obama would have given legal status, even citizenship to DACA members and even more illegals if he could have.  Only because he was of the same mind as Lyndon B Johnson in the 60s in that he already thinks they (Democrats) have those (expletives) voting Democrat for two hundred years.
 
Granted, the leftists in power like to create masses of victims dependent on them... but man is the level of manipulation suggested cynical. 
Lynn Johnson Added Jan 12, 2018 - 12:07pm
Jeanne >> I agree to some extent, except with your perspective of liberals ideals.
 
Perhaps I can bridge the gap a bit with clarification.  When I say the left wants to use immigration to import a new dependent class of voters, I mean that as an overall strategy of the left in power, the big-wigs (the Obama administration in the past, Schumer and Pelosi today) This is not as true of the rank and file philosophical liberals.
 
The same could be said of the right wanting the cheap labor.  True for the big-wigs in power... not so much for the rank and file.
 
Jeanne >> I do believe ALL in Congress agree on some type of border security. 
 
I don't think we agree on this.  I think there is a substantial subset of members in Congress who have no choice but to give lip service to national border security... but really like the border a porous as possible within the limits the public will tolerate.  That's what we have today and have had for decades.
 
There are even a few who would advocate for a “open borders”; as in NO security.
 
Jeanne >> The problem is the type of security. I do not agree with the expenditures for a "border wall" costing billions
 
I'm with you to a point.  I want a wall where it makes sense and I think that includes large swaths of the border.  In other places, where the terrain doens't cooperate, other more practical and effective means are called for.
 
Jeanne >> when the drugs... I believe more monies need to be focused here.
 
In what way would you focus the money?  I too, want resources dedicated to drug interdiction; whatever the mode of delivery.  This is a subset of overall border security.
 
But... I didn't really mention drugs in the post.  I just lumped it in with criminal activity (for brevity); and drugs are only one aspect of why we want a border as controlled as tightly as possible.  Terrorism prevention, human smuggling and immigration control would be important aspects as well; even if the drug issue was completely vanquished.
 
Jeanne >> Now this is the ideal Trump drives home that upsets me... but while he has some point ... ill informed, racist
 
I cannot speak to the motivations of Trump or those who advise him.  I'm less inclined to believe the White House is filled to the brim with the "ill informed" and "racist".  The left and main stream media have been yelling about that "wolf" at the top of their lungs for over a year now.
 
Are there those out there who want the wall for racists reasons... sure, but their numbers are small (and exaggerated by the media).  There are also extreme racists on the left pushing various agendas.  I wish a pox on both of their houses.
 
Setting all motivations aside on the left and right.  We need a secure border.  We need to address the multitudes of illegals.  We need a sane immigration policy.  Hopefully we can agree on these three things.  We disagree on scope and solutions.  Overall, we don’t trust or like each other.  OK… Let’s get to work on what we can agree on.  I'm offering give and take on each issue; as a starting point.
 
On "the wall" I proposed "[building] walls where walls make sense and enhancing security by other means, including surveillance, man-power, and new policies [where they make sense].  I think that is a legitimate compromise.
 
Jeanne >> As far as illegals, have you seen the roundups? I believe that those,  continued fence..with electronic surveillance and effectively trained manpower will be much more effective than a very expensive wall.
 
The left and right are in the middle of a pissing contents.  The right says nothing less than a wall across the entire border will do.  The left says not one square foot of wall is acceptable.  The right says the wall is the ultimate solution.  The left says it won't work in the slightest.  Something is in the middle is likely true.
 
I'm saying what we have is ineffective and there are millions of people walking around this nation that prove that.  NOW... let's use all our tools (the ones you mentioned) AND walls, AND new ideas, strategically placed to get the best bang for our buck.
 
Jeanne >> I think tightening up on Visas ESPECIALLY since more people stay on Visas NOW than cross borders.
 
Amen... another tool.  And an issue I did not address in t
Lynn Johnson Added Jan 12, 2018 - 12:08pm
Benjamin >> I would compromise on the 'compromise' idea. Just build the wall for Christ's sake.
 
As the title suggests, this post is from an approach of compromise so as we all get some of what we want... as opposed to nobody getting anything.
 
I understand the frustration.  The wall(s) should be a HUUUGE part of the agreed upon solution. :)  I don't want to downplay that fact.
 
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
 
TBH >> A well thought and reasoned approach.
 
Thank you.
 
TBH >> I have commented on this same thing in other threads and would offer it here as well. I believe that it is a dangerously short-sighted assumption that what is a largely latino population will accept the secular, social engineering platform of the democrats indefinitely... I strongly suspect that as these folks get settled in, raising families, starting businesses, as they become a part of society, they will figure out that the democrat platform will only get in their way.
 
$^&*(!  You are exposing the fatal flaw and conservative advantage of this whole proposal!  I obviously agree with this assessment but did not want to expose my hand. :)
 
I think immigrants will fall into the same human nature as everybody else.  Some will succumb to the hand-outs, some won't.  It is up to us (conservatives) to convince them ours is the better way to go in the marketplace of ideas.
 
I believe it has also been proven that the further from the initial immigrant (generationally) you get the less likely they embrace the socialist policies of the Democrats.  Thus, denying that vote to the initial DACA "residents" mitigates that problem to some extent (from a conservative perspective).
 
Good point.
 
 
 
Lynn Johnson Added Jan 12, 2018 - 12:08pm
Leroy >> Great article, Lynn.
 
Thank you.
 
Leroy >> The key is not giving the DACAs legal status.
 
I think we're in agreement but we need to settle on nomenclature.
 
I support "legal residency" for DACA members which would be a legal status of living in the U.S. without being a citizen.  These are basically people with green cards and the right to work and reside in the U.S.  They lack certain rights... such as voting.
 
I do not support automatic "citizenship" for DACA members which would give them all the rights and benefits of citizens, including the right to vote.
 
To receive "legal residency" each DACA member must pass a background check (mostly criminal) and then behave themselves (no felonies) while they are here.  Residency can be revoked, citizenship cannot.
 
But note... each and every DACA member may apply for citizenship just like anybody else.  Most will choose not to, I suspect.  But if I’m wrong and most do… God bless ‘em.
 
Leroy >> Once there is legal status, the chain migration can't be stopped.
 
As part of my proposal, "chain migration" for ALL immigrants stops as does "lottery immigration".  In the interest of "families", bring your spouse and minor children... THAT'S IT.  No parents, adult children, uncles, aunts, cousins, nephews...  See?  Compromise. :)
 
Leroy >> I would go further and say that the offspring should never receive legal status, but that will require a change to the anchor baby concept.
 
It is a separate issue, but yes, the anchor baby concept should be changed.  I don't even think it was the original intent of the founding fathers.  I'd like to see it challenged before the Supreme Court.  Failing that, it should be abolished.
 
As for offspring... that would indeed require a change in policy/concept.
 
Leroy >> Ultimately, it might become too complicated to enforce, but the incentive to come to the US must be broken.
 
As long as we resist the inclination to be just another socialist utopia (and thus provide real opportunities) people will desire to come.  The only way to curb that desire is place real consequences for coming outside the legal system.
 
Also, desire and ability are two separate things.  A secure border (and changes to policy like Visas) can accomplish the ability side of the equation.
 
I say we attack the problem from both ends (desire and ability).  If we see one working better than the other, concentrate on that.
 
Leroy >> One suggestion I heard this morning is that they would have to reapply every three years.  It's a hassle, but if they want to stay, they should do it.
 
That is definitely an option.  And a small price to pay to remain in the land of milk and honey.
 
Leroy >> If they commit a felony in the meantime, they get shown the door.
 
Absolutely.
Lynn Johnson Added Jan 12, 2018 - 12:09pm
Dino >> Good job, I agree, some Democrats supported the idea of a wall in the past. 
 
Democrats supported the idea of a wall in the past the same way Obama supported the idea of the sanctity of marriage... not really.  It's easy to support things (popular things) when you know there is no chance they will come to fruition (see GOP repealing of Obamacare).
 
Dino >> Trump should remind them and implement in a bipartisan manner. 
 
Good luck with that.  The rancor has reached a point where I don't think that is possible anymore.  I think Trump has tried… and been told summarily to go to hell.  We’ll see…
 
Dino >> Family is important, but individuals must be screened to reassure Americans they will be safe. 
 
Amen.
 
Thanks for the comment.
 
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
 
OG >> I like consensus and compromise.
 
You and I are probably equally amicable to "consensus and compromise"... in a gritted teeth, let’s do this, kind of way. :)
 
Though not in this case (I assure you) ... I've often ascribed to the idea that "Diplomacy is the art of saying nice doggie, until you find a rock".
 
OG >> Despite having some issues with your definitions
 
I did ask for "excuse" in my conservative slant on and description of the liberal position.  I don't think I was too far off, but can see how liberals would have found different wording and justification for their positions.  Hopefully my clarification to Jeanne softened our differences.  I tried to call it like I see it on the conservative side too.
 
Liberals will never admit that the main purpose of immigration, to them, is diluting of culture and importing votes.  Conservatives will never admit that the main purpose of immigration, to them, is cheap labor.
 
OG >> I would go along with the basis of your compromise. Good move.
 
Glad to hear it.  If the two of us can agree on something... maybe there is hope. :)
 
I'll get Trump, McConnell, Ryan, Schumer, and Pelosi on the phone...
opher goodwin Added Jan 12, 2018 - 12:24pm
OK Lynn - let's set up a conference and get the ball rolling!
Benjamin Goldstein Added Jan 12, 2018 - 12:39pm
Lynn: The word compromise triggers me ;-). I mean from the range "more immigrants - immigration moratorium - get out illegals" we will get 'more immigration' and the label will be 'compromise'. I'm not talking exceptions. Moratorium does not exclude the fancy surgeon from Somalia that doesn't exist in real life.
 
And there is no compromise in amnesty. Either the law is upheld or America becomes lawless. If amnesty is granted, it will go before the courts so others can break the law. Conservatives must start making as outrageous demands as liberals so the compromise is within constitutional boundaries! Demand that illegal gun owners get a pass! The compromise with the left is then that neither people who illegally immigrate nor illegally buy guns get an amnesty!
Lynn Johnson Added Jan 12, 2018 - 1:21pm
OG >> OK Lynn - let's set up a conference and get the ball rolling!
 
&%$#!  I seem to have lost my direct number to the White House as well as Trump's cell... do you have a line to Chuck and/or Nancy? :)
 
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
 
BG >> The word compromise triggers me ;-).
 
Man!  I'm with you.  For true conservatives; it's a dirty word.  Mostly because our spineless (I sould use the term $%#@less) representatives (not so much conservative) are so bad at it and have been for decades.
 
In politics, "compromise" has come to mean something conservatives are expected to do as we slouch toward Gomorrah.
 
I would like to see that changed and "compromise" be something both sides do.  If it's us who take that first step... OK; but I'm not so blind as to repeat past failures.
 
And I knew I’d hit a nerve with fellow conservatives with this proposal.  If someone else had written this, I might have thrown a few stones myself.  What is that idiot thinking?
 
BG >> And there is no compromise in amnesty. Either the law is upheld or America becomes lawless.
 
We definitely have issues with those who do not revere the "rule of law" which is a key cornerstone of our republic.  But I must think this is nothing new in the realm of human nature and events.  Surely our forefathers had to deal with such as well.
 
We find ourselves in a position where ignoring the rule of law has brought us to a standstill on the issues of border security and immigration.  I hate it, but it is what it is.  We can now stand in our respective corners and hurl insults at each other (and both sides get nothing), or we can try to address the issue with... the law... new law.
 
We, as conservatives, must approach this as changing the law and boxing in our opponents so as to insure they follow through on the agreements; acknowledging that something being agreed upon and being the law will not be enough for them.  History has shown us that.  Consequences for not following through must be put in place and backed by the law.
 
BG >> Conservatives must start making as outrageous demands as liberals so the compromise is within constitutional boundaries!
 
Some might say that a wall from the Gulf to the Pacific IS such an outrageous demand... and compromise on hundreds of miles strategically placed along that route with other means used to secure the rest.  I'll go with that.  My goal is not the wall.  My goal is border security... real border security.
opher goodwin Added Jan 12, 2018 - 1:27pm
Lynn - I'll give Lizzie a bell and check 'em out.
Benjamin Goldstein Added Jan 12, 2018 - 1:49pm
Lynn: Just today Merkel announced that as a compromise between her "conservative" party (it isn't) and the social democrats, Germany will only accept 200,000 refugees at most per year. That is the 'compromise'. Not 200,000 immigrants, no refugees alone!
 
And we all know that she will announce an exception when she sees fit anyway. So I fancy the idea that you in the US still have some remnants of the rule of law. I don't accept that it's given up.
 
Some might say that a wall from the Gulf to the Pacific IS such an outrageous demand.
And they are WRONG. Exactly my point. Walling off your place is the most normal thing in the world since the beginning of mankind. The Romulus and Remus story is about establishing the rule of law on the example that Rome's border wall must not be climbed.
 
It must be a wall. Tinkering with visas won't harm the drug traffic. I suspect, the whole reason why the leftist elites kicked up such a fuss and made a wall, a wall for Christ's sake, such a big deal is because they are chummy with the drug mafia and Carlo Slim.
Joe Chiang Added Jan 12, 2018 - 3:21pm
Ben, you got it.  There is nothing to compromise. The US Constitution says the Federal government has jurisdiction over our borders and keeping our citizens safe.  the Federal government has made laws that dictate how aliens can enter this country and be considered "legal" entry. Any other way is illegal, in violation of the law.
 
Consider a woman being pregnant.  Where is the line between pregnant and not pregnant?  Where might a pregnancy be compromised?  Legal and Illegal are just as rigid a line.
wsucram15 Added Jan 12, 2018 - 3:30pm
Lynn;
Dems wont get re-elected in any way if they vote for a wall.  A majority of the country does not want it.  Americans oppose the wall by 60% to your 37%, 3% are indifferent. In fact 68% believe that illegal immigrants already here should be allowed citizenship if working and productive.  I am indifferent on this portion and was polled.  I also believe that we do need to control the issue moving forward.
My only reservation is this-
Immigration..especially with Trumps voice behind this, is against the WALL and isolation of the US.  It is hurting us globally. China owns a great deal of the US and they are ahead of us by far.  This is being done poorly and without any long term negotiation.  I mean the UK doesnt want anything to do with our leader. Come on.
 
Now Im not against Border security.  I am FOR closing the Visa program which is a huge problem unless used for education and work, but monitored. The estimated numbers for this are 40-57% of illegal immigrants are overstaying Visas. But this number has not been accurately done since 2003.
I am against building a WALL. I explained why. 
 
Drugs -Trump has used as a reason for the WALL and crime is linked to the drugs.  Again, this needs to be controlled in other ways electronically and not by a WALL.  Because we need un- bribable surveillance not a concrete waste of money. 
 
This has not affected US jobs..technology has as well as China, which we no longer can control.  The US has to invest in itself and move forward until it does...we wont be able to sell product to anyone. No one here will be able to afford our products. 
 
Border security affects a lot. This is also a tone that is set towards allies. You cant put up a 15th century wall locking people out and then say..sure we will negotiate.   We are a democracy built on diversity.  If you want to stop that bleeding, for security..Ill work with you.  But it wont be with a wall. We have other interests that that would affect.
Lets work on the Visa issue and electronic surveillance (suggestion by a cousin in the DEA at the border). A double Fence can be built in some areas due to the lesser cost.   But I want DACA and Visa revisions.
 
 
 
wsucram15 Added Jan 12, 2018 - 3:44pm
Let me also add, I am FAR MORE conservative as the people I have seen protesting.  This is an issue (with the exception of two times in Baltimore) I have stayed away from.
I promise, you are outnumbered on this WALL/Immigration, and if DEMS budge..they will lose and they know it.  As it is Republicans will pay dearly for the things they have done so far.  You need to get out in public around your representatives offices.
Joe Chiang Added Jan 12, 2018 - 4:11pm
I Love It!!!!!  I teach statistics.  It is "FUZZY" Math.  You cite statistics with no source, wsucram15.  I have seen statistics, I do not trust without verification, that state the majority of Americans WANT the WALL.  
 
Here is what we know.  Most of the statistics on both sides falls into the category of "Fake News".  What we DO know is that the large majority of citizens residing where a wall might be built WANT the wall.
 
We also know that where a wall is built, it works and hinders movement from one side to the other (my house, the Berlin Wall, etc.)  
 
We also know that if illegals are here and commit crimes, those crimes would not have been committed if they were not here.  If they are peaceful and have a job, then they have that job illegally and they and their employers are both criminals.  
Lynn Johnson Added Jan 12, 2018 - 4:17pm
Joe Chiang >> Any other way is illegal, in violation of the law.
 
I'm not disputing that the law was broken.  Like I stated, there are millions of proofs to that fact walking around today.  But your premise is that once a law is broken there is no recourse other than the full execution of the law.  That (full execution) is indeed an option, even a preference (one you obviously do not want to compromise on) but it is not a legal necessity.  Under the rule of law... law can be changed... consequences can be mitigated.
 
Slavery, women voting, child labor, buying liquor on Sunday, poll taxes and tests... all had the consequences of law behind them; until they didn't anymore.  It may not be your preference, but options (legal options) apply here as well.  Passing and enforcing law to address the lack of doing so by idiots and scoundrels in the past is in fact legal.  It has been done before, it will be done again, sometimes justly, sometimes not.
 
Is it my preference that the law had been followed to begin with?  Yes.  Is it my preference that those here illegally return to their country of origin and apply for legal entry?  Yes.  Is it my preference that the big beautiful wall be built along the entire southern border?  Mostly... where feasible (because of terrain). :)
 
But I'm not going to get these things (under current and foreseeable conditions) ... and I know it.
 
Is it the left's preference that the vast majority of illegal aliens receive amnesty in the form of citizenship?  Yes.  Is it the left's preference that we continue to use immigration to saturate and dilute the American culture?  Yes
 
But do they know they aren't going to get these things...?  I hope so; and I'm trying to help them understand that.
 
I'm OK with the arguments of... that is not what I want... that is not just... the left can't be trusted... that is not something we should compromise on.  All valid arguments.
 
But new law (passed by Congress and signed by the President) setting forth a new direction on border security, addressing existing law breakers (illegal aliens), and reforming immigration as a whole, is not only legal... but (in my opinion) preferable to doing nothing; which is what both sides seems intent on doing.
 
But guys... again... I sympathies with your frustration and passion on the subject.  It's not right that we find ourselves here.  I'm learning that all those %$^&$# who told me life was fair and just were lying!  Who knew!
 
Joe... I do appreciate your (and Benjamin's) comments.  You keep me honest.
Lynn Johnson Added Jan 12, 2018 - 5:14pm
Jeanne, I picked on Joe and Benjamin; now I'll pick on you. :)
 
OK... you're telling me the wall is a deal killer.  Benjamin and Joe are telling me any legal status of DACA members is a deal killer.  I'm telling all of you this means we all likely get nothing.  No DACA, no wall, no immigration reform, no border security... nothing.  We'll try again in 2020 and see if someone is elected that can jam through one plan over the other.  Want to bet on the probability of the House, Senate, and Presidency lining up in that manner?  Maybe 2024 then.
 
I'm more on Joe and Benjamin's side, but I'm willing to extend an olive branch.  You say no.  Chuck and Nancy currently agree... OK, I tried.
 
As for the statistics opposing the law and supporting citizenship.  I don't completely trust them.  It's like the recent stats on everybody loving the economy, BUT giving Obama credit (which is ludicrous).  If you see the order and wording of the questions; you see the intentional skewing of the results.  I could be wrong and might pay a price at the ballot box.  I'm OK with that.  I don't want my leaders making decisions by sticking their finger in the air anyway.
 
As for US isolation.  That doesn't carry much weight with me either.  We're isolated from the socialists, we're isolated from the communists, we're isolated from the dictators, we're isolated from the United Nations... We recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital and we're isolated.  We kill terrorists and we're isolated.  We stand up for our interests for a change and we're isolated.  Good, we need to separate ourselves from such people.  I would be more worried if they embraced us.  (I suspect I get that from my Christian philosophy.)
 
Isolation and appearances seems to be one of your objections to the wall.  For me... that doesn't matter.  I would stick to the effectiveness argument.  I can see that as valid in some places and not in others; which is why I support all the above when it comes to border security.
 
You're concentrating on Visas almost as if it is THE problem.  It's big, but not THE problem.  I agree we should lock 'em down; take control of the situation... AND secure the border.  It's not a one or the other thing.
 
>> Lets work on the Visa issue and electronic surveillance. A double Fence can be built in some areas due to the lesser cost.
 
Yes... let’s do ALL those things (and more) where they are appropriate... AND sections of walls where they are appropriate.
 
Yes... I know you don't think walls are appropriate anywhere; I got it.  I'm telling you I do (in some places), but I don't think DACA legalization is just or appropriate in any form whereas you do.  I offer a compromise.  Your counter offer is telling me NO!  By God I can't have any of what I want (even a scaled down version of it) and need to see reason and give you everything you want (because of polls, and world leaders, etc. say so).  This is indeed the historical definition of "compromise" I'm trying to get away from.
 
>> But I want DACA
 
I don't... but I'll trade you... :) (it’s a concept called compromise) :)
 
If the answer is no, OK.  We both likely get nothing for many, many years.
 
>> and Visa revisions.
 
OK... we can have that at least... maybe... we'll see.
 
>> I promise, you are outnumbered on this WALL/Immigration...
 
As was Donald Trump by Hillary Clinton.  You knew it, I knew it... everybody knew it.
 
You may be right.  But I’m not into power for the sake of power.  What does it benefit me to move the country in the wrong direction so as to maintain power; my opponents could (and would) have done that much.  That scenario equals me losing either way.
 
I'll take my chances and it seems you've made the same decision.
 
wsucram15 Added Jan 12, 2018 - 5:24pm
And now you know what its like in WAshington DC right now.  Im one of the more reasonable ones.  I just want the kids legal.  Most want all illegal immigrants legalized.
ITs going to be a battle this year and in 2020.  Its already ugly.  Lie I said..this isnt really my thing.  I have tried to stay out of this. 
I just dont want to be penned into a country and isolated. I am against it.
You for different reasons are not.  Let the games begin.
Lynn Johnson Added Jan 12, 2018 - 5:42pm
>> And now you know what its like in Washington DC right now
 
I think I suspected as much before this little exchange. :)
 
>> Im one of the more reasonable ones.
 
 
I beg to differ. :)  I got opher goodwin to agree to this!  He and I generally agree on very, very little.  You may need to re-evaluate this reasonableness. :)
 
>> I just want the kids legal.
 
The "kids" aren't for the most part kids anymore.
 
29% are ages 16-20 and 37% are ages 21-25. About a quarter (24%) are ages 26-30, while one-in-ten (11%) are ages 31-36 -- source Pew Research center.
 
I mention this only for accuracy.  Everyone seems to think of them as teenagers (or younger).
 
>> Like I said..this isnt really my thing.  I have tried to stay out of this. 
 
Thank you for breaking your rule and commenting none-the-less.
 
>> You for different reasons are (willing to be penned by a wall).  Let the games begin.
 
Good luck. :)
 
Leroy Added Jan 12, 2018 - 6:56pm
We gave them amnesty under Reagan in exchange for comprehensive immigration reform.  It didn't happen.  It is precisely why we are in this mess today.  I hope we don't fall for the same trick this time.  Fool me once; shame on them.  Fool me twice; shame on me.
 
I have sympathy for the DACAs.  They didn't come here by choice.  Now, they have grown up here much like any other citizen.  America is their home.  Yes.  There should be a path to citizenship but not automatic citizenship.  Let's me choosey.  Those that are criminals or on welfare should be kicked out.  If they are not going to integrate, then show them the door.  If they can't speak English, then show them the door.  If they don't work and have never worked and have no intention of working and have no support, show them the door.  If they are productive, then let's welcome them.
Joe Chiang Added Jan 12, 2018 - 6:57pm
1.  I was born in that foreign country, Washington DC.  Intelligent people go to DC and lose their minds.  Maybe its the water.  LOL  But DC is the only place in the universe where whatever he did with her wasn't.  A total disconnect from reality.  Wuscam15 is around DC.  Almost everyone around DC is a far left liberal, hears and sees nothing but liberal positions.  Only logical analytical thinking can reveal the truth and such does not exist around the Beltway.
 
2.  I have no problem of manipulating a law within the actual law.  I do have a problem with breaking the law.  If the murder of someone requires the death penalty, then a murderer gets the death penalty.  Once the law has been broken then the consequence needs to be applied equally to any and all violators, be they a Clinton, Obama, or some schmuck.
 
 
Lynn Johnson Added Jan 12, 2018 - 8:45pm
Leroy >> We gave them amnesty under Reagan in exchange for comprehensive immigration reform.  It didn't happen. 
 
Exactly... the left promised future enforcement for amnesty and then forgot about their promise.  We should remember that and make sure they live up to their part of the bargain by putting consequences in the law.
 
Leroy >> I have sympathy for the DACAs.
 
As do I, which makes me much more willing to try and find middle ground.  You and I seem completely in sync on the path forward.
 
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
 
Joe >> I was born in that foreign country, Washington DC. 
 
Sorry to hear that. :) As I was born in Texas, I was born right next door to a foreign country... Louisiana. :)
 
Joe >> Almost everyone around DC is a far left liberal, hears and sees nothing but liberal positions. 
 
Very possible.  Echo-chambers abound everywhere.  I would expect DC to be especially susceptible; along with most North Eastern and Pacific Coast cities.
 
Joe >> I have no problem of manipulating a law within the actual law.  I do have a problem with breaking the law. 
 
Amen.  Hillary Clinton has proven that this no longer the case; to the shame of the Justice Department.
 
Joe... (on a side note) I have read of your medical issues in your post.  You are literally in my prayers.
Thomas Sutrina Added Jan 12, 2018 - 10:35pm
Jeanne, Trump is now repeating Obama's words in the first quarter of 2009, " Mr. Obama was later target="_self" rel="nofollow">quoted as telling GOP leaders that “elections have consequences,” and, in case there was any doubt, “I won.” and “Elections have consequences.”"   Trump ran on building a wall and enforcing immigration laws.  Having these things come true is the consequences.    DACA children are illegal aliens just like there parents.   
 
Obama and the Democrat progressives like him have shown their compassion by ignoring the American Citizens held in Iran and North Korea.  The parents and love ones tell us that the Obama administration ignored them request of help and didn't even talk to them.   
 
Obama has control of both houses of Congress his first two year.  He promised during the campaign to make them citizens, to solve their status problem.   His lack of compassion again shown.  
 
So now you want the GOP and Trump that ran on deporting them to show compassion.  As you can tell many feel Trump should live up to his campaign promises and since the Dems have shown they do not care why should the GOP?
 
It appears that Trump is a compassionate person.  These DACA children which due to time are mostly adults do not need their parents of other relatives.  They can visit them.   The reason for not deporting them is that they know nothing else.  So at what age is the an accurate statement.  I  suggest that before they are a teenager.  They need to have graduated from high school and past citizenship requirement in school that is required to be a citizen.  They need to be so acclimated that their vocabulary and pronunciation of English is within of above the first standard deviation.  My father that came to America at ten easily met that requirement when he came to America with his mother after WWI.  
Mark Hunter Added Jan 13, 2018 - 1:15am
That sounds like a perfectly reasonable compromise that should bring everyone to the table. Which means, of course, that everyone on both sides would fight tooth and nail against it, because "compromise" has become a dirty word in modern society.
Jeffrey Kelly Added Jan 13, 2018 - 2:50am
Lynn, I struggle a bit with your “what conservatives want, what liberals want” perspective.  Seems a bit simplistic.
 
But I’ll accept that as a starting point.  
 
In an odd way I actually agree with Trump eliminating DACA, it was precarious to begin with.  Executive Orders only last as long as the president that issued them is in office, once they leave the orders exist at the mercy of the incoming president.  I agree that the solution is a legislative one, something that fixes the current situation.  My question is, is Trump really sincere?  Only time can tell that.
 
As for some type of wall, it strikes me as purely symbolic in value and therefore useless.  The odd thing is I’ve been seeing stories of the border patrol’s budget getting cut.  This makes no real sense, why cut into the budget of an agency charged with securing our borders in order to build a wall?  
 
What I did find amusing is the stories coming out about Texans who voted for Trump possibly forced to sell their land in order to build the wall.  They are getting what they voted for, why be upset?
Benjamin Goldstein Added Jan 13, 2018 - 3:19am
Thomas: Enforcing law is not about compassion. I can have compassion for a junkie who slaugthers an old lady for some little change. I still want him executed. And, yes, as unfair as it is, most criminal penalties  negatively effect innocent family members. The DACA kids can go to where they came from and apply again for a return.
 
This would make some heads explode. Because deep down, leftists also think that somebody who lives longer in a place has more right to it than some outsider. So if a former Californian applies to immigrate to America again and some Somali does, will the left be 'racist' enough and prefer the guy who lived in California? And if they do so, can they admit that it's perfectly reasonable to be 'racist' and treat citizens better than non-citizens?
Leroy Added Jan 13, 2018 - 7:16am
"Executive Orders only last as long as the president that issued them is in office, once they leave the orders exist at the mercy of the incoming president."
 
And, I might add, liberal judges that would have EOs become law because it supports their agenda.
 
 
Jeffrey Kelly Added Jan 13, 2018 - 8:22am
@Leroy:
”And, I might add, liberal judges that would have EOs become law because it supports their agenda.”
 
How do you know that they are liberals?  Or that they have agendas?
 
Leroy Added Jan 13, 2018 - 8:28am
How else do you explain the 9th circuit?  Clearly, the president has discretion on how the immigration laws are implemented, yet the 9th circuit overturns everything he does.  Of course, the Supreme Court sets it all right.  Are the 9th circuit judges that stupid or do they have an agenda?  Now, the 9th circuit is trying to overturn Trump over his reversal of O's illegal EO where O unilaterally changed immigration law.  Are you blind to the 9th circuit agenda or am I just that gifted?
Leroy Added Jan 13, 2018 - 9:03am
Seems to me that Trump has the Democrats over a barrel.  Trump is willing to give the DACAs legal status to remain.  They don't care about the wall.  They just want to stay.  If the Democrats don't compromise, it will hurt the Democrats more than the Republicans. 
 
As mentioned above, O circumvented American law on immigration.  All Trump has to do is carry it to the Supreme Court and DACA is eliminated altogether.  Let's hope the Democrats blow it with the DACAs.
Jeffrey Kelly Added Jan 13, 2018 - 9:10am
@Leroy:
That’s an interesting point. So, what we need to consider is how the 9th Circuit ruled on court cases involving Obama’s administration.
 
Leroy, what was the 9th Circuit’s record regarding cases brought before it either for or against the Obama administration?
 
We also need to consider how it ruled on cases involving the Bush, Clinton, Bush and Reagan administrations.
 
By “we” I actually mean you. Do you have that data? If you don’t, when can you get it?
John Minehan Added Jan 13, 2018 - 9:30am
Couple of Thoughts:
 
---You need (pragmatically and legally) individualized determinations, as with DACA.
 
 ---It should be a pathway to a Green Card.  Many people want to work here and make money, but still have strong ties to their homeland they don't want to forsake.  (Think: Éamon de Valera or Jose Marti.)
 
---Most people here illegally will (and should) stay; they work hard and are part of their communities.
 
---This also fuels an (often unacknowledged) hypocrisy on the Right: people who rail against "Illegals"----often rail even harder when Juan (or Sean or Wang or Ywhna), who they work with, do business with or whose family they know from Church, Schul or Mosque, is  picked up by ICE.
 
---Some people have to go: MS-13; Tongs/Snakeheads; what's left of the old Provisional Wing of the IRA, etc.
 
---Wall won't work.  I was DS to 3d How, 11th ACR in the 1980s.  DShKs, AP Mines, Razor Wire and starving dogs didn't keep them in the DDR. "Fixed fortifications are a monument to the stupidity of man."---G.S. Patton 
 
---
Leroy Added Jan 13, 2018 - 9:59am
"By “we” I actually mean you. Do you have that data? If you don’t, when can you get it?"
 
Very funny.  You remind me the HomeAdvisor commercial I saw yesterday.  Two neighbors meet at their mailboxes.  One asks the other, "Do you have a recommendation for roof repair (or something similar)?"  The neighbor responds with a suggestion.  The other responds, "Good.  Get me three quotes and then schedule the work to be completed in two weeks."  Or something like that.
 
Do your own f'ing research, no offense intended.
 
Jeffrey Kelly Added Jan 13, 2018 - 10:10am
@Leroy:
”Do your own f'ing research, no offense intended.“
 
But this is your point, Leroy.  You say the 9th Circuit is liberal.  You are only basing it upon how the 9th Circuit ruled against Trump.  That’s less than a year’s worth of rulings.
 
So, you are only basing it on your own bias.  I’m willing to accept your thesis that the court is liberal but I need data from you to accept it.  I’m not going to make your point for you.
 
Is this how engineers work, Leroy, only basing things on how they think or feel?  
John Minehan Added Jan 13, 2018 - 10:14am
"Is this how engineers work, Leroy, only basing things on how they think or feel?"
 
No.  It tends to be based on observed heurism's handed down in the profession.  
Leroy Added Jan 13, 2018 - 11:02am
"Is this how engineers work, Leroy, only basing things on how they think or feel?"
 
No.  I just look at the 9th Circuit reversal rate.  According to the American Bar Association, it gets a C-.  Only the Federal Circuit is lower.  The 9th Circuit has a reversal rate of about 80%.  So, either the judges are ignorant of the law, just plain stupid, or they have an agenda that gets overturned.  If you have any other suggestions, I am listening.
 
"Interestingly, this comparison of reversal rates reveals
that the Federal Circuit has the highest reversal rate at about
83.33%, and the Ninth Circuit has the second highest reversal
rate at 80%."
John Minehan Added Jan 13, 2018 - 11:08am
Federal Circuit is mostly patent law with some Federal Claims.  Why would that be reversed so often? 
Leroy Added Jan 13, 2018 - 11:58am
One article suggested that the Federal Circuit was too pro-patent and favored the patent trolls.  It was also suggested that Justice Roberts has an abiding interest in patent law and that is when the Supreme Court got involved.
Jeffrey Kelly Added Jan 13, 2018 - 12:27pm
@Leroy:
”No. I just look at the 9th Circuit reversal rate. According to the American Bar Association, it gets a C-. Only the Federal Circuit is lower. The 9th Circuit has a reversal rate of about 80%. So, either the judges are ignorant of the law, just plain stupid, or they have an agenda that gets overturned. If you have any other suggestions, I am listening.”
 
 
So, now you’ve come up with 3 different possibilities:
 
1) Ignorance of the law
2) Stupidity
3) Agenda that gets overturned 
 
Your original thesis was that they have a liberal agenda that they push.  
 
You need more evidence.  I requested that you look at how the 9th Circuit rules for or against different administrations.
 
I think you need to look at how they ruled for or against Bush vs. how they ruled for or against Obama.  I feel I was being unreasonable, I haven’t checked how turnover has affected this circuit in the last 30 years or so.  The 17 years should work, that stretches across the last two presidents, one Republican, one Democrat.
 
Let me know what you find.
Jeffrey Kelly Added Jan 13, 2018 - 12:29pm
BTW, Leroy, I think your thesis has some merit.  The problem is you are only considering the 9th Circuit, 
Jeffrey Kelly Added Jan 13, 2018 - 12:32pm
Oops, sorry, Leroy, posted that comment before I finished.
 
Anyway:
http://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/court-role-and-structure
 
This gives you idea how this whole works.  There are 13 Circuits, you may want to check how they rule as well.
Benjamin Goldstein Added Jan 13, 2018 - 2:16pm
Jim Perlow Added Jan 13, 2018 - 2:25pm
Lets secure the borders, including build the wall and repairing the wall where it has deteriorated. Mexico is already making installments on the border wall and security.  Look no further than Ford and Fiat Chrysler - Nearly $ 4 billion dollars moved from Mexico's economy to the USA.  Then add in the jobs to construct the new facilities and the staff to run them.  Funny but not surprising to see this promise of President Trump through a different lens.  As President Bill Clinton said " Its the economy."  Stock market is up and still climbing - more than 20 large corporations have issued thousands of bonus checks to their employees and some included raises since the tax reform bill passed and more black Americans are working than in anytime since it has been recorded.  Unemployment is down to the lowest in over 15 years and some are still discontent with what is going on.  His message is many too often not politically correct, but at least he is transparent in what he is thinking.  Harsh at times, street brawler at others, but moving the ball in the right direction. 
Eric Reports Added Jan 13, 2018 - 3:52pm
The left won't compromise. If Trump builds a wall, the first Dem prez will tear it down. Europe is a preview of what will happen here.
Leroy Added Jan 13, 2018 - 4:23pm
"This gives you idea how this whole works.  There are 13 Circuits, you may want to check how they rule as well."
 
Wow!  You DO know how to use Google.  I'm impressed.
Jeffrey Kelly Added Jan 13, 2018 - 6:21pm
@Leroy:
 
Do you need some help with anything, Leroy?  How’s the research coming?
Leroy Added Jan 13, 2018 - 10:34pm
Sorry, Jeffrey; you will have to do your own research.  I apologize for not making that clear.
Jeffrey Kelly Added Jan 13, 2018 - 11:16pm
@Leroy:
 
Leroy, you said:
“And, I might add, liberal judges that would have EOs become law because it supports their agenda.”
 

 
I, being an evidenc-based sort of person, asked you for evidence of this.
 
You cannot supply the requested evidence, therefore the above statement is merely an opinion.
 
Good.  So, it’s your opinion, therefore it is irrelevant in the scheme of things.
 
This is how I treat Holocaust deniers, Leroy.  I no longer do their research for them, I make them supply the evidence to back up their assertions.  They never can.
Jeffrey Kelly Added Jan 13, 2018 - 11:33pm
Now, if you can track down evidence to change your opinion into a fact then I am willing to listen.  There is truth to what you say, at least in a roundabout way.  Certain judges have certain reputations, for example the NFLPA prefers to file with U.S. District Court Judge David Doty who ruled favorably for them in the past:
 
https://www.minnpost.com/sports/2015/08/why-nfl-hates-minneapolis
 
See how that works, Leroy?
 
 
 
Leroy Added Jan 14, 2018 - 2:35pm
My apologies to Lynn for buggering up thread starting with an innocent comment.  If is not worth buggering up such a fine article debating over whose responsibility it is to do their research.  Rather that continue this stupid debate, I suggest deleting my comments.  I won't waste any further space on the matter (or should I call it an investigation?).
Jeffrey Kelly Added Jan 14, 2018 - 2:43pm
I guess it’s stupid because Leroy doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
 
Lynn, please leave my comments.  We are all on a “comment count” per Autumn, I prefer not to lose mine.
Leroy Added Jan 14, 2018 - 10:29pm
In the battle of wits--as TBH once put it, it would be an unfair fight, JK.
Thomas Sutrina Added Jan 14, 2018 - 10:55pm
Ben G., I worked for an aerospace company that hired a lot of India's with those B1 visas? (think that is the name)  The parents wanted to go back to India and take their children that were not teenagers.  They wanted them to follow the social system in India that I believe they visited growing up, vacation.  The daughter ran away from home.  She is an American because this is the society she knows.  The Parents knew the society they grew up in.   Minds are set up for life during the high school and College.  She has to choose to be an Indian her parents can not choose for her.   
 
That Ben is why we will have to accept many of the DACA people, they are Americans.   It is our fault that we did not deport them decades to years ago.   We have to deal with that problem.  Now sending back the parents, other relatives.  I suspect that the criminals that have grown up in America will not be accepted back.  So we will have also to deal with that problem.  The common law argument is strong that even criminal DACA people are be the lack of action of Americas.    We have created the common law situation.
Thomas Sutrina Added Jan 15, 2018 - 8:38am
I have a very much more limited definition of a DACA child.  The key as I that they have to already lived in the American society for about five years before they reach the age where one's opinion are made.   The mind reaches it's adult configuration in the late teens to early 20s for most people.  That is why I place the limit on a child to below becoming a teen ager.  At this age the person is more an open vessel gathering the beliefs he or she will have for their life.  The Apache Indians understood this when that captured enemies.  Preteen became members of the tribe, those older became slaves.
Jeffrey Kelly Added Jan 15, 2018 - 9:34am
@ Leroy:
”In the battle of wits--as TBH once put it, it would be an unfair fight, JK.”
 
I know, Leroy.  You already lost, you have my sympathies.
Even A Broken Clock Added Jan 15, 2018 - 1:17pm
Lynn, I hadn't responded to your post before, but I appreciate the attempt to frame a set of positions that can be negotiated. Not a series of absolutes. Thanks for this effort, and I wish our politicians were as open minded*
 
*Actually, I think that's what Sen. Graham and Sen. Durbin were presenting to the President when they encountered the firm fence of the Never Compromisers who got invited to the session by that paragon of idiocy, Stephen Miller.
Lynn Johnson Added Jan 18, 2018 - 9:50pm
My apologies to all those who commented late on this post.  I caught the flu a few days ago and I'm just now pseudo-recovering.
 
It's obvious passions run deep on both sides and then there are the hidden motives.  I don't envy the guys who have to sort through all this sausage making.
Jeffrey Kelly Added Jan 18, 2018 - 9:52pm
Ugh, haven’t had the flu in years.  Glad you are feeling better.
Joe Chiang Added Jan 19, 2018 - 9:32am
I have been following this conversation, but not commenting.  The entire question of compromise on an issue of law is an interesting concept.
 
I liken this question to being pregnant.  Being in violation of the law is like being pregnant.  Can you be just a little pregnant?  At what point is one not pregnant?  Likewise, can you be just a little in violation of the law?  Can you be caught with your hand just a little bit into the cookie jar?  
 
To me either the immigrant is legal or illegal.  I know this next point may be a little harsh, but if one steals from a bank, does giving a part of that money and putting it into a college fund for your children makes the bank robbery okay and more than the innocent children of illegals be held accountable for being the result of their parent's illegal activities?  Or does the bank robber have to return all the money possible to the bank, to include the college fund.
 
The law says when an action is illegal.  Anything other than that action is illegal.  
Lynn Johnson Added Jan 19, 2018 - 9:44am
>> Ugh, haven’t had the flu in years.  Glad you are feeling better.
 
About a week ago... I could say the same thing.  Hope you're run is much longer than mine. :)
Lynn Johnson Added Jan 19, 2018 - 10:16am
Joe,
Thanks for the comment... I think, first, we can all agree that the law has been broken.  The debate is not over that FACT, but over the consequences or the execution of the broken law.
 
Execution of the law (any law), however, is not a finite thing.  Not everyone who gets pulled over for speeding gets a ticket.  Penalties vary to take into account extenuating circumstances.  Officers concentrate on enforcement of some crimes over others.  Surely, we are not saying that everyone should get a ticket every time, every penalty should be the maximum, and officers should have no discretion in application.
 
With that in mind, the rule of law is not diminished when those who have the authority (by law), in this case the Congress & President, change what is legal/illegal or change the consequences and/or execution of existing law.  It happens all the time.  It is an integral part of the system.
 
So, I understand the arguments if you say "I don't want them to do that" or "They would be breaking a promise if they did that", but not "They don't have the authority to do that".
 
A lot of you guys on both sides are saying that (a deal) is not what I want to happen; which is a very valid position.  Just understand there are consequences to these positions.  To name two... on the right, no wall; on the left, no DACA legalization.
Joe Chiang Added Jan 19, 2018 - 12:05pm
The problem Lynn is what happens or does not happen when someone is caught doing something illegal.  If a bank robber is caught, but permitted to keep the money and just walk away, there will be a lot more bank robberies.  If we do nothing about illegals, then there are going to be a LOT more illegals, duh.  That is the issue.
 
There have always been illegals.  But the attitude has always been "Americanization", a word coined to explain what legal or illegal immigrants do, or should be doing once in this great nation for us to remain a great nation. 
 
Today, we have illegals coming into our nation, use up our resources and provide nothing productive in return, then want US citizens to change to their liking which is the reason they left their homeland and is often the opposite of what made our nation great.  This issue is a matter of our national survival let alone retained greatness.
Jeffrey Kelly Added Jan 19, 2018 - 12:16pm
@Joe Chiang:
”Today, we have illegals coming into our nation, use up our resources and provide nothing productive in return,”
 
Really?  In what way?
 
“then want US citizens to change to their liking which is the reason they left their homeland and is often the opposite of what made our nation great.”
 
Are you talking about all illegals?
 
 
“This issue is a matter of our national survival let alone retained greatness.”
 
Sigh.  Joe, we all came from somewhere else and at some point everyone of us adapted.  It looks like you are mixing up what conservatives babble about both Muslims and Mexicans.
Joe Chiang Added Jan 19, 2018 - 2:59pm
Jeffery.  Like a lot of liberals, you take things out of context.  Obviously not ALL illegals, but all illegals are ILLEGAL!  DUH!
 
As to how they use up our resources, you must have your head buried in the sand, Ostrich Syndrome.  Where do I start?  Education, both k-12 is a resource they get for free and free college, welfare (housing,, food, clothing, babysitting, transportation, etc), jobs, but not paying taxes.  This list could get VERY long.
 
The USA USED to be the greatest nation on earth.  Due to the USA WWI and WWII were won stopping terrible liberal atrocities.  Yes, liberal atrocities, Hitler and Mao were both admired by liberal US leaders, like FDR.  Proving they were both liberals by our measurement now would take a lot of space here.  Try studying history.  
 
I mix nothing up.  Muslims are currently establishing "No Go Zones" in Europe and the US, specifically towns in Michigan, USA.  If you are not a Muslim and enter "their area/zone" you may and probably will be assaulted.  You may or may not live through their assault.  In Europe, the police have given up on trying to police those areas.  They just warn citizens not to go there.  The MI towns run by Muslims are not too far off.  I mean run by Muslims, courts, police, elected officials, etc.  They unofficially establish Sharia Courts and want Sharia Law followed by EVERYONE!  If you are brought to a US court, you could be found guilty of breaking a Sharia Law.  Yes it would be overturned on appeal, but look at the time, imprisonment (in a local jail with Muslim guards) and personal cost defending your right to NOT be judged under Sharia Law.  Then there are the Honor Killings (illegal in US, but Muslims expect US citizens to accept them), but that is another full discussion.
 
Many Mexicans want Hispanic Spanish spoken where they reside.  In Texas they have "their areas" where almost all businesses must have Spanish speaking employees because the illegals will not become "Americanized" and learn English, or at least the US version.
 
At least you could know what you are talking, if you wish to talk.  Intelligent discussion is always welcome, but the key word there is intelligent, not liberal babble.
Lynn Johnson Added Jan 19, 2018 - 3:22pm
Joe does have a point concerning rewarding or excusing bad behavior encourages more bad behavior.  And rewarding DACA (and other illegals) would fall into that category.  I'm assuming in the "compromise" proposed that "the wall", other limits to immigration, and better security would mitigate that natural behavior.  If those weren't part of the deal or if I didn't think it would work, I wouldn't be for the compromise.
 
As for what illegals currently contribute, it's a mixed bag as it is with any other identifiable population.  But didn't my proposal address that in denying residence to anyone with a criminal record or a history of welfare abuse?
 
I think if we weed out the criminals and the lazy we'll go a long way towards bringing in the kind of people this nation needs.
Lynn Johnson Added Jan 19, 2018 - 3:23pm
JK >> we all came from somewhere else
 
Very true... And to our great shame, we Johnson's discovered that our ancestors once resided on the other side of the river; though we don't like to talk about it.  Of course, I'm talking about the Sabine River (separating Texas from Louisiana).
 
JK >> and at some point everyone of us adapted
 
Less true for some over others.  Objectively, I think it can be said that some cultures adapt and assimilate better than others and some cultures seem to go out of their way not to adapt.  These observable facts should be a factor in immigration policy.
Jeffrey Kelly Added Jan 19, 2018 - 4:08pm
@Joe Laing:
”Jeffery. Like a lot of liberals, you take things out of context. Obviously not ALL illegals, but all illegals are ILLEGAL! DUH!”
 
Wow, that makes no sense.

“As to how they use up our resources, you must have your head buried in the sand, Ostrich Syndrome.”
 
Irrelevant bibble-babble.
 
“Where do I start?”
 
This should be fun.
 
“Education, both k-12 is a resource they get for free”
 
Education is actually an asset to everyone, as properly ruled on by the Supreme Court.  
 
“and free college,”
 
Illegals get free college?  Do you have a source for that?  
 
“welfare”
 
No, Joe, they do not.  Only citizens can draw on welfare programs like food stamps, daycare, etc., etc.
 
Do you want to know how I’m so sure of that?  Because I work for a state agency that administers those programs.  If a non-citizen is drawing on those benefits it is fraud.  Now, their children can, if those children are citizens.  So, their children can receive benefits based upon the size of the family and the income of the parents.  Any non-citizens in the house do not count towards the benefit but any income they receive does.
 
“jobs, but not paying taxes.”
 
That is true, Joe but they also receive no protection.  Their employer can pay them whatever they like.  Also, they take jobs that Americans generally don’t want unless they are paid very well for them.  So, you could get red-blooded Americans to clean your toilets and pick your oranges but they are going to be paid.  I have no problem with that, that’s capitalism in action.

“The USA USED to be the greatest nation on earth. Due to the USA WWI and WWII were won stopping terrible liberal atrocities.”
 
LOL, don’t know much about history, do you?  You understand that the US fought Kaiser’s Germany during WW I, right?  I don’t think anyone would accuse the Kaiser of being a bleeding heart liberal.
 
As for Nazi Germany, National Socialism was a right-wing movement backed by conservatives and reactionaries.
 
“Yes, liberal atrocities, Hitler”
 
No, FDR did not admire Hitler.  
 
Christ.....
 
“and Mao”
 
FDR backed the Nationalist Government under Chiang Kai-Shek, not Mao.  Truman did the same, neither man wanted the Communists to take over China.
 
Christ X 2......
 
 
“were both admired by liberal US leaders, like FDR.”
 
No, see the above.
 
“Proving they were both liberals by our measurement now would take a lot of space here. Try studying history.”
 
My friend, you are wandering into my wheelhouse.  My advice is to tread lightly.

“I mix nothing up. Muslims are currently establishing "No Go Zones" in Europe and the US, specifically towns in Michigan, USA. If you are not a Muslim and enter "their area/zone" you may and probably will be assaulted. You may or may not live through their assault. In Europe, the police have given up on trying to police those areas. They just warn citizens not to go there. The MI towns run by Muslims are not too far off. I mean run by Muslims, courts, police, elected officials, etc. They unofficially establish Sharia Courts and want Sharia Law followed by EVERYONE! If you are brought to a US court, you could be found guilty of breaking a Sharia Law. Yes it would be overturned on appeal, but look at the time, imprisonment (in a local jail with Muslim guards) and personal cost defending your right to NOT be judged under Sharia Law. Then there are the Honor Killings (illegal in US, but Muslims expect US citizens to accept them), but that is another full discussion.”
 
Wow, I think you need to take some quiet time and reflect how ridiculous the above really is.

“Many Mexicans want Hispanic Spanish spoken where they reside. In Texas they have "their areas" where almost all businesses must have Spanish speaking employees because the illegals will not become "Americanized" and learn English, or at least the US version.”
 
Sounds like Fox News propaganda.

“At least you could know what you are talking, if you wish to talk. Intelligent discussion is always welcome, but the key word there is intelligent, not liberal babble.”
 
Well, if I was you I’d stay away from the history.
John Minehan Added Jan 20, 2018 - 8:24am
A few thoughts:
 
---There are two kinds of crimes: malum in se (murder) and malum prohibitum (jaywalking).
 
---In the great scheme of things, coming to the US illegally probably constitutes a mala prohibita offence (jaywalking across an international boundary, so to speak).
 
---Currently, a first offense of illegal entry into the US is a misdemeanor and subsequent offenses are felonies.  
 
---The DACA population are kind of an odd case.  They did not COME here in any kind of legally culpable way (their parents brought them here as children) so they framed no conscious intent to commit a crime.  With the younger ones, even remaining here would lack a mens rea
 
---So, in re: Joe Chiang's comments, it would be fitting to frame a new law to deal with this odd situation under the current law.  Making an individualized determination of each member of the DACA population (as the EO required) seems the best legal and pragmatic approach.
 
---I have lived in the Southwest.  There are places in the US where if you don't speak Spanish, you really can't get around and do things.  (El Paso, TX is one.)
 
---However, many of these places are right on the US-Mexican Border; the entire region was part of Mexico until 1848; and a lot of the population is of Mexican descent.  It makes sense that they would have "Hispanic Spanish" as a lingua franca n that region.