BREAKING: White House proposes path to citizenship for 1.8 million people

[toomuchtime_]

Even without the wall, Trump's tough talk and tough actions have reduced illegal immigration from Mexico by about 2/3 over Obama's last year in office. The wall will reduce it even further, and then there will be a push to get every business to use E-verify for each hire, which will lower it even further. The key to this strategy, remarkably successful so far, is to make the US inhospitable to illegals and so difficult to get into that few will try.

The number of illegal immigrants in the country increased by 80% between 2000 and 2007 where it peaked at about 12 million. Since then it has been falling rather steadily. The source of illegal immigrants has been changing also. The number of illegal Mexican immigrants have fallen sharply and now are no longer the majority. The biggest increase in illegal immigrants since 2005 have come from Asia, Central and South America and these immigrants will not be stopped by a wall.

Back in 2005, it appeared that a wall would be a real solution to stop the hoard of illegals pouring across our southern boarder but not today because most illegal immigrants don't sneak into the US across our southern boarder. They enter through a legal boarder crossing or enter illegally by boat, planes, or across our northern boarder.

Yet the fact remains that during Trump's first year in office illegal immigration across the Mexican border declined by 2/3 over Obama's last year in office and the total was the lowest since 2000. This startling decrease over Obama's efforts was due entirely to the tough talk and tough actions by Trump that persuaded potential illegals that the US would be an inhospitable place for them.

Obama, with the full support of his Party, sent a consistent message to illegals that if they could manage to get across the border and away from it, he would do his best to prevent them from ever being deported unless they committed a serious crime, so no matter how many time they were caught near the border an deported, they had his word that if they made it a little further from the border the next time, he would protect them, in fact, he would encourage states to make them de facto citizens. President Trump, on the other hand sent the message that if they entered the US illegally or entered legally and remained illegally he would hunt them down and deport them so they would never be safe. That's why 2/3 fewer illegals attempted to cross the Mexican border during Trump's first year in office than in Obama's last year in office.

As you point out, not all illegals come across the Mexican border, but in 2016, an estimated 400,000 did successfully cross the border and evade detaction (a slightly larger number were stopped or caught and deported), and this was a 23% increase over 2015, so illegal immigration from Mexico is not an insignificant problem. A smart barrier, such as Israel built on its border with Sinai, will reduce the number of illegals from Mexico to near zero. Before Israel built that barrier, tens of thousands of illegal immigrants from east Africa were flooding into Israel. Since the barrier went up, none have successfully crossed the border.

If you make America hospitable for illegals who are already here and you don't spend the money to prevent more from coming, as the Democrats propose, the numbers who come here illegally will increase, but if you make America inhospitable to illegals who are already here, the numbers who try to come illegally will decrease as President Trump has demonstrated. If addition you also build a barrier as effective as the one Israel built the number of illegals who successfully cross the border will be reduced to nearly zero.

There is no comparison between the wall that Trump has proposed and the Israel wall. The wall in Israel covers just over 400 miles compare to over 2000 miles of the US boarder and the Israel Wall is actually only 5% a concrete wall. The rest is fencing. Lastly the terrain is fairly uniform.

There are two big problems with a wall. First being, you can transverse a wall just as easily as a fence. The wall or fence is not what stops intruders. It's those that guard it that make it secure. Secondly, a wall is an ideological barrier as well as a physical one. Today many people see the need for a barrier between the two countries but is that going to be the case in 10, 50, or 100 years? There is also another problem. What happens to this wall when the democrats are in control of government as will happen again as it has in the past? The wall has never been popular with the people and democrats will not support it.

What is needed is intelligent boarder security which could well be a wall in some places, improved fencing in others places, new technology in others places, and increased boarder patrol where needed. As illegal immigration shifts to sea, air, and our northern boarder, so should our security. Building a massive wall on the southern boarder is a huge waste of money and an ideological statement that America seeks to isolate itself behind a wall.

During the Obama administration there was a record number of deportations. However, in the last 2 years, the huge number of children crossing the boarder became a factor. Also, the decrease in the number of arrests at the boarder due to enhanced security also reduced the number of deportations. If you look at Obama's first year compared to Trump, you'll see more deportation in Obama's first year than Trump.

You're just making things up now. No part of Israel's barrier with Sinai is concrete wall, all of it is fence, but it is smart fence that can alert guards if anyone approaches the fence and this is why this fence has prevented anyone to enter Israel from Sinai. While the US barrier will be much longer and parts of the terrain will be more difficult to work on, there is no rational basis for believing it will be any less successful in keeping illegal immigrants out that the Israeli fence. All the prototypes that have been built by companies eager for the contract to build the US barrier, including Israeli and Mexican companies, are very high smart fences with electronics that will instantly alert border guards if anyone approaches it, just as the Israeli barrier does.

A wall is completely ineffective against airplanes, boats, and crossings at boarder stations which is how most illegal immigrants entered the country.

400,000 illegals came across the Mexican border in 2016. A wall will be very effective against them.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Deporting the dreamers was never on the table at all. Most of America does not want them deported. Most democrats do not want them deported. Even most republicans do not want them deported. Getting upset that there is Amnesty on the table in that respect is really silly. Particularly when there is real reform as well like moving to a more merit based immigration setting.

Merit based immigration is simply a guise for reducing legal immigration. The vast number of people seeking to become Americans are described on the statue of liberty, the tired, the poor, the homeless, and those seeking to breath free air.

The Trump plan seeks to bring those to the US that have no desire to make America their home. It is unusually for anyone who are successful to give up their home, friends, family, to travel to a strange land and start over again. It is those that have suffered, fought for survival, and endured extreme hardships that want to become Americans today. These people and their descendants as in the past, are the ones that will build a 21st century America. Doctors, lawyers, and scientists in developed countries are not seeking American citizenship. They come for a jobs and return home.

Baseless nonsense. Merit based immigration was passed by the Democrats in the 1960's when the Democrats controlled the WH and both houses of Congress and the Democrats staunchly supported the law right up until Obama became president, hence their staunch defense of the border wall in 2005. All their rants today are strictly partisan politics.

That was 58 years ago. The immigration problem is far different today than then. In the 1960's Democrats were trying to hold on to the Solid South. When it came to immigration legislation they declared that Northern Europeans are a superior subspecies of the white race. The Nordics were superior to the Alpines, who in turn were superior to the Mediterraneans, and all of them were superior to the Jews and the Asians. Trump seems to be taking a similar course which is big mistake.

You're just flailing and posting nonsense. There is nothing racist about merit based immigration, you ignorant bigot. Just look at all the Asian and Indian doctors and engineers and scientists who came to America because of it. And if you weren't so ignorant, you would realize LBJ's merit based immigration overall was passed in 1965, a year after the Civil Rights bill and the same year as the voting rights bill, so your notion the Democrats were trying to hold on to the South when they passed it may have set a new record for ignorance and bigotry on this forum.

What immigration bill are you referring to? Certainly not the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. This Act repealed the national-origins quotas, in place since the 1920s, which had ensured that immigration to the United States was primarily reserved for European immigrants. The 1921 national-origins quota law was racist from start to finish. The formula in the 1921 act was designed to favor Western and Northern European countries and drastically limit admission of immigrants from Asia, Africa, the Middle East, and Southern and Eastern Europe.

The 1965 immigration bill ended an immigration-admissions policy based on race and ethnicity, and gave rise to large-scale immigration, both legal and unauthorized. This is certainly, not a merit based immigration bill. Both Kennedy and Johnson flirted with merit based immigration in hopes of appeasing the South but the bill that passed was the very opposite of merit based immigration.
Fifty Years On, the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act Continues to Reshape the United States

Apparently, despite the fact you have been arguing about it, you don't know what merit based immigration law means. It has nothing to do with race or ethnicity, it is about only taking in immigrants who have something the US needs, like talents and skills and education.

 

[Flopper]

What republicans congressmen and voters want or don't want is open to debate but the president putting preconditions on a deal just makes any type of deal that much harder. Even without Trump's conditions, coming up with a deal is going be difficult.

So what your saying is that Trump isn't entitled to get anything he wants out of the deal. Do you understand the point of making deals? Do you agree to a mortgage with the bank if you don't get a house to live in?

Many House republican want no part of DACA and Democrats in the Senate can block the legislation if DACA is not included. When you throw the wall into the mix, and a radical reduction in legal immigration, you get no democrat votes in the Senate and a half dozen or more republican voting no.

If not enough of them vote "yes," then a lot of DACA people will be going to Mexico. That's the deal.

Seems to me we're going to be looking at a shutdown in a few weeks with eventual passage of the bill that includes DACA some money for the Trump wall, a slight modification of sponsorship, and a reduction in size of the immigration lottery.

However if Senate Democrats really want to win the midterms, they need to refuse any funding for Trump's wall and compromise somewhat on sponsorship and the lottery but not DACA. That will force Trump to veto any legislation and start deportations of dreamers. There is nothing that would help democrats more in the the midterms than front page stories of young people being separating from their families and the only home they have every known because of the illegal acts of their parents.

The voters are not going to take kindly to the party that shutdown the government for the sake of illegal aliens. Polls show that voters overwhelmingly support the deal Trump is offering. Dims reject it at their peril. If they do, taking them down in 2018 will be like shooting fish in a barrel. I hope the shutdown lasts right up until the election.

The president's job is to veto or sign legislation and if congressmen can't make a deal the president should step in and provide leadership. It is not the president job to make laws. Yes, I know all presidents at one time or another do this but that doesn't make it right. However, in this case Trump's proposal is going to make a compromise more difficult and increase the chance of a shutdown.

If the congress says no, to the wall Trump will have no option other than to veto the bill and this is what democrats in congress want, Trump going against both congress and the voters. And considering Trump's temperament, Democrats just might get some DACD deportation. With most congressmen and over 80% of the voters supporting DACA, it will pass eventually.

I couldn't care less if there is a shutdown. Getting the wall funded and ending chain migration is what I care about. The voters want exactly what Trump is offering, so your claim that they are against Trump is obvious bullshit. Only open-borders Democrates are opposed to it.

I seriously doubt that most voters know enough about the immigration system to understand what Trump is offering. Over 80% of the voters want to see DACA passed and Trump is offering that. They don't like the Trump wall but that's not that important to them, because they know the 2000 mile wall was campaign talk and is now a combination of wall, fences, other enhancements to boarder security. The immigration lottery and sponsorship is far beyond their scope of interest.

Oh, so if they approve of what you want, they understand what they're agreeing to, but if they want what Trump is trying to pass, then they are ignorant rubes?

Chain migration and the visa lottery are definitely in their scope of interest. Trump got elected mainly because the voters are sick of the immirgation policies you endorse.

Turds like you have done everything possible to cloud the issue of the wall. You're trying to do it now. When a polster asks "do you support the wall," what is that supposed to mean, exactly? Do they support a wall on the eniter 2000 miles of the border? It's amazing that 35% support that. A lot more support the proposition of building about half that much wall where it's really needed.

Nothing an open-borders traitor like you says about immigration can be believed.

I have never supported open boarders and never will. Apparently you have a reading problem.

 

[Flopper]

The number of illegal immigrants in the country increased by 80% between 2000 and 2007 where it peaked at about 12 million. Since then it has been falling rather steadily. The source of illegal immigrants has been changing also. The number of illegal Mexican immigrants have fallen sharply and now are no longer the majority. The biggest increase in illegal immigrants since 2005 have come from Asia, Central and South America and these immigrants will not be stopped by a wall.

Back in 2005, it appeared that a wall would be a real solution to stop the hoard of illegals pouring across our southern boarder but not today because most illegal immigrants don't sneak into the US across our southern boarder. They enter through a legal boarder crossing or enter illegally by boat, planes, or across our northern boarder.

Yet the fact remains that during Trump's first year in office illegal immigration across the Mexican border declined by 2/3 over Obama's last year in office and the total was the lowest since 2000. This startling decrease over Obama's efforts was due entirely to the tough talk and tough actions by Trump that persuaded potential illegals that the US would be an inhospitable place for them.

Obama, with the full support of his Party, sent a consistent message to illegals that if they could manage to get across the border and away from it, he would do his best to prevent them from ever being deported unless they committed a serious crime, so no matter how many time they were caught near the border an deported, they had his word that if they made it a little further from the border the next time, he would protect them, in fact, he would encourage states to make them de facto citizens. President Trump, on the other hand sent the message that if they entered the US illegally or entered legally and remained illegally he would hunt them down and deport them so they would never be safe. That's why 2/3 fewer illegals attempted to cross the Mexican border during Trump's first year in office than in Obama's last year in office.

As you point out, not all illegals come across the Mexican border, but in 2016, an estimated 400,000 did successfully cross the border and evade detaction (a slightly larger number were stopped or caught and deported), and this was a 23% increase over 2015, so illegal immigration from Mexico is not an insignificant problem. A smart barrier, such as Israel built on its border with Sinai, will reduce the number of illegals from Mexico to near zero. Before Israel built that barrier, tens of thousands of illegal immigrants from east Africa were flooding into Israel. Since the barrier went up, none have successfully crossed the border.

If you make America hospitable for illegals who are already here and you don't spend the money to prevent more from coming, as the Democrats propose, the numbers who come here illegally will increase, but if you make America inhospitable to illegals who are already here, the numbers who try to come illegally will decrease as President Trump has demonstrated. If addition you also build a barrier as effective as the one Israel built the number of illegals who successfully cross the border will be reduced to nearly zero.

There is no comparison between the wall that Trump has proposed and the Israel wall. The wall in Israel covers just over 400 miles compare to over 2000 miles of the US boarder and the Israel Wall is actually only 5% a concrete wall. The rest is fencing. Lastly the terrain is fairly uniform.

There are two big problems with a wall. First being, you can transverse a wall just as easily as a fence. The wall or fence is not what stops intruders. It's those that guard it that make it secure. Secondly, a wall is an ideological barrier as well as a physical one. Today many people see the need for a barrier between the two countries but is that going to be the case in 10, 50, or 100 years? There is also another problem. What happens to this wall when the democrats are in control of government as will happen again as it has in the past? The wall has never been popular with the people and democrats will not support it.

What is needed is intelligent boarder security which could well be a wall in some places, improved fencing in others places, new technology in others places, and increased boarder patrol where needed. As illegal immigration shifts to sea, air, and our northern boarder, so should our security. Building a massive wall on the southern boarder is a huge waste of money and an ideological statement that America seeks to isolate itself behind a wall.

During the Obama administration there was a record number of deportations. However, in the last 2 years, the huge number of children crossing the boarder became a factor. Also, the decrease in the number of arrests at the boarder due to enhanced security also reduced the number of deportations. If you look at Obama's first year compared to Trump, you'll see more deportation in Obama's first year than Trump.

You're just making things up now. No part of Israel's barrier with Sinai is concrete wall, all of it is fence, but it is smart fence that can alert guards if anyone approaches the fence and this is why this fence has prevented anyone to enter Israel from Sinai. While the US barrier will be much longer and parts of the terrain will be more difficult to work on, there is no rational basis for believing it will be any less successful in keeping illegal immigrants out that the Israeli fence. All the prototypes that have been built by companies eager for the contract to build the US barrier, including Israeli and Mexican companies, are very high smart fences with electronics that will instantly alert border guards if anyone approaches it, just as the Israeli barrier does.

A wall is completely ineffective against airplanes, boats, and crossings at boarder stations which is how most illegal immigrants entered the country.

400,000 illegals came across the Mexican border in 2016. A wall will be very effective against them.

No, 415,000 people attempted to cross the boarder and were apprehended. According to the DHS report, the number of successful illegal entries — including people making multiple attempts — between ports of entry along the entire southern border with Mexico has plummeted from 1.7 million in 2005 to 170,000 in 2015. The calculations are based on a mathematical formula using published Border Patrol apprehension data and internal re-apprehension data and years of data from surveys conducted by researchers in Mexico with deported migrants in Mexico.

Enhancements in security which has increased by factor of 10 since 2005 along with increases in wages in Mexico has steadily reduced reduced successful illegal immigration across our southern boarder from 1.7 million to 160,000. Spending 25 billion dollars to build a wall is absolutely absurd. If it's done, it will be a monument to stupidity.

How many Mexicans actually cross the border illegally?
https://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/assets/documents/2017-Dec/BP Total Monthly Apps by Sector and Area, FY2000-FY2017.pdf
Mexico Minimum Daily Wage | 1960-2018 | Data | Chart | Calendar | Forecast

 

[bripat9643]

So what your saying is that Trump isn't entitled to get anything he wants out of the deal. Do you understand the point of making deals? Do you agree to a mortgage with the bank if you don't get a house to live in?


If not enough of them vote "yes," then a lot of DACA people will be going to Mexico. That's the deal.

The voters are not going to take kindly to the party that shutdown the government for the sake of illegal aliens. Polls show that voters overwhelmingly support the deal Trump is offering. Dims reject it at their peril. If they do, taking them down in 2018 will be like shooting fish in a barrel. I hope the shutdown lasts right up until the election.

The president's job is to veto or sign legislation and if congressmen can't make a deal the president should step in and provide leadership. It is not the president job to make laws. Yes, I know all presidents at one time or another do this but that doesn't make it right. However, in this case Trump's proposal is going to make a compromise more difficult and increase the chance of a shutdown.

If the congress says no, to the wall Trump will have no option other than to veto the bill and this is what democrats in congress want, Trump going against both congress and the voters. And considering Trump's temperament, Democrats just might get some DACD deportation. With most congressmen and over 80% of the voters supporting DACA, it will pass eventually.

I couldn't care less if there is a shutdown. Getting the wall funded and ending chain migration is what I care about. The voters want exactly what Trump is offering, so your claim that they are against Trump is obvious bullshit. Only open-borders Democrates are opposed to it.

I seriously doubt that most voters know enough about the immigration system to understand what Trump is offering. Over 80% of the voters want to see DACA passed and Trump is offering that. They don't like the Trump wall but that's not that important to them, because they know the 2000 mile wall was campaign talk and is now a combination of wall, fences, other enhancements to boarder security. The immigration lottery and sponsorship is far beyond their scope of interest.

Oh, so if they approve of what you want, they understand what they're agreeing to, but if they want what Trump is trying to pass, then they are ignorant rubes?

Chain migration and the visa lottery are definitely in their scope of interest. Trump got elected mainly because the voters are sick of the immirgation policies you endorse.

Turds like you have done everything possible to cloud the issue of the wall. You're trying to do it now. When a polster asks "do you support the wall," what is that supposed to mean, exactly? Do they support a wall on the eniter 2000 miles of the border? It's amazing that 35% support that. A lot more support the proposition of building about half that much wall where it's really needed.

Nothing an open-borders traitor like you says about immigration can be believed.

I have never supported open boarders and never will. Apparently you have a reading problem.

So far, all I've seen you do in this forum is oppose any effective means to secure the border.

 

[Flopper]

The president's job is to veto or sign legislation and if congressmen can't make a deal the president should step in and provide leadership. It is not the president job to make laws. Yes, I know all presidents at one time or another do this but that doesn't make it right. However, in this case Trump's proposal is going to make a compromise more difficult and increase the chance of a shutdown.

If the congress says no, to the wall Trump will have no option other than to veto the bill and this is what democrats in congress want, Trump going against both congress and the voters. And considering Trump's temperament, Democrats just might get some DACD deportation. With most congressmen and over 80% of the voters supporting DACA, it will pass eventually.

I couldn't care less if there is a shutdown. Getting the wall funded and ending chain migration is what I care about. The voters want exactly what Trump is offering, so your claim that they are against Trump is obvious bullshit. Only open-borders Democrates are opposed to it.

I seriously doubt that most voters know enough about the immigration system to understand what Trump is offering. Over 80% of the voters want to see DACA passed and Trump is offering that. They don't like the Trump wall but that's not that important to them, because they know the 2000 mile wall was campaign talk and is now a combination of wall, fences, other enhancements to boarder security. The immigration lottery and sponsorship is far beyond their scope of interest.

Oh, so if they approve of what you want, they understand what they're agreeing to, but if they want what Trump is trying to pass, then they are ignorant rubes?

Chain migration and the visa lottery are definitely in their scope of interest. Trump got elected mainly because the voters are sick of the immirgation policies you endorse.

Turds like you have done everything possible to cloud the issue of the wall. You're trying to do it now. When a polster asks "do you support the wall," what is that supposed to mean, exactly? Do they support a wall on the eniter 2000 miles of the border? It's amazing that 35% support that. A lot more support the proposition of building about half that much wall where it's really needed.

Nothing an open-borders traitor like you says about immigration can be believed.

I have never supported open boarders and never will. Apparently you have a reading problem.

So far, all I've seen you do in this forum is oppose any effective means to secure the border.

Not so, I have supported increases in the number of boarder patrol agents, electronic surveillance, improving E-Verify, and developing a visa tracking system that is not based on the honor system. I am against the border wall because it's too costly, is not likely to be effective, will create major environmental problems, and create endless disputes with our closest trading partner.