Replies

I understand your point, but the problem is

We need to keep our eyes on the major goals. That is not to say there are not minor goals to achieve the major goals. You have stated the problems, now what are the solutions?

I object to the idea of deporting everyone. That is a simple answer to a complex problem. Yep, get rid of the obvious bad ones which Trump is doing. Prevent the bad ones from entry.

But how do we test for good citizens? Maybe foreign and domestic?

How do we make good citizens? That is the goal whether foreign or domestic.

What is a good citizen?

We can’t be all fence (conservatives) anymore that be all gate (liberals).

Gen 3:24 After sending them out, the LORD God stationed mighty cherubim to the east of the Garden of Eden. And he placed a flaming sword that flashed back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.

There is much wisdom in the Bible. Note the above. Some eyes go to the fence. Now that is an impenetrable fence - angels. Ain’t nobody getting through that fence.

Some eyes might go to the gate. Some think the purpose of a gate is to keep people out and that is true to a degree. But another purpose is to let people in. A gate is not a fence.

A gate lets qualified people in. What is that quality? There are some good aspects of catch and release. If they have been here 10 years, not caused problems, aren’t on public welfare etc. Many potential good citizens are currently stuck with the current gate.

Further thinking: Who is the gate in the above verse? What is the criteria for entry? What is the gate giving access to? It is not the garden of Eden.

Might be a good model of fences and gates to follow in our immigration situation although it will not be perfect in our world.

Thank goodness God is not all fence.

I would be willing to accept a limited amnesty as part of a Constitutional Amendment on the issue of immigration/citizenship.

Such an amendment would have to includee:

1) A constitutional prohibition on citizenship to anyone granted amnesty (including minors), and moving forward, similar prohibition on anyone whose entry into the U.S. was illegal when made, or subsequently became illegal because of overstaying a visa; Children born subsequently to anyone granted amnesty under this would not be disqualified automatically by this provision.

2) Overturning of Plyler v. Doe, and language stating that there is no constitutional right under either the Federal or any State constitution for benefits of any kind to anyone present in the country illegally. Only statutory benefits would be permitted - no shoehorning of other benefits by judges:

3) Constitutional cap on yearly legal immigration, including claims of asylum, that could be overridden only by 2/3 vote of each House of Congress, plus Presidential signature.

4) Each state would be granted standing if either the federal government or any other state violated any provision of this Amendment. That standing would include the right to challenge improper grants of citizenship, and have them reversed.

5) States with a coastline or that share a border with another nation would have the right to eject anyone attempting to cross that border, except at specifically designated and controlled federal crossing points that can constitute no more than 1% of the border of that state. But the Dems would never agree to that. And unless they did, I'm in favor of full deportation.