Posted on 01/24/2018 7:25:31 AM PST by Kaslin
The Democrats' crusade to force a government shutdown in order to win permanent protections for "Dreamers" went down in flames Monday. The price extracted by Democrats was meager compared to what they wanted. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) merely agreed to allow a floor debate on immigration (which McConnell said he'd have done anyway). But this compromise does guarantee that we will now get a "clean" immigration debate, and therein lies an opportunity for a big win -- though President Trump may not like it.
Last week, White House Chief of Staff John Kelly reportedly angered the president in an interview with Fox News' Bret Baier. Among Kelly's transgressions, he said that the president had been "uninformed" in his thinking about the wall during the campaign and that Trump's views had "evolved" beyond some mammoth monument on the southern border.
The president repudiated his chief of staff, saying on Twitter, "The Wall is the Wall, it has never changed or evolved from the first day I conceived of it."
It's true that the president's thinking on immigration has changed many times. He once favored a "deportation force" and a "total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States."
But Trump has said many times that the wall needn't be one contiguous barrier spanning the entire border. On the general idea, he's been implacable. And that's a problem.
There's a reason Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and other Democrats are willing to trade initial funding or authorization for a wall in exchange for help on the Dreamer question. They understand that even under the best circumstances it will take years to build a wall, and many of them are already on the record for supporting beefed-up border security. And, if Democrats take back the House in 2018, they can turn the thing into a white elephant.
The problem with the wall is not necessarily that it's a bad idea. It's that it has become a symbol detached from policy considerations. An old friend of mine once had a painting company in college. Their unofficial motto was, "We may be slow, but we're expensive." That could be the motto of the wall, too.
Meanwhile, there are faster and more effective ways to deal with the problem of illegal immigration and the drugs "pouring" into our country, which mostly come through legal ports anyway.
Most serious immigration restrictionists favor enhanced border security and want some more physical barriers, but ultimately their support for the Trump wall is a political priority, not a policy one. They'd much rather see the president trade a Dreamer fix for cheaper and more effective solutions to the problem of illegal immigration, as well as reform of the legal immigration system. Top of the list: mandatory E-Verify, a program by which employers can check on the immigration status of job-seekers.
That's because the biggest driver of illegal immigration isn't on the supply side; it's on the demand side. Immigrants, legal and illegal, come to America primarily to work. They stay because their employers, many of them Republicans, don't care or don't ask about immigration status. Democratic politicians, particularly in sanctuary cities, want to keep it that way.
The wall, in theory, would stop illegal border crossings from Mexico, but it wouldn't do anything about people who come here legally and then simply overstay their visas -- about 42 percent of immigrants in the country illegally.
"Though there are parts of the border where better barriers are needed, universal E-Verify would probably do more to cut illegal immigration," Mark Krikorian, the executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, tells me. "It would weaken the jobs magnet, which is what attracts both border infiltrators and visa over-stayers -- the wall is irrelevant to over-stayers."
Unlike the wall, Krikorian notes, "E-Verify wouldn't cost much, if anything, since the IT infrastructure is already in place to handle all new hires."
If Trump wanted a clear -- and immediate -- win on illegal immigration, he'd evolve and recognize that the wall's greatest utility might be as a bargaining chip.
So Jonah, would the Democrats trade the black vote for amnesty for illegal immigrants? That’s the question they should be asking themselves.
The black community is beginning to recognize the downside to the influx of cheap labor. The Democrats could be pushing a lose/lose plan if they are not careful.
The influx of illegals is already down, the lowest in 17 years. All it took to drive those numbers down was to elect President Trump.
The wall is non negotiable.
Never trumper dirtbag goldberg has no credibility on anything. Townhall.com is owned by the open borders supporting Salem Media Radio slimeballs.
Agree.
Why should anyone pay attention to this Never Trumper? He hasn’t been right in years.
When the wall’s up, operational, and effective at border control, THEN start talking about what to do with the illegals already here.
Not before then.
People who come here legally and become illegal by overstaying or not following immigration laws to stay legal are completely different than those that come here illegally across the desert. As groups they are completely different, there are different issues with each group.
People who come here legally have been checked out in order to get whatever documents they had to come here legally. That means we know who they are, where they came from, we have some idea of why they came here. They also have had a criminal background check done in the country they are coming from, and in the United States in case they have been here before and have a record here.
That is far different than those that come illegally across the desert. We know nothing about them, nothing. We don’t know who they are, where they come from, have no idea what their purpose is in coming here. We need to keep in mind- many crossing the desert are KNOWN murderers, rapists, violent criminals, drug smugglers, drug dealers, ETC. with records here, or in the country they came from- or often both. The overwhelming majority of serious criminal illegals that are here came here across the desert. The worst of the worst, that is how they get here. They had to come that way, they cannot go to a port of entry and get a permit to visit family, or shop- they certainly won’t get a student VISA or a work permit- they cannot pass the criminal background check to do so.
We need to deport all of them, but to say we don’t need a wall because so many come legally and stay is to ignore the fact that the worst element of illegals is coming across the desert. We need to keep in mind- many crossing the desert are KNOWN murderers, rapists, violent criminals, drug smugglers, drug dealers, ETC. with criminal records here, or in the country they came from- or often both.
When Trump first talked about the need for a wall, this is what he meant when he said they are criminals. His meaning was twisted to act as though he meant all illegals. He meant those crossing the desert- those he felt we needed to keep out no matter what it takes. He was and is right about that. Nearly all illegals that are caught crossing the desert have a criminal record. Nearly all, very rarely is one caught that does not. Many have been legally deported from this country for valid reasons, often criminal activity. Many are engaged in criminal activity when they are caught crossing- smuggling of one kind or another most commonly but not always drugs.
Yes we do need a wall. In areas where a wall is not practical for any reason there needs to be the most secure fence possible- we have to secure the border, and patrol the border for the security of this country, and the safety of our people. We will also have to enforce our immigration laws and cut off benefits because it has to be a multi-tiered plan in order to work. A wall/secure fence is an absolute integral part of the solution.
It has not been enforced, it needs to be.
We have immigration laws on the books to deal with the issues of illegal immigration. We need to enforce them.
I have noticed far more obvious enforcement of our immigration laws than in the past. I also see more and more enforcement all the time. I think the process is moving forward every day.
I do believe we are and will be enforcing our immigration laws. One issue with going after employers is those cases take a lot of investigation to gather hard evidence for prosecution. That takes time to investigate, and build a case. Often when charges are brought for immigration violations against employers it comes out they have been being investigated for months or even years before being charged. It is too soon to know at this point what is being done- time will tell.
The program is VOLUNTARY. It needs to be made mandatory. Today, E-Verify is:
Used nationwide by more than 700,000 employers of all sizes
Used at more than 1.9 million hiring sites
Joined by about 1,400 new participating companies every week
One of the federal government’s highest-rated services for customer satisfaction.
What?..
DACA is the bargaining chip. It has been ruled anti constitutional already an Trump can’t really extend it past March. It is dead.
Now.. give Trump the wall and everything he wants and maybe, maybe, some of the DACA provisions could be resurrected.
Yes and it blows my mind- even among people who should know better- how many believe we already have a secure fence the length of the border because of the Secure Fence Act and they don’t realize the truth that most was not done, or not done as promised. Yes many truly believe we already have a secure fence, and that President Trump and we that support a wall are demanding a wall be built- even though in their mind there is already a fantastic fence!
On social media people post every day that there is already a fence, no need for a wall. Occasionally even here on FR I have run across posters that are under the impression the border is already fenced! That could not be further from the truth! I know the media and dims want people to think that, and it has worked far more than most realize.
Deport them and make them come back in the legal way, or stay out.
Trump was primarily elected to do 2 things, the first of which is related to, and somewhat dependent upon, progress on the 2nd:
1) Get our economy moving again via regulatory cuts, tax cuts and better trade policy; and
2) Control immigration - legal AND illegal.
There is simply NO WAY that the groundswell of people - tens of millions of us - who put Trump into office will tolerate the bargaining away of the fundamentals of what Trump promised. If Trump fails to deliver - or at least go down with all guns blazing - then he loses in 2020 and has his name equated with “LOSER” for the rest of time.
But worry not: Donald J. Trump is anything BUT a loser. He didn’t turn a $1 million loan into a multi-billion dollar fortune in 30 years in one of the most competitive environments on the planet (the NYC commercial real estate market - BEFORE his father died and left him more assets - by being stupid, naive or rash, or without understanding not only the need for serious and realistic long-range planning, but also actually implementing such planning. I am absolutely positive that Trump had been preparing to run for, and operate as, President for many years before he actually declared. I look at that as a BIG positive - because it shows that planning mode that is essential to success.
Donald Trump, being no fool, understands better than any of us that he MUST deliver, so he will. Yes, the media and the political hacks on both sides of the aisle hate his guts - but that is exactly what he WANTS. He is for the people - he wants a strong and prosperous nation, like his grandfather came to, and like the one that he and his father lived in, and that necessarily requires a very strong middle class. That strong middle class requires a sane immigration policy, a tax and regulatory policy that nurtures business start-ups, innovation and risk-taking, and requires lots and lots of cheap energy. All of these things are necessarily opposed by TPTB in the media and in the political establishment - so IMHO his chief aim FROM THE BEGINNING has been to take down TPTB. They have NEVER dealt with anyone like him, and despite his successes against strident opposition over the past year (or 2 1/2 if you count winning the primaries and the election), they are STILL underestimating him. Schumer just got a taste of it earlier this week. The full meal is being prepared, and Schumer and the rest of TPTB are going to be forced to eat it.
Watch and enjoy!
Trump's Tweet Tuesday night, taunting Schumer.
- The Wall should be built.
- E-Verify should be mandatory.
- Chain migration and the visa lottery should be terminated.
- Immigration should be limited to only those whose presence benefits both America as a whole and working Americans in particular.
- Illegals should be deported - no exceptions.
- Refugees who are already here should be sent home if the conditions they fled have changed.
- Birthright citizenship should be ended for those who are not lawful permanent residents, which is constitutional under the most natural reading of the 14th Amendment’s “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
What am I willing to give up?
Not much.
Okay. I’m willing to keep those oh-so-sympathetic “Dreamers”, with legal status but no path to citizenship, in return for the right decisions on everything else I listed. Democrats - do you really care about those (former) children you shut down our government for? Even keeping the Dreamers is wrong, but I’ll trade a small harm to America for ending multiple greater evils.
“It should be built...”
Absolutely, because unlike all these “electronic bull$hit,” which can be turned off with the flick of a switch, a concrete barrier is there to stay.
“Just read the title of the NR article. Author just doesn’t want the wall built.”
Johan Goldberg’s mother is probably turning in her grave. He’s a solid never-Trumper.
“People who come here legally have been checked out in order to get whatever documents they had to come here legally. That means we know who they are, where they came from, we have some idea of why they came here. They also have had a criminal background check done in the country they are coming from, and in the United States in case they have been here before and have a record here.”
That’s mostly not true. But what IS TRUE, is that by getting a visa to come here, they have agreed to the terms of it. They have no legal recourse if we catch up with them ( which is the biggest problem because we don’t have a mechanism to keep track of them when they are in our country) so they face immediate deportation. And at least of 40% of those here illegally today are visa overstays.
In my opinion, no person wanting to be a citizen of this this country should be unwilling to sign on the doted line the Pledge of Allegiance. Then that un-citizien should be expected to undergo the training to become a citizen. Period. The goal from A to B should be on a specific time line.
NO more DACA, no more DREAMERS, no more illiterate illegals...no more any of it.
What part is not true? Please enlighten me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.