Posted on 08/16/2015 9:24:22 AM PDT by RoosterRedux
Edited on 08/16/2015 3:07:18 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
Donald Trump has made headline after headline with his remarks on immigrants and immigration, but now his presidential campaign has put together its
(Excerpt) Read more at marketwatch.com ...
No he didn't. He said plainly (to Chuck Todd) that the illegals have to go. And item #2 plainly says to enforce all laws, and that includes all immigration laws which includes deportation of illegal aliens.
Best to say it that way than to unnecessarily talk about deportation as a separate policy. It's not a separate thing; it's the law and has been for years.
It would also work very well. If they had no means of support and no support system with the very fear that they could be arrested and deported at any time in any encounter....most would voluntarily leave.
I’ve been saying that for years.
That's the law now. We can deport children under 21 even if they are born in the US. The US citizen children can only stay if there is a designated guardian. We should use the term "repatriation" rather than deportation. We are sending them back home.
Yes, especially if we enlist state and local law enforcement to help enforce the laws.
NO OTHER COUNTRY IS SO STUPID AS UNITED STATES TO ALLOW ANCHOR BABIES. If necessary, Amendments to constitution can be done, but I hope that will not be necessary and self preservation will prevail. Why does the country want to commit suicide?
Ok, I read all his points, but I have a problem with them, they are NOT SPECIFIC. For example, I have a neighbor, 2 houses over, named Jose Gualcosierra who speaks with a slight Spanish accent. Maybe he’s legal, maybe not. The point is that NOWHERE in Trump’s position paper is Mr. Gualcosierra’s name mentioned. Therefore Trump is not being SPECIFIC with his plans...he needs to mention Mr. Gualcosierra, otherwise he’s simply a tool for Hillary.
[my imitation of a Trump denier here]
You are incorrect. Trump wants EVERY illegal to leave the United States first. In any language that is DEPORTATION!
Trump will consider some of them to return if found useful to USA.
Cruz is still my #1, but Trump is impressing the hell out of me.
At that time the framers never envisioned millions of illegals running over her to have a baby and collect welfare.
“If Trump stands strong on this, he will be the next President.”
Agree, and considering that he has yet to back off of anything - might you know if he’s accepting resumes yet. I think my FR history more than qualifies me for any political job with him.
The easy way to do that is through state funding. Make it a requirement. Then the states hand the edict down to the counties, and the counties to the cities all based on funding.
This really is all simple. The politicians make it all sound much harder than it is because they don’t want them gone. They would lose entire districts and reps based on population.
Is e-verify in Trump’s plan? I didn’t see it.
Where are the anti-Trumps today. Not a peep.
Yep
I saw e-verify working with my own eyes. When Sheriff Arpaio implemented those policies in Maricopa county, my neighborhood literally emptied out over several months. They fled like the cucarachas they are. No one forces them to deprt, they did it on their own. And now that Arpaio has been targeted by the Regime and the Regime’s crooked courts, they have come back in droves. Not so much cucarachas anymore, but more like a plague of locusts. And crime has shot up tenfold around here in the past 3 years.
You are a permanent pessimist. In your world nothing good will ever happen to United States. Liberal Judges eventually die. They can be replaced by judges who will follow the constitution and INTERPRET law, not MAKE law.
“Securing the southern boarder...”
You’ll find a lot of “southern boarders” here:
https://colleges.niche.com/university-of-texas——el-paso/campus-housing/
Just having fun - I made the same mistake and heard from others about it.
It would take a constitutional amendment to change anchor babies. It shouldn’t, but there is no chance in hell that the current Supreme Court would allow anchor babies to end without a very tightly worded constitutional amendment.
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.