Trump: My immigration plans aren't set in stone; Parts are "negotiable"

Yes a lot of the problems can be cleaned up without legislation but $12 billion for the wall Trump wants to build would have to be passed. But in reality what is the Congress going to do say no? If Trump wins in a landslide he has a mandate and Congress ignores it at their peril.

WHOA NELLIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Donald said repeatedly the Mexicans are gonna pay for the wall. He wasn’t lieing was he?

GIT ER DONE.

Besides, funding was already in the passed legislation. No need for anything other that Just do it!

I can see come next election cycle someone running ads, a spin off of the old Wendy's "where's the beef" ad as travelers head towards the border...

Where's the Wall?

I find it unreal that Trump’s enemies are willing to sacrifice their journalistic principles to leak a OTR conversation to get him at any cost.

If they are going to go this route then why in the future would any source give them any information on anything on background if they know they will be outed at some later date.

What about confidential sources, will they be willing to talk any reporter since those assurances mean nothing.

So the media is willing to destroy themselves over trying to smear and stop Trump? I once thought Richard Nixon had it bad, walk in the park compared to hated of Donald Trump.

Has anyone used their common sense and imagination about this wall? We can have a wall and it can work but just no the way most of you seem to think.

By the way what do you think Reagan did? It was all a negotiation.

That was never the deal. Congress was supposed to rein in spending, but the Democrats were never going to do that.

264 Just remember that it was Donald that first started revealing private dealings with others to out them in this Election Cycle.

He could not have expected it not to bite him in the backside at some time later could he?

#264, Two things....Reagan’s worst regret was the Amnesty before the wall.

Second, there is NO need for negotiation. The law is on the books to build the wall and fully fund it.

GIT ER DONE!

Has it not occurred to anyone that “Mr Hire the Best” will be hiring from the companies that fund these evil super PACs?

As do I, FRiend.

LOL.... I’ve got a better fence at my ranch in SE Oklahoma....

Unfortunately, that was the deal. The only way the Democrat controlled House under Tip ONeil was going to pass the supply side tax cut was if they could spend without Reagan vetoes.

The increase in Defense spending Reagan wanted could have passed the Democrat House if it was loaded with pork for the right Democrat controlled House Districts. But not the tax cut.

Okay for Trump and nobody else. *sigh* When any other GOP member does it, we call it rino backstabbing... but this is Trump, and his fans are incapable of seeing any wrong in him.... which is one of the many warning signs about his candidacy.

Rope-a-dope

Gee, how surprising.....and that was his one good stance.

We can have a wall and it can work but just no the way most of you seem to think.

As a right of way for the "Cheap Labor Express"?

Trump's way of 'having it work' is to wave in virtually all the people he "deported" as legal immigrants and future Democrats "rapidly" on an expedited basis, demanding more services and keeping ol' Donald's hotel and construction business in clover on the public dime, like it has been for the last thirty years.

After all, he has 'a heart,' with your money.

No I am thinking of a comprehensive way to close the border and patrol it. Just more high tech than Trump is talking about. We can seal it. I need to sketch this out and post it for feedback on how to make it a reality and for a lot less money than $8 Billion.

Yes she will. I'm sure they have a lot more to disclose about him, just right now the KKK thing is big.

No amount of Musical Chair Excuse will be able to overcome his mouth.

Very true, never seen anything like this in my life.

I need to sketch this out and post it for feedback on how to make it a reality and for a lot less money than $8 Billion.

Try the Second Amendment. This is an excerpt of a post months ago that can be seen in its entirety here:

Accordingly, what I propose NOBODY proposes, in that it adheres to the Constitutional principle that ALL law enforcement was to be the responsibility, no, the DUTY of the people, as embodied by the national unorganized militia and this goes directly to what the Second Amendment is really about, in that whatever army we were to have was to be comprised of the Feds coordinating the State militias under the President as CIC, with the State militias to be comprised of the entire adult male population.

'Oh, but we can't do THAT' (say the real elitists and dependents), 'How would we handle that fancy equipment?'

Said militia was to be capable of functioning as a "regular" army (as professional soldiers in the British army were called at the time), in that we should get regular practice (what "well regulated" means in the Second Amendment). In other words, to hell with a tripled unionized Border Patrol.

'Oh but who has the time?!?!?!' How much time are we spending earning the money to pay the taxes to support said "professionals"? Hence, as far as I am concerned, the people we have now performing police work should be instead training and validating the performance of public volunteers in those functions, much like we used to do with civil defense (which is what this is).

Hence, what we need for dispatching illegals should be so effective that there would be no need for it to be permanent. With the whole militia in force, Congress should do what I have been advocating for over five years: simply issue a bounty for the arrest and detainment of illegal aliens, with heavy penalties for false arrest and harassment of citizens and legal aliens.

This IS within the scope of Article I Section 8. A bounty on an alien criminal is equivalent to a Constitutional letter of Marque against an enemy of the United States per Clause 11, a Constitutionally enumerated power. While such a letter of Marque would name said enemy, it was up to the people as a militia to figure out who that was individually... Barbary Pirates didn't wear uniforms. Sayyyy, that does sound familiar...

Both of the following quotes are from Wikipedia:

In the days of fighting sail, a letter of marque and reprisal was a government license authorizing a person (known as a privateer) to attack and capture enemy vessels and bring them before admiralty courts for condemnation and sale. Cruising for prizes with a letter of marque was considered an honorable calling combining patriotism and profit, in contrast to unlicensed piracy, which was universally reviled. In addition to the term lettre de marque, the French sometimes used the term lettre de course for their letters of marque. "Letter of marque" was sometimes used to describe the vessel used: a "letter of marque" generally refers to a lumbering square-rigged cargo carrier that might pick up a prize if the opportunity arose. A "privateer" was a fast and weatherly fore-and-aft-rigged vessel heavily armed and heavily crewed, intended exclusively for fighting.

A "letter of marque and reprisal" would include permission to cross an international border to effect a reprisal (take some action against an attack or injury) authorized by an issuing jurisdiction to conduct reprisal operations outside its borders.

Wouldn't that be good enough to deal with drug dealers and coyotes? "Oh, but that's archaic!" There is modern precedent for use of a letter of marque: In December 1941 and the first months of 1942, Goodyear commercial L class blimp Resolute operating out of Moffett Field in Sunnyvale, California, flew anti-submarine patrols. As the civilian crew was armed with a rifle, many thought this made the ship a privateer, and that she and sister commercial blimps were operated under letter of marque until the Navy took over operation. Without congressional authorization, the Navy would not have been able to legally issue any letters of marque.

So, here's the "deportation" element of my plan which is built upon the principle of 'allow the people to get them out of the country':

Step 1: Push legislation stripping jurisdiction over ALL matters regarding aliens (including violent crimes) out of the hands of Federal courts. There is no Constitutional equal protection for aliens. None. There should be no reasonable doubt standard, no free attorneys, no protection from search, or self incrimination... none of it. Aliens should have a very good reason for wanting to earn their citizenship. Without this step in whatever form it takes, any promise of mass deportations is without substance.

Step 2: For every alien in the US who entered legally and obtained a visa, put the following data online: their photo, country of origin, last known address, stated purpose of entry, place of entry, entry date, and visa, green card, etc. expiration date... Aliens have no expectation of Fourth Amendment protections.

Step 2: Put a bounty on illegals with a letter of marque and reprisal. You'll find that in Article I, Section 8. Institute any necessary additional laws that criminalize harassing a legal alien or citizen with heavy penalties for false arrest.

Step 4: Put instructional materials on the web to teach the people how to make a legal arrest: standards of evidence, procedural requirements, humane treatment, how to stay safe... the whole bit.

Step 5: Effect online testing for certification as a Deputy Marshall toward supporting citizens in effecting Steps 2-3.

Note that the standards of evidence for citizens gathering evidence as part of their daily lives is very different for a civilian than for a professional law enforcement officer who must obtain a search warrant. If I go to work as a carpenter, and I know one of the subs is making hires of likely illegals, I may come to know the latter personally, who their kids are, where they go to school. My kids might know theirs, etc. All constitute evidence for probable cause for an arrest warrant. Meanwhile the existence of those heavy penalties for false arrest and harassment would temper the desire to move on heresay or rumor and provide a check on wishful thinking. Should there be too many such abuses, simply raise the penalties until they fall to an acceptable level.

Besides its legal advantages of gathering intelligence (that HUMINT the military keeps begging for), a militia system does not comprise a unionized Federal workforce looking toward retirement. It is by its nature incidental or temporary. As the demand for detaining illegals drops, those people can go back to what they were doing with minimal transition and no unemployment compensation.

Perhaps more importantly, taking civilian law enforcement off life support would get millions of citizens to confront the stupidity of many of the laws police must enforce. That outrage would get them supporting candidates who would make real changes. Further, it would END the sense of helplessness so many people feel about the threat of overwhelm of which illegals remind them. Finally, it would instill a sense of community and respect for one's fellow citizen-warrior willing to take personal risks as a protector and friend. Nobody's going to get rich doing this; it's about compensating them for the risks they'll be taking.

As to whether it would work, I would say extirpating hundreds of millions of passenger pigeons is a fairly good indication of the efficacy of bounties. :-) Note: the system works just as effectively for detecting and incarcerating or deporting Muslim terrorists as it does for illegal aliens. Put the people back into the business of law enforcement!

Note: There was not a single unconstitutional violation of any citizen's privacy or UNALIENABLE right to free association (aka "work"). There were no traps for sole proprietors (such as contractors) who couldn't handle the paperwork or the electronics of e-Verify.

For those who cannot take that risk and cannot afford the cost of compliance under IRCA, there are already companies marketing legal employees. Under this system, those companies would need insurance to deal with the cost of a mistake. The market would quickly find the equilibrium between the risk of error, the price of premiums, and the cost of validation. With people posing as illegals to collect a bounty, they'd be wise to do so.

It beats e-Verify, which is effectively asking the Federal government for permission to enter a private contract for work. Mandatory e-Verify is an outrage against Constitutional liberties and a gross usurpation of police powers not enumerated in Article I Section 8. Any conservative advocating it needs to go to Constitutional boot camp 101. It is a power that in the wrong hands could make the abuses of the IRS look like child's play.

The people are our national strength, or should be.