Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Trump unveils new strict 70-point immigration enforcement plan
The Washington Times ^ | October 8, 2017 | Stephan Dinan

Posted on 10/08/2017 5:41:17 PM PDT by be-baw

Determined to finally solve illegal immigration, the White House submitted a 70-point enforcement plan to Congress Sunday proposing the stiffest reforms ever offered by an administration — including a massive rewrite of the law in order to eliminate loopholes illegal immigrants have exploited to gain a foothold in the U.S. The plans, seen by The Washington Times, include President Trump’s calls for a border wall, more deportation agents, a crackdown on sanctuary cities and stricter limits to chain migration — all issues the White House says need to be part of any bill Congress passes to legalize illegal immigrant “Dreamers” currently protected by the Obama-era deportation amnesty known as DACA. But the plans break serious new ground on the legal front, giving federal agents more leeway to deny illegal immigrants at the border, to arrest and hold them when they’re spotted in the interior, and to deport them more speedily. The goal, the White House said, is to ensure major changes to border security, interior enforcement and the legal immigration system.

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: dacachart; third100days; trumpdaca; trumpdreamers; trumpillegals; trumpimmigration; trumpimmigrationplan
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-45 next last
To: Windflier

NO AMNESTY FOR ANY ILLEGAL INVADER.

NEVER!!!!


21 posted on 10/08/2017 6:14:49 PM PDT by newfreep ("INSIDE EVERY PROGRESSIVE IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT" @HOROWITZ39, DAVID HOROWITZ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: be-baw

Whatever plan they make to allow a class of illegals to stay, it should also stipulate that citizenship is forever denied. No one who enters illegally should ever be allowed citizenship. And it needs to say so in the law so a future president cannot change it by EO.


22 posted on 10/08/2017 6:17:38 PM PDT by elpadre (AfganistaMr Obama said theoal was to "disrupt, dismantle and defeat al-hereQaeda" and its allies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AlaskaErik
If it doesn’t eliminate American citizenship for anchor babies it doesn’t go far enough.

That would require a Constitutional Amendment.

23 posted on 10/08/2017 6:44:18 PM PDT by sourcery (Non Aquiesco: "I do not consent" (Latin))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Lurker

Sorry, the birthright was written into the constitution after the civil war. Try to get your facts straight. “”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.” (14th Amendment)”


24 posted on 10/08/2017 6:58:38 PM PDT by Uncle Sam 911
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Sam 911

“And subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is the operative phrase. Learn some history.

L


25 posted on 10/08/2017 7:00:57 PM PDT by Lurker (President Trump isn't our last chance. President Trump is THEIR last chance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Sam 911

Not according to Trump.


26 posted on 10/08/2017 7:03:20 PM PDT by TexasGator (Z)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: sourcery
That would require a Constitutional Amendment.

Not really. A simple clarifying bill would be sufficient. The author of the Amendment made his intentions very clear in his writings. It did not include any such construct as "anchor babies".

27 posted on 10/08/2017 7:12:47 PM PDT by ROCKLOBSTER (RATs, RINOs...same thing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Sam 911

You’re entirely incorrect.

The 14th amendment can be clarified by the Congress, read the Amendment.

That includes clarifying the phrase “..and subject to the jurisdiction of...” in determining the nationality of children born to aliens in the United States.

And there have been at least 4 or 5 such bills introduced over the last 27 years none of which went anywhere.

But could now.

And should. No nation lets illegal aliens pick who their citizenry will be, which is what we are allowing when we tacitly allow their children to pretend they are ours.


28 posted on 10/08/2017 7:21:14 PM PDT by Regulator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish
Then shelve the protection for the "dreamers" and start deporting any that cross the law. Start "repairing" sections of the border fence as far as can be gotten away with and enforce the hell out of the border. When you fail you attack again.

Personally I am not horrified at the idea of amnesty for those brought here as children and have never known another country, but legalizing them should come at a very, very high price and it looks like President Trump is asking for that. One additional thing is that the "dreamers" should never have any chain immigration so the parents who commited the crime of coming here and working illegally can never be legalized. If the niños stay, madre and padre get shipped back.

29 posted on 10/08/2017 7:22:53 PM PDT by KarlInOhio (The Whig Party died when it fled the great fight of its century. Ditto for the Republicans now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: KarlInOhio
Then shelve the protection for the "dreamers" and start deporting any that cross the law.

Already done...the last date for re-issue of "dreamer status" expired last week

Meanwhile no new dreamers can be signed up

and many of the existing ones didn't file extension papers by last weeks deadline

Result...DACA winding down


30 posted on 10/08/2017 7:35:22 PM PDT by spokeshave (The Fake Media tried to stop us from going to the White House, I am President and they are not. DJT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: spokeshave
Basically Trump snookered the Dims and the Dreamers
31 posted on 10/08/2017 7:37:20 PM PDT by spokeshave (The Fake Media tried to stop us from going to the White House, I am President and they are not. DJT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: be-baw

>> giving federal agents more leeway to deny illegal immigrants at the border,

??????

What kind of leeway do they have now? They need leeway to keep illegals out?? The job of federal agents should be to 100% keep illegals out. There should never have been any question about this. If you’re a federal agent, your job is to enforce the law. Especially laws protecting the borders and the integrity of the country.


32 posted on 10/08/2017 8:20:33 PM PDT by generally ( Don't be stupid. We have politicians for that.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: be-baw

Just like selling a hotel. You tell them 70 million so you can get the 50 million you really want.

But seriously, there’s a small but growing group of people that realize certain things need to happen if this country is to be saved. Miller, Trump, Bannon and others including a few big donors and their donations are bypassing the rnc.

Oh, and there’s us.


33 posted on 10/08/2017 10:12:35 PM PDT by Pollard (TRUMP 2016)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AlaskaErik
"If it doesn’t eliminate American citizenship for anchor babies it doesn’t go far enough."

That's correct. This may be heading in the correct direction to fixing this illegal "immigration" problem...but the anchor baby thing is a pure bastardization of the original intent of the 14th Amendment, and must be addressed.

34 posted on 10/08/2017 10:14:43 PM PDT by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ROCKLOBSTER

The Supreme Court has ruled otherwise: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark


35 posted on 10/09/2017 6:03:33 AM PDT by sourcery (Non Aquiesco: "I do not consent" (Latin))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: sourcery
The Supreme Court has ruled otherwise:

The courts do not make law.

An important line from the 14th Amendment: "and, subject to the jurisdiction thereof."

Jurisdiction has nothing to do with geography. It refers to political allegiance to the United States of America.

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4: Congress shall have power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.

The Constitution clearly gives Congress that power, and they have used in in the past:

The 14th Amendment excluded American Indians as U.S. Citizens, because they felt that they had an allegiance to their own national tribes. Later, Congress reversed course and legislated, under the 14th Amendment and under Article 1, granting US citizenship to all "Native Americans".

They have that power, and a simple clarifying bill would specifically state the language, and codify an end to the practice of "anchor babies". That's why the President correctly threw the DACA issue back into Congress' face.

36 posted on 10/09/2017 7:07:12 AM PDT by ROCKLOBSTER (RATs, RINOs...same thing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: lodi90
90 per cent get re-elected. That is because the information , what there was of it, was controlled and filtered, and voters only had name recognition to consider.

We have now actual videos, tapes, and utterances as soon as they are made, regarding what a politician does, who to, and how often.

Time will show that past history is no longer the "go to" phrase.

Incumbents are starting to lose, retire, be primary-ed, and otherwise feeling the heat on their backsides.

it is up to the people to keep up the pressure.

37 posted on 10/09/2017 7:15:40 AM PDT by going hot (Happiness is a Momma Deuce)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: ROCKLOBSTER

I agree with you in principle. I agree with your interpretation of the Constitution, and of the 14th Amendment.

But the Federal courts do not. So unless Trump is prepared to ignore the Federal Courts, a Constitutional Amendment is required.


38 posted on 10/09/2017 7:25:37 AM PDT by sourcery (Non Aquiesco: "I do not consent" (Latin))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: be-baw

It will be interesting to see if our bought and paid for Representatives can bring themselves to do anything close to this.

After all can’t disappoint the johns that have paid them all these years.

Ah yes the lets see what comes out of the big brothel on the hill.


39 posted on 10/09/2017 7:31:17 AM PDT by JayAr36 (Just watching the demise of America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sourcery
I agree with your interpretation of the Constitution

It's written in pretty clear English, no interpreters needed.

the Federal courts do not.

Well, they're wrong. They are anti-Constitutional Marxists and should be impeached for that very reason. The same type of left-wing-radical, political-hacks reside in the SCOTUS.

Their fiery Under-Lord Satan needs to call home a couple of Supreme Court "Justices".

40 posted on 10/09/2017 7:43:21 AM PDT by ROCKLOBSTER (RATs, RINOs...same thing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-45 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson