Trump: Give Me a Border Wall or I’ll Deport the Dreamers

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

5 minutes ago, Boiler said:

Obama has gone

Okay, And that realates to this thread how?

[Boiler 45,519]

9 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

 

 

Royalist or Parliamentarian?

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

4 hours ago, spookyturtle said:

Do I read this correctly, he wants to end E-Verify?

I think that is a misprint. Here is what the Idahoan says about Labradors bill:

 

The proposal has three components:

▪  Reform of legal immigration policies: End chain migration, in which immigrants are allowed to bring additional family members into the country, and the diversity visa program, an immigrant visa awarded by lottery. Create an agricultural guest worker program, a measure long sought by Idaho’s agricultural industry. Improve the visa security program, including additional ICE agents at high-risk embassies overseas to ensure thorough vetting of people coming to the U.S.

“Only 13 percent of the people that came into the U.S. came in on merit,” Labrador said. “The rest were chain migration, diversity visa or something else. That is not the proper immigration system for our century.”

 

▪  Border security: Funding for Trump’s border wall. Make other improvements to border security, and further secure U.S. ports of entry. Increase border security personnel and the use of the National Guard.

▪  Interior enforcement: Require all employers to use the federal E-Verify system when hiring workers. (E-Verify lets employers compare workers’ employment eligibility forms with Social Security and other records to make sure the information matches. Idaho requires only state government agencies to use the system, which is free.) Crack down on “sanctuary” cities that refuse to work with federal immigration law enforcement. Reduce asylum fraud, in which applicants lie about being persecuted in their homeland. Criminalize overstaying your visa, and no longer take in unaccompanied minors who cross the border.

 

“Of the people here illegally in the United States, approximately 60 percent entered illegally, so they violated the law when they entered,” Labrador said. “Forty percent of them, and the classic example is the people who attacked us on Sept. 11, they entered legally but they overstayed their visa. This bill would make it a crime to overstay your visa.”

[eieio 1,594]

1 hour ago, Il Mango Dulce said:

I think that is a misprint. Here is what the Idahoan says about Labradors bill:

 

The proposal has three components:

▪  Reform of legal immigration policies: End chain migration, in which immigrants are allowed to bring additional family members into the country, and the diversity visa program, an immigrant visa awarded by lottery. Create an agricultural guest worker program, a measure long sought by Idaho’s agricultural industry. Improve the visa security program, including additional ICE agents at high-risk embassies overseas to ensure thorough vetting of people coming to the U.S.

“Only 13 percent of the people that came into the U.S. came in on merit,” Labrador said. “The rest were chain migration, diversity visa or something else. That is not the proper immigration system for our century.”

 

▪  Border security: Funding for Trump’s border wall. Make other improvements to border security, and further secure U.S. ports of entry. Increase border security personnel and the use of the National Guard.

▪  Interior enforcement: Require all employers to use the federal E-Verify system when hiring workers. (E-Verify lets employers compare workers’ employment eligibility forms with Social Security and other records to make sure the information matches. Idaho requires only state government agencies to use the system, which is free.) Crack down on “sanctuary” cities that refuse to work with federal immigration law enforcement. Reduce asylum fraud, in which applicants lie about being persecuted in their homeland. Criminalize overstaying your visa, and no longer take in unaccompanied minors who cross the border.

 

“Of the people here illegally in the United States, approximately 60 percent entered illegally, so they violated the law when they entered,” Labrador said. “Forty percent of them, and the classic example is the people who attacked us on Sept. 11, they entered legally but they overstayed their visa. This bill would make it a crime to overstay your visa.”

All good policies. Only an anti-American american or an illegal would protest that.

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

1 hour ago, eieio said:

All good policies. Only an anti-American american or an illegal would protest that.

I disagree that elimination of family migration sponsored by immigrants is moral, American, good for the nation or inelligent.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

19 hours ago, NuestraUnion said:

I guess I should have said “help” instead of save. Or give them official status or some kind of path to citizenship.

 

Last I read most don’t even have permanent residency. Unless I am mistaken.

I cannot fathom why anyone would think an illegal alien “deserves” a path to citizenship.  They should be deported, and their home country be made to pay the bill.  Once back home, then they can apply to be a USC (unless they face a timed ban for coming over illegally in the first place; children should be exempted from this ban, IMHO).

 

There has never been a path to citizenship for illegals, minus a couple of grand mistakes made by previous presidents (amnesty).  

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

17 hours ago, yuna628 said:

Foreign spouses.

 

But hey, if we quantified USCs in the same way, there's so many that wouldn't make the cut either...

My foreign spouse is doing just fine here in America.  The product of good ole legal immigration, and all the hoops and dollars it took to get her here.

[yuna628 9,676]

31 minutes ago, IDWAF said:

My foreign spouse is doing just fine here in America.  The product of good ole legal immigration, and all the hoops and dollars it took to get her here.

 

Those making these proposals do not care about your foreign spouse being the product of legal immigration. It's a number and statistic, that they want to cut out.

[-Trinity- 513]

10 hours ago, eieio said:

"Forty percent of them, and the classic example is the people who attacked us on Sept. 11, they entered legally but they overstayed their visa. This bill would make it a crime to overstay your visa.”

What about those who overstayed their visa and then got married to a USC? Are they part of this 40%?

 

Why does this number never change? Years ago I heard about this 40%,  one would think it would increase or decrease over time. Is that even statically possible?

Edited December 31, 2017 by -Trinity-

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

26 minutes ago, -Trinity- said:

What about those who overstayed their visa and then got married to a USC? Are they part of this 40%?

 

Why does this number never change? Years ago I heard about this 40%,  one would think it would increase or decrease over time. Is that even statically possible?

That is an excellent question, will this bill do away with the adjustment of status option or are you a potential felon while you are waiting? 

There was no discussion about legal migration before the election and now it has turned to the truth, all immigration is the target.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

2 minutes ago, Il Mango Dulce said:

That is an excellent question, will this bill do away with the adjustment of status option or are you a potential felon while you are waiting? 

There was no discussion about legal migration before the election and now it has turned to the truth, all immigration is the target.

Being out of status does not make one a felon automatically.  As long as you have followed the process correctly, out of status is no biggie.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

1 hour ago, yuna628 said:

 

Those making these proposals do not care about your foreign spouse being the product of legal immigration. It's a number and statistic, that they want to cut out.

Those making the proposals are not seeking to lower the number of legal immigrations per year, I'm sure.  Just make sure those that move forward ARE legal.

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

Just now, IDWAF said:

Being out of status does not make one a felon automatically.  As long as you have followed the process correctly, out of status is no biggie.

Agreed. The question is what provision will be in the new bill to protect AOS and unintentional overstays?

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

1 minute ago, IDWAF said:

Those making the proposals are not seeking to lower the number of legal immigrations per year, I'm sure.  Just make sure those that move forward ARE legal.

 Based on what Bannon has been promoting for years, legal migration is the real target.

[-Trinity- 513]

10 minutes ago, IDWAF said:

Being out of status does not make one a felon automatically.  As long as you have followed the process correctly, out of status is no biggie.

I don't agree, it's a slippery slope imho.

 

53 minutes ago, -Trinity- said:

This bill would make it a crime to overstay your visa.”

It doesn't mention anything about exemptions for people who follow the rules afterwards when they marry a USC.

 

And how much of that 40% are people who overstayed their visa but are in the AOS process? Does anyone know?

Edited December 31, 2017 by -Trinity-