Immigrant Children Taken From Familes

[RiverDog]

What's different is that you actually hear from Trump more than any other president in history. He's unfiltered. If you only knew the gaffs that other POTUS' have made but made in their staff huddles you'd wonder how they ever became president. This is why Reagan could be gotten with unexpected questions. The expected ones had been run through, watered down, poll tested, etc. before you ever heard it. With Trump, you know what he thinks when he thinks it. Many of us have been asking for this kind of openess for a long time. Of course Obama promised it, (another lie that is conveniently glossed over and no one ever fact checked) but never delivered. In fact, he was the most underhanded coniving president in my memory.

That's one of the differences, ie that he's unfiltered. The other difference is that he opens his cake hole much more often than other POTUS's. The man like to hear himself talk. My dad, who had a saying for everything, had one that applies directly to DJT: "Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt."

But Trump's misstatements aren't your garden variety gaffes that were a result of not having command of the facts, like Reagan mispronouncing the name of the President of Tanzania or something, or Freudian slips, like Eisenhower saying that if you gave him a couple of weeks that he might think of something his VP did. Trump makes up stuff, ie pulls chit out of his arse, ie like the California wildfires or the Dems funding the migrant caravan. I don't know of any POTUS that came up with such outlandish and laughable statements, the closest being Ford's "Poland isn't under Soviet domination". And, of course, there's a difference in quantity. Trump sticks his foot in his mouth daily.

[idhawkman]

While I agree that it's probably unconstitutional, he can, indeed, change it by Presidential decree at least until the court has ruled on it, although I would suspect that it would be immediately challenged and opponents could obtain a stay similar to what happened with his travel ban. It's a shrewd political move as It will keep the issue in the headlines and his base motivated.

I don't think they want this issue to go to the Supreme court as Trump has very successful lawyers that have won all of their cases in front of the SCOTUS. Additionally, Trump won the travel issue with the SCOTUS already and would probably win this one too. Remember, SCOTUS is not what it was just 6 months ago, but now it is constitutionalist and not constructionalist.

The best solution all around is for CONGRESS TO GET OFF THEIR A$$ and DO THEIR JOB!!!

[idhawkman]

It would *certainly* be deemed unconstitutional- it should be amended in some fashion IMO, but there's no wiggle room in the language of the 14A.

[edit: I guess the "subject to the jurisdiction thererof" part should be considered wiggle room, but I think past jurisprudence says no?]

I'm not sure it has been challenged in this way before so jurisprudence may not enter into it. Again, the court has changed drastically and this might be the first case that we actually see what it has become.

I don't think there's any chance to ammend the ammendment. No way will they get enough states and so forth to approve a constitutional ammendment these days.

[idhawkman]

That's one of the differences, ie that he's unfiltered. The other difference is that he opens his cake hole much more often than other POTUS's. The man like to hear himself talk. My dad, who had a saying for everything, had one that applies directly to DJT: "Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt."

But Trump's misstatements aren't your garden variety gaffes that were a result of not having command of the facts, like Reagan mispronouncing the name of the President of Tanzania or something, or Freudian slips, like Eisenhower saying that if you gave him a couple of weeks that he might think of something his VP did. Trump makes up stuff, ie pulls chit out of his arse, ie like the California wildfires or the Dems funding the migrant caravan. I don't know of any POTUS that came up with such outlandish and laughable statements, the closest being Ford's "Poland isn't under Soviet domination". And, of course, there's a difference in quantity. Trump sticks his foot in his mouth daily.

River, I think you might want to sit back and wait out this president's comments a bit. E.g. The Obama administration was wiretapping me. How many people thought that was reckless and outlandish that he would say something like that, just to have it turn out to be true. You simply don't have access to the stuff he has access to.

You say he is so bad because he says no one else has birth rights when in actuality, it is us and Canada as the only two developed nations that have it. I understand to you that is a "BIG LIE" but to me it is not far from the truth since undeveloped nations rarely have people clamoring to get in them. E.g. Mexico has Birth Rights but who goes to Mexico as a tourist or illegally to have a baby so that they are Mexican citizens. Effectively we are about the only nation that offers birth rights because no one is going to Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Barbados, Belize, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Columbia, Dominica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Fiji, Grenada, Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras, Jamaica, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Trinidad and Tobago, Uruguay or Venezuela. In addition to these countries, Canada and U.S. are the only ones who offer birth right citizenship per the article in the link. https://www.numbersusa.com/content/learn/issues/birthright-citizenship/nations-granting-birthright-citizenship.html

[RiverDog]

I don't think they want this issue to go to the Supreme court as Trump has very successful lawyers that have won all of their cases in front of the SCOTUS. Additionally, Trump won the travel issue with the SCOTUS already and would probably win this one too. Remember, SCOTUS is not what it was just 6 months ago, but now it is constitutionalist and not constructionalist.

The best solution all around is for CONGRESS TO GET OFF THEIR A$$ and DO THEIR JOB!!!

This is different than the travel ban. There is explicit language in the 14th Amendment that would prohibit any decree that Trump would issue. A strict Constitutionalist would not be able to reconcile any law or decree that would deny citizenship to people born in the United States or its territories/jurisdictions. The only solution is a Constitutional amendment.

I don't like it any better than you do, but no self respecting justice can change or interpret the wording that exists in sec. 1 of the 14th to mean something other than "..born in the United States...". If they did, then no Amendment would be safe and a dangerous precedent would be set. All Trump is doing is throwing out a red herring for his followers to gobble up. It's not a practical means of addressing the immigration issue.

But I do agree with you that a Constitutional amendment is not going to work in this day and age no matter what the subject is. It wouldn't even make it out of Congress.

[RiverDog]

River, I think you might want to sit back and wait out this president's comments a bit. E.g. The Obama administration was wiretapping me. How many people thought that was reckless and outlandish that he would say something like that, just to have it turn out to be true. You simply don't have access to the stuff he has access to.

Oh, come on, man! Diversions of water into the Pacific Ocean to the degree where it would hamper firefighting efforts would be large enough that you could probably see it from the surface of the moon...er ok, low Earth orbit. Or how about the 3 to 5 million illegal votes he claims caused him to lose the popular vote? Do you think that would be so easy for Obama and Hillary to cover up? That's weak, my friend!

You say he is so bad because he says no one else has birth rights when in actuality, it is us and Canada as the only two developed nations that have it. I understand to you that is a "BIG LIE" but to me it is not far from the truth since undeveloped nations rarely have people clamoring to get in them.

You can spin it all you want, but what he said was false, plain and simple. He's over dramatizing his remarks for the consumption of his followers, and it's not the first time he's done it and it won't be the last.

If you're going to continue to defend Trump's lying like you have been, you might as well come up with an excuse for Elizabeth Warren's lying about her ancestry and remain consistent.

[idhawkman]

This is different than the travel ban. There is explicit language in the 14th Amendment that would prohibit any decree that Trump would issue. A strict Constitutionalist would not be able to reconcile any law or decree that would deny citizenship to people born in the United States or its territories/jurisdictions. The only solution is a Constitutional amendment.

Sorry River, but you are just wrong on this. The fourteenth amendment doesn't say anyone born in the US is a US citizen. It has a second part to it and that is what TRUMP would enforce with a presidential order. No US documents for those who are NOT under US jurisdiction. So yes, it can be done by him alone.

I don't like it any better than you do, but no self respecting justice can change or interpret the wording that exists in sec. 1 of the 14th to mean something other than "..born in the United States...". If they did, then no Amendment would be safe and a dangerous precedent would be set. All Trump is doing is throwing out a red herring for his followers to gobble up. It's not a practical means of addressing the immigration issue.

But I do agree with you that a Constitutional amendment is not going to work in this day and age no matter what the subject is. It wouldn't even make it out of Congress.

Here's the quote from the 14th amendment:

Amendment XIV
Section 1.
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. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The key word in the above is "AND". Illegal aliens and tourists are NOT subject to the jurisdiciton of the U.S. They are subject to THEIR country's jurisdiction. This is why the president can and will wipe out the birth right for illegal aliens and tourists if Congress doesn't get off their butt and do THEIR JOBS!

[idhawkman]

Oh, come on, man! Diversions of water into the Pacific Ocean to the degree where it would hamper firefighting efforts would be large enough that you could probably see it from the surface of the moon...er ok, low Earth orbit. Or how about the 3 to 5 million illegal votes he claims caused him to lose the popular vote? Do you think that would be so easy for Obama and Hillary to cover up? That's weak, my friend!

Actually I do think they've been large numbers voting illegally. I watch the Californian's who have come to Idaho and try to vote. I see the constant news articles about college kids registering illegals and then filling out their ballots for them and submitting them without the person seeing the ballot. I see how many dead people vote every year. I see the early voters voting again on election day. You don't see too many of the stories in the MSM but they are there and they are being prosecuted and to the full extent of the law now. It will only take one big story to finally get out to stop all the shenanigans that have been going on.

You can spin it all you want, but what he said was false, plain and simple. He's over dramatizing his remarks for the consumption of his followers, and it's not the first time he's done it and it won't be the last.

If you're going to continue to defend Trump's lying like you have been, you might as well come up with an excuse for Elizabeth Warren's lying about her ancestry and remain consistent.

Oh wow! Again, being effectively the ONLY country that actually uses the birth right in the world and stating we are the only ones that do it is easily understood. Saying you are native american to get a job you otherwise would never get is a whole different thing.

By the way, do you like your doctor and your health care?

[burrrton]

I don't think there's any chance to ammend the ammendment. No way will they get enough states and so forth to approve a constitutional ammendment these days.

Hm. I'm not so sure this couldn't make it through a Constitutional Convention- I guess there's a partisan split, but I'm not convinced it's as ensconced as partisans think, and the argument against it is pretty persuasive.

Oh well- the COTUS is supposed to be hard to amend, requiring wide acceptance. If this seemingly reasonable restriction doesn't get it, we'll all live.

[Aseahawkfan]

The key word in the above is "AND". Illegal aliens and tourists are NOT subject to the jurisdiciton of the U.S. They are subject to THEIR country's jurisdiction. This is why the president can and will wipe out the birth right for illegal aliens and tourists if Congress doesn't get off their butt and do THEIR JOBS!

Are you being serious? It's hard to imagine you would be this ignorant. You know what jurisdiction means right? Anyonehere is under our jurisdiction. Even if they have diplomatic exemptions, they are still given exemption using our legal terms. We don't apply Canadian laws to Canadians while they're in the United States or Mexican Law to Mexicans. If you're born on American soil, you're subject to United States jurisdiction. No one is subject to THEIR country's jurisdiction when in the United States.

I'll bet you money right now that any presidential order trying to over-ride a Constitutional Amendment isn't going to stand for a damn second. The 14th Amendment is clearly written as is United States jurisdiction. This isn't even a debate. This would be you handing us all money if we were betting.

[Aseahawkfan]

I don't think they want this issue to go to the Supreme court as Trump has very successful lawyers that have won all of their cases in front of the SCOTUS. Additionally, Trump won the travel issue with the SCOTUS already and would probably win this one too. Remember, SCOTUS is not what it was just 6 months ago, but now it is constitutionalist and not constructionalist.

The best solution all around is for CONGRESS TO GET OFF THEIR A$$ and DO THEIR JOB!!!

How many cases has Trump won either than the Travel Ban? A travel ban Obama used as well. A useless travel ban not including Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, or other dangerous nations. Why do you consider the travel ban as anything other than a BS attempt to appease people that don't know better who our enemies in the Middle East are? All I saw was Iran and some poor Muslim countries that Saudi Arabia is funding extremist violence in. Why wasn't Saudi Arabia on the travel ban list? I thought Trump was a tough guy looking to help the nation? Why not include one of our worst enemies on the list whose citizens caused 9/11? Where was Saudi Arabia on the president's list?

You may have forgotten where the architects of 9/11 came from to support a scumbag, lying president, but some of us folks that want real change and improvement in the nation have not.

[Aseahawkfan]

It would *certainly* be deemed unconstitutional- it should be amended in some fashion IMO, but there's no wiggle room in the language of the 14A.

[edit: I guess the "subject to the jurisdiction thererof" part should be considered wiggle room, but I think past jurisprudence says no?]

Jurisdiction is pretty clear. You're in the United States, you are subject to our laws. Just like any nation. As an American I can't travel to China or England and be like, "It's legal in America baby, screw you." The English and Chinese authorities would hall my ass in. I haven't found a single definition of jurisdiction that did not include "legal power within a given a area." In this case U.S. soil.

My mother dealt with anchor babies all the time living in El Paso, TX. Texas is about as conservative a state as you can get, especially when it comes to immigration. Even many of the Latin folk in Texas don't like illegal immigration. You can't get around that 14th Amendment. An executive order won't stand up either. If Trump wants to change the 14th Amendment, he'll have to do it the hard way.

I wouldn't mind some modification myself. Just where do we set the new standard. One parent, both parents, on American soil. We'll see what he comes up with. This anchor baby thing needs to be dealt with.

[RiverDog]

Hm. I'm not so sure this couldn't make it through a Constitutional Convention- I guess there's a partisan split, but I'm not convinced it's as ensconced as partisans think, and the argument against it is pretty persuasive.

Oh well- the COTUS is supposed to be hard to amend, requiring wide acceptance. If this seemingly reasonable restriction doesn't get it, we'll all live.

I'm not being sarcastic, but do you understand what a Constitutional Convention is? It means throwing out the entire Constitution and re-writing it. The only way that happens if there is a revolution and the government is overthrown. Are you sure that you didn't mean something else?

But I agree with your last sentence. Our forefathers were very wise in that they made it an extremely high bar to clear in order to amend the Constitution. The document would have never survived this long if it had been by simple majority and/or one legislative body or branch of government.

It's too bad that they wrote the 14th so broadly to address a specific situation, and all because they had to do something to negate a bad SCOTUS decision, Dred Scott. The 14th amendment sucks, but we're just going to have to live with it.

[RiverDog]

Jurisdiction is pretty clear. You're in the United States, you are subject to our laws. Just like any nation. As an American I can't travel to China or England and be like, "It's legal in America baby, screw you." The English and Chinese authorities would hall my ass in. I haven't found a single definition of jurisdiction that did not include "legal power within a given a area." In this case U.S. soil.

My mother dealt with anchor babies all the time living in El Paso, TX. Texas is about as conservative a state as you can get, especially when it comes to immigration. Even many of the Latin folk in Texas don't like illegal immigration. You can't get around that 14th Amendment. An executive order won't stand up either. If Trump wants to change the 14th Amendment, he'll have to do it the hard way.

I wouldn't mind some modification myself. Just where do we set the new standard. One parent, both parents, on American soil. We'll see what he comes up with. This anchor baby thing needs to be dealt with.

I would be all for an amendment to the Constitution that would revise the 14th amendment, but it would require not only 2/3's of both houses of Congress, but 2/3's of the state legislatures as well. As divided as the country is today, I doubt that you could pass a Constitutional amendment that would abolish the common cold.

[idhawkman]

How many cases has Trump won either than the Travel Ban? A travel ban Obama used as well. A useless travel ban not including Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, or other dangerous nations. Why do you consider the travel ban as anything other than a BS attempt to appease people that don't know better who our enemies in the Middle East are? All I saw was Iran and some poor Muslim countries that Saudi Arabia is funding extremist violence in. Why wasn't Saudi Arabia on the travel ban list? I thought Trump was a tough guy looking to help the nation? Why not include one of our worst enemies on the list whose citizens caused 9/11? Where was Saudi Arabia on the president's list?

You may have forgotten where the architects of 9/11 came from to support a scumbag, lying president, but some of us folks that want real change and improvement in the nation have not.

Sorry, but I think your last two posts came across like Charlie Brown's comments in school to the teacher. Mwomp, mwomp womp, mwomp womp. Sounds pretty close to the inane stuff you just posted to me.

[Aseahawkfan]

Sorry, but I think your last two posts came across like Charlie Brown's comments in school to the teacher. Mwomp, mwomp womp, mwomp womp. Sounds pretty close to the inane stuff you just posted to me.

I've asked you a pretty clear question. Explain to me why your "drain the swamp" president didn't have Saudi Arabia on the travel ban list if he was really looking to protect area? No answer "conservative"? No answer "Republican" who wants to make the nation better? I have listed indisputable evidence showing Saudi Arabia is clearly dangerous to America in a far worse way than either Iraq or Afghanistan ever were, yet neither Republican or Democrat does anything against them. You're juts another fake "conservative" and "Republican" making excuses for another scumbag politician you think is making anything better. If you're hearing Charlie Brown, it's because you don't really care about making the nation better. Your sole interest is supporting a scumbag president that is just another part of the swamp.

As long as we've been on these forums, if you or I aren't dead, I'll make sure to make it clear to you with evidence how wrong you have been and will continue to be. Until this nation targets its real enemies like Saudi Arabia and the many other billions of dollars they send to nations that don't have our best interests in mind, then not much will improve. Threatening to remove aid from broken nations like El Salvador and Honduras who aren't the slightest real threat to us means about jack squat, while we're still sending weapons and support to scumbag nations like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. You have some excuses to present for this aid to those nations?

You're a fake. Pretty simple to understand what I'm saying to you, as fake as your president. And I'll make it clear that at the end of this, the country won't be better. In fact, we'll be deeper in debt, still threatened by immigration, and still mired in problem some crass billionaire Twittering like a teenage girl won't solve. Trump's a Chump. And you're a Chump Supporter. "Make America Gullible Again" is the slogan that fits what you and your chosen president is doing. You're one of those gullible enough to fall for this trash show.

[Aseahawkfan]

I would be all for an amendment to the Constitution that would revise the 14th amendment, but it would require not only 2/3's of both houses of Congress, but 2/3's of the state legislatures as well. As divided as the country is today, I doubt that you could pass a Constitutional amendment that would abolish the common cold.

I doubt it will happen too. To be honest, I don't mind immigration as much as others. I'm tired of it not being tied to economic growth, but immigrants don't bother and scare me like they do Idhawkman. Most immigrants are just happy to be in an improved nation. It takes them time to learn the culture, but once they learn it they usually prefer the relaxed culture of America and adapt to it. I have some very specific concerns with certain cultures, mostly Islamic cultural ideas concerning religious freedom, apostasy, gender discrimination, and there view of science. Then again a lot of this is often due to the extremely oppressive and poor education systems in Muslim nations. That is usually adjusted once young Muslim kids are raised and educated in America after a generation. I would say my other concern is socialist belief taught in so many other nations and the lack of their ability to reason that socialism and their lack of success tend to go hand in hand. Socialist government aren't productive enough to keep productive growth high enough to maintain employment. Keeping people productively employed, able to purchase the basic necessities including property, and education are the keys to national stability. Socialism is bad at most of those things due to its inability to adapt. So many nations teach socialism it's scary to have them here.

[RiverDog]

To be honest, I don't mind immigration as much as others. I'm tired of it not being tied to economic growth, but immigrants don't bother and scare me like they do Idhawkman. Most immigrants are just happy to be in an improved nation. It takes them time to learn the culture, but once they learn it they usually prefer the relaxed culture of America and adapt to it. I have some very specific concerns with certain cultures, mostly Islamic cultural ideas concerning religious freedom, apostasy, gender discrimination, and there view of science. Then again a lot of this is often due to the extremely oppressive and poor education systems in Muslim nations. That is usually adjusted once young Muslim kids are raised and educated in America after a generation. I would say my other concern is socialist belief taught in so many other nations and the lack of their ability to reason that socialism and their lack of success tend to go hand in hand. Socialist government aren't productive enough to keep productive growth high enough to maintain employment. Keeping people productively employed, able to purchase the basic necessities including property, and education are the keys to national stability. Socialism is bad at most of those things due to its inability to adapt. So many nations teach socialism it's scary to have them here.

I'm not bothered by it, either, to the contrary, I've come to embrace it. I've spent 40 years working with immigrants, and not just from Mexico or central America, but from Asia, eastern Europe, the Middle East, and Africa. When I retired, over 70% of my crew was not born in this country and had learned English as a 2nd language. I would take them over a crew of 100% native born Americans every day of the week and twice on Sundays as they had a much better work ethic and were less likely to cause trouble. I saw a whole lot of inspiring success stories, had several who's kids became doctors, one that had a kid that ended up working for the CIA, and so on. Admittedly I'm seeing the cream of the crop of those being admitted, but the fact is that immigrants commit crimes at a lower rate than does the rest of the population, and with an unemployment rate at near historic lows, there isn't a good economic argument for closing off the borders. To the contrary, since immigrants are more likely to be younger than the average age of other workers and thus do not have as many health care costs, they contribute more in terms of insurance and SS/Medicare premiums than they take out vs. the rest of the work force.

I'm all for enhanced border security, rooting out illegal immigrants, ending "chain" migration by judging each applicant separately rather than simply because they have family in the country, subjecting applicants to a rigorous vetting process, even advocate raising the bar and give preference to those that speak English and have advance education and/or job skills. But Trump not only wants to clamp down on illegal immigration, he wants to cut legal immigration in half, of which he has not made his case for, either economically or based on security/crime. And as I said, although I accept it for what it is, I'm against the provisions stated in 14A.

There's an interesting phenomena that happens during football season. On "Blue Friday", even those that don't know a single thing about football will buy Seahawk jerseys so they can wear something Seahawk as they want just to be part of the group, be regular Americans. One day, knowing of my passion for Seahawks football and being advised of my travel plans, on my last day of work before I headed out for a Seahawk road trip, half the crew wore their Seahawk stuff to send me off. I've taken several of my fellow workers to Seattle to see their first ever American football game. It's really fun to see their eyes light up, like a little kid on Christmas morning. And it's a two way street: I've learned one heck of a lot from my foreign born friends, and I'm a better person because of it.

Some people do not have an understanding of how this country was built. If we did everything that Trump wants to do in immigration reform, we might as well disassemble the Statute of Liberty and ship it back to France.

[burrrton]

Explain to me why your "drain the swamp" president didn't have Saudi Arabia on the travel ban list if he was really looking to protect area?

I'm not defending or condemning the "travel ban", but it was (a) because he didn't come up with the list- he was going on the previous administration's judgment- and (b) because Saudi Arabia has a functioning government able to, at least ostensibly, properly vet people coming here.

Also, considering the over-the-top demagoguery and resistance it got as it was, I'm guessing *expanding* its scope wasn't realistic.

[idhawkman]

I've asked you a pretty clear question. Explain to me why your "drain the swamp" president didn't have Saudi Arabia on the travel ban list if he was really looking to protect area? No answer "conservative"? No answer "Republican" who wants to make the nation better? I have listed indisputable evidence showing Saudi Arabia is clearly dangerous to America in a far worse way than either Iraq or Afghanistan ever were, yet neither Republican or Democrat does anything against them. You're juts another fake "conservative" and "Republican" making excuses for another scumbag politician you think is making anything better. If you're hearing Charlie Brown, it's because you don't really care about making the nation better. Your sole interest is supporting a scumbag president that is just another part of the swamp.

Ok, so you are serious. I will seriously answer your question the same way it was answered multiple times back when the travel ban was issued.

1. The travel ban was put in place for countries that had no way to vet the refugee or coroborrate the identy of the person. Saudi Arabia has that ability and has databases of its people, who they are, where they come from, arrest records, etc. So once again, the ban was not against "ALL" muslims or "All" people of a nation. It was about not being able to verify who they were, where they came from or what their intentions are.

Don't conflate the laxidasical processes and systems that were put in place with 8 years of Clinton with what Trump did. The Titanic didn't turn on a dime and although you want everything Muslim banned especially if it is from S.A. within 10 minutes of the President taking office it simply doesn't work that way in Govt.

2. Banning everyone from Saudi Arabia would be racist since they CAN give background on the people wanting to visit or immigrate here. That doesn't guarantee they won't be harmful to our nation but it does make the odds much better in our favor.

3. So you call the President a "scumbag" - what exactly makes him a scumbag in YOUR view?

As long as we've been on these forums, if you or I aren't dead, I'll make sure to make it clear to you with evidence how wrong you have been and will continue to be. Until this nation targets its real enemies like Saudi Arabia and the many other billions of dollars they send to nations that don't have our best interests in mind, then not much will improve. Threatening to remove aid from broken nations like El Salvador and Honduras who aren't the slightest real threat to us means about jack squat, while we're still sending weapons and support to scumbag nations like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. You have some excuses to present for this aid to those nations?

You might want to go back re-read your post and see how insane it is. NO Nation has our best interest at heart (PERIOD). They have THEIR best interest at heart.

Exactly what is your list of our "Real Enemies?" If you don't think El Salvador and Honduras is a real threat to our economy, citizens and culture then you are not as smart as I thought about financial and other political issues.

Not that I agree with all the nations we arm but what I do know is that by arming many nations including Saudi Arabia we ended the Cold War without huge losses to Americans, infrastructure and property. This is a quick overview of how arming Saudi Arabia ended the cold war.

The only export the USSR had left at the end of the Reagan administration's arms race was their export of arms to East Bloc countries including Iraq. When the western military and arms from Saudi Arabia and the U.S. along with the French and Brits, etc ran through Sadam's army and armament like crap through a goose, it bankrupted the USSR economy. They had no other exports of real value to sell and buy critical staples for their population. We will never know what a conventional or Guerrila war on US soil would have looked like but that is because we (as you would have us all believe) dance with the devil every now and then. I think we both agree that "the enemy of my enemy" is not always my friend but when considering the lesser of two evils you make the best decision for your citizens.

You're a fake. Pretty simple to understand what I'm saying to you, as fake as your president. And I'll make it clear that at the end of this, the country won't be better. In fact, we'll be deeper in debt, still threatened by immigration, and still mired in problem some crass billionaire Twittering like a teenage girl won't solve. Trump's a Chump. And you're a Chump Supporter. "Make America Gullible Again" is the slogan that fits what you and your chosen president is doing. You're one of those gullible enough to fall for this trash show.

So I'm a fake in your opinion - doesn't really mean anything to me since you obviously have no clue about diplomatic relations and how the world works. Your ad hominem attacks against me and Trump has shown your true colors. If we are "deeper" in debt than what Obama put us and we are still mired in immigration and other issues it will only be because your liberal candidates won back the house and are resisting what works.

You may need some salve to put on your butt hurt.

[idhawkman]

I'm all for enhanced border security, rooting out illegal immigrants, ending "chain" migration by judging each applicant separately rather than simply because they have family in the country, subjecting applicants to a rigorous vetting process, even advocate raising the bar and give preference to those that speak English and have advance education and/or job skills. But Trump not only wants to clamp down on illegal immigration, he wants to cut legal immigration in half, of which he has not made his case for, either economically or based on security/crime. And as I said, although I accept it for what it is, I'm against the provisions stated in 14A.

If you don't know why he wanted to cut legal immigration in half then you haven't been listening. That said, his approach is very business savvy. The entire 8 years I worked at AT&T we had a RIF (Reduction in Force) every quarter. Why? Because the company had no idea how bloated it had become with the purchase of a cable company and a cell company to go along with their residential and business services and that was before they ever addressed the international pieces of their business. So every quarter, they would let go 2-5% of their work force (it was bigger numbers in the early years). When a division started losing business or customer SAT numbers, they would reallocate someone from another part of the company to bolster that division and get their numbers back. Toward the end, RIFs were happening every 6 to 12 months instead of quarterly.

So its not hard to figure out especially if you listen to what Trump has actually stated, what he is doing. Reduce immigration until you have a good understanding on what levels are needed and supportable. Right now some estimates have 33 Million illegal aliens working in the US. If Congress ever gets to doing their jobs, they would solve the DACA problem, weed out the problem people and stop the under the counter paying of undocumenteds. This would have a drastic effect on numerous areas of the problems we have.

1. REal wages will start going up again when there is a balance between available work and willing legal workers

2. Willing legal workers would add revenue to the government funds and reduce the burden on the legal citizens who are paying the whole bill.

3. Reduce the demand for more infrastructure of schools, hospitals, roads, etc.

4. Full employment will reduce the burden on social programs such as food stamps, section 8 housing, WIC, etc.

There's much much more but you get the idea. None of the above benefits is possible until you stop the leaking in the bucket with illegals working for slave wages, inflating the unemployment numbers, social progam numbers, etc. Step one - stop the leaks e.g. stop the illegals. Step 2 determine what is then really needed. Step 3 open the legal immigration levels to meet the demand. Its almost as easy as paint by numbers.

Some people do not have an understanding of how this country was built. If we did everything that Trump wants to do in immigration reform, we might as well disassemble the Statute of Liberty and ship it back to France.

You might be surprised how this country was built. Do you even know how long people would be held at Ellis Island and who had to pay for their return if not accepted into the US? Do you know how many people changed their last names to look more like Anglo names? You might even be surprised how many people were refused to board a ship in Europe or elsewhere by the look in their eyes. You only hear the parts they want you to hear. These are different times, we don't need a western frontier to be settled anymore.

[RiverDog]

These are different times, we don't need a western frontier to be settled anymore.

So what you are saying is let's start taking down the Statute of Liberty. It's not an accurate representation of what this country stands for anymore.

[idhawkman]

So what you are saying is let's start taking down the Statute of Liberty. It's not an accurate representation of what this country stands for anymore.

Where in the heck did you get that from? What do you think the Statue stands for? I know the engraving is "Give me your weak, you poor, etc" but we have NEVER been that nation. You may have a utopian vision of what this nation is but reality is that we have been brutal about who we let in and who we have kept out. Those that come legally now will tout this as the nation that took them in when they were poor, weak, etc. in 20-50 years but the ones who come illegally or have no skills to offer will not see it that way. Which story do you think will get played up?

[c_hawkbob]

Sorry but that's just not accurate, we absolutely were that nation for most of our history. Not the "we'll shoot you from our side of our wall" nation. You have your own very skewed version of what this nation is and has been.

[RiverDog]

Where in the heck did you get that from? What do you think the Statue stands for? I know the engraving is "Give me your weak, you poor, etc" but we have NEVER been that nation. You may have a utopian vision of what this nation is but reality is that we have been brutal about who we let in and who we have kept out. Those that come legally now will tout this as the nation that took them in when they were poor, weak, etc. in 20-50 years but the ones who come illegally or have no skills to offer will not see it that way. Which story do you think will get played up?

I'm stunned that you would question "where in the heck I got that from." I thought that all Americans, even those that are indigent or illiterate, understood the intended meaning of the Statute of Liberty. It may not always ring true, but the message is clear and unambiguous. From the National Park Service website:

Between 1886 and 1924, almost 14 million immigrants entered the United States through New York. The Statue of Liberty was a reassuring sign that they had arrived in the land of their dreams. To these anxious newcomers, the Statue's uplifted torch did not suggest "enlightenment," as her creators intended, but rather, "welcome." Over time, Liberty emerged as the "Mother of Exiles," a symbol of hope to generations of immigrants.

The opening of the immigrant processing station at Ellis Island in 1892 in the shadow of the Statue of Liberty facilitated an immigrant association, as did the later popularity of Emma Lazarus's poem, "The New Colossus." In 1883, Lazarus donated her poem, "The New Colossus," to an auction raising funds for the construction of the Statue's pedestal. This poem vividly depicted the Statue of Liberty as offering refuge to new immigrants from the miseries of Europe. The poem received little attention at the time, but in 1903 was engraved on a bronze plaque and affixed to the base of the Statue.

War tensions in the twentieth century reinforced this connection and further advanced the image of the Statue in the harbor as an emblem of the United States as a refuge for the poor and persecuted of Europe, and as a place of unlimited opportunity. Sometimes this image glossed over the very real drawbacks and difficulties of settling in the United States, but it was a romantic view that was dominant for decades and continues to persist. In addition to masking immigrant setbacks in the United States, it was a story that tended to favor the European side of immigration at the expense of trials encountered by newcomers from Latin America and Asia.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt's 1936 speech in honor of the Statue's 50th Anniversary helped solidify the transformation of the Statue into an icon of immigration. In the speech he presented immigration as a central part of the nation's past and emphasized the newcomers' capacity for Americanization.


https://www.nps.gov/stli/learn/historyc ... statue.htm

But on second thought, I guess if you're able to rationalize your view of the 14th Amendment, altering the message the Statute of Liberty conveys is no problem.

[idhawkman]

Sorry but that's just not accurate, we absolutely were that nation for most of our history. Not the "we'll shoot you from our side of our wall" nation. You have your own very skewed version of what this nation is and has been.

So in your version of history we didn't have the French and Indian war, the war of 1812, Texas didn't fight Mexico (Santa Ana at the Alamo and throughout Texas), we didn't have German and Japanese concentration camps, we didn't refuse admission in the U.S. to anyone who made it to Ellis Island and we didn't stop all immigration from 1921 to 1965. Got it.

[idhawkman]

I'm stunned that you would question "where in the heck I got that from." I thought that all Americans, even those that are indigent or illiterate, understood the intended meaning of the Statute of Liberty. It may not always ring true, but the message is clear and unambiguous. From the National Park Service website:

Between 1886 and 1924, almost 14 million immigrants entered the United States through New York. The Statue of Liberty was a reassuring sign that they had arrived in the land of their dreams. To these anxious newcomers, the Statue's uplifted torch did not suggest "enlightenment," as her creators intended, but rather, "welcome." Over time, Liberty emerged as the "Mother of Exiles," a symbol of hope to generations of immigrants.

The opening of the immigrant processing station at Ellis Island in 1892 in the shadow of the Statue of Liberty facilitated an immigrant association, as did the later popularity of Emma Lazarus's poem, "The New Colossus." In 1883, Lazarus donated her poem, "The New Colossus," to an auction raising funds for the construction of the Statue's pedestal. This poem vividly depicted the Statue of Liberty as offering refuge to new immigrants from the miseries of Europe. The poem received little attention at the time, but in 1903 was engraved on a bronze plaque and affixed to the base of the Statue.

War tensions in the twentieth century reinforced this connection and further advanced the image of the Statue in the harbor as an emblem of the United States as a refuge for the poor and persecuted of Europe, and as a place of unlimited opportunity. Sometimes this image glossed over the very real drawbacks and difficulties of settling in the United States, but it was a romantic view that was dominant for decades and continues to persist. In addition to masking immigrant setbacks in the United States, it was a story that tended to favor the European side of immigration at the expense of trials encountered by newcomers from Latin America and Asia.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt's 1936 speech in honor of the Statue's 50th Anniversary helped solidify the transformation of the Statue into an icon of immigration. In the speech he presented immigration as a central part of the nation's past and emphasized the newcomers' capacity for Americanization.


https://www.nps.gov/stli/learn/historyc ... statue.htm

But on second thought, I guess if you're able to rationalize your view of the 14th Amendment, altering the message the Statute of Liberty conveys is no problem.

I'm stunned you came back with this tripe. You know full well that the 14th ammendment was a result of the decision by the SCOTUS regarding Jim Crowe and that blacks were not legal to vote. The supporting documents by the author of the 14th ammendment specifically eliminated foreigners such as diplomats and even native americans. It was for the Blacks and to prevent the states from denying them full rights as US citizens. Most specifically it was written for "FREED" blacks. But don't let the facts get in the way that the ammendment has been torqued into supporting anything that continues to bolster the permanent lower class so that the democrats always have a base of voters. You may want to look at the history of the 14th amendment around 1965 and the kennedys expanding its meaning to bolster there permanent voter base.

[c_hawkbob]

Sorry but that's just not accurate, we absolutely were that nation for most of our history. Not the "we'll shoot you from our side of our wall" nation. You have your own very skewed version of what this nation is and has been.

So in your version of history we didn't have the French and Indian war, the war of 1812, Texas didn't fight Mexico (Santa Ana at the Alamo and throughout Texas), we didn't have German and Japanese concentration camps, we didn't refuse admission in the U.S. to anyone who made it to Ellis Island and we didn't stop all immigration from 1921 to 1965. Got it.

Th French and Indian War and the War of 1812 were repulsion's of actual armed attacks while we were still solidifying ourselves as a Nation. Texas seceded from Mexico and was not a part of the US until after the Alamo. German and Japanese "concentration camps" were during an actual World War, not some made up "invasion" by peasants carrying babies and water bottles. I can't believe you're buying into this alarmist crap.

[c_hawkbob]

Poor Shep Smith, how'd he get elected to be the lone voice of reason at Fox?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1iVYfOjf2Q

[idhawkman]

Poor Shep Smith, how'd he get elected to be the lone voice of reason at Fox?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1iVYfOjf2Q

Well at least you acknowledge that Fox News is the only news outlet that has both sides of the issue represented.

[c_hawkbob]

Well at least you acknowledge that Fox News is the only news outlet that has both sides of the issue represented.

It's exceedingly representative of the problem that you could take that from what I actually did say.

[idhawkman]

It's exceedingly representative of the problem that you could take that from what I actually did say.

It is what it is. Actually, Neil Cavuto also leans left quite a bit, too. The fun thing is that they all have left and right guests on all their shows and both sides represent their stances. Not something you would see from the other MSMs.

Regarding the country today as opposed to years before, wars are fought differently today than they were decades and centuries ago. Wars evolve, migration trends evolve and so must immigration policies evolve. Immigration must meet the demands of the country that people are migrating to and not bend to the whims of the migrants. Hopefully you can see that if you work hard (which I'm sure you have throughout your life Bob) and build your house, furnish it appropriately to fit your life style, planted and produced a garden and put in the maintenance and work to keep it that way you don't have to allow someone you don't even know into your house just because they like it better than the one they've put their money and work into. By the way, they have relatives that also think your house looks pretty good too.

Please note, they aren't pointing a gun at you. The able bodied people who like your house have nice clothes, seem to be well fed, proudly carry their family crest and want you to adapt to their family values when they move in.

[c_hawkbob]

It's not about left or right, democrat or republican, it's about the truth vs propaganda, critical thinking vs fear mongering. I believe Shep is a conservative, just an honest and intelligent one that doesn't toe the party line. There are conservatives for whom integrity and love of country come before party.

[RiverDog]

You know full well that the 14th ammendment was a result of the decision by the SCOTUS regarding Jim Crowe and that blacks were not legal to vote. The supporting documents by the author of the 14th ammendment specifically eliminated foreigners such as diplomats and even native americans. It was for the Blacks and to prevent the states from denying them full rights as US citizens. Most specifically it was written for "FREED" blacks. But don't let the facts get in the way that the ammendment has been torqued into supporting anything that continues to bolster the permanent lower class so that the democrats always have a base of voters. You may want to look at the history of the 14th amendment around 1965 and the kennedys expanding its meaning to bolster there permanent voter base.

I understand how and why the 14th Amendment was ratified, but thank you for the history lesson.

As I've said earlier, I don't like the 14th any better than you do. IMO it was ill concieved in that they used the amendment process to address a very specific problem. Unlike other amendments, the authors of the 14th did not have the foresight to see how it could be applied in the future and gave us this yoke around our necks that we have to wear until it is repealed or modified via the amendment process, something that is extremely unlikely.

The difference I have with your opinion is that you think that we can simply set it aside and pretend it doesn't exist or try to re-invent it, the exact opposite that any conservative has as his guiding principle regarding judicial discipline, ie that we do not want activist justices on the bench that will re-interepet the Constitution.

The 14th Amendment is what it is. You might as well get used to it and figure out some other way of achieving your ends within its limits.

[burrrton]

The 14th Amendment is what it is. You might as well get used to it and figure out some other way of achieving your ends within its limits.

This. And after some reading, I think it's pretty clear the 'jurisdiction' language was meant to apply to people not subject to our laws (eg. diplomats), not that retained other nationalities.

The 14th isn't going anywhere based on any EO.

[Aseahawkfan]

The 14th Amendment is one of the clearer amendments. Not a lot of wiggle room. It sure could use some updating. That likely won't happen with Trump in office as the Democrats cannot be seen doing anything with Trump even if for the betterment of the nation.

[Aseahawkfan]

I'm not defending or condemning the "travel ban", but it was (a) because he didn't come up with the list- he was going on the previous administration's judgment- and (b) because Saudi Arabia has a functioning government able to, at least ostensibly, properly vet people coming here.

Also, considering the over-the-top demagoguery and resistance it got as it was, I'm guessing *expanding* its scope wasn't realistic.

And Saudi Arabia as you have pointed out to me so many times has major control of oil prices and only accepts payment for oil in U.S. dollars, which helps us remain the reserve currency. So we overlook their scumbaggery for cheap oil.

I'm sure you know that it is nearly impossible to escape our reliance on oil. I sat down and thought about how to escape oil. All these folks thinking they help things with electrical cars and the like. Yet even that doesn't escape oil. I would literally have to give up electricity, cars, rubber, plastics, and just all things associated with modern life to escape oil. There's just no way to do it.

We could get our oil from Russia and Canada, but that would take away our position as the reserve currency. It's too powerful a position to have oil paid for in U.S. dollars. We're literally over a barrel to some real scum due to oil. We sold our values for oil and let a bunch of sleazy oil monarchs and dictators sustain themselves on the oil dollar. The layers upon layers of corruption due to our reliance on oil is so deep that we would all have to become Amish to escape it.

And even I'm not willing to go there to uphold my values. I can see why even the Democrats avoid the discussion. It's a non-starter for a first world nation to create bad blood with your oil dealer.

[RiverDog]

The 14th Amendment is one of the clearer amendments. Not a lot of wiggle room. It sure could use some updating. That likely won't happen with Trump in office as the Democrats cannot be seen doing anything with Trump even if for the betterment of the nation.

The only "updating" that could occur would be via the amendment process, meaning that not only 2/3 of both the House and the Senate, but 2/3 of the states as well.

I agree with you about the prospects of repealing/revising the 14th. The political atmosphere is so toxic nowadays that you couldn't get 2/3's of the politicians, or for that matter the public, to agree on passing an amendment that would ban the common cold.

[RiverDog]

And Saudi Arabia as you have pointed out to me so many times has major control of oil prices and only accepts payment for oil in U.S. dollars, which helps us remain the reserve currency. So we overlook their scumbaggery for cheap oil.

Our dependence on foreign oil has gotten better over the past 15 years or so as we've been able to increase domestic oil production, but it's expensive. Additionally, our allies in western Europe and Japan depend on Saudi Arabia to provide them with oil to support their economies.

I don't like Saudi Arabia, either. Their behavior is abhorent, the assassination of the newspaper reporter (spelling) being the most recent example. It's our support of their regime that causes friction between us and other arabs. But they're a necessary evil.

[Aseahawkfan]

Our dependence on foreign oil has gotten better over the past 15 years or so as we've been able to increase domestic oil production, but it's expensive. Additionally, our allies in western Europe and Japan depend on Saudi Arabia to provide them with oil to support their economies.

I don't like Saudi Arabia, either. Their behavior is abhorent, the assassination of the newspaper reporter (spelling) being the most recent example. It's our support of their regime that causes friction between us and other arabs. But they're a necessary evil.

We need to pursue alternative energy. Tolerating vile behavior for oil is a bad way to live. Saudi Arabians literally committed the worst terrorist attack in American history and we attack Afghanistan and Iraq all because the oil situation prevented us from hammering the real culprit. We have literally allowed Saudi Arabia to murder Americans to sustain our oil power. We even keep nations like Iran in check on behalf of Saudi Arabia even though they have not displayed anywhere the near the danger to us that Saudi Arabia has conducted against us. Iran is funding against us because of our relationship with Saudi Arabia and Israel. It's a very foul relationship all the way around that creates a situation in our nation where we allow our people to be murdered so oil power is maintained. That's the kind of foul relationship that Americans need to change as fast as possible by getting off oil. We'll never be able to support our nation indefinitely drilling our reserves. The only way off oil is alternative energy. Solar, wind, and any other method we can come up with generate the power we need that is sustainable without high levels of pollutants.