POTUS 45.44: "That's Not Law" said Trump

[The Rube]

Re: POTUS 45.44: "That's Not Law" said Trump

It sounds like a reasonable solution. To what problem, I'm not sure.

IMO, it satisfies the the anti-illegal crowd, it keeps the "good" immigrants coming in, and keeps borders open, for the most part, and it doesn't cave to the fear-mongering of collapsing the economy.

 

[Fighting Sioux 23]

Re: POTUS 45.44: "That's Not Law" said Trump

It sounds like a reasonable solution. To what problem, I'm not sure.

That's a fair point. The problem I was trying to address, based on the current system, is that it is way too difficult for good people to immigrate to our country legally. I was also trying to address some of the problems faced by immigrants currently in the country "illegally."

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: POTUS 45.44: "That's Not Law" said Trump

IMO, it satisfies the the anti-illegal crowd

No it doesn't.

 

[The Rube]

Re: POTUS 45.44: "That's Not Law" said Trump

That's a fair point. The problem I was trying to address, based on the current system, is that it is way too difficult for good people to immigrate to our country legally. I was also trying to address some of the problems faced by immigrants currently in the country "illegally."

You're looking for a compromise to satisfy all parties involved, and that is appreciated. A buddy who immigrated from Ireland a couple years ago, and whose status was in limbo when Trump was elected, was worried. Had an American wife, mgr at a chain restaurant, etc...one of the "good" ones. Got his full citizenship a year later, thankfully. He jumped through all the hoops, took all the tests, etc. Very happy for him. Anyone who does that? Yep, welcome to America.

 

[GrinCDXX]

That's a fair point. The problem I was trying to address, based on the current system, is that it is way too difficult for good people to immigrate to our country legally. I was also trying to address some of the problems faced by immigrants currently in the country "illegally."

I'm all for making it easier to immigrate legally. I like the idea of the immigration centers, but the wall is pointless.

 

[The Rube]

Re: POTUS 45.44: "That's Not Law" said Trump

I'm all for making it easier to immigrate legally. I like the idea of the immigration centers, but the wall is pointless.

The Wall is just not feasible. If it WAS feasible (see: E/W Germany) then okay. So, don't sink money into an Oak Island thing.

 

[Fighting Sioux 23]

Re: POTUS 45.44: "That's Not Law" said Trump

I'm all for making it easier to immigrate legally. I like the idea of the immigration centers, but the wall is pointless.

I think there needs to be some mechanism to prevent bad people from getting into the country. I'll admit that a physical wall probably isn't a good idea. However, I do think a wall consisting of a physical wall where feasible/logical coupled with a virtual wall consisting of increased Border Patrol (or other security type options) may be a decent way to prevent bad people from getting into the country. I'm all ears though if people have other suggestions. Again, the wall portion of the proposal was more of a way to satisfy that mechanism to prevent bad people from getting into the country.

 

[GrinCDXX]

I think there needs to be some mechanism to prevent bad people from getting into the country. I'll admit that a physical wall probably isn't a good idea. However, I do think a wall consisting of a physical wall where feasible/logical coupled with a virtual wall consisting of increased Border Patrol (or other security type options) may be a decent way to prevent bad people from getting into the country. I'm all ears though if people have other suggestions. Again, the wall portion of the proposal was more of a way to satisfy that mechanism to prevent bad people from getting into the country.

Again, I would suggest this mechanism to prevent bad people from getting in is a solution in search of a problem until proven otherwise.

 

[The Rube]

Re: POTUS 45.44: "That's Not Law" said Trump

Again, I would suggest this mechanism to prevent bad people from getting in is a solution in search of a problem until proven otherwise.

There is a problem. Sneaking in is illegal. Against the law. Good or bad people, it's still against the law.

 

[alfablue]

As I said in my original post, I don't follow the immigration debate that closely.

Would you not be in favor of a wall (i.e. actual wall where it makes sense/virtual wall of increase Border Patrol otherwise), if it meant that immigrants could come into the country legally through Immigration Centers (similar to Ellis Island)?

No. It would be a collosal waste of money. We’ve not needed so far, why now? A better spend would be on the Central American economy, where we import stuff from there vs Asia.

 

[Fighting Sioux 23]

Re: POTUS 45.44: "That's Not Law" said Trump

Again, I would suggest this mechanism to prevent bad people from getting in is a solution in search of a problem until proven otherwise.

You don't believe that bad people try to enter the country?

Also, in the (highly unlikely) event such a proposal would ever be considered, having such a mechanism would be an absolute requirement. I'm open to what that mechanism actually is, but there would need to be something for such a proposal to have any chance of success.

 

[GrinCDXX]

There is a problem. Sneaking in is illegal. Against the law. Good or bad people, it's still against the law.

So you'd be good if we simply opened the borders? I mean, just as long as they're not breaking the law, right?

 

[GrinCDXX]

You don't believe that bad people try to enter the country?

Also, in the (highly unlikely) event such a proposal would ever be considered, having such a mechanism would be an absolute requirement. I'm open to what that mechanism actually is, but there would need to be something for such a proposal to have any chance of success.

I don't believe it's a particularly significant problem.

 

[Fighting Sioux 23]

Re: POTUS 45.44: "That's Not Law" said Trump

There is a problem. Sneaking in is illegal. Against the law. Good or bad people, it's still against the law.

The "sneaking in" (at least generally speaking) would be eliminated by the Immigration Centers. It would be reasonable to think that if there were Immigration Centers, then only "bad people" would try to sneak in, which would be against the law under the proposal.

 

[Fighting Sioux 23]

Re: POTUS 45.44: "That's Not Law" said Trump

I don't believe it's a particularly significant problem.

Well, then we could align the mechanism with the significance of the problem. To be fair though, we probably wouldn't know the significance of the problem until after the Immigration Centers are in full force.

 

[The Rube]

Re: POTUS 45.44: "That's Not Law" said Trump

So you'd be good if we simply opened the borders? I mean, just as long as they're not breaking the law, right?

If that were the law....

My thing is I want screening for everyone, which we currently have. Just need to tighten the screws. Make sure anyone who wants to become a citizen will be a good citizen.

 

[The Rube]

Re: POTUS 45.44: "That's Not Law" said Trump

The "sneaking in" (at least generally speaking) would be eliminated by the Immigration Centers. It would be reasonable to think that if there were Immigration Centers, then only "bad people" would try to sneak in, which would be against the law under the proposal.

Agreed.

 

[GrinCDXX]

If that were the law....

My thing is I want screening for everyone, which we currently have. Just need to tighten the screws. Make sure anyone who wants to become a citizen will be a good citizen.

And my thing is that I don't want to throw billions of dollars at preventing "bad hombres" from entering the country when there doesn't seem to be a single bit of rational evidence that "bad hombres" are actually a problem worth worrying about.

 

[Fighting Sioux 23]

Re: POTUS 45.44: "That's Not Law" said Trump

And my thing is that I don't want to throw billions of dollars at preventing "bad hombres" from entering the country when there doesn't seem to be a single bit of rational evidence that "bad hombres" are actually a problem worth worrying about.

Again, that's a fair point, but I don't think we would be able to really make such determinations until after the implementation of the Immigration Centers. So, I think the proposal would be modified to: (1) Build Immigration Centers for new immigrants; (2) Current "illegal" immigrants report and get cleared; (3) Determine to what extent people are trying to evade Immigration Centers; (4) Use new tax revenue from former "illegals" and new immigrants to implement appropriate mechanism to address (3).

You on board?

 

[GrinCDXX]

Again, that's a fair point, but I don't think we would be able to really make such determinations until after the implementation of the Immigration Centers. So, I think the proposal would be modified to: (1) Build Immigration Centers for new immigrants; (2) Current "illegal" immigrants report and get cleared; (3) Determine to what extent people are trying to evade Immigration Centers; (4) Use new tax revenue from former "illegals" and new immigrants to implement appropriate mechanism to address (3).

You on board?

Get it done.