100% Deal or No Deal?

[ChezC3]

If you want 100% amnesty then I am going to want a helluva lot more than a wall.

I wrote it on the fly, but the assumption would be to man the wall and enforce immigration laws...

 

[Casper]

What are some viable options with handling the illegals that are here? Seeing as there are millions of them and we've got state and local elected officials playing the scofflaw, refusing to comply with federal law or aid and assist in apprehension?

Sure:
Cut off any and all social program benefits to any illegal, other than emergency medical care,

No public schooling for their children.

E-verify all potential employees,

Fines, and if those don't work, jail time for those that knowingly hire illegals,

Pre-Vet those applying for a Green Card, and have it automatically renewable for 5 years unless they commit a felony, then jail time and automatic deportation after sentence is completed, reduce the cost and increase the number of cards issued,

More border agents and vehicles, better surveillance systems, and more or new fencing in areas that warrant it such as known crossing points around towns and cities.

Those are a few suggestions, many would self deport if they are here simply for the programs or will comply with the laws to become better assets to this Nation and make their own lives better. Thoughts?

 

[jamesrage]

Let's say it is up to us

The offer on the table is 100% Amnesty for 100% Border Wall funding.

Deal or no deal?

No deal. I support a border wall. But I know that exchanging a border wall for amnesty is a horrible idea.Like post #7 explains you don't give in to the very people who make the wall or other mechanisms necessary in the first place. It's idiotic." If the anti-Americans in office did allow it to be built. Then it would be built in such a way that it would be rendered ineffective. If you are actually against illegal immigration you would have to be a complete ****ing idiot to support such a deal. Because 30 years since the Reagan amnesty has shown that they have no intention of upholding the enforcement end of the deal. They might do a little token enforcement here or there to make it seem as though they are doing their jobs. But thats about it.

 

[Nap]

I wrote it on the fly, but the assumption would be to man the wall and enforce immigration laws...

It isn't so much as enforcing immigration but reforming immigration to a merit based system, ending chain migration and cutting the lottery.

 

[haymarket]

Let's say it is up to us

The offer on the table is 100% Amnesty for 100% Border Wall funding.

Deal or no deal?

I will be more than happy to support 100% border wall funding in return for 100% amnesty for immigrants already here providing the promise of Trump to the nation during the campaign is part of it as Mexico writes the check before any of it is actually built.

 

[OrphanSlug]

Let's say it is up to us

The offer on the table is 100% Amnesty for 100% Border Wall funding.

Deal or no deal?

No deal, neither one solves the issue. Together it probably makes matters worse.

 

[MrWonka]

Let's say it is up to us

The offer on the table is 100% Amnesty for 100% Border Wall funding.

Deal or no deal?

That's a dumb deal. There's no rational purpose for a Wall, and funding it would be a massive waste of taxpayer dollars. If conservatives think we need a wall they should start a gofundme page and solicite contributions from other idiots like themselves. I guarentee you that if Trump builds a wall it will be torn down within 10 years.

There is only one viable solution to this problem and that is to reform our entire immigration policy so that it actually makes sense and reflects reality. If you do that then I guarantee you that a wall will be completely unnecessary. 98% of people crossing that boarder are perfectly good people who mean us no harm, and will provide a benefit to our country. If we had rational immigration policy every single one of them would happily enter the country via official checkpoints, and few if any would be rejected.

Combine that with the legalization of Marijuana and all of a sudden the reasons for anybody to illegally sneak across the border drop to almost nothingness.

 

[Cephus]

I wrote it on the fly, but the assumption would be to man the wall and enforce immigration laws...

You mean the kind of things that were claimed would happen following Reagan's amnesty and never did?

 

[MSgt]

The whole issue of immigration and this absurd wall is grounded in horrible ideological ignorance.

Immigration: Critics in the immigrant-rights community called Obama the "deporter in chief," even as enforcement-first advocates accused Obama of being soft on illegal immigrants. Both based their ideological criticisms on either liberal dreams or political ignorance. The enforcement priorities and policies, which evolved over the years, represented a significant departure from those of the Bush and Clinton administrations. The Obama-era policies represented the culmination of a gradual but consistent effort to practically narrow its enforcement focus to two key groups: The deportation of criminals and recent unauthorized border crossers. The most recent enforcement figures released by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) on December 30, 2017 offer the latest evidence of these trends. Eighty-five percent of all removals and returns during fiscal year (FY) 2016 were of non-citizens who had recently crossed the U.S. border unlawfully. Of the remainder, who were removed from the U.S. interior, more than 90 percent had been convicted of what DHS defines as serious crimes. Obama wasn't called the "Deporter in Chief" for nothing.

Wall: This has been so pathetically politicized over the years that supporters of it can't even argue its legitimacy. It is not about terrorism, because terrorism in America flies in on airplanes or is homegrown. It is not about losing jobs, because no white man is lining up to pick crops; and no doctor's job is at stake. It is not about crime because there is no empirical evidence that immigration increases crime in the United States. In fact, a majority of studies in the U.S. have found lower crime rates among immigrants than among non-immigrants, and that higher concentrations of immigrants are associated with lower crime rates. But because it has been so politicized as defining the epitome of who is strong and who is weak against illegal immigration, it is really only a matter of wasteful exploitation. Instead of Republicans seeking to continue the practical trend that started with Clinton, developed under Bush, and further developed and pushed forward by Obama, which is to favor exponentially more advanced technology and a broader focus on comprehensive immigration reform, we play idiotic games with a physical barrier to "secure" the southern border like brainless assholes.

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

Deal, though I'd want to know more about the intentions on enforcement afterwards.

Agreed. The wall is just the first step to solving our immigration problem. Enforcement of our laws is next. Then punishing everyone involved in the breaking of our laws. This includes businesses that hire them and do not withhold taxes, pay minimum wage, provide safe working conditions, and violate all our health, fire, safety regulations. The prosecuting of our leaders who do not uphold our laws including sanctuary cities. I then want a separate tax on all people working in this country to pay for these improvements. On their w-2 instead of SS there should be foreign worker tax. Why should American citizens pay for these people to come here and take our jobs.

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

What are some viable options with handling the illegals that are here? Seeing as there are millions of them and we've got state and local elected officials playing the scofflaw, refusing to comply with federal law or aid and assist in apprehension?

These leaders need to be prosecuted and put in prison for violation of our laws just like every other criminal who violates our laws. I am tired of all these politicians being above the law. Time to put an end to the corruption.

 

[American]

Deal, though I'd want to know more about the intentions on enforcement afterwards.

You just got ****ed, because with the Democrats there is no afterward.

 

[Redress]

What are some viable options with handling the illegals that are here? Seeing as there are millions of them and we've got state and local elected officials playing the scofflaw, refusing to comply with federal law or aid and assist in apprehension?

I do not have a real good answer for that, it is not a problem open to easy solutions. I support a DACA/DREAM type act. If you where brought over(as opposed to coming over of your own volition) as a minor, jump through hoops, stay out of trouble and show evidence via college or military service that you will be an asset to this country, I think we would be foolish not to let them get at the back of the line to citizenship. I would limit it to a certain number per year(best applicants only) who can join the program, but I have no problem with it.

I think the wall/fence idea is a waste of resources that could be better spent elsewhere. As long as the reward for entering the country is so high, people are going to find ways to do it. No wall, fence or whatever is going to stop them. So to me, the best way to keep people out is to go at the problem from the other end, by lowering the reward for entering the country. That means going after those who employ illegals, hard. The penalties have to be raised for employing illegals, the employers need better tools to identify illegals, and enforcement should focus on finding where illegals work.

There are a ****load of practical problems with just up and removing all the illegals. It would be nearly impossible, if not impossible, it would cost a ****ton of money, and the removal of 10 + million consumers would do bad things to the economy. That does not mean stopping deportation, it means that tracking illegals who are, other than being in the country illegally, not breaking laws is misplacing resources. However, illegals encountered by law enforcement should be deported. Illegals who commit crimes should be deported. There is a difference between turning a blind eye, and not actively seeking them out. If you find illegals, deport them, but looking for them specifically is alot of money for small return.

My views on all this are evolving some as I learn more. Like I said to start, I do not have good answers, only kinda generalized ideas. The big thing is I think until we limit employment prospects for illegals, we are never going to stop the flow into this country.

 

[Redress]

You just got ****ed, because with the Democrats there is no afterward.

You have confused democrats with republicans again. And your hyper-partisanship is showing again. Did you know that political debate involves more than insulting people you disagree with? It's true, it's true, it's damn true.

 

[ChezC3]

I do not have a real good answer for that, it is not a problem open to easy solutions. I support a DACA/DREAM type act. If you where brought over(as opposed to coming over of your own volition) as a minor, jump through hoops, stay out of trouble and show evidence via college or military service that you will be an asset to this country, I think we would be foolish not to let them get at the back of the line to citizenship. I would limit it to a certain number per year(best applicants only) who can join the program, but I have no problem with it.

I think the wall/fence idea is a waste of resources that could be better spent elsewhere. As long as the reward for entering the country is so high, people are going to find ways to do it. No wall, fence or whatever is going to stop them. So to me, the best way to keep people out is to go at the problem from the other end, by lowering the reward for entering the country. That means going after those who employ illegals, hard. The penalties have to be raised for employing illegals, the employers need better tools to identify illegals, and enforcement should focus on finding where illegals work.

There are a ****load of practical problems with just up and removing all the illegals. It would be nearly impossible, if not impossible, it would cost a ****ton of money, and the removal of 10 + million consumers would do bad things to the economy. That does not mean stopping deportation, it means that tracking illegals who are, other than being in the country illegally, not breaking laws is misplacing resources. However, illegals encountered by law enforcement should be deported. Illegals who commit crimes should be deported. There is a difference between turning a blind eye, and not actively seeking them out. If you find illegals, deport them, but looking for them specifically is alot of money for small return.

My views on all this are evolving some as I learn more. Like I said to start, I do not have good answers, only kinda generalized ideas. The big thing is I think until we limit employment prospects for illegals, we are never going to stop the flow into this country.

I agree with most of this. Kids whose parents brought them over here had no choice. They shouldn't be punished for what their parents did. I had a handful of non-citizens in bootcamp with me when I was in the Navy. 1 Filipino and a couple from C. America. Their service was their ticket to citizenship. I think this is good idea. The problem I would have with college is that I would be against them receiving financial aid. While I'd don't believe they should be punished for what their parents did I don't think they should be rewarded either. Now if there was a private scholarship fund these other countries wanted to create for those kids, I'd have no problem with us taking their money.

Israel is a good example of how walls do make excellent deterrents. I don't necessarily think we need s Great Wall of China structure, but a physical barrier that provides more than token resistance I think is necessary. I agree with the idea of cracking down on employers and passive enforcement as the main line of attack is the most feasible. I do think raids still need to be conducted and manhunts for those criminals who might have already served their time but are at large.

This is a multi-faceted situation but I do agree that striking at the root -- which is the incentive -- is the best angle of attack.

 

[fredmertzz]

There is no deal as the leftist liberal party will not fund the wall at 100%. Not even at 50%

Of course they wouldn't. But I assume the GOP wouldn't either, which is why Trump needed to say that Mexico would pay for the border wall. If that weren't a statement, I doubt he would have had nearly as much supporting chants "BUILD THE WALL!" at his rallies. The wall (if built) is going to be extremely expensive

 

[Soopairik]

No deal for me please. And apparently most of the people as well.

 

[Kreton]

I go the opposite. Give up on the idea of 100% amnesty in exchange for giving up on the wall.

 

[molten_dragon]

What are some viable options with handling the illegals that are here? Seeing as there are millions of them and we've got state and local elected officials playing the scofflaw, refusing to comply with federal law or aid and assist in apprehension?

Harsh punishments for companies that hire illegal immigrants. Make the jobs go away and they'll stop coming.

 

[Born Free]

Of course they wouldn't. But I assume the GOP wouldn't either, which is why Trump needed to say that Mexico would pay for the border wall. If that weren't a statement, I doubt he would have had nearly as much supporting chants "BUILD THE WALL!" at his rallies. The wall (if built) is going to be extremely expensive

Either way you want to slice it, there will be no DACA deal.

 

[Born Free]

Harsh punishments for companies that hire illegal immigrants. Make the jobs go away and they'll stop coming.

You love your sanctuary cities and states to harbor criminal illegals and while doing so you have to provide jobs for them. Now you want businesses to do the job you are unwilling to do in your sanctuary cities.

 

[Moderate Right]

Let's say it is up to us

The offer on the table is 100% Amnesty for 100% Border Wall funding.

Deal or no deal?

I would answer no deal but I don't want my vote counted as being part of the rabid left. I am for 100% amnesty, but only in exchange for very tight border security and enforcement (doesn't really have to be a wall) AND the elimination of sanctuary cities. If Democrats are serious about border security and enforcement of illegals then there would no longer be a need for sanctuary cities.

 

[Moderate Right]

Absolutely. So at 2020 when voters are looking for the 20-25 billion dollars and border wall that can fall squarely on Trump's failure to uphold his promises that Mexico was going to pay for a border wall.

Spoken like a true partisan.

 

[Moderate Right]

That's a dumb deal. There's no rational purpose for a Wall, and funding it would be a massive waste of taxpayer dollars. If conservatives think we need a wall they should start a gofundme page and solicite contributions from other idiots like themselves. I guarentee you that if Trump builds a wall it will be torn down within 10 years.

There is only one viable solution to this problem and that is to reform our entire immigration policy so that it actually makes sense and reflects reality. If you do that then I guarantee you that a wall will be completely unnecessary. 98% of people crossing that boarder are perfectly good people who mean us no harm, and will provide a benefit to our country. If we had rational immigration policy every single one of them would happily enter the country via official checkpoints, and few if any would be rejected.

Combine that with the legalization of Marijuana and all of a sudden the reasons for anybody to illegally sneak across the border drop to almost nothingness.

The left doesn't care about wasting taxpayer dollars so that's a stupid argument.

 

[Moderate Right]

I go the opposite. Give up on the idea of 100% amnesty in exchange for giving up on the wall.

Interesting thought.