Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

So Trump cemented his Immigration Policy with last night's speech.
What parts do you disagree with?
What parts do you think will not happen (if he is elected)?

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/ ... ion-reform

I admittedly do not know enough about this subject to have an opinion one way or the other. If anything, I'm a "If it is a law, it must be followed or the law must be changed" person. Laws can't be ignored. Also, if illegal residency is costing taxpayers money, it needs to be dealt with. Beyond that, I don't know enough of the facts and don't know how much of a problem it is.

Regarding the "Mexico will pay for the wall" thing, there is no way Mexico will write a check for the cost of the wall. But opponents will see that as the only way Trump's promise will be fulfilled. If Mexico pays any price for the construction of the wall, it will be wedged in with several other deals and negotiations and not look like Mexico is paying for the wall. I don't care if Mexico pays for it or not. If there is a financial payback (cost avoidance in the future) by constructing the wall, that's good enough for me. However, I did think that a wall would allow a reduction of Border Patrol personnel. Apparently not.

CAA Flagship wrote:So Trump cemented his Immigration Policy with last night's speech.
What parts do you disagree with?
What parts do you think will not happen (if he is elected)?

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/ ... ion-reform

I admittedly do not know enough about this subject to have an opinion one way or the other. If anything, I'm a "If it is a law, it must be followed or the law must be changed" person. Laws can't be ignored. Also, if illegal residency is costing taxpayers money, it needs to be dealt with. Beyond that, I don't know enough of the facts and don't know how much of a problem it is.

Regarding the "Mexico will pay for the wall" thing, there is no way Mexico will write a check for the cost of the wall. But opponents will see that as the only way Trump's promise will be fulfilled. If Mexico pays any price for the construction of the wall, it will be wedged in with several other deals and negotiations and not look like Mexico is paying for the wall. I don't care if Mexico pays for it or not. If there is a financial payback (cost avoidance in the future) by constructing the wall, that's good enough for me. However, I did think that a wall would allow a reduction of Border Patrol personnel. Apparently not.

Good stuff in there.

Of course, Hilly's dogs will brand it as racist, harmful to the world, and bad for the economy.

His speech outlined existing immigration laws on the books.

Cluck U wrote:
Good stuff in there.

Of course, Hilly's dogs will brand it as racist, harmful to the world, and bad for the economy.

Yeah, that is the argument I want to hear.
From what I gather, Trump is not doing anything more than following the laws, and what is already being done (without much success).
If Trump's plan is racist, then our laws are racist. But I need to hear that side of the argument from someone other than the idiots on TV.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUXXw6xr4gI[/youtube]




And, I wish Trump the best of luck trying to amend the Constitution. Seems like he a candidate that can certainly unite both parties around his goals.

CAA Flagship wrote:If anything, I'm a "If it is a law, it must be followed or the law must be changed" person. Laws can't be ignored.

89Hen wrote:

CAA Flagship wrote:If anything, I'm a "If it is a law, it must be followed or the law must be changed" person. Laws can't be ignored.

Excellent point. Tell that to Obama.

Ivytalk wrote:

89Hen wrote:

Excellent point. Tell that to Obama.

And your hero Reagan

https://www.uscis.gov/tools/glossary/im ... -1986-irca

Skjellyfetti wrote:[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUXXw6xr4gI[/youtube]




And, I wish Trump the best of luck trying to amend the Constitution. Seems like he a candidate that can certainly unite both parties around his goals.

Are you saying he needs to amend the Constitution for something in his policy? How so?

CAA Flagship wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUXXw6xr4gI[/youtube]




And, I wish Trump the best of luck trying to amend the Constitution. Seems like he a candidate that can certainly unite both parties around his goals.

Are you saying he needs to amend the Constitution for something in his policy? How so?

Ending birthright citizenship. 14th Amendment and stuff.

Grizalltheway wrote:

CAA Flagship wrote: Are you saying he needs to amend the Constitution for something in his policy? How so?

Ending birthright citizenship. 14th Amendment and stuff.

But, but, but.....Harry Reid:
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75a9Wa6KL7k[/youtube]

OK, so according to this (link below), it's questionable whether an amendment is necessary, but I'll side with "it IS necessary". So Trump would need a bill passed and a Supreme Court nod. He would automatically have a majority on both, especially with Harry Reid voting for it .

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/11/trump- ... tizenship/

Skjellyfetti wrote:

Ivytalk wrote:
Excellent point. Tell that to Obama.

And your hero Reagan

https://www.uscis.gov/tools/glossary/im ... -1986-irca

At least he didn't bypass Congress, butthead.

Ivytalk wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:
And your hero Reagan

https://www.uscis.gov/tools/glossary/im ... -1986-irca

At least he didn't bypass Congress, butthead.

It didn't help that Donkgress didn't hold up their end of the bargain, either.

Skjellyfetti wrote:[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUXXw6xr4gI[/youtube]




And, I wish Trump the best of luck trying to amend the Constitution. Seems like he a candidate that can certainly unite both parties around his goals.

That "open border" Reagan is referring to isn't what you're trying to claim it to be.

Baldy wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUXXw6xr4gI[/youtube]




And, I wish Trump the best of luck trying to amend the Constitution. Seems like he a candidate that can certainly unite both parties around his goals.

That "open border" Reagan is referring to isn't what you're trying to claim it to be.

Germans?
Forget it. He's on a roll.

Kalm agrees with the Donald and Krauthammer on this one. The wall is a stimulus package and effective barrier, we need to go after the criminals, and it's unrealistic to deport the rest.

Funny though, as it was pointed out ad nauseum by Joe Scarborough this morning, it's basically Obama's policy sans the wall.

http://www.investors.com/politics/colum ... -solution/

kalm wrote:Kalm agrees with the Donald and Krauthammer on this one. The wall is a stimulus package and effective barrier, we need to go after the criminals, and it's unrealistic to deport the rest.

Funny though, as it was pointed out ad nauseum by Joe Scarborough this morning, it's basically Obama's policy sans the wall.

http://www.investors.com/politics/colum ... -solution/

....and sans Sanctuary Cities.
But yeah, it is mostly what we are already doing, or have started, but with more resources and focus.

Again, I need to hear why any of this is NOT a good idea. Serious question here. I really don't know.

CAA Flagship wrote:

kalm wrote:Kalm agrees with the Donald and Krauthammer on this one. The wall is a stimulus package and effective barrier, we need to go after the criminals, and it's unrealistic to deport the rest.

Funny though, as it was pointed out ad nauseum by Joe Scarborough this morning, it's basically Obama's policy sans the wall.

http://www.investors.com/politics/colum ... -solution/

....and sans Sanctuary Cities.
But yeah, it is mostly what we are already doing, or have started, but with more resources and focus.

Again, I need to hear why any of this is NOT a good idea. Serious question here. I really don't know.

Here again, you have a fundamentally unfocused candidate whose position bends from moment to moment and from audience to audience. No wonder his policy points can be difficult to decipher.

Exactly. You're putting up his heavily sanitized policies from his website.

What about his other ludicrous proposals that (for some reason) didn't make it to his website?

For example: "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States." (clearly unconstitutional. and harms the "but, we just want to follow the laws!" argument)

Skjellyfetti wrote:Exactly. You're putting up his heavily sanitized policies from his website.

What about his other ludicrous proposals that (for some reason) didn't make it to his website?

For example: "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States." (clearly unconstitutional. and harms the "but, we just want to follow the laws!" argument)

Not that I agree with Trump's position, as I don't, but what is unconstitutional of not allowing immigrants to this country if they are Muslim? The 14th amendment, and really most of the constitution, refers to citizens or people of this country. It's fairly quiet on government and people from outside the government.

Germans?

Forget it, he's on a roll.

Skjellyfetti wrote:Exactly. You're putting up his heavily sanitized policies from his website.

What about his other ludicrous proposals that (for some reason) didn't make it to his website?

For example: "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States." (clearly unconstitutional. and harms the "but, we just want to follow the laws!" argument)

Nothing pisses me off more than this partial statement. If you want to criticize it, stop being a pussy by shying away from the rest of the actual statement. He called for a temporary ban until they can be properly vetted. Passing the vetting process is part of the immigration laws. And it is absolutely NOT clearly unconstitutional.

Of course, I reserve the right to agree with you if you can show me how your are right and I am wrong.

Archer Daniels Midland and Alico Incorporated and Agria Corporation...
None of these giant corporations are thrilled with the idea of getting rid of all of their labor to satisfy some vague concept of "getting back america"



The only way we start enforcing immigration laws
is if we convince these guys the American TAX PAYER will subsidize their cost increases

Nobody has cleared that with Juan Ricardo Luciano yet... he has last say on it

CAA Flagship wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:Exactly. You're putting up his heavily sanitized policies from his website.

What about his other ludicrous proposals that (for some reason) didn't make it to his website?

For example: "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States." (clearly unconstitutional. and harms the "but, we just want to follow the laws!" argument)

Nothing pisses me off more than this partial statement. If you want to criticize it, stop being a pussy by shying away from the rest of the actual statement. He called for a temporary ban until they can be properly vetted. Passing the vetting process is part of the immigration laws. And it is absolutely NOT clearly unconstitutional.

Of course, I reserve the right to agree with you if you can show me how your are right and I am wrong.

Germans?

Forget it. He's on a roll.

Cluck U wrote:Germans?

Forget it, he's on a roll.

I hope it's a kaiser roll