Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Ah, Trump-facts No, not since 2014. They have doubles since Trump took office. Your hero admits the situation under him is WORSE THAN EVER. In the 1980s we had with 1.6 MILLION, and Trump is quickly headed back toward those numbers.
Obama reduced it to a trickle, and Trump managed to get you to believe it was a huge problem, and it got much worse as soon as he started running things.
How do we know the reason the apprehensions have doubled, isn’t because the effort to catch them has doubled?
Does it necessarily mean that more people are trying to come illegally? Or could it be that we have stronger enforcement now?
"We'll agree to the wall, which will keep a very large % of the 1MM current annual rate of illegal crossers out. We'll agree to enhancements to border security in the form of increased personnel and technology advances. We'll agree to improving the removal process for visa overstayers, which we know to be half the illegal population. In exchange, we want DACA and we want to spend more money for judges, etc that expedites the asylum process. And we want the currently-proposed measure that would give agriculture workers a greater ability to work in jobs where needed and gain legal status."
Seems like a simple enough summation of the policy. Perhaps there's a category that I've missed you'd like to add.
Me? I am not a Dem, I simply said that IMO it is not a good idea for them to put it in their platform, which means I would not do it if I was a Dem politician. In the end of the day they can put whatever they want in their platform, and I don't care.
Eventually there needs to be a reform which details all that, but first they need to decide what to do with people like the DACAs. Unfortunately it seems the parties create road blocks out of issues like DACA. It should not be a big issue, or bargaining chip to delay anything.
Obama's EO clarified it quite well. It only applied to those who had been brought here before age 16, had lived here continuously since 2007, and WERE HERE as of 2012. Lived here continuously since 2007 was a key component of it.
How do we know the reason the apprehensions have doubled, isn’t because the effort to catch them has doubled?
According to Trump its because we have CARAVANs after CARAVANs of people coming in, which he calls a new thing.
The efforts have not doubled. Who told you that? Its funny though, because in 2017 the numbers were down, and Trump bragged it was because of his efforts.
while we're at it, we'll need to compare apples to apples, and only include Americans in the same demographic. we won't be counting children, and we won't be counting retirees.
Why? The whole point is to show these people are contributors because they are in fact working age. They pay for services used by others, like retirees. Having said that, retirees pay taxes too.
Obama's EO clarified it quite well. It only applied to those who had been brought here before age 16, had lived here continuously since 2007, and WERE HERE as of 2012. Lived here continuously since 2007 was a key component of it.
This case would not be before the SCOTUS if Trump administration's EO to rescind was explained more fully.
"We'll agree to the wall, which will keep a very large % of the 1MM current annual rate of illegal crossers out. We'll agree to enhancements to border security in the form of increased personnel and technology advances. We'll agree to improving the removal process for visa overstayers, which we know to be half the illegal population. In exchange, we want DACA and we want to spend more money for judges, etc that expedites the asylum process. And we want the currently-proposed measure that would give agriculture workers a greater ability to work in jobs where needed and gain legal status."
Seems like a simple enough summation of the policy. Perhaps there's a category that I've missed you'd like to add.
No one wants to budge an inch from their preferred positions. I'm just as guilty of that as anyone else is. But if we're going to find a compromise that will allow both sides to get some of what they want, this might be the best one.
No one wants to budge an inch from their preferred positions. I'm just as guilty of that as anyone else is. But if we're going to find a compromise that will allow both sides to get some of what they want, this might be the best one.
Dems don't lose anything with the wall. They even offered to build one in 2012 with their immigration reform (which GOP rejected). Of course today, they try to get the milage out of Trump who made it into his #1 campaign promise and will give anything for it. When you make it so obvious that you really, really want something badly, the opposition will make you pay for it. Its was a basic negotiation blunder from Trump's part.
No one wants to budge an inch from their preferred positions. I'm just as guilty of that as anyone else is. But if we're going to find a compromise that will allow both sides to get some of what they want, this might be the best one.
Agree with your thoughtview. The fact that President Obama could not find a compromise led to his EO. President Trump could not find a compromise either so rescinded President Obama's EO.
The reason why President Trump's actions here are so problematic is because they are considered arbitrary and capricious:
Quote:
Arbitrary and capricious
In administrative law, a government agency's resolution of a question of fact, when decided pursuant to an informal rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), is reviewed on the arbitrary and capricious standard.
Arbitrary and capricious is a legal ruling where in an appellate court determines that a previous ruling is invalid because it was made on unreasonable grounds or without any proper consideration of circumstances. This is an extremely deferential standard.
This case would not be before the SCOTUS if Trump administration's EO to rescind was explained more fully.
Yes, the memo to cancel needs to be clearly written, not just some incoherent scribblings with 'covfefe' typos etc in it.
It goes without saying Trump needs to find someone else to articulate it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, not since 2014. They have doubles since Trump took office. Your hero admits the situation under him is WORSE THAN EVER. In the 1980s we had with 1.6 MILLION, and Trump is quickly headed back toward those numbers. 
