Trump ‘wrestling’ with how — and whether — to deport 11 million people

[Tom Servo]

Trump ‘wrestling’ with how — and whether — to deport 11 million people

Tribune Washington Bureau | By Brian Bennett | 5 hrs ago

Aides to Donald Trump suggested Sunday that the Republican presidential nominee may be reconsidering his campaign promise to round up and deport 11 million people who are in the United States illegally.

His new campaign manager, Kellyanne Conway, was asked on CNN’s “State of the Union” if Trump still wants a “deportation force” to remove everyone in the country illegally.

“To be determined,” she said.

Trump is “wrestling” with how to remove those in the country illegally, Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., an adviser to Trump on immigration matters, said on CBS’s “Face the Nation.”

The aides’ comments appeared to be the latest sign that Trump’s newly installed management team may be trying to broaden his appeal to stem his steady fall in the polls with less than three months until Election Day.

Trump has never explained how he intended to find, detain and deport millions of people, many of whom have built businesses and started families in the U.S., or how he would pay for it even if it passed judicial scrutiny.

[Tom Servo]

He hasn't even been elected yet and he's already breaking campaign promises.

[Adam]

Suckers!

[Lady Marva]

At least trump is giving thought to stopping the illegals, as opposed to issuing them open invitations.

[Djharkavy]

At least trump is giving thought to stopping the illegals, as opposed to issuing them open invitations.

Is that before or after the Mexicans build a wall?

Sent from my phone, using Tapatalk.
All mistakes are caused by the phone.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it...

[Norm dePlume]

Putting "Trump" and "wrestling" in the same sentence does not evoke an image of serious consideration.

[Gingersnap]

Just make business owners (not HR people, not "hiring authorities") do 10 days in jail for every illegal alien worker found on their books or in their establishment during spot audits. This should include the millions who "overstay" previously valid visas.

You don't have to deport a lot of these people. Just crack down on the employers by beefing up the penalties and actually enforcing them. Require e-Verify everywhere and make the Social Security Department process inquiries efficiently. Require birth certificates for public school enrollment (for everybody) and the associated documentation of legal status for children born outside the U.S. Deny enrollment for students whose parents can't comply. Then fine the parents for truancy.

Really, simply enforcing our laws and penalizing employers and government agencies that ignore laws (looking at you, county welfare assistance agencies) will do a lot.

Suspend refugee programs for now and use the State Department to leverage wealthy Muslim countries to accept Muslim refugees. Reform refugee programs to prioritize groups experiencing the most violence (Christians, animists, others) and put women and children at the top of that list (men between 18 and 40 are behind). Design a uniform refugee program with an emphasis on English language, Western culture, and jobs for women (they will be the largest group under this scheme).

Reform legal immigration to level the playing field so that European and Anglophone immigrants along with East Asian applicants balance to the numbers of non-European, non-English speaking applicants. Enforce the requirements that legal applicants have a serious sponsor, a job/money, and skills/education useful to the country. We have enough roofers and hotel maids at the moment.

Require legal applicants to apply on their own - let's stop the "reunification" stuff outside of parents and children. Auntie will have to apply as just herself.

This won't undo 50 years of bad policy and worse enforcement but it will help a lot.

[Novaheart]

Congress only needs to clarify its intent in the 14th Amendment. It was never the intent of Congress to confer citizenship on the children of illegal aliens or those passing through. Wong Kim Ark is inconsistent with the way we have treated the children of Americans born in foreign countries. That will stop the anchor babies.

Congress can stop legal chain migration. That will discourage colonization.

Congress and the President can restore administrative deportation to the INS and reign in power grabbing judges.

Congress can design and fund deportation of nonessential illegal aliens currently present over four or five years. The trick is to start by deporting women. When you deport men, the women left behind are elevated in the victim hierarchy by the mainstream press. If you deport the women they will take their children and the men will follow.

[Celeste Chalfonte]

Congress only needs to clarify its intent in the 14th Amendment. It was never the intent of Congress to confer citizenship on the children of illegal aliens or those passing through. Wong Kim Ark is inconsistent with the way we have treated the children of Americans born in foreign countries. That will stop the anchor babies.

Congress can stop legal chain migration. That will discourage colonization.

Congress and the President can restore administrative deportation to the INS and reign in power grabbing judges.

Congress can design and fund deportation of nonessential illegal aliens currently present over four or five years. The trick is to start by deporting women. When you deport men, the women left behind are elevated in the victim hierarchy by the mainstream press. If you deport the women they will take their children and the men will follow.

Congress lacks the power to undo 150 years of Supremem Court decisions. The words say what the words say. If Congress wants to end so-called "anchor babies," it needs to pass an amendment to the amendment, and get it ratified.

[gary m]

Congress lacks the power to undo 150 years of Supremem Court decisions. The words say what the words say. If Congress wants to end so-called "anchor babies," it needs to pass an amendment to the amendment, and get it ratified.

Or a different court with a different interpretation.
If previous courts could find exceptions to something as clearly stated as "Congress shall make no law...", surely it could redefine Section 1 of the 14th.

[Celeste Chalfonte]

Or a different court with a different interpretation.
If previous courts could find exceptions to something as clearly stated as "Congress shall make no law...", surely it could redefine Section 1 of the 14th.

True. The USSCt seldom does a complete about-face on a previously decided question, but it has happened. Very rarely.

[Novaheart]

Congress lacks the power to undo 150 years of Supremem Court decisions. The words say what the words say. If Congress wants to end so-called "anchor babies," it needs to pass an amendment to the amendment, and get it ratified.

And that is why I need absolute power.

[Celeste Chalfonte]

And that is why I need absolute power.

Look on the bright side. If Congress could use the intent argument to futz with the 14th, just think about what a Democratic Congress could do with the 2nd.

[Novaheart]

Or a different court with a different interpretation.
If previous courts could find exceptions to something as clearly stated as "Congress shall make no law...", surely it could redefine Section 1 of the 14th.

Read this and prepare to be disappointed ( I was):

http://thefederalist.com/2015/08/25/defining-american-birthright-citizenship-and-the-original-understanding-of-the-14th-amendment/

“Mr. HOWARD. … This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.”[21]

[gary m]

Look on the bright side. If Congress could use the intent argument to futz with the 14th, just think about what a Democratic Congress could do with the 2nd.

And if Shrill Hill gets in with a Democratic Congress, do you really think they won't try again?