The Washington Post Editorial Board is very vexed over the notion that a President Donald Trump could lawfully do lots of the things he promised to do when it comes to immigration, because that would be mean or something to people who shouldn’t be in the country legally and to people who not only don’t give a damn about assimilating, but expect America to change for them
DONALD TRUMP has telegraphed his intentions, if not always consistently, to radically shift immigration policy and, in so doing, subvert America’s vitality and international standing as a beacon of diversity and tolerance. While he cannot unilaterally undertake every change he proposes, there is plenty he can do, on his own, to overhaul America’s approach to immigrants. His program would undercut the nation’s economic prospects, its values and the vibrancy of its neighborhoods and communities.
We used to be a beacon of law and order, which would accept people who wanted to be a part of our great nation and do it legally. Many of those neighborhoods are rife with violence, drugs, and criminality. Others are hotbeds of radical thought, the type where women need 4 witnesses when they are raped. We have plenty of diversity: strangely, we are supposed to be tolerant of people who refuse to accept our laws and even work to subvert them.
A President Trump could slash the number of refugees allowed to enter the country, including from Syria, downgrading President Obama’s goal of admitting 110,000 in the fiscal year that started Saturday. Federal law gives presidents the power to bar any “class of aliens” they deem “detrimental to the interests of the United States,” so Mr. Trump could as promised ban immigrants from Muslim-majority countries. The effect would be to undercut Washington’s standing with allies as well as America’s relations with its own Muslim citizens — a blow to America’s capacity to fight terrorism.
Of course, Trump has not talked about banning all Muslims: he wants to do deep background checks on any who originate from those countries with a background in radical Islam. Many of America’s allies are looking to do the same, as the European nations are learning just what happens when these people are let in willy nilly. Rape, sexual assault, violence, criminality, and abuse towards the citizens in the host areas. Not too mention all those holding radical Islamic beliefs and members of ISIS.
It is interesting that the paragraph is the only real mention of “law.” The law would give Trump the power to deport the heck out of illegals, who aren’t just border jumpers, but those who overstayed their visas.
In the same category of feasible but self-defeating policies, Mr. Trump could revoke work permits and the protection from deportation granted by Mr. Obama to nearly 1.5 million young undocumented immigrants brought to the United States as children by their parents. Just as Mr. Obama has used executive orders to shield those “Dreamers,” Mr. Trump could remove the shield and thereby expel from the country a generation of promising, American-educated young immigrants, most of whom have little or no memory of their birth countries.
Technically, Obama’s executive order ends with him leaving office. Regardless, it was a lawless order. Trump getting rid of it would be consistent with federal law. People who took advantage of America, and who, rather than politely asking to be a part of America, made Demands.
As president, Mr. Trump could also unilaterally broaden the categories of undocumented immigrants targeted for accelerated deportation; they would include, as he has pledged, visa overstayers. Together, they amount to more than 5 million people.
As they should be. We allowed them into our country, usually for work or school. They repaid that by staying illegally.
A study by the American Action Forum, a conservative group, estimates that deporting all illegal immigrants, as Mr. Trump has threatened, would require more than 90,000 federal deportation agents; there are fewer than 5,000. The nation’s 34,000 detention beds would have to increase tenfold, and more than 30,000 additional federal lawyers would be needed to process the throngs that would jam immigration courts.
Not really. Instead of catch and release, it’s catch and deport.
The price of carrying out such a mass expulsion (along with the wall Mr. Trump would build) would not be limited to the estimated budgetary expense ($400 billion to $600 billion), nor even the blow to the economy of depleting the labor force by more than 10 million workers. The most lasting and damaging cost would be to America’s prestige globally and to its founding principles. A nation that expels millions of long-standing residents with deep roots in their communities is not a leader; it is a fearful, mean and meek place, heartless and spiritually crabbed. This is not the America envisioned by the Founding Fathers; it is certainly not a home of the brave.
America’s founding principle was a nation based on law with the consent of the governed. That we are a nation of Law, not of Men. And the most lasting and damaging cost is not our prestige globally or what hardcore leftists think are our founding principles (which apparently doesn’t include freedom and limited government and adherence to Law): it’s things like this
More than 100 illegal immigrants caught but released by the Obama administration over the last five years have gone on to be charged with murders after they were set free, according to a new report released Monday from the Center for Immigration Studies.
In all, some 121 immigrants who were freed by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement between 2010 and 2014 have since been charged with a total of 135 homicide-related crimes. Another three immigrants were charged with murders in 2015, bringing to 124 the total number of murder suspects the government had, then released.
Every murder, every rape, every assault, every time an illegal steals the identity of a legal citizen, causing them significant harm, this can all be laid at the feet of the people who support the illegals.
Crossed at Right Wing News.