My understanding a couple weeks ago is that deportations per month were down compared to during Obama's reign. That could've changed.
Nixon counsel during Watergate: Trump WH 'in cover-up mode'
- Thread starter moe
- Start date
My understanding a couple weeks ago is that deportations per month were down compared to during Obama's reign. That could've changed.
I know he cut some of the most intrusive regulations I have seen. Literally blocking you from building within 50-100 feet of puddles on your own property. Just ridiculous regulation. He has cut the size if the executive branch since he directly controls those hires. Why shouldnt the border oatrol turn away people who dont belong here?
No one is against immigration. No one favors illegal immigration. Where's the compromise? Do we take anyone who wants to come here whenever they want to, or do we establish legal limits?
If we're being invaded do we we just throw our hands up and say "oh well"? Or worse, open our arms wide and say "Ya'll come on in"?
Or do we stand at the border and say "whoa there fella wait a minute, let's see your I.D. and permission papers?"
I imagine some regulations are pointless and counterproductive, but some regulations on Wall Street, banking, etc.. are vital to avoiding another collapse, imo. That's where my distrust of President Trump destroys my ability to be fair to him. I think anyone that wants to come here....belong. I want them legal, but not sent back before given that pathway.
If they're here illegally, they've already told us they don't respect our Laws...so I want them gone and come back when they do.
As for Banks and Wall Street, I'm not against Government oversight and arbitration to assure fairness and legality...
I am against Government controls/restrictions/directives/ interference and/or ownership of private investment houses and/or private investment decisions.
I trust private markets, not Government controlled income redistribution.
I agree completely that some regulations are necessary.
One thing to remember is that all regulation has unintended consequences. When WV enacted tank regulations after the WV Water crisis they ended up forcing farmers miles away from waterway to pay 1k bucks to have feed tanks inspected annually. Nobody intended to put that kind of pressure on small business so the legislature had to clean up the regulation. When they did they got pasted by activist groups who claimed they were loosening regulations that could harm citizens.
Name one specific regulation, and you can't count The Stream Protection Rule because it only took effect January 20.
Other than a handful of people that have resigned from the DOJ and EPA, he hasn't cut the size of the Executive branch.
The Government which governs best is the Government that governs least. Smaller is better, less is more. The less or smaller the Government, the better for more Freedom.
The bigger Government gets, the more problems it creates to solve, and bigger those problems get the more big Government it takes to not solve them.
Why cant I count stream protection rule? It was enacted and he cut it. The WOUS rule is another. He has left around 800 jobs in the executive branch unfilled.
Liar.
Here is the actual law. Feed tanks for humans and animals are exempt, paragraph (F), Page 2.
http://www.dep.wv.gov/WWE/abovegroundstoragetanks/Documents/WVCode2230.pdf
That is the amended version enacted in 2015. ASTs were exempted because it was apparent the 2014 regulation had unintended consequences.
Btw. Thanks for making my point for me in your haste to attack. I knew exposing your dishonesty would get this type of response. You are not exactly hard to figure out.
Still waiting on those regulations Trump did away with and those cuts to the Executive branch, liar.
You don't think it's a little disingenuous to compare refugees and mass immigration of the early 20th and late 19th century of predominantly European countries to that of the Middle East? If you don't, then there isn't a chance for us to see eye to eye. You can't acknowledge the inherant and in my opinion legitimate concern of an influx of Muslim culture? I'm not some redneck hill jack in this regard. Except maybe Cajuneer, I've spent more time throughout the Middle East than anyone here. Hell, on Saturday I'm leaving for a couple of weeks to go to Saudi, UAE, Iraq, AFG, and Tunisia.
It's not about being anti-Muslim to me....this might sound cheesy, but it's about being American. I wasn't actually thinking about immigration at the beginning of the 20th....I was thinking of the great minds we got from Europe escaping Nazi control. One of the things I love about being American is that my culture is always changing - growing - blending diversity. Another thing I love is that we become a haven for those seeking the simple freedoms we enjoy (thanks to those of you that have served). Under our flag, your welcome. Dangerous? I get that. But, imo, a greater danger lies in losing some of those aspects of being American.
Couple of points, those great minds escaping Europe shared very similar culture and values with us. It's funny that you don't realize how much things have changed getting away from those simple freedoms, based in large part because of the inherent dangers of the culture and their unwillingness to assimilate. You are losing what you love and don't realize it.
Let's be honest, the vast majority won't come back legally because they won't be granted visas. The conservatives don't want Mexicans or Muslims in this country legally or illegally. Let's quit dancing around that topic please.
It's your lie, tell it how you like.
The conservatives want people to follow the fvcking laws of the land and if that means they don't get in the country, then so be it. If they are here illegally, they need to leave. From a Muslim standpoint, I'm fine with Muslim refugees, I'm fine with legal Muslim immigration. I'm not fine with opening the floodgates to either Muslims or Hispanics and just figuring it out after. I'm sorry, if you can't figure out the thousands of reasons why this is ludicrous, then there really isn't any hope for you because you lack even a modicum of common sense and fiscal understanding.
You do realize that this was the same argument used against the Poles, Italians, Slavs, and any other southern and eastern European migrant that settled into their own communities in the US in the 20s and 30s and even later? All cities had their ethnic neighborhoods. My grandparents came to the US around the time of WWI and never learned to speak English until my father taught then when he started school in 1936. We received a Croatian language newspaper until the early 70s. 1st and 2nd generation immigrants will latch on to the community they know.
Now having said that, these muslim enclaves where they have no intention of assimilating, worry me.
Sharia, with some flavor present in most Islamic countries, preferred by over 50% of American Muslims, in whatever form is opposed to our Constitution. I don't care what the argument was before I was born, but now, there is a direct conflict with these immigrants conforming to our Constitution. Conform or leave.
I hear the argument, but there are many American husbands even today that directly conflict with our constitution. Most see it as simple as their wives choose to live under that oppression. I also agree assimilation takes generations, it's been a part of American culture since our beginning.
I don't however believe we should "open the flood gates" as you put it....who said conservatives weren't capable of a little liberal drama? We should however, with our wealth and opportunities, do our part to help when the world faces crisis....esp when we have a hand in causing them.
So, those instances you listed weren't countries/regions/cultures who have an extremely large population of extremists and whose overriding religious philosophy which governs their home nation laws standing in direct opposition to our Constitution.
It's 2 very different conversations when discussing the Hispanic influx and Muslim refugee situations. The Hispanic influx is rooted in financial reasoning and existing law. The Muslim discussion is not financial in nature.
Drill down? Maybe, but let's look at the African American culture.....wasn't that argument made to prolong slavery or advocate repatriation? Yet the American culture and experience has a richer flavor.
Doesn't matter. Legal immigration must be the process no matter who it is coming in.
What about those that are here now? Working? Due to the desire for cheap labor in many industries, and the compliance of many lawmakers in pursuit of campaign finance? I guess we just kick them out as if they were only burdens to us now? Cause you're scared and Trump is an *******?
If they came here illegally, they cannot stay here illegally boom. If they are not in our criminal justice system, and law abiding I'm OK with allowing those like you mentioned to stay as long as they pay a fine, get registered with a proper work visa and can't vote until obtaining citizenship.
That must be a process where they take a number and wait their turn behind others requesting admission but who came in legally.
They must be vetted, learn English, and pledge allegiance to the nation before being granted citizenship privileges.
The point is that the right doesn't want Mexicans and Muslims and therefore they aren't going to be processed..... I will be curious to see a year from now or maybe 2, the impact on legal immigration from south of the boarder and Muslims. Maybe I am wrong here, but the sound wager is on my theory.
So let's establish a legal process for them to follow and see if you're right?
Last edited:
Let me correct you on one point. Republicans overall always WANTED the flow of cheap south of the border labor. Why do you think no administrations,Repub or Dem,ever fully enforced the laws. The Muslim question is a more recent deal based on current terrorism events.