President Trump carries through with America First immigration policy


no one holds a grudge like a muslim.

you remember from your extensive history lessons don’t you that muslims were expelled from spain in the late 1400s.


Dude. There are terrorist attacks by muslims and now we are seeing it by their allies, the left. Our president wants to make sure what is happening in the rest of the world does NOT HAPPEN HERE. and I am fine with that. THAT will make our nation safer and more secure. AND THAT is what is more important than allowing in immigrants with no vetting, no controls.

Your delicate sensibilities on immigration is sweet…but this is the REAL WORLD.


? How is a background check, or having other info processed through an FBI clearinghouse not “vetting”? You seem to have read my posts selectively.

It’s perfectly fine to control for criminality or health. Find the bad people, that’s a laudable goal.

What is not alright is to block someone for being unskilled, or not having skills on a Gov’t “list” somewhere. That is what I’m drawing attention to.

My own Great-grandparents from Italy would have failed such a test. Same to my Great-Great Grandparents from Norway. It ignores our history, it’s unjust, and it fails economic scrutiny.


your great plus grandparents were westerners…without the history that muslms have. WHERE IN THE WORLD did you get this love for Islamic terrorists? Are you actually in Alaska…maybe that accounts for it. Thankfully, the rest of us recognize the problem with Islamic immigration and illegals coming from and thru the southern border. I’m not interested in your hurt feelings. I’m more concerned with what is happening to americans in the lower 48 and Europeans who have stupidly gone the way you suggest.

You DO realize that there was ANOTHER terrorist attack in Barcelona this morning?


That was an appropriate response to your trollish post. Why do you ignore that I have repeatedly listed a number of specific characteristics to consider and take into account in a merit based immigration system?

Why do you ignore that I have expressed my agreement with assigning positive and negative points to desirable and undesirable characteristics of those wishing to migrate into the United States?

We need to take a common sense approach to immigration and select immigrants who will productive and beneficial to the general welfare of the United States and her citizens.

Is it common sense to allow the poverty stricken poorly educated low and unskilled populations of other countries to flood into America? Even if there is no government assistance available to this type of immigrant, they still become a public burden in other self-evident ways. Therefore, it is wise to assign a negative point to this class of immigrant. Is it not?

Is it common sense to allow those with contagious diseases such as chickenpox, tuberculosis, measles, mumps, and sexually transmitted diseases to be introduced into our nation’s population? Of course not, and thus a restriction ought to be placed upon this class of immigrant.

Is it common sense to allow immigrants with mental disorders to be introduced into our country? Of course not, and thus, a negative point must be assigned to this classification.

How about immigrants who are healthy and have a skill to offer, but are destitute and with no visible means of support? Should we not require this type of immigrant to have a job and residence waiting and upon entry place this type of immigrant on a probationary time period?

And how about those wishing to migrate into the United States whose cultural and moral values are in direct conflict with America’s cultural and moral values? Should we not consider the consequences of allowing this group to flood into our country, and restrict their entry to preserve the general welfare of our country?

And let us not forget a group which falls into a very, very dangerous class . . . those who are tied to terrorist groups and whose mission is to bring mayhem and destruction to the United States. Is it really in America’s best interests to open our borders to this type of “immigrant”?

Hopefully the above answers your absurd and trollish question.



It’s what you were using to try and put my position to extremes, when my actual position was embracing a conservative’s answer for immigration.

> Also where I was talking about lakes being stable at various elevations

Which was a complete non sequitur.

It failed to answer *my * question you offered that as a response to; to give me an example of Government managing the supply of something better than the Market.

How does that example in anyway serve as that? How the hell is it even relevant?

> And I seem to recall that you like calling others on deflection. Get the beam out of your own eye.

How about you actually explain what the hell you were talking about?

You seem to think your point was obvious, but I don’t get it, so some elaboration would be appreciated here.

***How was it relevant? ***


you should listen to Haras Rafiq. Maybe you’d learn something. just hope he isn’t practicing taquiyah.


No, that logic doesn’t work.

Chinese immigrants had just as little in common with us, same to Eastern Europeans.

And the Italians were looked at like this:

That’s the Italians, socialists, anarchists, mafia, that’s how our forebears perceived them, and they were right. They were all of those things. But assimilation of their children hammered it out of them anyway.

> without the history that muslms have. WHERE IN THE WORLD did you get this love for Islamic terrorists?

…Did you ignore this part?;

Caroline… how do you think it is we find terrorists in the first place?

> Thankfully, the rest of us recognize the problem with Islamic immigration and illegals coming from and thru the southern border.

Most don’t come though our southern border; they come on planes. The difference, as the head of our Customs Agency described it, its tens vs 1,000.

Better enforcement at our International ports of entry would make us more secure, and I’m all for it.

So what exactly, Caroline, am I saying that is wrong? Have you just been missing the parts where I say finding bad people is fine? As in yes, we can block those people we’ve identified as terrorist from coming here, or put them in jail, etc.?


Health is fine as a restriction, I already said that. Same to Terrorism.

It’s requiring skills that I question; banning unskilled labor means you ban people like David Tran, a Vietnamese immigrant who came here unskilled, but later founded Huy Fong Foods; the creator of Sriracha sauce.

It would also mean you ban the parents of Sergey Brin, the co-founder of google. Or Jerry Yang, the founder of yahoo, who knew only one word of English when he came here.

You only see people as they are, not as what they can become. You forget that people living in squalor and socialism leaves them destitute, while giving them freedom allows them a chance to affirm what they can truly be. Hence why they came to America.

Economics affirms the optimistic view of humanity in this regard, so does our own history when we absorbed 20 million people in early 20th century. We prospered because of that unskilled immigration flood, so why not allow people today that same opportunity?


A S is not here to advance a productive discussion. His apparent mission is to disrupt a productive discussion which is dedicated to building a merit based immigration system.



You conveniently gloss over the fact that in the early 20th century our immigration policy was designed to reject immigrants which were thought would not be conducive to the general welfare of the United States.

Now, instead of addressing the specific points I made with respect to the need for constructing a merit based immigration system, you decide, once again, to obfuscate and misdirect the conversation and wander off into la la land with red herring deflections.

We are here talking about building a merit based immigration policy grounded in common sense which will advance the general welfare of the United States. If you are not interested in contributing in a productive manner to this discussion, have the decency to not post in the thread.



he’s all over the place. I think AS obtuseness is directed at Trump.


No Caroline, you didn’t read my posts. You talk out of hysterics, instead of reading what I said.

I’am For Eisenhower’s system, I’am For the Ellis Island System. Both were far better than what we have today, as both allowed Labor markets to function.

Both allowed over 90% of people coming to stay, whereas the current system rejects over 70%.

Not because of terrorism, not because of health, but because of a Government approved list of work skills that simply says anyone with skills outside of it are useless.

You are defending this practice Caroline, you are defending bureaucracy. Red tape meant to ensnare people, and discourage them from immigrating here.

Nothing about that is American, nothing about that protects us, it is simply bad policy that encourages people to come here illegally. It creates illegal immigration.


2%, they only rejected the Sick and Socialists.

I’m all for bringing that system back, are you?


There you go again, making a false statement. You appear to be totally ignorant of the subject, or, you intentionally misrepresent historical facts. I suspect the latter is the case.

The irrefutable fact is, rejection was not limited to the “sick and socialists” as you assert.

See: 9 Things You May Not Know About Ellis Island

Immigrants were subject to physical and mental exams to ensure they were fit for admittance to the United States.

”Upon arrival at Ellis Island, immigrants were ushered into a room called the Great Hall and paraded before a series of medical officers for physical inspection. Most were allowed to pass by in a matter of seconds, but those whom the doctors deemed physically or mentally deficient were marked with chalk and taken away for additional screening. Questionable candidates were forced to submit to more detailed questioning and medical exams, and any signs of contagious disease, poor physique, feeblemindedness or insanity could see an immigrant denied admittance on the grounds that they were likely to become a ward of the state. In later years, doctors at Ellis Island even devised puzzles and memory tests to ensure that certain immigrants were intelligent enough to find work. New arrivals could also face rejection if they were anarchists, had a criminal record or showed signs of low moral character. Despite the litany of guidelines for new immigrants, the number of people denied entry at Ellis Island was quite low. Of the 12 million people who passed through its doors between 1892 and 1954, only around 2 percent were deemed unfit to become citizens of the United States.”

Today, we have a number of additional categories worthy to consider within a merit based immigration policy, some of which I took the time to list in POST NO. 125.

Why do you find it necessary to constantly obstruct a productive discussion to create a merit based immigration system which advances the general welfare of the United States and her citizens?


American citizens are sick and tired of being made into tax-slaves to finance a maternity ward for the poverty stricken populations of other countries who invade America’s borders to give birth.


I’m for a moratorium. this nation is not the catch all pot for any and everyone. WE have been pretty successful with our previous immigration plans. You are coming around…I see your posts… this is not what you were saying early on. Don’t worry. Democrats have placed immigration moratoriums in the past. It’s really okay if a ‘republican’ one does it now.


The POINT of that post you linked to was that when we had that surge of immigration around the turn of the 20th Century was at a time when we had millions of jobs going unfilled, while today, we have more “workers” than we have jobs available. You can deny it, if you wish, but it’s the truth. We need to do two things to correct this imbalance…restrict immigration and create more jobs. If you do the first without doing the second, we are just putting more people on the dole–and making those who ARE working into tax-slaves to support the influx of more people who won’t be able to find work either…unless some unscrupulous employer is willing to pay them below minimum wage under the table and pocket their withheld taxes.


Which is wrong, and not something we ever did.

Eisenhower used Executive Order to RAISE the limit on immigration. TWICE.

> WE have been pretty successful with our previous immigration plans.

Which were more open than what we have now. FAR more open. That’s why it worked, it allowed labor markets to reach a clearing point.

> You are coming around…I see your posts…

No you didn’t I said this earlier:

And this is me 3 YEARS AGO:

> Don’t worry. Democrats have placed immigration moratoriums in the past. It’s really okay if a ‘republican’ one does it now.

I’ve had the same position on Immigration, ever since I’ve been here. Wrong Caroline, you’re just wrong.


One thing that escapes EVERYONE about this issue is that everyone–EVERYONE–who is here illegally, whether they walked across the border, drove across, rode across, flew in, sailed in or SWAM in and simply overstayed their visa is a CRIMINAL…by definition. They’ve violated our border, our sovereignty and our laws–knowingly so. Nobody has ever been able to explain WHY we shouldn’t arrest them and deport them. I don’t CARE if they’ve been here 24 hours or 24 years. They are STILL here illegally and are therefore, criminals and should be arrested and sent back where they came from.


Dave Even if it’s true (and it’s not), the market handles it. When there’s growth, immigration surges, when there’s a downturn, immigration falls.

Government does not make a better allocator of labor than the market. The Market handles it the best, and if the demand could be met with legal immigration, it would handle it even better.

If it was all legal, immigrants could more accurately judge if there work for them here or not, and since the process would be more transparent, it would be easier to spot terrorists. **Everyone wins. **

The lesson here, is that if you want Free markets to function, QUIT FIDDLING WITH IT.