Should the President suspend habeas corpus and arrest those invading our borders?


#21

BS. El Paso is HARDLY one of the “safest cities in America!” Where do you GET this crap…and that’s what it is? Juarez, just across the border has had almost 2,000 murders in just the past year. El Paso has had a couple of dozen, so I guess in your world, the comparison makes El Paso “safe?” You have GOT to know that with Kalifornia’s “motor voter” laws coupled with the prohibition against INQUIRING as to immigration status by DMV employees, that there is RAMPANT vote fraud there. It couldn’t possibly be otherwise.


#22

Alaskaslim is the most radical, far left person on this site. First, he advocates replacing the U.S. Dollar with Bitcoin. That would cause a major disruption in the American economy and destroy the savings of millions of Americans who have worked hard, saved and played by the rules. It would result in considerable domestic unrest.

Then he wants to open up the American borders totally to anyone who wants come here and live off the welfare state. It does not matter if they are criminals, terrorists or anarchists who would tear the fabric of this nation to pieces, they are all welcome. Any sort of vetting is “racist and xenophobic.”

When Alaskaslim advocated the replacement of the American Dollar with Bitcoin, I though that he might be an extreme libertarian who opposes almost all government programs, even the support of a monetary system. Now I see what he is, an anarchist who wants an American revolution. He won’t be satisfied until we get an American version of Hugo Chavez. That’s the type of person he wants to lead this country.


#23

Barry Goldwater has been dead for 20 years. You can’t put words in a dead man’s mouth when terrorism and other national security issues have changed since his time. You have brought this up time after time, and it’s a load of crap. You seem to think that you can pass as a conservative because you can quote Barry Goldwater. You can’t. From what I’ve seen of you, you are radical leftist.

The main “right wing people” who want unlimited numbers of illegals in the country are the big corporations. Their “patron saints” are guys like Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney who are RINOs. They think they are going to get a lot of cheap labor. Maybe they will, but with the push for $15 an hour, that might not come to pass. What the rest of us will get will be huge increase in demand for government services, from schools to demands for cheap public housing. All of that will drive our local taxes even higher while the corporation get the big tax break, which I supported.

These immigrates are low skilled workers with limited educations. Many, if not most, can’t speak English. That is social problem because assimilation will be difficult.

Furthermore, I’m not a bit happy that many of them are coming up here waving the flags of their home country. That says to their their hearts are in their home country, not here. With such in flux of poorly educated people, we are getting set up for civil unrest and protests from a large and envious under class. We can to take some people, but all of them. And we certainly do not have room for violent criminals and terrorists.


#24

Now, the FBI doesn’t recommend utilizing its data like this, they make qualifications, like city density or localized problems that other cities don’t experience.

However, if you are going to to try and make this comparison, El Paso is going to tend up near the top. That much is certain.


#25

And illegal immigration peaked in the 90’s. He saw illegal immigration at its worst, yet didn’t change his tune of what would solve it.

And given his method had a track record, he had no reason to.

Everything is cyclical, even terrorism.

The first war on terror was in 1912, against Italian anarchists who were setting bombs off on Wall Street and in factories.

Goldwater was alive for Lockerbie, the LaGuardia Airport bombing, and the first World Trade Center bombing.
Not to mention the whole slew of Aircraft hijackings we had in the 70’s and 80’s.

Because I understand Natural Law, and I know what it demands of us.

I intend to keep this tradition alive; “New Right” crap from the 70’s that you appear to be advocating can go hang. It failed, and I’m all too happy to bury it, and bring back what works.

The Old Right is better than the “New Right”, I make no apologies for that.


#26

BS, of course. With the exception of Oklahoma City, ALL the cities on your “worst” list are so-called “sanctuary cities.” The Texas cities listed aren’t sanctuary cities with State sanction, but their far-left “leaderships” most certainly are touting “sanctuary.” The Dallas and Houston Mayors and Chiefs of Police have ALL stated that they will NOT cooperate with ICE for example.

BTW, the FBI reports what data are reported to THEM. If the city’s “leadership” simply refuses to TELL the FBI what their experience is, it skews the FBI data.


#27

Milwaukee isn’t. Indianapolis isn’t. Dallas cooperates with ICE, so how it is a “sanctuary city” is kind of curious.
Detroit is in question the same way.

But I noticed what you didn’t do Dave; El Paso is still a safe city.

You just sidestepped that entirely.

Their data is a little more involved than that:

"…our annual publications are produced from data received from more than 18,000 city, university and college, county, state, tribal, and federal law enforcement agencies voluntarily participating in the program. The crime data are submitted either through a state UCR program or directly to the FBI’s UCR Program.

The UCR Program consists of four data collections: The National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS), the Summary Reporting System (SRS), the Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted (LEOKA) Program, and the Hate Crime Statistics Program."

Ergo, not just what the city says.


#28

So, your Natura Law tells us that we can’t prevent any immigrants from coming to this country. We can’t vet anyone who wants to come here because they have a human right to ignore our borders because of Natural Law. They can be criminals, drug traffickers, gang bangers, terrorists and human traffickers. All of that is okay because our “political laws” will have to deal with them.

Forget the expense, forget the human rights of those who have crimes committed against them by these people who are only exercising their “Natural Laws Rights” by coming here. None of that matters because “Natural Law” says that we must accept bad people.

You live in an ivory tower that so far up in the clouds that you can’t see the ground. Government has a responsibility to protect its citizens. If it doesn’t do that, then your Natural Law does not amount to a thing because the law of “Might Makes Right” will totally overwhelm it.

Peace and domestic tranquility are part of the Preamble to the Constitution, and it is rooted in your Natural Law. People only retain their “Natural Law Rights” when they respect the “Natural Law Rights” of others. When they violate that, they give up their rights, and court and penal system must deal with them. There is no “right” for anyone to immigrate to the United States to break the law. If you can’t agree to that, then your interpretation of Natural Law has made you into an anarchist.


#29

Can our President declare an emergency, and use available funds to build a wall?

See: Fact check: What’s a ‘national emergency,’ and can Trump declare one to get his wall?

”Is that true? Legal experts said it might not be as simple to bypass Congress — which ultimately controls the federal budget — as Trump suggests, but not necessarily impossible. NBC News reported Friday that lawyers from the White House, the Department of Homeland Security and the Pentagon are meeting to discuss whether or not it’s doable.”

Having researched this very issue a number of years ago, the bottom line is, in easy to understand language, YES, our president can declare an emergency, giving particulars, and take necessary action to deal with the emergency stated. But, if after 60 days Congress does not legislate to the contrary, an extra 30 days is allowed the president to deal with said emergency, but he is required to consult with Congress in dealing with said emergency.

I have tried to put this in easy to understand language, and avoid the technicalities involved.

As to my own opinion, I believe President Trump ought to hold a “fireside chat” [FDR style] and lay out the emergency, expressing in detail the various threats of not securing our border adequately, elaborating on specifics which encourage illegal border crossings and remedies to discourage it, including addressing the abuse of asylum laws, chain migration, and an immigration system not merit based. And go on to state if Congress does not act swiftly to address these issues in a manner which actual promotes the General Welfare of the United States and HER citizens, he will declare a national emergency and begin to address the issue on his own.

JWK

Illegal immigration is now costing American citizens over $18 billion a year in healthcare costs alone! Far more than the measly $5 billion asked for to build a wall! LINK


#30

BS. Did you miss the term “voluntary”? If El Paso CHOOSES not to report crime to the FBI, there is NO WAY for the FBI to get a handle on how much crime occurs in El Paso, just as an example. Dallas isn’t a DECLARED sanctuary city because State law forbids it. That doesn’t mean that Dallas doesn’t hide illegals they’ve arrested from the feds. I have a friend who’s a Dallas detective and HE knows the truth, even if you refuse to acknowledge it.


#31

Yes, I wish that President Trump could give some presidential addresses to present his positions and not relay the tweets as much.


#32

Natural Law is the basis of the Constitution.

It is directly referenced in the Declaration; paraphrased from how John Locke himself described it.

“life, liberty, Property”

It is not “mine” and it is not alien to America. It is intertwined with our history, the core of the philosophy beating in our social charter, and the basis for our separation with England.

It is our cultural heritage, and the thing we all would have been taught, had any shred of the Classical liberal arts the Founders themselves pushed people to learn had survived into the mid 20th century.


#33

Yes you are Dave.

Read that statement, and realize cities aren’t the only ones they ask.

They’re saying it right there, so you can’t deny it.

Certain Federal Funding is contingent on what these stats say, so the Feds have little reason to not compare what the cities say to someone else.


#34

Note how Alaskaslim didn’t answer any of my points about public safety, national security and the “Natural Law Rights” of crime victims. That’s the way politicians avoid responding to the tough questions.


#35

Because you were being weird as to what Natural Law is. That comes first.

You decided to challenge me on being Conservative, but if you don’t know what Natural law is, you can’t make claim to it at all.

To be a conservative you have to be conserving something, and In America, that’s the ideology of the Founders. Once again, no apologies.

Meanwhile, Barry Goldwater wasn’t for flooding the country with criminals, that was a strawman on your part, and you know it Send.

You didn’t ask “tough” questions, you asked red herrings.

Strip that out, and ask a question without it.


#36

Their “saying” something doesn’t mean SQUAT…or have you not been paying attention to politicians for the past 150 years or so? We have NO IDEA how many illegals are here. We have even LESS of an idea how many of them are criminals, bearers of disease or even terrorists.


#37

And now you deflected so I’m calling B.S.

You claimed the FBI only listens to cities for their crime statistics, yet there the FBI is, outright saying they consult a group of sources, not just the cities.

You got it wrong Dave, so take ownership, or we’re done talking. I have no time for someone who can’t even admit details.


#38

Nonsense. YOU claim that whatever the FBI publishes is gospel truth. I’m merely calling you on either your stupidity or naivety. Just because they SAY something doesn’t mean it’s truth in any form. Nobody with a single, functioning brain cell believes their BS any longer…certainly not after what’s been revealed about their activities over the last few years.


#39

Nope. I’m saying the only stats we have to measure this by, says El Paso is one of the safer cities in America.

You’re the one playing scorched earth, saying no statistics can be trusted. Which I don’t buy.

That’s just sounds like a convenient standpoint to avoid admitting that a sanctuary city, doesn’t have to be worse off.


#40

"Natural Law” is your strawman. You use it as an excuse to support every idea you have about immigration. Every argument for you comes back to YOUR interpretation of “Natural Law,” which is a very perverted reading of that concept. In your world “Natural Law” applies to some people but not to others. It’s very convenient to use “Natural Law” as an argument when you don’t know the facts or don’t wish to acknowledge them.

Tell me, did “Natural Law” support the murder of the woman in San Francisco by a criminal illegal alien who had been deported from this country multiple times? Did “Natural Law” give him the right kill her? Did “Natural Law” support the recent murder of a police officer in California by an illegal alien who is a gang member who had been pulled over for two DUIs? It is interesting to note that the police officer he killed was a naturalized citizen who came to this country legally. Does “Natural Law” deny right for honest citizens to be protected from criminals and terrorists?

At the beginning of the immigration debate, I thought the left would at least support the concept that American citizens should be protected from alien criminals and terrorists. I thought that the debate would center around the procedures to admit immigrants into this country and how help them make the necessary adjustments so they could become productive citizens. I never thought that the left would support violent criminals. I thought that position would be too extreme for them to take. I was wrong.

When an illegal alien commits a felony, the left often circles the wagons around them. In San Francisco the murderer of Kate Steinle was only convicted of a gun charge, a politically correct verdict. He wasn’t even convicted of murder despite the fact that he used that gun to kill her. Having the illegal gun was his only crime so far as the liberals are concerned. There is an example of “liberal justice” at its worst.

Debating you is waste of time because all you will do stand behind your “Natural Law” strawman. You won’t discuss the real issues. Your only goal is open borders. You don’t need to know the issues because they don’t matter to you. I’d like to discuss compromises, but like most liberals, that’s not what you want to do. It’s your way, and everybody else is wrong and bigoted against immigrants.