President Trump

I'm not sure what you mean. Both sides of the field?

Personally, I think addressing illegal immigration from the supply side is foolish. It needs to be addressed from the demand side. Make employers responsible for hiring only workers who are authorized to work in the US.

Also, I think the LAPD is making the right decision. Becoming an arm of immigration enforcement would put local cops at odds with the folks they're supposed to be protecting.

Quote:

I'm not sure what you mean. Both sides of the field?

They don't want states to define immigration law but are ok with liberal cities doing that very thing. Didn't we hear a lot of noise from the left after AZ passed SB1070, that immigration enforcement should be left to the feds and the states should stay out of it? If that is the case, then what gives cities to the right to ignore federal law and enact sanctuary policies of their own? This is playing both sides of the field on immigration.

Quote:

Personally, I think addressing illegal immigration from the supply side is foolish. It needs to be addressed from the demand side. Make employers responsible for hiring only workers who are authorized to work in the US.

Of course you think it is foolish, you are more than likely a proponent of open borders.

We already have those laws on the books, it doesn't stop people from getting fake ID's and SS#'s to get jobs. Those very things will bypass any support from the E-Verify system. It needs to be addressed from both sides. Harsher penalties for employers who hire illegals and harsher punishment and deportation for those who violate the law. We also need to update the Constitution to change what it means to be born an American citizen. The easiest way to do this is by allowing birthright citizenship to be given to a child who has 1 parent who is a citizen. This would cut down on the amount of people who come here simply to have a kid and then stay in the country.

Quote:

Also, I think the LAPD is making the right decision. Becoming an arm of immigration enforcement would put local cops at odds with the folks they're supposed to be protecting.

The LAPD is making a horrible decision. I wonder if the feds will tie money support into these cities to the following the law. Don't like to follow the law, then you loose federal money.

Boxer to introduce bill to kill Electoral College.

Er... I don't think you're analyzing that just right. Saying that local police should not be an arm of immigration enforcement is still saying that immigration enforcement should be left to the feds.

You're more than likely an idiot, exemplified by your need to put words in other people's mouths. What I am, is a proponent of not causing the very problem one is trying to solve.

Good luck on that amendment....

Do they get federal money for immigration enforcement? If not, you're talking about an unfunded mandate, and I thought you "small government" types were against that.

What it comes down to, is that your "principles" go out the window the moment you see an advantage for your pet issue.

All these "small government" legislators are suddenly jizzing in their pants at the prospect of blowing up the deficit by simultaneously lowering taxes and increasing spending.

Drewdad wrote:

All these "small government" legislators are suddenly jizzing in their pants at the prospect of blowing up the deficit by simultaneously lowering taxes and increasing spending.

What does this have to do with LA, Denver and other such sanctuary cities ignoring, and proudly, that their police dept's will not work with immigration enforcement? Sounds like an unrelated political rant based on no information.

Are you implying that building a wall and cracking down on immigration will lead to more and worse illegal immigration? Instead we don't have a border and that will end illegal immigration? Please expand on that line of logic if you can.

Does discussing multiple topics confuse you?

This is a thread titled "President Trump."