From a thread about immigration back in 2014, I posted...

S. 744 was a kick-a$$ bill, passed in 2013 in the Senate 68-32 in grand (and very rare) bi-partisan fashion. The increase in funding to the Border Patrol, technology and the Border Fence was massive. Yes, it had DREAM Act provisions and paths to citizenship, but it actually required the border to be more secure before any of those provisions kicked in. It had provisions for farm workers, families, codified the use of E-Verify and much, much more.

I also went on to post the bill in its entirety, in between a whole lotta conservative whining about Obama overstepping his Presidential authority via Executive Order. Of course, we all know those sentiments don't count anymore. It's a fun trip down memory lane: https://allmanbrothersband.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=XForum&file=viewthread&fid=127&tid=137647&page=1&orderdate=

But, back to S. 744. Never made it to the floor of the House. Never debated, never considered. Even those who were vehemently against a path to citizenship (something they most certainly could have negotiated away) didn't get their say. Even if you stripped that bill down to just the massive measures it called for to secure the southern border, it still would have been the largest such effort to do so in American history. WAY more than Trump's Wall.

However, those in Congress, in particular the House, refused to bring the matter to the floor, then it died.

The choice was to DO NOTHING.

Now comes the part where I'm supposed to parse what Obama did or didn't do after that? Accept some kind of lecture on leadership because the House GOP chose to DO ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ON THIS ISSUE?

Rip on Obama all you want, I don't care. But to conveniently leave out those who chose to DO NOTHING out of a devotion to party over country is a willful choice to see only what one wants to see, in my own view.

I read that thread, good look back.

And I'm sorry, your bigger point was lost on me. When I am questioned or quoted in a thread I take that to be directed to a point I'm making...whether I'm it right, wrong or misguided and I follow up accordingly.

I still do not think I mischaracterized anything, over simplified perhaps. I did not say President Obama was wrong to take executive action. I just essentially said the President and his supporters didn't like how immigration law was being enforced and absent of comprehensive immigration reform he took action on his own to right wrongs that he believed existed. The left was upset with him in the earlier years and the right was upset with him in the later years. All that is really true is it not?

You seem mad. Is this a bad time to ask if you want to play in the nascar league again?

Not mad. Frustrated.

And, you already know I'm terrible at updating my teams every week

In addition to the one million legal permanent residents the US accepts each year, the US also accepts 700,000-800,000 various temporary foreign workers each year. That is a combination of nearly 2 million foreigners who are legally allowed to live and work here annually.

Yet when the US wants to try and find and remove those who are here illegally, protesters and some media reports choose to see our country as being "anti-immigrant". It couldn't be further from the truth.

https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/employment-based-visa-categories-united-states

Temporary (Nonimmigrant) Worker

A temporary worker is an individual seeking to enter the United States temporarily for a specific purpose. Nonimmigrants enter the United States for a temporary period of time, and once in the United States, are restricted to the activity or reason for which their nonimmigrant visa was issued.

I think Democrats are confused about what they are protesting. Trump's immigration policies are only unique in the tone he uses. Clinton took a stance just as tough as Trump, but he spoke about it with the respect and empathy that the topic deserves, whereas Trump has incited hostility towards the immigrants. This explains why the right is constantly using the line "but Obama did it too". Yes he did, but he never displayed any type of denigration or hostility towards them like Trump has. This is what the Democrats should be protesting - not the policies, but rather his unprofessional and immature rhetoric. We should demand better from our President. Sadly, his base admires unprofessionalism and immaturity. It's what drives them to be happy.

I think Democrats are confused about what they are protesting. Trump's immigration policies are only unique in the tone he uses. Clinton took a stance just as tough as Trump, but he spoke about it with the respect and empathy that the topic deserves, whereas Trump has incited hostility towards the immigrants. This explains why the right is constantly using the line "but Obama did it too". Yes he did, but he never displayed any type of denigration or hostility towards them like Trump has. This is what the Democrats should be protesting - not the policies, but rather his unprofessional and immature rhetoric. We should demand better from our President. Sadly, his base admires unprofessionalism and immaturity. It's what drives them to be happy.

That is true. The way Trump presents his beliefs and policies leave alot to be desired at best, at worst he's at times reckless when he talks.

The protests and all this outrage is directed towards some kind of anti-immigrant sentiment which doesn't exist. Enforcement of immigration law to control who is here legally and illegally isn't anti-immigrant. If one wants to point to the travel ban, say what you want about that, but it is rooted in a national security concern. If you want to object to that view, that there is no concern in that regard, that is fine, but the scope of the travel ban is narrow enough that I don't think anyone can imply it is to limit immigrants as some big picture plan to reduce immigration here.

Now, if the government lowers the caps on how many permanent residents or temporary workers are admitted then that will be something, but currently, the actions the administration is supporting and advocating have been for enforcement of existing law and addressing what they believe are national security concerns.

This country shouldn't need to rely upon illegal immigrant labor when we are admitting so many legal immigrants every year (both permanent residents and temporary workers). I'd have to believe the vast majority of employers who do use illegal workers instead of legal workers are either doing it to exploit the illegal labor, or are simply too lazy to go through the process of seeking/sponsoring temporary workers that our law allows for and brings in each year. Is there a shortage, not enough? Seems like the number coming in goes up every year.

http://www.nbc29.com/story/34534194/trump-winery-again-granted-permission-to-hire-foreign-workers

Trump Winery Again Granted Permission to Hire Foreign Workers
Posted: Feb 17, 2017 4:02 PM EST

ALBEMARLE COUNTY, Va. (WVIR) -
The U.S. Department of Labor is approving another request from Trump Winery to hire foreign workers.

The department posted the openings on the public job registry Thursday, February 16.

The Albemarle County winery is looking for 23 vineyard farm workers. The workers would make $11.27 an hour, and would be employed for a little more than six months.

The foreign workers would be accepted under a federal H-2A visa.

Back in December, Trump Winery asked for temporary visas for six foreign workers

The Department of Labor requires new filings each time the date of need for those workers is different.

The winery was previously owned by Patricia Kluge, but was purchased by now-President Donald Trump back in 2012 for a reported amount of $6.5 million. Kluge, who had filed for bankruptcy, had sought $100 million when she put the property on the market.

Eric Trump, one of the president’s three sons, runs Trump Winery.

I think Democrats are confused about what they are protesting.

Some are, some aren't. There are 2 issues that have become 1 in some peoples' eyes:

1 - Trump's rhetoric against illegal Mexicans over the past 18 months and promise to begin mass deportations and build a wall. Illegal residents have been deported consistently for years, but Trump decided to shine a spot light on it. Yes, legally they cannot be here, but it just hasn't been a priority because it hasn't been a threat. Even though he is right to deport, as past administrations have done, he laced the message with so much vitriol and fear that people are pushing back against the delivery, not necessarily the details. Trump gave some supporters a green light to express their latent racist attitudes against Central & South American immigrants (legal and illegal), and on the other side, he gave the far-Left a green light to attempt to shield Central & South American immigrants (legal and illegal) in perceived response.

2 - Trump's travel ban and rhetoric the Middle East and refugees.
Trump's ill-conceived travel ban may have had good intentions regarding security, but the delivery was laced in anti-Muslim sentiment. People who had spent months, even years, to gain legal access to come here were suddenly denied over night. This included students, family members, people coming for new jobs. It was incredibly short-sighted, and very arbitrary. The only person it seemed to benefit was Trump, so he could bring himself up to speed on the situation.

So you have 2 immigration-related issues, that aren't even attempting to stop legal immigration, but because they were vilifying their targets, it morphs into a warped, inaccurate "anti-immigration" banner like a game of telephone. The other day there was even a "Day Without Immigrants", which was a total straw man protest, and a lot of misinformed people lost there jobs for not showing up to work.

Trump's supporters praise him for speaking his mind, but knowing the Law is kind of important for a law maker. And as much as people complain about the polish and rehearsal of politicians, this is why delivery is 90% when it comes to a message. "Make America Great Again" was a successful, simple slogan - it meant whatever to every individual who agreed with it regardless of its relevance. Meanwhile, his rambling press conference the other day, in which he didn't seem to even understand some reporters' questions (complaining that a simple question was not "simple" at all) reveal Trump's inability to grasp more complicated situations. So if Trump used over-simplified rhetoric to gain support, I am not at all surprised that over-simplified rhetoric is being used against him.

Good post Bob.

Regarding Hemp's article, of course that is well within the law for them to seek and legally hire foreign workers. So what is the implication? Is Trump supposed to be involved in the running of his companies or not? If it is a walk the walk argument then if Trump were to announce "Trump Winery will only hire American citizens for our employees", does he then get criticized for 'running' his business? Or does he get labeled a 'racist' since he is choosing to discriminate against legal foreign workers?

its just another FYI article. different sides will have different opinions. mostly it just shows in inconsistencies in what Trump says i guess and the problems that can arise when a President doesn't decouple from his businesses and investments.

I know the issue of some kind of H-visa workers came up, maybe at Mar-a-Largo. I remember it from the election and don't recall Trump's response off hand, could look it up.

I would agree that Trump rarely tells the full story on any issue. I do not believe he has ever stated the importance and reliance of the gust-worker program as some call it, or the temporary (nonimmigrant) program as it is formally known. He instead likes to focus on illegal immigrants rather than telling the full story of how critical legal foreign workers are to our economy. Had he done so then this wouldn't be a story at all I suspect. So I get that, but I'm not sure what anyone wants him to do about it at this point? I think he should have all his Trump branded clothing made in the USA, but if he does then he is directing his companies what to do and that would have a bunch of other people up in arms.

Regarding Hemp's article, of course that is well within the law for them to seek and legally hire foreign workers. So what is the implication? Is Trump supposed to be involved in the running of his companies or not? If it is a walk the walk argument then if Trump were to announce "Trump Winery will only hire American citizens for our employees", does he then get criticized for 'running' his business? Or does he get labeled a 'racist' since he is choosing to discriminate against legal foreign workers?

It's a legal work visa, so it's what Trump, in theory, strongly supports (assuming he understands all facets of the issue - which I don't). It certainly looks like hypocrisy if you think that he is against all immigrants. He hasn't articulated this clearly, or if he still has any vetting concerns for this type of work visa. Plus, there is no way for him to completely ever disconnect from his businesses so long as his sons run them (they might not have discussed this, but obviously it is in the news he reads---I mean, watches). But on the surface, superficially, it appears tone-deaf, and as we learned from the election, if "appearance" is truth for a day, that's as long as it needs.

[Edited on 2/20/2017 by porkchopbob]

How about at least giving these folks 30 days notice, to get their affairs in order? Instead of, sorry, new law, yer gettin yanked by the yankees.

If you gave them 30 days notice do you think they would comply, or just move on to someplace else so they could not be found when the officers came back to see them?

This Lebanese woman wants a Visa. She's on the terror watch list, so they won't let her in.

http://www.albawaba.com/entertainment/maya-diab-tweets-trump-begging-us-visa-i-earned-it-939572

Maybe Donald can help this lady come to our country, whaddaya think?

I have come to the conclusion that the President has to much power to decide immigration policy. I don't mean just Trump, I mean all Presidents. I also believe that our immigration laws need to be completely rewritten.

Let me explain.

We have a multitude of contradictory immigration laws.

The argument is just enforce the laws.

A President has the authority to say which laws are to be enforced, given to them by Congress and somewhat by the Constitution

This kind of system is neither fair nor productive. It basically is a system of no laws at all and doomed to fail.

We have a multitude of contradictory immigration laws.

The argument is just enforce the laws.

A President has the authority to say which laws are to be enforced, given to them by Congress and somewhat by the Constitution

This kind of system is neither fair nor productive. It basically is a system of no laws at all and doomed to fail.

I agree, and aside from it just not being a priority other than fanning prejudices, it's not like illegal immigration hasn't been enforced over the years. If an illegal immigrant comes to light, typically that is dealt with by the officers who discover, if they have jurisdiction, and from there it is a process. Trump talks as if he is going to "round up" illegal immigrants like the apes did to humans in Planet of the Apes. They are not just all sitting in a field. Are agents going to go around checking papers like this is East Germany? And whose papers? Everyone's or just people who "look" South/Central American? That brings in the question of profiling, and that's unconstitutional.

If Trump wants to channel Federal money to Federal agencies to increase enforcement, fine, but he can't expect local agencies to reallocate resources for something that isn't necessarily a priority.