Trump Appears to Endorse Path to Citizenship for Millions of Immigrants

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

President Trump said legislation around an immigration overhaul should come from love, while also pushing for stronger security measures.

By JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS and SHERYL GAY STOLBERG
January 9, 2018

WASHINGTON — President Trump on Tuesday appeared open to negotiating a sweeping immigration deal that would eventually grant millions of undocumented immigrants a pathway to citizenship, declaring that he was willing to “take the heat” politically for an approach that seemed to flatly contradict the anti-immigration stance that charged his political rise.

The president made the remarks during an extended meeting with congressional Republicans and Democrats who are weighing a shorter-term agreement that would extend legal status for undocumented immigrants brought to the United States as children. The 90-minute session — more than half of which played out on national television — appeared to produce some progress: Mr. Trump agreed to a framework for a short-term immigration deal to couple protection for young, undocumented immigrants with border security.

But in suggesting that a broader immigration measure was possible next, Mr. Trump was giving a rare public glimpse of an impulse he has expressed privately to advisers and lawmakers — the desire to preside over a more far-reaching solution to the status of the 11 million undocumented immigrants already living and working in the United States. Passage of a comprehensive immigration law would give Mr. Trump success where Presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush failed.

The push for an immigration deal with Democrats has the potential to alienate the hard-line anti-immigration activists who powered his political rise and helped him win the presidency, many of whom have described it as amnesty for lawbreakers. If he succeeds, it could be compared to Richard Nixon’s historic trip to China. Only an anti-Communist hard-liner could have made the opening acceptable to his supporters.

 

 

[TBoneTX 43,058]

2 hours ago, Il Mango Dulce said:

an immigration deal with Democrats has the potential to alienate the hard-line anti-immigration activists who powered his political rise and helped him win the presidency,

Not just the potential -- it'll sink him like a lead balloon.

[Boiler 43,430]

Wow

 

Are you now a Trumpster?

[TBoneTX 43,058]

Who?

[jayjayj 571]

7 hours ago, Il Mango Dulce said:

President Trump said legislation around an immigration overhaul should come from love, while also pushing for stronger security measures.

By JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS and SHERYL GAY STOLBERG
January 9, 2018

WASHINGTON — President Trump on Tuesday appeared open to negotiating a sweeping immigration deal that would eventually grant millions of undocumented immigrants a pathway to citizenship, declaring that he was willing to “take the heat” politically for an approach that seemed to flatly contradict the anti-immigration stance that charged his political rise.

The president made the remarks during an extended meeting with congressional Republicans and Democrats who are weighing a shorter-term agreement that would extend legal status for undocumented immigrants brought to the United States as children. The 90-minute session — more than half of which played out on national television — appeared to produce some progress: Mr. Trump agreed to a framework for a short-term immigration deal to couple protection for young, undocumented immigrants with border security.

But in suggesting that a broader immigration measure was possible next, Mr. Trump was giving a rare public glimpse of an impulse he has expressed privately to advisers and lawmakers — the desire to preside over a more far-reaching solution to the status of the 11 million undocumented immigrants already living and working in the United States. Passage of a comprehensive immigration law would give Mr. Trump success where Presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush failed.

The push for an immigration deal with Democrats has the potential to alienate the hard-line anti-immigration activists who powered his political rise and helped him win the presidency, many of whom have described it as amnesty for lawbreakers. If he succeeds, it could be compared to Richard Nixon’s historic trip to China. Only an anti-Communist hard-liner could have made the opening acceptable to his supporters.

 

 

 

Where is the link for the quoted article?

[Boiler 43,430]

2 minutes ago, jayjayj said:

 

Where is the link for the quoted article?

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/09/us/politics/trump-daca-immigration.html

5 hours ago, TBoneTX said:

Who?

Mango

[Cyberfx1024 7,978]

25 minutes ago, jayjayj said:

 

Where is the link for the quoted article?

 

7 hours ago, Il Mango Dulce said:

President Trump said legislation around an immigration overhaul should come from love, while also pushing for stronger security measures.

By JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS and SHERYL GAY STOLBERG
January 9, 2018

WASHINGTON — President Trump on Tuesday appeared open to negotiating a sweeping immigration deal that would eventually grant millions of undocumented immigrants a pathway to citizenship, declaring that he was willing to “take the heat” politically for an approach that seemed to flatly contradict the anti-immigration stance that charged his political rise.

The president made the remarks during an extended meeting with congressional Republicans and Democrats who are weighing a shorter-term agreement that would extend legal status for undocumented immigrants brought to the United States as children. The 90-minute session — more than half of which played out on national television — appeared to produce some progress: Mr. Trump agreed to a framework for a short-term immigration deal to couple protection for young, undocumented immigrants with border security.

But in suggesting that a broader immigration measure was possible next, Mr. Trump was giving a rare public glimpse of an impulse he has expressed privately to advisers and lawmakers — the desire to preside over a more far-reaching solution to the status of the 11 million undocumented immigrants already living and working in the United States. Passage of a comprehensive immigration law would give Mr. Trump success where Presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush failed.

The push for an immigration deal with Democrats has the potential to alienate the hard-line anti-immigration activists who powered his political rise and helped him win the presidency, many of whom have described it as amnesty for lawbreakers. If he succeeds, it could be compared to Richard Nixon’s historic trip to China. Only an anti-Communist hard-liner could have made the opening acceptable to his supporters.

 

 

I was listening to a podcast from a SoCal station and they were talking about this and actually played the whole statement that he said it. Then they broke down what he said and why he said it:

 

Basically he as of right now is trying to draw out the Dems and see how much they truly "care" about the illegals that are already here in the USA. He is saying ok I will agree to DACA and POSSIBLY about doing some sort of deal about the other illegals already here. But in return you have to give me x,y, and z. 

 

So it makes sense if you step back and look at it. Sorry I used not an official iheartmedia link but quite frankly their website sucks and I have to use a 3rd party site to listen to the radio shows I lik

 

https://www.stitcher.com/podcast/kfidigital/john-and-ken-on-demand/e/52831380

[jg121783 3,907]

I think it is funny how the article refers to illegal aliens as immigrants and to people who simply oppose foreigners coming here illegally as being somehow anti immigrant. I am opposed to forigeners coming here illegally. Does that make me anti immigrant or the people coming here illegally immigrants? Absolutely not. My wife and step son followed the legal process and immigrated here. I don't oppose that. Most people on these forums had spouses or other relatives immigrate here legally. I am not at all opposed to that. I fail to see how someone like me could be labeled anti immigrant and illegal aliens could be labeled immigrants. I guess that's the type of extreme left reporting you can expect from the N.Y. slimes though.

 

All that being said I am not opposed to a path to citizenship for so called dreamers who actually were brought here as children with no choice of their own as long as they don't have a criminal record and they go through the process every other legal immigrant has to go through. What is not acceptable is a path to citizenship for criminals or those who came here illegally as an adult.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

14 minutes ago, jg121783 said:

I think it is funny how the article refers to illegal aliens as immigrants and to people who simply oppose foreigners coming here illegally as being somehow anti immigrant. I am opposed to forigeners coming here illegally. Does that make me anti immigrant or the people coming here illegally immigrants? Absolutely not. My wife and step son followed the legal process and immigrated here. I don't oppose that. Most people on these forums had spouses or other relatives immigrate here legally. I am not at all opposed to that. I fail to see how someone like me could be labeled anti immigrant and illegal aliens could be labeled immigrants. I guess that's the type of extreme left reporting you can expect from the N.Y. slimes though.

 

All that being said I am not opposed to a path to citizenship for so called dreamers who actually were brought here as children with no choice of their own as long as they don't have a criminal record and they go through the process every other legal immigrant has to go through. What is not acceptable is a path to citizenship for criminals or those who came here illegally as an adult.

And we must absolutely stop any kind of look the other way, sanctuary city, ECT Bull, for future illegals. 

 

We can't afford another Reagan amnesty deal with a promise to fix it that never gets done 

[jg121783 3,907]

1 hour ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

And we must absolutely stop any kind of look the other way, sanctuary city, ECT Bull, for future illegals. 

 

We can't afford another Reagan amnesty deal with a promise to fix it that never gets done 

Agreed. We can solve this problem without kicking people out who were brought here as children who don't know any life outside the US without having a free for all or allowing criminals to stay. We do however have to put measures in place that will prevent this disaster from happening again. I agree that things like sanctuary cities are unacceptable and any local or state politician who puts these policies in place should be charged with violating federal immigration laws.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

13 minutes ago, jg121783 said:

Agreed. We can solve this problem without kicking people out who were brought here as children who don't know any life outside the US without having a free for all or allowing criminals to stay. We do however have to put measures in place that will prevent this disaster from happening again. I agree that things like sanctuary cities are unacceptable and any local or state politician who puts these policies in place should be charged with violating federal immigration laws.

Because if we don't in 15 years we will have another mass of illegals to deal with. 

 

I think Trumps base will be fine with a daca style program and some form of amnesty , if we absolutely go to zero tolerance and drop the hammer on future illegal immigration 

[Dashinka 23,238]

1 minute ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

Because if we don't in 15 years we will have another mass of illegals to deal with. 

 

I think Trumps base will be fine with a daca style program and some form of amnesty , if we absolutely go to zero tolerance and drop the hammer on future illegal immigration 

That is the entire point right?  

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

1 minute ago, Bill & Katya said:

That is the entire point right?  

Yes it is. 

 

I mean zero tolerance.  Amnesty and no path to citizenship for adults and maybe a path to citizenship for dreamers.

 

From that date toward if you get stoped for speeding, jaywalking etc and you are illegal...straight home.

 

No benefits,  no illegals in school,  100% everify, massive fines for employers that hire them. I mean shut if down 

[TBoneTX 43,058]

Part of any deal should be the meaningful intent to straighten out USCIS.

[Pennycat 880]

2 hours ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

Because if we don't in 15 years we will have another mass of illegals to deal with. 

 

I think Trumps base will be fine with a daca style program and some form of amnesty , if we absolutely go to zero tolerance and drop the hammer on future illegal immigration 

I agree that we can't continue on status quo because then we'll just face this same issue in 15+ years. But I disagree that the base will be fine with DACA itself (forget a DACA-style program and some form of amnesty) with or without a hammer drop. Throughout the campaign, and all over the airwaves/ conservative news and "news" sites, and heck even back to the implementation of DACA itself, this has been decried as unacceptable amnesty, "illegal is illegal no exceptions" etc etc. I really think that that drumbeat has been hit far too hard for far too long for many of the true believers to change their minds on this.

 

I also don't necessarily think that enforcement is 100% the only way to go here. While YES, obviously more is needed, I do think that we may need to examine the reasons for illegal immigration and see if any of that can be addressed, and possibly open up legal paths where none currently exist. That will keep the "illegal" part out of it (but keep the "immigration" in it, which a lot of the base takes serious issue with). Obviously, there is a supply-and-demand thing going on here, we clearly have the need for labor (people don't generally come here to sit around unemployed, and a lot of people left during the recession). I think there may be some truth to the idea that if we had an easier to access/ more availability of a guest worker program, this could help to solve it. Many people may really just want to come for 6 months/year, and leave their families behind but the inability to move back and forth like that makes it preferable to just come illegally and stay, and maybe eventually bring the whole family. I know we have temporary worker programs but clearly not enough visas and/or enough policing of the employers who hire outside of the program. 

 

I think that the steps/desire to further limit legal immigration is not only unkind but is counterproductive to the aim of stemming legal immigration. 

 

The heart of the issue seems to be that we're looking at this as an either/or approach, mostly based on political philosophy/ideology. When really, a blended approach may work much better. 

 

I myself wouldn't be against having all 11 million people here illegally have the chance at AOS. But they need to prove a clean criminal history (false documentation aside), no (or minimal/ long ago) history of government assistance, pay a fine in addition to USCIS fees (and the fines can go toward getting rid of USCIS's constant backlog) and, perhaps, if entered without inspection, return to their home country for a consular interview, just to hit home the fact that you cannot enter this country without a visa and stay. That way, in the future, when people learn about how their neighbor's cousin's friend (which we all know is how most people in this world "learn" about US immigration) went to the US and 15 years later just got to stay and now he's a citizen, the story involves a giant and expensive headache and full knowledge that the law is different now. If you don't (or can't-- welfare and/or criminal history) go through these steps by a certain date, you're deportable and that's that. 

 

I then would cut off AOS from most non-immigrant visas (I'd list them but I'm sure I'd forget some key ones-- basically, AOS from student visas make sense, tourist visas do not, temporary worker somewhere in the middle), or if not cut it off, make it cost $5000, $10,000, whatever you want-- that way those who are using it as an end-run around a K1/CR1 can pay for that convenience, those who have been long out of status on B2s can pay to avoid a ban and those with a legitimate change in mind can figure out what's worth more to them. I would open up more legal paths to at least temporary work, possibly with the ability to self-petition after a certain number of years and proof of stability/suitability. I think that a merit based system is also a great idea but not at the expense of the family visas. I would not mess around too much with family visas, except possibly getting rid of the sibling petition route (which I've never heard a good explanation for)-- siblings can try for merit based. Or if you insist on scrapping the family route, add points to the merit system for family and consider some sort of "retirement" visa for parents of US citizens-- no work permits, and no Medicare, minimum age for it (care for elderly parents IS a real concern, not an excuse).  Then enforce as much as you want. i think an actual physical wall is ridiculous and a giant waste of money and has terrible PR out there in the world but to each their own I suppose.  Harsh, yet open. Blended.