That’s totally fair. Honestly, it is mildly inconvenient, nothing more. But it gives us commoners a chance to poke you elites. 
Almost no one agree with on Immigration 
Do you disagree with what I put in that post?
the bold part yes the rest we can still debate…lol
Really? Maybe I’ve never heard your full position on it.
Personally, I believe in deporting anyone that is not here legally. The only caveat I will give, is for DACA recipients who are already part of the program. It is not their fault they were brought here as children, and when given the opportunity to come out of the shadows, they did and fulfilled the requirement of being a contributing member of our society. I am for allowing them to stay in a legal fashion, while putting a time restriction on them getting renewals while they seek permanent citizenship. If they fail to obtain legality during the set time-frame because they missed a check-point, or didn’t file paperwork in time, etc., then they too should be deported.
Just as an example…obviously there are many, many other areas regarding illegal immigration, border enforcement, visa overstays, e-verify, etc.
He’s triggered the libs! ha ha ha ha
I’m really hard nosed on Illegal immigration.
-
They should be charged under Ricco. If they broke the law coming here, they are working illegally, and would continue to do so – that meets the definition of Ricco. Any and all assets should be seized accordingly and the subject deported.
-
Crack down on businesses hiring illegals. First time a fine, second time a much larger fine, third time a fine that might just put them out of business and someone (company owner, president, CEO) gets charged with a crime.
-
We do need physical wall in SOME places. There is no way on gods green earth a continuous wall will be beild along the entire southern border. Need to migrate some of the perimeter protections from Area 51 in Nevada to the border.
-
Those from Mexico caught here illegally. Not just walked across the border, but put on a plane to the southern most mexican airport and dropped of their and told to have a good life.
-
You step one foot in US illegally, you can not claim asylum. If you went through a country to get here without applying for asylum, it is automatically rejected and the person sent home.
-
Daca passed by congress pretty much along the lines of how it is now. BUT with a sunset on it. 2 year cards – renewed max of 4 times (8 years max). During the 8 years the people can apply for citizenship. Once they apply for citizen ship they get a temp regular green card, and are no longer in the daca program. If after 8 years they havn’t applied for citizenship, guess what, they are on their way back to the home country. Law will NOT apply to anyone not currently in the DACA program. If your parents brought you here in 2013, too bad, you’ll need to thank them when they send you home.
-
No anchor babies. If you come here illegally, and had a child. You WILL be deported. Options for you baby/child. Placed with a RELATIVE (not a family frientd) in the US LEGALLY. Relinquish all parental rights and the baby put up for adoption or into foster system. Take them with you back to the home country.
That’s a good start on my immigration position 
1 Like
You may find this as a surprise, but I largely am on board with this. I am not sure about the “southern most airport” part, as that seems unnecessary, but why quibble over something minor. I would actually make the penalties to businesses hiring illegal workers more harsh. One strike, large fine that could threaten your businesses viability. Second strike, felony with lengthy prison term at stake.
Welcome to the dark side.
Now just have to get you on board with budget cuts
Here have a cookie
I’ve been on board with slashing the budget since Moby Dick was a minnow.
I abhor the spending like drunken sailors that both parties have engaged in for decades now. I’m very much a Goldwater-esque conservative, especially in matters of fiscal responsibility.
Where’s my cookie? I also like peaches from Georgia.
If Hillary had won -same as during Obama’s administration - there would be more racial tension, more riots. The worst thing for a progressive liberal is for people to get along. There is no one to blame then and nothing to blame them for. Blame is the bread and butter of progressive liberalism.
1 Like
very true.
Yes. Very much so.
Let me put it this way.
Imagine Hillary were president,
Naturally as President she would have one policy initiative after another
bills,
regulations,
executive orders,
foreign policy initiatives,
judicial nominees
etc…
Imagine all the screaming from the cons here, myself, and our host includex.
Now imagine one man (I dunno, House speaker) came to office promising all sorts of conservative stuff Gauis would like.
Imagine he accomplishes absolutely none of his proposal but he
- stops every piece of Hillary lefty legislation
- stops every Hillary lefty regulation
- stops every Hillary lefty executive order
- stops every Hillary lefty foreign policy initiatives
- stops every Hillary lefty judicial appointment.
I would consider such a man to be a hero, a true American hero.
What a bunch of horse ■■■■
So you think Hillary would do good stuff. Hmm like what?
Reduce taxes?
Reduce spending?
I think on day one she would target some subset of Americans, declare them and their actions ‘bad,’ pit other Americans against them and spend money or command money be spent.
On day two, she would target some subset of Americans then . . .
On day three, she would target some subset of Americans . . .
Everything she is, everything she does is about targeting Americans, pitting one set against another.
Americans are always the enemy. Spending money is always the solution.
Just stop you are looking more foolish
Wow.
What an intelligent argument.
You have blinded me with the facts.
Recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and the US Embassy opening up there tomorrow is one of the most significant, historical things to happen…ever. I understand that many people do not yet understand the full significance but it’s…yuuuuuuuge.
Trump is creating progress of peace in situations that Hillary would have created a war.
