A perspective on Trump and immigration

Hey, ya'll remember Wayne Allen Root?    Just came across this little opinion piece by him on Fox yesterday ... thought I'd share.

Trump not a barbarian and he's right. America is far too nice
By Wayne Allyn Root
Published January 12, 2018
FoxNews.com

As usual the media and liberal critics of Trump have it all wrong.

Before I get to DACA and the wall, I will tackle Trump’s “offensive words” about Haiti and African nations. There are reports that Trump called those countries by a crude name. If he did, he certainly could have chosen his words more carefully. But…who cares?   If he said it, he told the raw truth. As usual, he was right on the money. Trump said exactly (although perhaps crudely) what 63 million American taxpayers who voted for him were thinking.

Trump summed up the weakness of America -- we’re far too nice. We think about everyone, but our own people and our own taxpayers. Why on earth would we allow the world’s poor, unskilled, desperate and dependent masses to come into our country, while we’re $20 trillion in debt? Those days are over. It’s time to be picky and choosy.

We don’t have enough jobs for middle class Americans. We don’t have enough money for poor Americans. We have no obligation or need to let in more people who desperately need to use up our resources and our hard-earned taxpayer money. It’s time for “America First.” It’s time for extreme vetting. It’s time to cut off “visa lotteries.” It’s time to let in skilled craftsman from Norway,  and business owners from China, and doctors from Israel.

We aren’t running a charity, we’re running a country.

As usual, Trump told the raw truth. Yes, he offended some people. So what? We elected him because he’s a bull in a china shop.  We elected him because he’s a warrior. Call him “Trump the Barbarian.”

Trump summed up the weakness of America -- we’re far too nice. We think about everyone, but our own people and our own taxpayers. Why on earth would we allow the world’s poor, unskilled, desperate and dependent masses to come into our country, while we’re $20 trillion in debt?

We elected him to drain the swamp and clean out the bad people and bad policies entrenched in DC. The truth hurts. Get used to it.   Trump’s not going anywhere. He has a tough job to do, to set America on the right course. He might use a few tough words. Words I’ve heard on the streets of New York thousands of times- from liberal voters.

By the way, I’ve used words like that before myself- to describe what’s become of Chicago, Detroit and Baltimore.

By the way, liberals shouldn't get too excited. Trump didn’t lose one vote with his “s---hole” comments. I have many liberal elitist Ivy League friends. They all felt the need to tell me how terrible and offensive Trump’s words were. They called him “racist.” Guess what? None of them was ever voting for Trump anyway.

But all my middle class, working class and small business pals and fans have weighed in. They said, “Bravo. Finally, someone in power talks like we do, says what we’d say, let’s it fly, doesn’t sugarcoat the truth.” Trust me, 63 million Trump voters are secure for 2020.

Now to what really matters. Trump is winning. The economy is booming. There was even more good news in the past few days.   Over 2 million Americans are getting bonuses because of Trump’s tax law. Trump has no reason to give in on DACA.We’re holding all the cards. If Democrats want DACA make them give us the world in return. We have no reason to give in, unless we get everything on our wish list.

Democrats are the ones who want DACA so badly. What cards are they holding? Trump is “Making America Rich Again.” His agenda is a success. He’s in the driver’s seat. He can negotiate from a position of strength. The 63 million Americans who voted for Trump don’t want DACA. Why would we give in, in return for nothing?

Here’s the list -- plain and simple. We want the full funding of the wall…funding for thousands of new border and ICE agents for enforcement…extreme vetting…an immediate end to chain migration…e-verify, so illegal aliens can never be hired again…end to the visa lottery…an end to birthright citizenship…and a 5-year ban on welfare and food stamps for any foreigner in the USA.

That’s called negotiation. We don’t want DACA. We have no reason to give in on DACA. We won the election, remember? We control all levels of government, remember? But if you want it, you’re going to have to give us everything we want. And I mean everything. Plus the kitchen sink.

And as long as Trump holds firm on that list, he will have the full support of 63 million Americans to use strong language and offend  anyone he wants by telling the raw truth.

Wayne Allyn Root is a CEO, business owner, conservative commentator and best-selling conservative author. He is host of the nationally-syndicated “WAR Now: The Wayne Allyn Root Show.” For more, visit his website: www.ROOTforAmerica.com.

   Link:  "Not a Barbarian"

Donald Trump’s Racism:
The Definitive List

Donald Trump has been obsessed with race for the entire time he has been a public figure. He had a history of making racist comments as a New York real-estate developer in the 1970s and ‘80s. More recently, his political rise was built on promulgating the lie that the nation’s first black president was born in Kenya. He then launched his campaign with a speech describing Mexicans as rapists.

The media often falls back on euphemisms when describing Trump’s comments about race: racially loaded, racially charged, racially tinged, racially sensitive. And Trump himself has claimed that he is “the least racist person.” But here’s the truth: Donald Trump is a racist. He talks about and treats people differently based on their race. He has done so for years, and he is still doing so.

Here, we have attempted to compile a definitive list of his racist comments – or at least the publicly known ones.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/01/15/opinion/leonhardt-trump-racist.html

Now he is denying he said it. At some point this has to stop. Durbin needs to file a formal request from a senate committee on immigration reform to subpoena the tape of the meeting to see if the President is in violation of the equal protection clause discriminating or attempting to discriminate on immigrants based on race and religion. It is a lay down, and the tape needs to be released.

2seaoat wrote: if the President is in violation of the equal protection clause discriminating or attempting to discriminate on immigrants based on race and religion.

Lol... why just spew nonsense? You leftists are just turning goofy.

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws".

Even though there's precedence that applied it to federal powers it in no way applies to non-citizens.

Lol... why just spew nonsense?


Your level of ignorance is outstanding when dealing with legal concepts. Let me ask you a question. It is very simple. Do you understand who is being monitored by the inclusion of the amendments to the constitution? Apparently conceptually, your grasp of the constitution and case law is that of a child in preschool asking for a carton of chocolate milk.

Graham v Richardson (1971)
Application of Griffiths (1973)
Ambach v Norwick (1979)
Bernal v Fainter (1984)
Matthews v Diaz (1976)

Classifications dealing with race and religion are reviewed under strict scrutiny by the courts, but if the administration decided to stop immigrants from Italy because of poor cooperation with the government to vet immigrants, that would be a rational basis analysis which means the government needs only a scintilla of rationality for that classification to hold up, however if Trump is admitting he wants to restrict black immigrants and encourage white immigration, it could still be held legal if it passed the strict scrutiny tests from the Supreme Court.......shithole countries and the intended racist classification would not hold up on judicial review. Ask if you do not understand things.

Which of those apply to people not yet in the US... legally or illegally?

I'll wait...

PkrBum wrote:.... nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws".

Even though there's precedence that applied it to federal powers it in no way applies to non-citizens.

It says all "persons" ... not all "citizens."    However ..... that does not apply to those not yet physically present within the jurisdiction of the United States, IMO.

The courts have ruled non-citizens have limited due process rights in administrative immigration proceedings and related actions. (and yes, deportation proceedings are administrative in nature, rather than criminal. The rules of criminal procedure, rules of evidence, burden/standard of proof, right to counsel, etc most people are somewhat familiar with from TV, movies, etc do not necessarily apply in the same way. Legally and procedurally it's more akin to civil tax action or a Social Security hearing than a criminal trial.)

IMO, Congress gave the President authority to exclude any class of persons s/he chooses to exclude in Section 212(f)  the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1953, which states, in pertinent part:

Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of
aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

Invidious discrimination. Treating a class of persons unequally in a manner that is malicious, hostile, or damaging. The Supreme Court has made it clear that such a classification system can be challenged. The folks challenging the same would require groups to have standing. An example would be Somali refugees trying to get a relative into the country where a Norwegian gets his brother in the country with a white preferential classification, and the Somali is faced with invidious discrimination in bringing his brother into the country. Some of the lower courts in the Muslim ban found invidious discrimination based on Trump's statements, yet when it went to the Supreme Court they were not able to determine the same using Trump's words. There will be no confusion applying the strict scrutiny test to Trump's intent and racist preferences. Just ask if you are confused.

You apparently don't understand the difference between a person in our country legally and a person that is not in our country and is in fact a citizen of another country. Move the goalposts all you like... but the equal protection clause does not protect those in other countries... period.

You were wrong. If you'd like to start another discussion about the rights of persons in the US feel free.

2seaoat wrote:Invidious discrimination. Treating a class of persons unequally in a manner that is malicious, hostile, or damaging.  The Supreme Court has made it clear that such a classification system can be challenged.  The folks challenging the same would require groups to have standing.   An example would be Somali refugees trying to get a relative into the country where a Norwegian gets his brother in the country with a white preferential classification, and the Somali is faced with invidious discrimination in bringing his brother into the country.  Some of the lower courts in the Muslim ban found invidious discrimination based on Trump's statements, yet when it went to the Supreme Court they were not able to determine the same using Trump's words.   There will be no confusion applying  the strict scrutiny test to Trump's intent and racist preferences.  Just ask if you are confused.

Per the law, all the President has to do is find  (in his/her opinion/discreytion) any person or class of persons detrimental to the interests of the United States to exclude them from entry.   If Congress wanted to put any other limitations or "strict scrutiny test" on that, they would have ... and still can.

What you've got going on here is the courts second-guessing the President's opinion/assessment of whether the admission of any particular class of people  would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.    Well, that's kind of what we hire (elect) the President to do.   The courts are usurping both the President's and the Congress' discretionary authority regarding immigration matters.   What's next ... will the courts usurp the President's discretion on whether to launch a surprise attack on some foreign terrorist group?

2seaoat wrote:  An example would be Somali refugees trying to get a relative into the country where a Norwegian gets his brother in the country with a white preferential classification, and the Somali is faced with invidious discrimination in bringing his brother into the country.

"white preferential classification" ...... ? What are you on about there, Oatie? I saw nothing about race in any of those Executive Orders.