Immigration

Don't Blame Melania Trump for Breaking Immigration Laws: CHANGE THE DAMN LAWS

Instead of partisan schadenfreude, can we have a serious debate about policy for a change?

|

Wikimedia, CC: Glenn Francis of www.PacificProDigital.com

Politico reports that the wife of Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump very likely broke immigration laws when she first came to the United States in 1995. A model by trade back then, the future Melania Trump has given conflicting accounts of when she arrived in America from Slovenia, what sort of visa she entered on, and when she did various modeling gigs.

[Melania] Trump's tale of returning to Europe for periodic visa renewals is inconsistent with her holding an H-1B visa at all times she was living in New York — even if it was the lesser-known H-1B visa specifically designed for models — said multiple immigration attorneys and experts. An H-1B visa can be valid for three years and can be extended up to six years — sometimes longer — and would not require renewals in Europe every few months. If, as she has said, Trump came to New York in 1996 and obtained a green card in 2001, she likely would not have had to return to Europe even once to renew an H-1B.

Instead, Trump's description of her periodic renewals in Europe are more consistent with someone traveling on a B-1 Temporary Business Visitor or B-2 Tourist Visa, which typically last only up to six months and do not permit employment.

Read the whole story here.

In typical electoral discourse, this is bad for the Trump squad for at least two reasons.

First, because one of billionaire developer's defining issues is immigration reform (read: building walls and forcing domestic employers to hire Americans first), this is a classic gotcha moment on the GOP nominee. In fact, given that Trump was assailed on the right by National Review and other conservatives for being insufficiently anti-immigrant (yes, hard to believe but true), this seeming outrage will likely swell the camp of #NeverTrump voters across the conventional political spectrum.

Second, coming after a string of recent and ongoing screw-ups and misstatements by the candidate and his campaign, the Melania revelations add more fodder to the idea that Trump is a joke candidate who is in no way ready for prime time (on the plus-side, nobody seems to care that one of Melania's early modeling jobs involved nude photos).

That cackling sound is Democrats laughing it up at The Donald's expense. And let's be fair: To the extent that he is building his appeal on xenophobia and closing off immigration at least temporarily, Trump deserves the equivalent of a pie in the face, just as he got when it turned out he hired mostly foreign workers to tidy up his Mar-a-lago club in Florida. You live by anti-immigrant sentiments, you die by anti-immigrant sentiments.

And yet this is exactly the sort of teachable moment that should not get lost in a flurry of partisan point-scoring; we need a serious and frank discussion about immigration policy, one that doesn't merely feed the fears and anxieties of Americans on the one hand or treat newcomers as an automatic constituency for the party that cynically welcomes immigrants after deporting record numbers of them.

Reuters

Once the party of relatively open immigration, the Republicans have become staunch foes of anything resembling immigration reform (here's Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush circa 1980 debating which one of them loves illegal immigration more). With a few notable exceptions (such as Arizona Sen. Jeff Flake), they talk only in terms of punishing illegal immigrants that are already here and securing the border before even discussing any attempts to allow more legal immigration (which they're against anyway).

That's stupid policy for any number of reasons, not least of which is that "securing the border" is an expensive, fruitless task that simply forces all Americans to submit to increasingly invasive security measures while grinding down economic growth and increasing social tensions. Given that Republicans still pretend to be the party of smaller government, you'd think their members would understand that governments—which they routinely dismiss as incompetent and inefficient—generally don't control borders very well, except for totalitarian ones that are usually trying to keep people in a country.

By and large, migrants move for better work and life opportunities and they are willing to ignore procedures that get too much in the way of that goal. The better solution than building walls and checking papers all the time and fining employers and deporting people is to do minimal background checks for criminal behavior and communicable diseases and then let whomever wants to work and pay taxes come on in. Immigrants are already barred from receiving most forms of means-tested welfare and they commit crimes at lower rates than native-born residents and are a net-plus to the economy. We exclude them not simply at their loss but our peril: Look at places such as Japan, where an aging society is declining economically and numerically because it can't replenish itself.

For their part, the Democrats talk a better game about welcoming foreigners, but there's a grotesque, cynical edge to their recent embrace. During his first four years in office, President Obama removed 1.4 million immigrants. That compares to George W. Bush kicking out 2 million total in eight years. By the end of 2013, Obama's total was at 2.5 million, meaning he had deported more immigrants than all presidents up through the year 2000. Deportations still number over 400,000 a year. At the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia, Hillary Clinton reached out to immigrants, saying she wouldn't break up families, without mentioning that she ran for Senate in New York with a very different attitude. Back then, she was proud to describe herself as "being 'adamantly opposed' to illegal immigration and talked about the need to sanction businesses that hire them, stop the flow across our southern border, and more." Nor was she a fan of increasing legal immigration.

A better immigration policy would be one that doesn't demonize people who want to move to America to work and live. A better immigration policy would be one that doesn't treat immigrants as pawns in partisan politics who can routinely supply votes to this party or that, regardless of how that party treats them.

Rather, a better immigration policy would welcome people and give them the ability to work, pay taxes, and become part of society. That policy has, by and large, served the United States exceptionally well during most of our history. Immigrant flows are generally self-regulating, so we don't have to worry about being swamped by everone in the world moving to the United States. There's a reason why the government itself acknowledges that Mexican immigration (legal and otherwise) peaked around 2007 or 2008—our economy tanked in a way that Mexico's was relatively more attractive to Mexicans. When jobs and opportunities dry up here, so does the flow of immigrants.

And the only way to greatly reduce illegal immigration is to let more people come in legally. No amount of fence-building (something Hillary Clinton has voted for in the past, by the way) or "boots on the ground" (Obama has increased border patrols to record levels) of our southern border will change that. Only a shift in policy can.

NEXT: Teen Girl Sells Sex. Teen Boy Serves as Bodyguard. Teen Boy Gets Arrested by Homeland Security for Child Sex-Trafficking

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. We have an H-1B visa for models?

    God bless America.

    1. You wouldn’t get many female votes for a candidate promising this, but anyone who is an 8 or better should just be let in. In fact, the feds should be flying hotties here from Venezuela around the clock.

      1. And Syria. And Lebanon. And Iran.

        1. No Muslims. They’ll just cover everything up.

    2. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week.
      I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is what I do… http://www.trends88.com

  2. One has to wonder how fucking incompetent the GOP’s opposition research must be if all of this stuff is emerging only AFTER he got the nomination.

    Seriously. It never occurred to anyone in any of the GOP candidates campaigns to check on Melania’s immigration history? SERIOUSLY?

    1. One might almost wonder if the GOP is, itself, a Democratic plot to discredit the GOP.

      1. Its all just a distraction from what is really controlling things…

    2. Why do I suspect that the GOP establishment tried to run with this during the primary, and the mdia had zero interest THEN.

      1. If their mouthpieces at National Review and The Federalist didn’t even bring it up when they had the chance. The shock is that the media didn’t do it just as a gotcha a year ago.

        For god’s sake, you had dorks such as Rubio shill Rick Wilson yapping about OODA loops, and people like him and Cheri Jacobus couldn’t find something this simple?

    3. One has to wonder how fucking incompetent the GOP’s opposition research must be if all of this stuff is emerging only AFTER he got the nomination.

      Oooor… it is a savvy, calculated move. If they had used this against Trump during the primaries, they [the GOP’s opposition] might have helped a… better(?)… candidate get nominated that would be harder for them to defeat in November. By waiting until Trump clinched the nomination, they can now bring all the skeletons out of Trump’s closets to [attempt] to torpedo his campaign and [hopefully] ensure a win for Hillary.

    4. None of the oher GOP candidates ran against Trump. They all tried tried to suck up to Trump to some degree, hoping to get his supporters once Trump would inevitably flame/drop out. The biggest suck-up, Cruz, got the furthest.

  3. This issue isn’t going to change the election at all. Trump haters will still hate him, and just add one more reason.
    Trump voters will say, “see, Trump knows the system. Only Trump can fix it so we’re not inundated with undocumented models.”

  4. Once again a Reason writer bravely steps up and writes a cutting edge article on the most important topic of the day. And Trump.

    Seriously guys, you are starting to suck.

    1. Sounds like you need a good conspiracy theory to cheer you up. How’s this:

      Perhaps Reason understands the animus behind Trump supporters, and handing jerry-cans of fuel to the anti-establishmentarians, who can point with frothy maw to each Trump article and say, “SEE! SEE!” thus convincing the egalitarian-tarians that Trump is getting the short end of the stick, and QED Trump is the only fairminded choice.

      I have others.

    2. And yet this is exactly the sort of teachable moment that should not get lost in a flurry of partisan point-scoring

      What a hack!

  5. Of course we need a better immigration policy. But why do we have such bad policies? Because our leaders are complete hypocrites on it while our press runs cover for them, saying ‘nothing to see here’. This is a recipe for inaction.

    1. The mix of restrictive law and slack enforcement creates a body of off-the-books people who can be exploited for their labor and then pimped for their illeagle, but nobody checks noguh) votes.

      Therefore,the only way to get a more realistic policy is to enforce the laws we have until it causes enough pain in certain establishment backsides that they get off of them.

  6. An H-1B visa can be valid for three years and can be extended up to six years

    The validity of an H-1B visa STAMP depends on the citizenship of the person who applies for it. If you’re from, say, Germany, of course your H-1B visa will be good for 3 years. But if you’re from Iran, Pakistan or even Armenia, then your visa is likely to be a single-entry visa only, which means that if you want to travel outside of the US you have to obtain a new visa stamp in a U.S. consulate abroad (in your home country). You don’t have to do all the paperwork again — that part is good for 3 years — but a new visa stamp in the passport is required.

    Now, I don’t know how well Slovenian citizens were treated by the US government in the ’90s. Probably better than Armenians. But were they treated differently from Yugoslavs at the time?

    1. This is accurate. IF she was a model on an H1b and she “went home” for ANY length of time (or to mexico for a shoot, or Canada for some poutine) then she would be required to stand in the “long line” at the embassy where she was to get her stamp. This can take minutes to months. That is why a lot of H1bs DONT LEAVE when they come here, part of H1b is a Sponsor who is your employer. So lets say you do robotics, and you go to Italy to work on one of your companies products, well, now you will be fired because the embassy will take three weeks to stamp you. Your job can’t wait three weeks. now you have no sponsor…and you are outside the us. TFB!

      1. Actually, a person on a single-entry US visa can travel from the US to Canada and return to the US without renewing his or her US visa. Because Canada is not a real foreign country!

        1. lol

        2. It’s America’s hat.

    2. My wife was H-1B when we went to visit her family. We went to the embassy on our first day to apply for reentry.
      Her mother is retired so she was able to get a 10 year, multientry visa.

  7. Ha, if anyone is upset at this but flaccid when it comes to Hillary Clinton’s ‘lawful’ behavior they have a screw loose.

    1. Partisan hacks gonna partisan. Or something like that.

    2. “flaccid when it comes to Hillary Clinton’s… behavior”

      For the sake of my sanity I hope that all persons (sans SugarFree, perhaps) are flaccid when it comes to Clinton’s behavior.

      1. Ross Ulbricht is serving a life sentence for facilitating peaceful trade in traditionally dangerous industries.

        Hillary Clinton is about to become the president of the US.

        I’m flaccid and irreparably bruised.

        1. See royal privilege.

        2. I expect Clinton will win. Trump is a disaster. I wish he’s step aside, but the only person I can think of that he might step aside for is Ivanka Trump, his daughter. Now the hope is that Republicans will retain the Senate. If not, we are in deep shit with regard to the SCOTUS.

  8. It amazes me that they can’t see that these types of “revelations” just make the Trumpsters dig their heels in even harder. It’s kind of amusing to watch.

    1. Seems like you are easily amazed. I thought all those who comment here are aware of moral duplicity in American politics. Now I’m AMAZED.

  9. We still need rule of law. If people can freely pick and choose which laws they want to follow, liberty is not possible. What we would have is anarchy.

    That said, yes, some laws are wrong and must be broken–for instance, any weapon control law automatically violates the 2nd Amendment’s “shall not infringe” verbiage, and the citizens have a duty to break such weapons control laws. And of course there is jury nullification.

    Generally, I agree with the clickbait title of this article, but it’s important to note that we cannot encourage the willy-nilly wholesale breaking of laws without destroying liberty; the deliberate breaking of laws has to be done carefully and with good reason to separate us from outright criminals.

    1. So you have to curtail peoples’ freedom in order to have liberty. That makes perfect sense.

      1. Actually it does, if you’re capable of understanding concepts longer than a bumper sticker.

      2. “Anarchy” is not a synonym for “liberty”.

  10. Does either party, including especially the Democrats, support repeal of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, which makes it a crime for me, or any other employer, to employ an “undocumented worker” a/k/a illegal immigrant? To claim to welcome as “dreamers” those who immigrate here illegally, or their children, while simultaneously denying them the ability to provide for their own financial support is truly cynical and grotesque.

  11. We still need rule of law. If people can freely pick and choose which laws they want to follow, liberty is not possible.

    But it’s also not possible when the laws are so arcane, dense and complex that no person could reasonably hope to follow them all without an army of attorneys at their disposal 24/7.

  12. I’ve worked with immigration attorneys periodically for years. The system is so fargin’ complicated that even specialists get things wrong.

    Who knows what happened, but I wouldn’t rule out bad advice given to Melania by either the modelling agency or by an immigration attorney, who had worked with visas before that required renewal in the home country periodically and just told her that’s what she had to do.

    If you are breaking immigration law, the last thing you want to do is leave the country and try to re-enter. That’s why I’m inclined to give her the benefit of the doubt on this.

    And, politically, this still comes off as attacking Trump’s wife. I don’t think that’s smart, myself.

    1. Well, it would kill any other campaign, rightly or wrongly, but we’ve gone through about 500 of those kinds of things. And of course the point is hypocrisy. Is Trump gonna give the benefit of the doubt to any of the other illegal immigrants he built his entire campaign on?

      1. so what percentage of the ~11 million illegal immigrants deserve “benefit of the doubt”?

        1. If I were Ronald Reagan I’d just say give them all amnesty.

          1. If you were Ronald Reagan, you would know that you didn’t just give them all amnesty. You gave less than half amnesty and implemented basic requirements and penalties for any further illegal immigration or employment of illegals.
            But keep on cherry picking to fit your idealized worldview.

            1. How would the Trump crowd handle such a policy now? Would St. Ronald be totally rejected by the current Republican party, or alternatively would they run him out of the country as a god-hating commie?

              1. You completely miss the point of Trump’s support.

                Few are cheering for a wall. Few are cheering for mass deportations.

                The vast majority are cheering, because Trump is the only candidate who is actually suggesting any plan. Think about that….actually think about it, instead of a knee-jerk Trump is an idiot response.

                No candidate on either side has had the courage to raise the issue and propose any solution.

                Trump supports would cheer a proposal similar to Reagan’s amnesty. It was a balanced approach, that was fair to the immigrants but implemented hurdles as well. Has anyone proposed something similar? Certainly not Hillary, Sanders, Cruz, etc.

                I would love a Reagan amnesty. deport the criminals, swear in others with required civics knowledge and workable English, and implement severe penalties for future hiring of illegals.

                1. No one else wants to touch that.

                  The left just panders, but will never actually do anything. It serves their purpose to maintain huge numbers of second class citizens they can use as pawns. Hillary is an evil bitch who couldn’t care less about immigrants.

                  The right is scared to do anything because they are so desperate for the approval of the growing Hispanic voting block. The establishment hacks are all cowards who don’t have the balls to do what Reagan did.

                  Into that vacuum of ideas, Trump enters with the only proposal. Hence his support. This isn’t rocket science, but drooling idealist idiots pretend that it is and all of Trump’s supporters are xenophobic racists, instead of regular people who just want any kind of action on a topic that is tearing about communities across the country.

                2. There is no illegal immigration problem. The problem is the legal purgatory and broken families caused by inaction on immigration reform, inaction caused by racial panic drummed up by Republicans, the only strategy they apparently know. Trump supporters are not agitating for meaningful reform. If they were, it could get through Congress. They just don’t like Mexicans.

                  1. lol…my mistake. you are obviously just an ignorant child.

                  2. Remind me again, what “race” is “Mexican” and who in the US is racist against (whatever “RACE” you decide on) here? And thank you for recognizing that the vast majority of the current “immigrants” are from Mexico. Most people do not know that 90% or more of immigrants in the last couple of decades are “Latino” (???) and that the majority of them are from Mexico. I think that the numbers are now 1/3 of the population of Mexico is here in the US.

                    Hmmmmmm… I wonder why Dems want more? Hmmmmm…… It is nearly as mysterious as “Islamic Terrorism”. Such a puzzle.

  13. Nobody gives a shit about beautiful Slovenian models gaming the immigration system. They care about masses of Latin American gangbangers and welfare cases, and about Muslims.

  14. How is this a story?
    So on one hand, we have Melania, who had some sort of visa, but we don’t know which, and possibly had to renew it at times which may or may not indicate she had the wrong type of visa for what she was doing. She was however ‘in the system’, went through hurdles to function within the scope of our immigration laws, but may or may not have cheated on the specific type of visa.
    On the other hand we have 11 million Hispanic immigrants who could care less if they have any sort of visa and intentionally avoid any forthright action to obey the immigration laws of the country they are squatting in.

    Is that about right? So…why is this a story again? Oh, right….because TRUMP!!.

    1. And note that at the convention, Bill Clinton basically made a call for illegal aliens to vote, which is very easy these days, given our broken “honor system” voting situation.

  15. Call me crazy, but if we had 11 million Melania’s in the country illegally — doing the work American models won’t do — immigration would not be the major issue it is today.

  16. Melania Trump should be the most unsympathetic character in public space, but people still blow it by going after her in the wrong way.

    They should be treating her like a hotter version of Leona Helmsley.

    Seriously, look at this image from Harper’s:

    http://tinyurl.com/jsa95y5

    Every progressives should hate her for the reasons expressed in that image–but the progressives love elitism, so they don’t go after her for that.

    The irony is that the blue collar middle class should hate her for being an elitist joke on them, but because the progressives are so contemptuous of the blue collar middle class, they defend her as an extension of Trump–their last hope.

    If she’s campaigning with enthusiasm, she’s just doing it for the fame. Look at that picture! Moving in to the White House will be a step down for her. If Trump won, she’d probably still spend most of her time in New York.

    She gets better service at home than the White House can afford.

    1. Difficult to understand your animosity toward Melania. Is she an unpleasant person? I honesty don’t know.

      But really, the story of a poor girl growing up in a 3rd world dive, coming to America, and marrying so high up as to be practically a princess, is pretty much the ideal story as described by generations of fables, stories, and movies.

      Are you jealous?

      1. I’m calling it like I see it.

        And you missed the part of the fairy tale when Trump bought himself a modeling agency ’cause it was easier to find world class tail that way. He wanted to meet all the clients, and she was one of them.

        She’s everything America loves to hate. She’s Paris Hilton times ten.

        It’s hilarious that no one seems to know how to go after her. She’s the softest target I’ve ever seen–even releasing nude pictures of her in a trashy porn magazine with other women doesn’t damage her.

        It’s hilarious.

        1. Paris Hilton time ten? Huh? Since when does America hate Paris Hilton? yeh, folks got turned off when the paparazzi spent lots of time highlighting her partying, but beyond that? She may be a bit pitiable, but hate? I suspect you are transferring here.

          And when has Melania acted out with arrogant priviledge? that would be Hillary by all accounts of those that have worked with her. But Melania? Where are the stories?
          Judging from Ivanka’s demeanor, Melania has set a good example of how to behave.

          I suspect you just have big issues with money and class. the rest of America doesn’t. We applaud the rich, provided they don’t act like royalty. have not heard one report yet of the Trumps acting like royalty.
          the Clintons? yes. Kerry? yes. Buffet? no. Helmsley? yes. Gates? no
          there is a difference and I suspect you need therapy with your hate issues.

        2. He may speak stupidly but he is not a stupid person, ala: “And you missed the part of the fairy tale when Trump bought himself a modeling agency ’cause it was easier to find world class tail that way. He wanted to meet all the clients, and she was one of them.”

    2. I think even you know you failed to make a point there.

      Liberals, being generally decent people, don’t tend to attack the spouses of politicians without significant cause (conservatives on the other hand are known to refer to them as nut-stomping lesbian harpies or tyrannical Wookies, depending).

      I happened to think that even progressive commentators treating her as a victim when she plagiarized the First Lady was a bit condescending and sexist, but she gives them boners, so what are you gonna do.

      1. “Liberals, being generally decent people, don’t tend to attack the spouses of politicians without significant cause

        You’re a fucking idiot.

  17. Geeze, Nick, your points would be better if you stuck with some facts.

    Like Obama’s record deportations.

    or Illegal Immigration Crime

    Otherwise you sound like a hack with a partisan axe to grind.

  18. “Immigrants are already barred from receiving most forms of means-tested welfare and they commit crimes at lower rates than native-born residents and are a net-plus to the economy.”

    So much nope it’s painful. 30% of Americans receive some form of federal welfare. 51% of legal immigrants receive the same. Immigrants are only barred from some programs for their first five years in the country. If a spouse is joining somebody already here, they only have to wait three years. And they never have to wait even one day for certain programs, including every one that gives money for children.

    The facts around immigrant crime are simply not known because it isn’t tracked. DHS does track this in federal prisons. And they actually found that the immigrant population in federal prison is higher than the percent of immigrants as part of the general population. However, federal prisons make up a small part of the overall prison system, so we can’t really extrapolate that data. But, the only actual evidence we have actually would suggest that immigrants commit more crime, not less.

    And finally, no, just because immigrants pay more in taxes than they take out in welfare does not make them a net benefit to the economy. The taxes they pay go to many different programs just like everyone else’s, not just the welfare programs. The fact remains that they receive more welfare benefits while paying 87 cents for every dollar native born citizens pay.

    So much for facts.

  19. Instead of partisan schadenfreude, can we have a serious debate about policy for a change?

    You jest.

  20. ICE Agent: “My Job Obsolete, Borders Now Wide Open;” Career ICE Official:
    “We’re Being Kept in Dark;” 40 Mlln Amnesty, NOT Just 5 Mlln
    http://www.debbieschlussel.com…..st-5-mlln/

    1. Yeh, I’ve wondered about the real numbers of illegal immigrants. The authorities claim its been relatively flat over the last 10 years, bouncing around 10-13 million. But it is readily apparent across the country that there has been an enormous demographic shift. Towns have gone from 5% to 40% Hispanic in just the last few years. Very radical changes, which is why immigration is such a sensitive topic. Folks seem to dismiss too readily what some are experiencing.
      Either there has been a very big shift out of the SouthWest to other parts of the country, or the reported amounts of Hispanic immigrants is grossly underestimated. either the government is outright lying, or far more illegals have kept under the radar than is estimated. 40million would not surprise me at all.

  21. An Atlantic Monthly article that shows that most economists’ thinking that an increased influx of immigrants provides more jobs for Americans is FALSE and does harm jobs for US workers and the economy:

    http://www.theatlantic.com/bus…..ns/384060/

    http://query.nytimes.com/gst/f…..A9609C8B63

  22. http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c…..migration/
    The Conscience Of A Liberal–Paul Krugman

    “First, the benefits of immigration to the population already here are small.
    ” But as Mr. Hanson explains in his paper, reasonable calculations suggest that we’re talking about very small numbers, perhaps as little as 0.1 percent of GDP.

    “My second negative point is that immigration reduces the wages of domestic workers who compete with immigrants. That’s just supply and demand…

    “Finally, the fiscal burden of low-wage immigrants is also pretty clear. ”

    Also, it is patently untrue that “immigrants” are the solution to low rate of start-ups:

    http://smallbiztrends.com/2015…..-rate.html

    1. When Krugman and Obama make some kind of statement on the economy, you can be pretty sure that it’s nonsense.

  23. The Liberal Case AGAINST Illegal Immigration:

    http://www.thedailybeast.com/a…..ation.html

    This is the Progressive Case AGAINST Illegal Immigration:

    http://www.salon.com/2015/03/0…..ach_other/

    1. The idea that a larger supply of workers from immigration drives down wages is a misapplication of microeconomics to macroeconomic problems.

      Skilled immigration to the US is always a good thing. Low-skill immigration into the US is a net negative only because of the massive redistribution from rich to poor in the US and the various governmental distortions of the labor market, which are harmful in many other ways anyway. Those need to be fixed; immigration then becomes a non-issue.

      1. Immigration dropped to negative when Herbert Hoover held office as the Great Dry Hope of the Methodist White Terror. We would have the same thing today, except that the DemoGOP exports murderous looter totalitarianism to every uncivilized dictatorship that’ll have it. People flee to These States. They do not come here voluntarily for a better life any more than the refugees from the competing totalitarian prohibitionist theocracy voluntarily emigrate. They are fleeing in uncomprehending terror from the exact same thing christianofascist republicans are trying to establish in These States.

        1. More than 50% on one or more major welfare programs. Not ALL are coming here to escape some “horror” though clearly there are some who do.

        2. More than 50% on one or more major welfare programs. Not ALL are coming here to escape some “horror” though clearly there are some who do.

  24. http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfro…..id/607937/
    Report: Obama’s Book Says Illegals Can Hurt Americans

    http://beforeitsnews.com/opini…..36030.html
    Didn’t anyone in the Hispanic media read Obama’s book? Or listen to when he speaks?

  25. Instead, Trump’s description of her periodic renewals in Europe are more consistent with someone traveling on a B-1 Temporary Business Visitor or B-2 Tourist Visa, which typically last only up to six months and do not permit employment.

    It’s also consistent with many other kinds of temporary visas.

    In addition, I thought Democrats welcome illegal migrants; or does that only apply to future Democratic voters?

  26. I was already a cog in the deportation bureaucracy when the Saudis hijacked those planes into the buildings. My impression was that the machinery was thrown into high gear to get rid of ALL possible foreigners. But I was also a cog in the military-industrial complex on the day Desert Shield went live ammo as Desert Storm, and that was the day the Holy War Crusades began anew in the Saracen blackamoor’s home turf.
    Yet when Jimmy was prez, the storming of Mecca by insane mystical liberators sparked mohammedan attacks on foreign embassies, yet not a word is said about that triggering episode.

  27. Meaningful debate? Enforce the f*cking laws!

    1. No, that would require that they follow the laws, do their jobs, and don’t try to stack the deck any more in favor of Dems / RINOS and other “globalists”. Funny how we operated for centuries with controlled “globalism” but only needed to fully embrace it once the Communists said we should.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.