How is Trump Anti-Immigrant?

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
a reply to: Propagandalf

His first wife was not a US citizen before giving birth. She did not get her citizenship until after the birth of their final child.

In fact that based on all reports, and reality, even marrying a US citizen is no guarantee of US citizenship, and is often looked at far more harshly than those who arrive here. Many consider it a short cut to getting a green card.

And what about the chin immigration with the third wife, who married the man, had a child, and then her family was brought over after that? And they just got their green cards.

That's a lie. And even if it was true, and the immigration status of his wife was in dispute, they were born in America to an American father.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Propagandalf

If the "huddled masses" want to come in, they've have to come in legally

It is legal for asylum seekers to claim asylum, regardless of their immigration status, or how they entered the country. That's the law. Trump wants to change the law. That's "how Trump is anti-immigrant".

(1)In general
Any alien who is physically present in the United States or who arrives in the United States (whether or not at a designated port of arrival and including an alien who is brought to the United States after having been interdicted in international or United States waters), irrespective of such alien’s status, may apply for asylum in accordance with this section or, where applicable, section 1225(b) of this title.

www.law.cornell.edu...#

It is NOT illegal for asylum seekers to cross between ports in their effort to claim asylum.

But it is illegal for non-refugees to do so.

(42) The term “refugee” means (A) any person who is outside any country of such person’s nationality or, in the case of a person having no nationality, is outside any country in which such person last habitually resided, and who is unable or unwilling to return to, and is unable or unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of, that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion, or (B) in such special circumstances as the President after appropriate consultation (as defined in section 1157(e) of this title) may specify, any person who is within the country of such person’s nationality or, in the case of a person having no nationality, within the country in which such person is habitually residing, and who is persecuted or who has a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. The term “refugee” does not include any person who ordered, incited, assisted, or otherwise participated in the persecution of any person on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. For purposes of determinations under this chapter, a person who has been forced to abort a pregnancy or to undergo involuntary sterilization, or who has been persecuted for failure or refusal to undergo such a procedure or for other resistance to a coercive population control program, shall be deemed to have been persecuted on account of political opinion, and a person who has a well founded fear that he or she will be forced to undergo such a procedure or subject to persecution for such failure, refusal, or resistance shall be deemed to have a well founded fear of persecution on account of political opinion.

www.law.cornell.edu...

a reply to: Propagandalf

Asylum
Asylum is not to be confused with refuge, although the terms are sometimes used inter-changeably. An alien who wishes to emigrate to another country is granted refugee status before leaving his or her native country. An asylum seeker (or asylee) seeks that status after arriving in the new country.

legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...

8 U.S. Code § 1158 - Asylum www.law.cornell.edu...

Trump doesn't like refugees either.

Trump admin proposes lowest cap ever for refugee admissions amid historic global need abcnews.go.com...

Trump admin ends protected status for 200K Salvadoran refugees www.upi.com...

Trump Administration Gives Nicaraguan Refugees 1 Year to Go Back www.globalcitizen.org...

Trump removes legal protections from 57,000 Hondurans in the United States www.theblaze.com...

Trump administration to end protected status for Haiti www.cnn.com...

a reply to: Propagandalf

Here are the facts, that have been checked, double checked and verified:

Fact: Ivana Trump was married to Donald Trump in 1977.

Fact: Donald Jr was born in 1977, Ivanka was born in 1981, and Eric was born in 1984.

Fact Ivana Trump was not a US Citizen until 1988.

So what I have stated, is all true, and thus the children of Donald Trump, Don jr, Ivanka, and Eric, would be considered to be anchor babies, and combined with the marriage, would have allows for Ivana to become a citizen of the US. Though it took 11 years for her to do such. There is no lie here, there is no falsehood at all. In short apart from Tiffany, all of Trumps children are Anchor Babies.

a reply to: sdcigarpig

It is not true. That's not how it works. Junior was born in the US and had an American father.

even if Trump wasn’t married to the mothers of his children at the time of their births (he was), and their immigration statuses appeared to be in dispute (of which we could find no indication), all four of the five Trump children born to immigrant mothers were born inside the United States to an American citizen father. As such, even Trump’s strict proposal against birthright citizenship would be unlikely to affect the statuses of his own children had they been born under it.

Snopes

a reply to: Sookiechacha

From your own link:

(A) Eligibility
The Secretary of Homeland Security or the Attorney General may grant asylum to an alien who has applied for asylum in accordance with the requirements and procedures established by the Secretary of Homeland Security or the Attorney General under this section if the Secretary of Homeland Security or the Attorney General determines that such alien is a refugee within the meaning of section 1101(a)(42)(A) of this title.

I've already posted the meaning of refugee under section 1101(a)(42)(A) in my previous post to you.

a reply to: Propagandalf


I'm failing to see your point. In the US, the law states that, in order to apply for asylum you must be on US soil. You may apply for asylum regardless of how you got on US soil or your immigration status. These laws were written and adopted by Congress. Neither Homeland Security nor the Attorney General can override these laws.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Propagandalf


I'm failing to see your point. In the US, the law states that, in order to apply for asylum you must be on US soil. You may apply for asylum regardless of how you got on US soil or your immigration status. These laws were written and adopted by Congress. Neither Homeland Security nor the Attorney General can override these laws.

I’m not doubting that they can apply for asylum, only that they must be eligible to be granted it.

a reply to: Propagandalf


Right. But, their eligibility has nothing to do with how they entered the country, as asylum seekers. Now, migrant workers, who sneak in to work, those people are here illegally, and are not subject to asylum claims, per say. Although, if they've been here less than a year, they may still claim asylum, but their crime of illegally earning money in the US will probably exclude them.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Therein lies the loophole, which is being exposed, which is attempting to be fixed.

a reply to: JinMI


Yeah, but it needs to be fixed through Congress, not executive order. But, haha, good luck with that any time soon! Watch for some serious DACA fights, though!

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Weird...seems like he tried that already.

a reply to: JinMI

"I really do believe Democrat and Republican, the people sitting in this room, really want to get something done," Trump said. "Let's see if we can get something done. I really think that we have a chance to do it. I think it's really important. You're talking about 800,000 people. You're talking about lots of other people who are affected, including people who live in our country, from a security standpoint."

"I think my positions are going to be what the people in this room come up with.," he said. "I am very much reliant on the people in this room. I know most of the people on both sides; have a lot of respect for the people on both sides, and my -- what I approve is going to be very much reliant on what the people in this room come to me with. I have great confidence in the people. If they come to me with things that I'm not in love with, I'm going to do it, because I respect them."

www.realclearpolitics.com...

Ooops.

After months of negotiations, a bipartisan group of senators reached a deal to provide protections to so-called Dreamers. However, President Donald Trump has rejected it, according to multiple reports.

Senators Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) and Dick Durbin (D-Illinois) said a group of six senators reached a deal Thursday that would provide protections for recipients of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program in exchange for additional border security funding.

www.rt.com...-border-deal/

As House Republicans propose an immigration bill conservatives could gladly support, Senate Republicans seem to be moving to the Left on immigration.

A bipartisan immigration deal to grant amnesty to so-called “Dreamers” and take steps toward securing the border has reportedly been reached in the U.S. Senate. The Washington Post reports that a group including Sens. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., are presenting the framework of their DACA plan to the White House Thursday.

“We’ve got this bipartisan group, we’re at a deal,” Sen. Flake told reporters Thursday. “So we’ll be talking to the White House about that and I hope we can move forward with it. It’s the only game in town. There’s no other bill.”

www.conservativereview.com...

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Something a little more recent eh?

The latest in a yearslong series of immigration reform efforts crashed in Congress this week, leaving bleak prospects for passing legislation in the months before November's midterm elections. Lawmakers for more than a decade have struggled to resolve the thorniest policy issue in Washington. The stakes when House Republican legislation failed spectacularly Wednesday appeared particularly high: The Trump administration faces nationwide backlash over the crisis created by its policy of separating migrant children from parents at U.S. borders.

www.cnbc.com...

Despite debating immigration reform all month long, Congress is punting the issue to next month as lawmakers head home for barbeques, fireworks and parades over the Independence Day recess.

abcnews.go.com...

I stand by my comment.

a reply to: JinMI


There's plenty of blame to go around.

a reply to: Propagandalf

Don't be ridiculous, Trump is no more anti-immigrant than, say, Adolf Hitler.

Doesnt matter the race, the answer is no more across the board.

Time to think about over population, number of jobs, lack of resources, number of seats in schools.

Lottery system gone, can't take no more.

Go to Canada, Much better free stuff

Just like the Mexican government assisting the mob through mexico.

U.s. should put them all on a jumbo jet and bring them to the border of California.

It would be a humanitarian move

originally posted by: Propagandalf
.


............ I explicitly said "so long as low-skilled illegals are undercutting tax-paying citizens, employers are going to take advantage, driving the American worker away." Sorry, but a strawman isn't an argument.

Without illegals, some industries will be short of labor, sure. They'll have to hire people, innovate, or go under. I'm not sure how that is a problem.

In saying that then, why would Trump not be anti-American?
Trump is the same guy that paid illegals buttons to work on his sites, while at the same time paid key American Union workers hush money to keep quiet about them....see, it's corruption that makes the 'world' go round in places like NY.
Until that ceases....ever? American workers can only whistle Dixie, while honest people end up in concrete pillars.

originally posted by: watchitburn

originally posted by: Propagandalf

originally posted by: Butterfinger
a reply to: Propagandalf

Yes, its ran by an upper class white Spanish class lording over the brown natives.

Mexico is crooked, I totally understand why even Mexican nationals dont want to live there anymore.

Focusing on the skin-colors is a very reductionist way of looking at things.

But that's what the leftists do.
Focus on skin color.
Because they're racist, they view everything through the lense of racism, and all they see is racist.

Which brings to mind the irony of calling him "Orange Man"

They always gotta color someone they hate and use color as an insult, it would be ironic if it wasn't so distastefully racist in of itself

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: Propagandalf

Don't be ridiculous, Trump is no more anti-immigrant than, say, Adolf Hitler.

Right, I forgot all the yellow Stars he assigns them before shipping off to their deaths.

Your knowledge of history and the comparisons show off not humor or cleverness but only the fact you never studied history.

Sigh, I remember when this website had only educated people posting.