(11-19-2018, 11:37 AM)The Real Joker2 Wrote:

(11-19-2018, 09:47 AM)mikesez Wrote: I wasn't even born in 1980.  I'm not going to debate that circumstances have changed since 1980; they may have changed even more than you're accounting for.

In 1980, school districts in Texas, representing Texas voters and tax payers, were at that moment arguing their way up to the Supreme Court that they should be able to keep children of illegal immigrants out of school.  And California and Arizona both were going to pass a state amendment that illegal immigrants shouldn't get services from the state. 

It would have been very easy for Reagan or Bush to stake out an angry, aggressive position on the issue.  They would have gotten a lot of support.  Instead they both asked their supporters to think about the common humanity of Mexicans.  They both asked their supporters to think long term, about what the future would look like if a sub class of children grew up with no education.


But what hasn't changed is that illegal immigrants and their children are still equally human as us, with the same dignity.  What hasn't changed is that how we treat them says more about us than it does about them.

While Trump's rhetoric hasn't touched on public schools, yet, he has said that we should discriminate between immigrants on the basis of religion, and that we should separate parents from children.  These are equally offensive to their value as humans and ours.

Trump's rhetoric? We welcome more immigrants every year than any country on earth, bar none, but we have a system, a documented rule of law process.

Under U.S. immigration law, migrants can petition for asylum by presenting themselves at a U.S. port of entry, but the executive order under consideration would override that provision on national security grounds.

Administration officials say the order is based on the same provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act that President Trump invoked to implement the partial travel ban in 2017. The provision — section 212(f) of the INA — allows the president to block the admission of any “class of aliens” into the country if their entry is determined to be “detrimental to the interests of the United States.”

The legality of a travel ban was affirmed in Trump v. Hawaii in June, when the Supreme Court upheld the restrictions on entry by citizens of six Muslim-majority nations known to export terrorism as consistent with the president’s authority. In his majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts cited national security justifications for the travel ban and the deliberate, thorough process used.

Approximately 1,500 of the invaders have accepted for asylum in Mexico, and hundreds have returned to their homes in Central America.


https://dailycaller.com/2018/10/26/trump-border-migrant-caravan-travel-ban/

OK, once more, for the people in the back,
After the Pulse nightclub shooting, Presidential Candidate Trump called for all Muslims to be barred from entering the United States.  US Citizen or not.  Green Card holder or not.  That's what he said.
After becoming President, he realized that it is not only unconstitutional to do this, it is impossible because passports typically do not document a person's religion.  So he tried to quickly bar entry from certain countries instead.
But his order netted green card holders.  That is also beyond his authority. 
So he finally revised the order into something within his authority and legally enforceable.  Which is fine. 
But it doesn't change the fact that as a candidate he called for a policy that was not only impossible, but hateful and unconstitutional, and he has never actually backed off from that.  That's the rhetoric I'm talking about.

---