Trump assures citizenship for DACA recipients

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The GOP is singing its death knell with this. They really should have taken Graham-Durbin.

I think most GOP would be fine with this. I know I would. What most GOP wants is to stop the flow once and for all. The end to chain migration would also be a big plus. I think it also gets rid of the diversity lottery.

The problem in the past is that the Congress has voted for border security--but never appropriated the funds to finish the job. Sec Nielson said that she needs more personnel and this does that. She also needs to be able to send people back. If you come in and say the right words (taught by the coyotes) you get to stay.

I think the plan has promise. It is pretty much what I would like.

What you're referring to, is people sponsoring their family members for immigration. For example, I know somebody who came to the US as a child refugee from Vietnam. When she grew up, as a naturalized US citizen, she started on the long and expensive process of sponsoring her parents, her three siblings, and the siblings' spouses and children.

Do you think that's bad? Do you think that she should not have been allowed to do this? And if so, why?

There is no such thing as "chain migration" -- chains don't migrate. We're talking about people. The immigration of people.

NP. I think it's bad. If the people can't get in on their own merits, why do we want them here? What do they have to offer the country?

They might get a + in a column because they know someone here, but that's it. Having a relative would not be sufficient to allow someone to immigrate.

And here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chain_migration you can read up on why people call it chain migration and where the concept came from, since it seems to be troubling you.

Get in on their merits?

What merit do you have, what makes you so special? Being born here? You had nothing to do with that.

Absolutely true.

And why should some kids get to go to better colleges, just because they were born with more grit or intelligence than others? That's ridiculous. Everyone should be able to go to any college they want to.

Right?

A super rich kid can get into an elite university with no merits. See Trump.

Historically the US hasn't used "merit" for immigrating purposes. That's how we let in millions of uneducated Irish, Poles, etc.. Historically, universities do use some form of "merit" for most people for admittance. See the difference?

Why do you think the country shouldn't change to allow immigration based on merit?
Don't we want to help make sure our country and its citizens are successful? Don't we want a sustainable social safety net for those who go through difficult times? Don't we want to continue to encourage the best and brightest to make their homes here?

Why do you think universities shouldn't accept all comers?
Don't you think everyone deserves access to an education? Do you really think people should be disproportionately rewarded based on accidents of birth? Don't you think opportunity should be shared?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Absolutely true.

And why should some kids get to go to better colleges, just because they were born with more grit or intelligence than others? That's ridiculous. Everyone should be able to go to any college they want to.

Right?

Since nobody is saying that everyone should be able to go to any country they want to, I don't understand how this is relevant.

Actually, this is exactly what people are saying. People, meaning liberals.

Only if you think the only DCUMers posting on the education sections are conservatives. A lot of liberals are quite happy the elite institutions are elitist, and are thrilled when their darlings, because they were lucky enough to be born where they were born with the genetic advantages they have, continue to benefit over the great unwashed masses who don't deserve to enter the hallowed halls.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The GOP is singing its death knell with this. They really should have taken Graham-Durbin.

I think most GOP would be fine with this. I know I would. What most GOP wants is to stop the flow once and for all. The end to chain migration would also be a big plus. I think it also gets rid of the diversity lottery.

The problem in the past is that the Congress has voted for border security--but never appropriated the funds to finish the job. Sec Nielson said that she needs more personnel and this does that. She also needs to be able to send people back. If you come in and say the right words (taught by the coyotes) you get to stay.

I think the plan has promise. It is pretty much what I would like.

What you're referring to, is people sponsoring their family members for immigration. For example, I know somebody who came to the US as a child refugee from Vietnam. When she grew up, as a naturalized US citizen, she started on the long and expensive process of sponsoring her parents, her three siblings, and the siblings' spouses and children.

Do you think that's bad? Do you think that she should not have been allowed to do this? And if so, why?

There is no such thing as "chain migration" -- chains don't migrate. We're talking about people. The immigration of people.

NP. I think it's bad. If the people can't get in on their own merits, why do we want them here? What do they have to offer the country?

They might get a + in a column because they know someone here, but that's it. Having a relative would not be sufficient to allow someone to immigrate.

And here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chain_migration you can read up on why people call it chain migration and where the concept came from, since it seems to be troubling you.

Get in on their merits?

What merit do you have, what makes you so special? Being born here? You had nothing to do with that.

Absolutely true.

And why should some kids get to go to better colleges, just because they were born with more grit or intelligence than others? That's ridiculous. Everyone should be able to go to any college they want to.

Right?

A super rich kid can get into an elite university with no merits. See Trump.

Historically the US hasn't used "merit" for immigrating purposes. That's how we let in millions of uneducated Irish, Poles, etc.. Historically, universities do use some form of "merit" for most people for admittance. See the difference?

Not the PP, but times have changed. See the difference?

Agree. So we don't need the 2nd amendment anymore, right? And for universities, it's still the same, money or merit.

Do you think changing immigration laws will be as challenging as revoking the second amendment?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The GOP is singing its death knell with this. They really should have taken Graham-Durbin.

I think most GOP would be fine with this. I know I would. What most GOP wants is to stop the flow once and for all. The end to chain migration would also be a big plus. I think it also gets rid of the diversity lottery.

The problem in the past is that the Congress has voted for border security--but never appropriated the funds to finish the job. Sec Nielson said that she needs more personnel and this does that. She also needs to be able to send people back. If you come in and say the right words (taught by the coyotes) you get to stay.

I think the plan has promise. It is pretty much what I would like.

What you're referring to, is people sponsoring their family members for immigration. For example, I know somebody who came to the US as a child refugee from Vietnam. When she grew up, as a naturalized US citizen, she started on the long and expensive process of sponsoring her parents, her three siblings, and the siblings' spouses and children.

Do you think that's bad? Do you think that she should not have been allowed to do this? And if so, why?

There is no such thing as "chain migration" -- chains don't migrate. We're talking about people. The immigration of people.

NP. I think it's bad. If the people can't get in on their own merits, why do we want them here? What do they have to offer the country?

They might get a + in a column because they know someone here, but that's it. Having a relative would not be sufficient to allow someone to immigrate.

And here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chain_migration you can read up on why people call it chain migration and where the concept came from, since it seems to be troubling you.

DP.. what "merit" did your ancestors have that enabled them to come here? What about Trump's mother, who was a maid from Scotland?

Cool, we're deciding how to deal with things now based on how people did them here 300 and 400 years ago (when my ancestors came here)?

That's how you want to determine things?

Why not? That's how you gun lovers determine the 2nd amendment is still applicable to today's world.

Trump's mother immigrated here less than 100 years ago. What was her "merit"? Why did we allow Melania's family to immigrate here?

Bzzt, derailing, 10 yard penalty! Why assume someone criticizing your comment on what rules applied to one's ancestors is a gun lover? Are people who hate guns or are neutral about guns all committed to handling things now the way they were done hundreds of years ago?

And now rather than using my 400-300 year old ancestors, you want to use Melanie's when they immigrated? Ok.

Why do you think what the country allowed 50, 100 years ago is the standard by which we should judge what we do now?

Weren't we making people surgically sterile in that same time period? Do you really think the US was doing everything so spectacularly then that it doesn't bear reconsidering now?

The argument that we shouldn't be doing something that we did 300 or 400 years ago applies to situations other than immigration, ie, we don't need a militia, and we are not in danger of another British invasion. Therefore, we don't need people to have the right to bear arms.

The right to bear arms wasn't about a British invasion. It was about the right to overthrow your own government.

But yes, I agree that just claiming something worked hundreds of years ago is insufficient justification for why we should continue it now.

So, explain. Why are you against merit based immigration?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The GOP is singing its death knell with this. They really should have taken Graham-Durbin.

I think most GOP would be fine with this. I know I would. What most GOP wants is to stop the flow once and for all. The end to chain migration would also be a big plus. I think it also gets rid of the diversity lottery.

The problem in the past is that the Congress has voted for border security--but never appropriated the funds to finish the job. Sec Nielson said that she needs more personnel and this does that. She also needs to be able to send people back. If you come in and say the right words (taught by the coyotes) you get to stay.

I think the plan has promise. It is pretty much what I would like.

What you're referring to, is people sponsoring their family members for immigration. For example, I know somebody who came to the US as a child refugee from Vietnam. When she grew up, as a naturalized US citizen, she started on the long and expensive process of sponsoring her parents, her three siblings, and the siblings' spouses and children.

Do you think that's bad? Do you think that she should not have been allowed to do this? And if so, why?

There is no such thing as "chain migration" -- chains don't migrate. We're talking about people. The immigration of people.

NP. I think it's bad. If the people can't get in on their own merits, why do we want them here? What do they have to offer the country?

They might get a + in a column because they know someone here, but that's it. Having a relative would not be sufficient to allow someone to immigrate.

And here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chain_migration you can read up on why people call it chain migration and where the concept came from, since it seems to be troubling you.

Get in on their merits?

What merit do you have, what makes you so special? Being born here? You had nothing to do with that.

Absolutely true.

And why should some kids get to go to better colleges, just because they were born with more grit or intelligence than others? That's ridiculous. Everyone should be able to go to any college they want to.

Right?

A super rich kid can get into an elite university with no merits. See Trump.

Historically the US hasn't used "merit" for immigrating purposes. That's how we let in millions of uneducated Irish, Poles, etc.. Historically, universities do use some form of "merit" for most people for admittance. See the difference?

Not the PP, but times have changed. See the difference?

Agree. So we don't need the 2nd amendment anymore, right? And for universities, it's still the same, money or merit.

Do you think changing immigration laws will be as challenging as revoking the second amendment?

No way! The Dem co**suckers will bend over to get the DACA people legalized and will bend over next week. That's a bird-in-hand. They don't care about the lottery (which was stupid to begin with), or legal immigration for parents/relatives (most immigrants that are rich enough to sponsor parents, etc are quite rich and vote republican anyways).. The Trumptard and Nazi Miller will get what they want.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The GOP is singing its death knell with this. They really should have taken Graham-Durbin.

I think most GOP would be fine with this. I know I would. What most GOP wants is to stop the flow once and for all. The end to chain migration would also be a big plus. I think it also gets rid of the diversity lottery.

The problem in the past is that the Congress has voted for border security--but never appropriated the funds to finish the job. Sec Nielson said that she needs more personnel and this does that. She also needs to be able to send people back. If you come in and say the right words (taught by the coyotes) you get to stay.

I think the plan has promise. It is pretty much what I would like.

What you're referring to, is people sponsoring their family members for immigration. For example, I know somebody who came to the US as a child refugee from Vietnam. When she grew up, as a naturalized US citizen, she started on the long and expensive process of sponsoring her parents, her three siblings, and the siblings' spouses and children.

Do you think that's bad? Do you think that she should not have been allowed to do this? And if so, why?

There is no such thing as "chain migration" -- chains don't migrate. We're talking about people. The immigration of people.

NP. I think it's bad. If the people can't get in on their own merits, why do we want them here? What do they have to offer the country?

They might get a + in a column because they know someone here, but that's it. Having a relative would not be sufficient to allow someone to immigrate.

And here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chain_migration you can read up on why people call it chain migration and where the concept came from, since it seems to be troubling you.

Get in on their merits?

What merit do you have, what makes you so special? Being born here? You had nothing to do with that.

Absolutely true.

And why should some kids get to go to better colleges, just because they were born with more grit or intelligence than others? That's ridiculous. Everyone should be able to go to any college they want to.

Right?

A super rich kid can get into an elite university with no merits. See Trump.

Historically the US hasn't used "merit" for immigrating purposes. That's how we let in millions of uneducated Irish, Poles, etc.. Historically, universities do use some form of "merit" for most people for admittance. See the difference?

Not the PP, but times have changed. See the difference?

Agree. So we don't need the 2nd amendment anymore, right? And for universities, it's still the same, money or merit.

Do you think changing immigration laws will be as challenging as revoking the second amendment?

No way! The Dem co**suckers will bend over to get the DACA people legalized and will bend over next week. That's a bird-in-hand. They don't care about the lottery (which was stupid to begin with), or legal immigration for parents/relatives (most immigrants that are rich enough to sponsor parents, etc are quite rich and vote republican anyways).. The Trumptard and Nazi Miller will get what they want.

If it bothers you that much, why don't you fight for a constitutional amendment for open borders, so that can have the same level of protection as the 2nd amendment?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The GOP is singing its death knell with this. They really should have taken Graham-Durbin.

I think most GOP would be fine with this. I know I would. What most GOP wants is to stop the flow once and for all. The end to chain migration would also be a big plus. I think it also gets rid of the diversity lottery.

The problem in the past is that the Congress has voted for border security--but never appropriated the funds to finish the job. Sec Nielson said that she needs more personnel and this does that. She also needs to be able to send people back. If you come in and say the right words (taught by the coyotes) you get to stay.

I think the plan has promise. It is pretty much what I would like.

What you're referring to, is people sponsoring their family members for immigration. For example, I know somebody who came to the US as a child refugee from Vietnam. When she grew up, as a naturalized US citizen, she started on the long and expensive process of sponsoring her parents, her three siblings, and the siblings' spouses and children.

Do you think that's bad? Do you think that she should not have been allowed to do this? And if so, why?

There is no such thing as "chain migration" -- chains don't migrate. We're talking about people. The immigration of people.

NP. I think it's bad. If the people can't get in on their own merits, why do we want them here? What do they have to offer the country?

They might get a + in a column because they know someone here, but that's it. Having a relative would not be sufficient to allow someone to immigrate.

And here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chain_migration you can read up on why people call it chain migration and where the concept came from, since it seems to be troubling you.

DP.. what "merit" did your ancestors have that enabled them to come here? What about Trump's mother, who was a maid from Scotland?

Cool, we're deciding how to deal with things now based on how people did them here 300 and 400 years ago (when my ancestors came here)?

That's how you want to determine things?

Why not? That's how you gun lovers determine the 2nd amendment is still applicable to today's world.

Trump's mother immigrated here less than 100 years ago. What was her "merit"? Why did we allow Melania's family to immigrate here?

Bzzt, derailing, 10 yard penalty! Why assume someone criticizing your comment on what rules applied to one's ancestors is a gun lover? Are people who hate guns or are neutral about guns all committed to handling things now the way they were done hundreds of years ago?

And now rather than using my 400-300 year old ancestors, you want to use Melanie's when they immigrated? Ok.

Why do you think what the country allowed 50, 100 years ago is the standard by which we should judge what we do now?

Weren't we making people surgically sterile in that same time period? Do you really think the US was doing everything so spectacularly then that it doesn't bear reconsidering now?

The argument that we shouldn't be doing something that we did 300 or 400 years ago applies to situations other than immigration, ie, we don't need a militia, and we are not in danger of another British invasion. Therefore, we don't need people to have the right to bear arms.

The right to bear arms wasn't about a British invasion. It was about the right to overthrow your own government.

But yes, I agree that just claiming something worked hundreds of years ago is insufficient justification for why we should continue it now.

So, explain. Why are you against merit based immigration?

False. It was established within the context of a militia, and militia was defined in the Militia Act put into law by the Founding Fathers 6 months after the 2nd Amendment was ratified. The militia was for national defense and was answerable and accountable to the President as Commander In Chief.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My mother immigrated here on the basis of marrying my father, a US citizen. What did she have to offer this country? Boot her out! Heck, boot my father out, too -- he's an anchor baby! He's only a US citizen because his father immigrated at the age of 3, and what does a 3-year-old have to offer this country? Pah!

Or, um, something...

She was a spouse! Still allowed.

So, you are saying we should welcome everyone? You cannot have free public services and free immigration. Just want work. All the immigrants that came over 100 years ago had to make it on their own with no help from the government. No EBT, etc. No "affordable housing" etc. Big difference. And, they didn't have phones to talk to their parents or visit back and forth. No internet to communicate. Much different. They severed their ties--or, at least, most of them did.

This is what liberals refuse to acknowledge. 100 years ago, immigrants were welcomed into this country because we needed people to settle it. These people worked the land, creating lives for themselves with absolutely no help from the government, no safety net whatsoever. Nor did they expect any help or handouts.

The situation today is completely different. When will liberals become honest and admit that?

Agree!!! Fiscal Conservative Libertarian here!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My mother immigrated here on the basis of marrying my father, a US citizen. What did she have to offer this country? Boot her out! Heck, boot my father out, too -- he's an anchor baby! He's only a US citizen because his father immigrated at the age of 3, and what does a 3-year-old have to offer this country? Pah!

Or, um, something...

She was a spouse! Still allowed.

So, you are saying we should welcome everyone? You cannot have free public services and free immigration. Just want work. All the immigrants that came over 100 years ago had to make it on their own with no help from the government. No EBT, etc. No "affordable housing" etc. Big difference. And, they didn't have phones to talk to their parents or visit back and forth. No internet to communicate. Much different. They severed their ties--or, at least, most of them did.

This is what liberals refuse to acknowledge. 100 years ago, immigrants were welcomed into this country because we needed people to settle it. These people worked the land, creating lives for themselves with absolutely no help from the government, no safety net whatsoever. Nor did they expect any help or handouts.

The situation today is completely different. When will liberals become honest and admit that?

Agree!!! Fiscal Conservative Libertarian here!

Absolutely. Why do liberals fail to grasp this concept? If the masses of people who came during that Great Immigration (late 1880s to 1920s) went onto government assistant programs, as half of all immigrants do today, there would have been a call for merit-based systems then too. It's an entirely different time now. Just as the "old" immigrants were requires to support themselves, we must require that of new immigrants. The best way to do that is via merit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The GOP is singing its death knell with this. They really should have taken Graham-Durbin.

Why do you think what the country allowed 50, 100 years ago is the standard by which we should judge what we do now?

Weren't we making people surgically sterile in that same time period? Do you really think the US was doing everything so spectacularly then that it doesn't bear reconsidering now?

The argument that we shouldn't be doing something that we did 300 or 400 years ago applies to situations other than immigration, ie, we don't need a militia, and we are not in danger of another British invasion. Therefore, we don't need people to have the right to bear arms.

The right to bear arms wasn't about a British invasion. It was about the right to overthrow your own government.

But yes, I agree that just claiming something worked hundreds of years ago is insufficient justification for why we should continue it now.

So, explain. Why are you against merit based immigration?

I'm against merit based immigration since that is a dog whistle meaning Northern Europeans or Asians - populations that already have an educational and economic advantage. It is not helping out those disadvantaged by their circumstances in life who view america as their life raft and better life for their families. After a generation or two, the disadvantaged who arrive here, are educated and their families are fully committed to being productive Americans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My mother immigrated here on the basis of marrying my father, a US citizen. What did she have to offer this country? Boot her out! Heck, boot my father out, too -- he's an anchor baby! He's only a US citizen because his father immigrated at the age of 3, and what does a 3-year-old have to offer this country? Pah!

Or, um, something...

She was a spouse! Still allowed.

So, you are saying we should welcome everyone? You cannot have free public services and free immigration. Just want work. All the immigrants that came over 100 years ago had to make it on their own with no help from the government. No EBT, etc. No "affordable housing" etc. Big difference. And, they didn't have phones to talk to their parents or visit back and forth. No internet to communicate. Much different. They severed their ties--or, at least, most of them did.

This is what liberals refuse to acknowledge. 100 years ago, immigrants were welcomed into this country because we needed people to settle it. These people worked the land, creating lives for themselves with absolutely no help from the government, no safety net whatsoever. Nor did they expect any help or handouts.

The situation today is completely different. When will liberals become honest and admit that?

Agree!!! Fiscal Conservative Libertarian here!

Absolutely. Why do liberals fail to grasp this concept? If the masses of people who came during that Great Immigration (late 1880s to 1920s) went onto government assistant programs, as half of all immigrants do today, there would have been a call for merit-based systems then too. It's an entirely different time now. Just as the "old" immigrants were requires to support themselves, we must require that of new immigrants. The best way to do that is via merit.

Ignorant. Things aren't all that different. People just like you didn't want them coming here then either. There was a ton of discrimination against Italians, Irish, Polish, et cetera.

[Anonymous]

Liberal heads explode!!! How do we tell voters we want to legalize ALL illegals AND have an OPEN BORDER.

Trump has outflanked them totally with generous DACA proposal plus wall.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Liberal heads explode!!! How do we tell voters we want to legalize ALL illegals AND have an OPEN BORDER.

Trump has outflanked them totally with generous DACA proposal plus wall.

What Dem politician said they wanted "open borders"? Are they looking to allow anyone to come without checking papers or have any border control at all? Do they want to get rid of ICE completely? And, no, "they seem to" is not proof that they do. If you say, "well they want amnesty", well, aren't some Rs wanting "amnesty", too. Reagan and both Bushes provided amnesty. By your definition, some Rs want "open borders", too?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The GOP is singing its death knell with this. They really should have taken Graham-Durbin.

I think most GOP would be fine with this. I know I would. What most GOP wants is to stop the flow once and for all. The end to chain migration would also be a big plus. I think it also gets rid of the diversity lottery.

The problem in the past is that the Congress has voted for border security--but never appropriated the funds to finish the job. Sec Nielson said that she needs more personnel and this does that. She also needs to be able to send people back. If you come in and say the right words (taught by the coyotes) you get to stay.

I think the plan has promise. It is pretty much what I would like.

What you're referring to, is people sponsoring their family members for immigration. For example, I know somebody who came to the US as a child refugee from Vietnam. When she grew up, as a naturalized US citizen, she started on the long and expensive process of sponsoring her parents, her three siblings, and the siblings' spouses and children.

Do you think that's bad? Do you think that she should not have been allowed to do this? And if so, why?

There is no such thing as "chain migration" -- chains don't migrate. We're talking about people. The immigration of people.

NP. I think it's bad. If the people can't get in on their own merits, why do we want them here? What do they have to offer the country?

They might get a + in a column because they know someone here, but that's it. Having a relative would not be sufficient to allow someone to immigrate.

And here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chain_migration you can read up on why people call it chain migration and where the concept came from, since it seems to be troubling you.

DP.. what "merit" did your ancestors have that enabled them to come here? What about Trump's mother, who was a maid from Scotland?

Cool, we're deciding how to deal with things now based on how people did them here 300 and 400 years ago (when my ancestors came here)?

That's how you want to determine things?

Why not? That's how you gun lovers determine the 2nd amendment is still applicable to today's world.

Trump's mother immigrated here less than 100 years ago. What was her "merit"? Why did we allow Melania's family to immigrate here?

Bzzt, derailing, 10 yard penalty! Why assume someone criticizing your comment on what rules applied to one's ancestors is a gun lover? Are people who hate guns or are neutral about guns all committed to handling things now the way they were done hundreds of years ago?

And now rather than using my 400-300 year old ancestors, you want to use Melanie's when they immigrated? Ok.

Why do you think what the country allowed 50, 100 years ago is the standard by which we should judge what we do now?

Weren't we making people surgically sterile in that same time period? Do you really think the US was doing everything so spectacularly then that it doesn't bear reconsidering now?

The argument that we shouldn't be doing something that we did 300 or 400 years ago applies to situations other than immigration, ie, we don't need a militia, and we are not in danger of another British invasion. Therefore, we don't need people to have the right to bear arms.

The right to bear arms wasn't about a British invasion. It was about the right to overthrow your own government.

But yes, I agree that just claiming something worked hundreds of years ago is insufficient justification for why we should continue it now.

So, explain. Why are you against merit based immigration?

False. It was established within the context of a militia, and militia was defined in the Militia Act put into law by the Founding Fathers 6 months after the 2nd Amendment was ratified. The militia was for national defense and was answerable and accountable to the President as Commander In Chief.

+1. Thanks for fixing the fake history so frequently cited by the NRA and its toadies.

[Anonymous]

This Trump amnesty will provide many of the workers the economy so desperately needs.