What is your opinion on the new restricted immigration policies?

COL John Hudson — Sun, 29 Jan 2017 10:31:22 -0500

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 29 at 2017 10:56 AM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 29 Jan 2017 10:56:04 -0500

Rightly blocked by at least two federal courts with stay placed on DHS.

So sad about our administration's shameful and unconstitutional actions.

So proud of the fast response by the ACLU and our federal courts in at least temporarily stopping the insanity, and to the clear heads at DHS for choosing to obey the courts instead of the idiotic and illegal Executive Order.

Response by SFC Pete Kain made Jan 29 at 2017 11:09 AM

SFC Pete Kain — Sun, 29 Jan 2017 11:09:50 -0500

Enforcing the laws of the land. What is the problem?
The doors are not shut to legal immigration, just illegal.
What is the problem with vetting those that want to come here?

Response by SFC J Fullerton made Jan 29 at 2017 12:28 PM

SFC J Fullerton — Sun, 29 Jan 2017 12:28:16 -0500

The issue appears to be with people who have been granted visas by the U.S. Government and then detained when they try to legally re-enter the country. If they are being denied entry, they should have been denied the credentials in the first place, or had them revoked prior to departure. It is up to the courts to figure this out.

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 29 at 2017 1:34 PM

1LT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 29 Jan 2017 13:34:14 -0500

COL John Hudson - The proposed (now stayed by federal court action) immigration ban was moronic, delusional, poorly considered, poorly written, and poorly implemented - and took no account of the extremely severe adverse impact on individuals, families, our national interests, and international reputation. Some people should be castrated or neutered, slowly dissected without anesthesia, and put to death for misleading our grand, glorious, devoted, and fearless leader into signing such an unreasonable exec order. These are my feelings - not a specific or concerted plan of any kind for taking action against anyone - merely emphasizing I am deeply and intrinsically opposed to surrendering our country to the tyranny of either the masses or a few advisors who feel committed to wrecking our foreign policy. Warmest Regards, Sandy :)

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 29 at 2017 1:40 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 29 Jan 2017 13:40:26 -0500

I'm fine with limiting and properly vetting immigrants and refugees, but this needed better planning. I understand the President is trying to make good on his promises but some things need more planning and time than the swish of a pen. Hopefully this will get sorted out with relative ease.

Response by CDR Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 29 at 2017 5:01 PM

CDR Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 29 Jan 2017 17:01:06 -0500

I don't particularly think the new restrictions were required. The current system in place is adequate as long as it is properly funded. As we all know a determined enemy will defeat your defenses no matter how in-depth they are. But having said that what we have in place prior to this executive order was already pretty air tight.

As for the roll-out, pretty much a disaster. As I mentioned in another post this is pretty much an example of a new administration in disorder trying to find their feet. It is doubly difficult when you have a leader who is making decisions and policy and then coordinating with their staff. Right now there is poor leadership and not unity of effort in the west wing.

Response by CPT Jim Schwebach made Jan 29 at 2017 7:54 PM

CPT Jim Schwebach — Sun, 29 Jan 2017 19:54:20 -0500

I believe the flurry of executive orders have shown an amazing lack of definition and forethought. I understand that certain actions were promised and those promises convinced voters and now that constituency must be satisfied. BUT let us not confuse motion with progress. The sequence is supposed to be Ready! Aim! Fire! Seems the current approach skips the first two parts. However our fearless leader has perfected the method for overcoming the blowback from ill advised or inept statements. He sends his minions out in public to deny he meant what he didn't say or the evil media twisted the Trump Truth. And why should we be surprised? He's been pulling this crap for years.

Response by SGT David T. made Jan 30 at 2017 8:07 AM

SGT David T. — Mon, 30 Jan 2017 08:07:49 -0500

I have no issues with a short term suspension of entrance requirements until we can get a handle on things. I don't agree with blocking those with valid visas, approved refuge status and so on as they have already been through the process. I think this is a case of good intent bad execution.

Response by Lt Col Scott Shuttleworth made Jan 30 at 2017 11:13 AM

Lt Col Scott Shuttleworth — Mon, 30 Jan 2017 11:13:07 -0500

When you are in a hole what is the first thing you do...stop digging and try to figure a way out of it. That is what I see Pres Trump is doing. Stopping the digging and trying to figure a better way or a way out That is what I see with our immigration issues today. We have opened our doors so wide that anyone and everyone can come in unvetted. I have a serious problem with that. I have no problem with properly vetted folks coming in wanting a better life for themselves or for their families...that is what America is all about...heck we are all from immigrants of some kind unless you are native American. Just need to do it smartly.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 30 at 2017 12:33 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 30 Jan 2017 12:33:56 -0500

It's nothing new the previous 3 Presidents had done similar things on immigration. President Trump is just trying to vet possible threats to our country. I think some people are just being vocal because who is saying this information. I think it's just common sense to screen people who are coming into our country especially from countries that don't like the USA.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 30 at 2017 2:42 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 30 Jan 2017 14:42:33 -0500

Regardless of how you feel about this.. I implore all to at least look at these links to have a better understanding of the situation. A good SFC taught me a long time ago to make the best decision you can with the information you have and be open to adjust fire. IMO most of the things that folks are upset about will eventually go away when the administration adjust's fire and actually get all the facts correct. No the borders are not open and people are not "pouring in". I believe you work to develop your fox hole every day and a reassessment of current procedures is welcome. Now how the administration went about it is a completely different story.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/01/30/key-facts-about-refugees-to-the-u-s/

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2015/11/20/infographic-screening-process-refugee-entry-united-states

Key facts about refugees to the U.S.

Following the signing of an executive order that suspends refugee admissions for 120 days, here are key facts about the refugees entering the United States.

Response by SSG Wally Lawver made Jan 30 at 2017 3:02 PM

SSG Wally Lawver — Mon, 30 Jan 2017 15:02:57 -0500

good

Response by Sgt Joseph Hennequin Jr made Jan 30 at 2017 3:32 PM

Sgt Joseph Hennequin Jr — Mon, 30 Jan 2017 15:32:57 -0500

Response by SGT Anna Kleinschmidt made Jan 30 at 2017 3:56 PM

SGT Anna Kleinschmidt — Mon, 30 Jan 2017 15:56:08 -0500

It's dangerous and will only give fodder to the terrorist organizations to radicalize more into joining their ranks.
It was poorly rolled out without coordination with the other countries leaving many innocent people including children held like prisoners in airports like criminals I was held like this when I was in the army on a flight to Korea even with proper military ID because they said that the picture wasn't me! I missed my flight and was held for 2 days until a rep from the Army came and got me out. I missed my report date in Korea! I can only imagine what it is like for these people. The countries left off the list are obvious countries with ties to the Trump orginazation even though those are the countries that are known countries where terriost come from. By stating that priority will be given to Christians and minority religions it became an unconstitutional ban. And it is also an immoral ban. Based on the Republican claim of Christian values and is direct conflict with Mathew 25

[http://www.salon.com/2017/01/30/donald-trumps-muslim-ban-is-already-backfiring-and-its-consequences-will-only-get-worse/]

Response by SFC George Smith made Jan 30 at 2017 9:21 PM

SFC George Smith — Mon, 30 Jan 2017 21:21:14 -0500

it's about time ... but BHO Was One of them and would allow any into the country who was willing to Help destroy it...

Response by MAJ Eric G Troup made Jan 30 at 2017 9:33 PM

MAJ Eric G Troup — Mon, 30 Jan 2017 21:33:12 -0500

Contrary to all the hysteria, this is a 90 day pause to re-assess our vetting processes for receiving people from countries that have some combination of no functioning government / lawlessness, strong reasons to question the authenticity of travel documents, heavy presence of Islamic Extremists, come from state sponsors of Terrorism, or come from countries that continually remind us they are going to conquer the West. Long overdue.

Response by SSG Jeremy Sharp made Jan 30 at 2017 10:33 PM

SSG Jeremy Sharp — Mon, 30 Jan 2017 22:33:48 -0500

He is not the first president to restrict immigration, he is just the first one to suffer such severe and public criticism over the decision to implement his plan.

Response by LCpl Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 31 at 2017 6:01 AM

LCpl Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 31 Jan 2017 06:01:58 -0500

expand it

Response by SSgt Jim Gilmore made Jan 31 at 2017 7:10 AM

SSgt Jim Gilmore — Tue, 31 Jan 2017 07:10:21 -0500

This has been done by other administrations dating back at least 45 years and then some. But confining the conversation to recent events, yes, it is a good idea. First of all, Trump is carrying through on a campaign promise but more importantly is the fact that every sovereign nation has the obligation to protect its citizens. It also has the legal right to restrict, modify, cancel, revoke and refuse to issue a visa, transit document or travel documents at will and without cause or explanation. These same obligations and rights apply to all other countries of the world.

The world is not utopia. It is a dangerous place and becoming more dangerous all the time. The government is obliged to do everything to assure that anyone desiring to enter the US has been properly vetted INCLUDING holders of green cards if deemed necessary.

Contrary to the opinions of many this suspension is not discriminatory. It is common sense. It is prudent to periodically review procedures to effectiveness. A nation has the obligation to assure its citizens are being afforded all possible protections from an entity wishing to do us harm.

Response by SGT Thomas Moore made Jan 31 at 2017 7:31 AM

SGT Thomas Moore — Tue, 31 Jan 2017 07:31:33 -0500

Exactly. If we enforce the laws we currently have on the books, there is no need to expand them. Exactly like the 2nd Amendment laws.

Response by FN Charlie Spivey made Jan 31 at 2017 8:12 AM

FN Charlie Spivey — Tue, 31 Jan 2017 08:12:24 -0500

You can't just come into a country unfettered. There has to be some control for security reasons among other things. In this case, It was probably mishandled and could have been done differently. If you let people just walk in the door unfettered, you are in essesence jeopardizing the security and in my opinion, could be considered Treason.

Response by TSgt Daniel Wareham made Jan 31 at 2017 8:15 AM

TSgt Daniel Wareham — Tue, 31 Jan 2017 08:15:18 -0500

I think they are good, however I don't think they go far enough. I know that this sounds trite and is a current meme, but as long as we have Americans and those who are Veterans who are homeless and not getting the medical treatment that they should, we shouldn't be bringing in these so-called "Refugees". Look at what has happened in Germany, the rest of Europe and in Sweden, Norway, etc. There is enough problems being caused by their general (#NOT ALL) unwillingness to abide by Western rules and lifestyles that they should remain in the Middle East where they belong.

Response by SGT Robert Woods made Jan 31 at 2017 8:25 AM

SGT Robert Woods — Tue, 31 Jan 2017 08:25:31 -0500

LONG OVER DUE LEADERSHIP

20 January 2017 reminded me of one of those days that only rarely happen in one’s lifetime.
President Donald J. Trump became the 45th President of the United States, and he is not waffling on his commitment to the citizens of the United States of America.

After only ten days in office, President Trump in my option has taken more positive reactions to combat the foreigners, foreign countries, and even our citizens than anyone since 911. America has changed since 911, and we let leadership convince us that they knew more than we about the changing demographics of America such as our borders being the busiest migration of humans whom we have no idea who they are. The “Rule of Law” does not apply to most of the people entering our country if somethings said about Vetting foreigners you're labeled as profiling or even a Racist or both.

People have to face the fact that other countries in most cases do not value life the way we do in America. I do not understand if Muslims believe in ideas that we have all seen them demonstrate. Such as stoning a person to death, cutting off their heads, hanging people or just plain killing each other at will, why we would not want to ensure that if a person comes into our country, they are not of these beliefs.

I have been to Ellis Island and stood were the people from all walks of life from around the world had traveled in conditions most of us wouldn't be able to do stand in lines waiting to become Americans.

To have stood there visualizing what these people went through is mind boggling, to say the least.
Is our government just supposed to let the non-United States citizens come into our country unvetted?

Senator McCain has nothing good to say about anyone you would think after twenty-eight years in national government would be first in line to make sure our country stays as safe as we can. Instead, he blasts President Trump just like he does everyone else if he does not get his way. Stop and think about it after 28 years and a failed run for President of the United States he would get the hint. Things happen very quickly in the world he is worth over ten million dollars, now ask yourself if you think he has our best interest at heart, I say “HELL NO.” !!

To date, President Trump has proved he is working to make America Great again just think if the powers to be in Washington D.C. would get behind President Trump and help him achieve that goal it would not take long to be a Great Country again. I wish we could charge the media with hate crimes they have lost all creditability in my opinion. We finally have a leader with a set of Balls, and it seems as if
President Trumps treated like trash.

Just think if these spineless weasels treated Obama like they treat President Trump we would be in the biggest race war in history.

Response by COL John Hudson made Jan 31 at 2017 8:55 AM

COL John Hudson — Tue, 31 Jan 2017 08:55:38 -0500

A few notes on this issue: President Trump just fired the Acting Attorney General for failure to enforce existing immigration law. Also: "A President of the United States" - any President, has the constitutional right to dictate who does and does not come into the United States. Please, do a little homework.

Response by CMSgt Gary Fichman made Jan 31 at 2017 9:49 AM

CMSgt Gary Fichman — Tue, 31 Jan 2017 09:49:22 -0500

Legal immigration is the standard. Follow other countries lead on illegal immigration (like Mexico). Unfortunately, in a lot of cases we are dependent on illegals (agriculture) to do jobs no else will do.

Response by LTC Mark Beattie made Jan 31 at 2017 10:43 AM

LTC Mark Beattie — Tue, 31 Jan 2017 10:43:29 -0500

On a very small scale, most people don't simply open the doors to their homes and allow people to come in unless they know the individuals, know they can be trusted, or have "reliable" information that the individual (s) can be trusted. To do so would be accepting unnecessary risk that an unknown person might harm you or your family. And while the implementation of the current temporary immigration ban on select countries was a bit heavy-handed, I personally support the intent, considering the previous administration was dependent on a poor or nearly non existent vetting system. Claiming to have vetted a refugee from a country where records are sketchy at best, and non existent in most cases, does not constitute "proper" vetting. Bottom line, a temporary ban on immigration until proper vetting procedures, can be put in place is appropriate and prudent. I don't care about "nice," I care about safety of my family and the country!!

Response by Mary Burchard Pikula made Jan 31 at 2017 10:49 AM

Mary Burchard Pikula — Tue, 31 Jan 2017 10:49:41 -0500

Excellent. I'm very concerned by the video and reports coming out of Europe as to the effect the Mideast predominately Muslim refugees are having on Belgium, France, Germany and Britain. I think refugee accommodations in their own countries, or neighboring countries is much more sensible. They don't want to assimilate into our culture or accept our values and abide by our laws and. Constitution. It's a mistake to bring them here.

Response by Sgt Skip Kingman made Jan 31 at 2017 11:17 AM

Sgt Skip Kingman — Tue, 31 Jan 2017 11:17:06 -0500

I don't see where any of the restrictions involve CITIZENS LIBERTIES. The security measures involve, as I have read, restricting the movement of NON CITIZENS, entering our country illegally and the appropriate vetting of the same groups prior to their entry into our country. The same rules for immigrants becoming citizens still apply, no new federal statutes have been passed, only current ones being enforced. I do not see how any of my liberties or freedoms have been restricted. If anything, personal freedoms of movement were more restricted immediately after 9/11 with the "patriot act", the creation of TSA and the broad strokes that were allowed to the newly formed department of Homeland Security.

Response by LTC Andy Liebeknecht made Jan 31 at 2017 12:30 PM

LTC Andy Liebeknecht — Tue, 31 Jan 2017 12:30:22 -0500

If the laws are not going to be upheld, then repeal them. I fail to see any sanctuary city supports in Congress attempting to repeal these laws.

Response by TSgt Denise Moody made Jan 31 at 2017 3:51 PM

TSgt Denise Moody — Tue, 31 Jan 2017 15:51:40 -0500

The vetting that are already in place can take 2 years. How much more time is needed? Are the people doing the vetting that incompetent? And aiming at people who from countries that have not committed acts of violence here...but not countries who have? Our immigration policies may need to be gone over and overhauled. But you don't toss out something that hasn't been fully vetted itself, and doesn't have rules for implementation. People with valid visas and green cards were held in detention, some put on a plane back. A five year old boy was kept from his mother!

Yes, my opinion of this new policy right now is that it should find it's way to the circular file.

Response by SSG Jeffrey Monk made Jan 31 at 2017 4:45 PM

SSG Jeffrey Monk — Tue, 31 Jan 2017 16:45:39 -0500

Personally I would like to see the ones already on the book become enforced and then move on from there. We already have a problem with contradictory or redundant laws because the powers at be don't do their homework while writing up these bills or allow crap to be tacked on. I know personally it was a royal pain when I brought my wife over from Peru but I know it was going to be an issue because she happened to be from one of the Shining Paths home stations. The only time I got up set was when my 1SG had to put together a convoy and twelve of our lives in danger just so I could get to a Military Lawyer and have some paperwork signed and faxed from Iraq to Lima Peru because the US didn't want to let my daughter back into the country even though she had dual passports and was born at Ft Benning GA. Mind you, it had only been a year from when she had visited me in South Korea and there were no back and forth issues.

Response by SGT Walter Lester made Jan 31 at 2017 6:27 PM

SGT Walter Lester — Tue, 31 Jan 2017 18:27:42 -0500

If we had restricted immigration policies and enforced the laws on the books back in 9/11 we would have saved a lot of lives and would have cost the nation less not to have to fight all the Muslims.

Response by SPC Tom Walsh made Feb 1 at 2017 2:46 AM

SPC Tom Walsh — Wed, 01 Feb 2017 02:46:40 -0500

The current Exec Order is simply an enforcement of an existing Order. The Order is intended to protect the citizens of the USA from potentially dangerous individuals who's loyalties, motives, intentions, and histories we might not be able to determine in any reliable way.

Most of the attached drama is because Trump is not a politician whose political career can be traced back several decades. The rest is because the special snowflake liberals just want to see Trump the Republican go down in flaming failure.

Response by 1SG James Matthews made Feb 1 at 2017 8:59 AM

1SG James Matthews — Wed, 01 Feb 2017 08:59:18 -0500

Until an Immigrant is fully vetted he or she should be in a controlled area and not allowed to enter the USA. In today's life with terrorism being an major part of watchfullness each and every immigrant must be vetted to the extent that we as a nation are confident they pose no terrorist threat. If we step on toes doing this so be it. I fully agree with the restricted immigration policies that have been put in place.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 1 at 2017 8:41 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 01 Feb 2017 20:41:15 -0500

The filter of partisanship has to shake out, before I will ever comment on that topic.

Response by SGT Robert Woods made Feb 2 at 2017 10:41 AM

SGT Robert Woods — Thu, 02 Feb 2017 10:41:30 -0500

WELCOME TO AMERICA

(“Hold on their Cupcake”)

Have we truly forgotten Pearl Harbor, 911, and the Terrorist attacks before and after 09 September 2011? Every one of these attacks has intervention from right here in America; there called spies.

Maybe, just maybe if our government would have held steadfast applying the Immigration laws that throughout the years may have changed to some degree are still the rule of law that our elected officials
so faithfully swore to uphold one might be able to say our elected officials kept their promise.

According to the Naturalization Act (officially An Act to Establish a Uniform Rule of Naturalization; ch. 54, 1 Stat. 566)

Alien Friends Act (officially An Act Concerning Aliens; ch. 58, 1 Stat. 570)
Authorized the president to deport any resident immigrant considered "dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States." It was activated June 25, 1798, with a two-year expiration date.

Alien Enemies Act (officially An Act Respecting Alien Enemies; ch. 66, 1 Stat. 577)
Authorized the president to apprehend and deport resident aliens if their home countries were at war with the United States of America. Enacted July 6, 1798, and providing no sunset provision, the act remains intact today as 50 U.S.C. § 21

Why are people all up in arms, President Trump has the legal authority to enact the rule of law one that was enacted 06 July 1798 !! We wanted change in this country, and we are working on it. The sick thing is the media, all of these groups that protest and the politicians that have been in office way beyond their ability to enforce the rule of law think they have no worries and everyone should be politically correct.

Political correctness has ruined our country. However, we now have a President that may be wealthy, but he did not get that way by following the leader. President Trump has made and lost money but his stick–to–it·ive·ness has afforded him the wealth and knowledge to become President of the United States. I wonder what would happen if our country was invaded, would these cupcakes cave-in to a foreign government or would they stand with those of us that would fight to the death??

I will close with that and let you decide the answer.

Response by SFC Jim Ruether made Feb 2 at 2017 10:47 AM

SFC Jim Ruether — Thu, 02 Feb 2017 10:47:50 -0500

It's about time! We should have started a more restrictive immigration policy after 911. We need to identify every country that supports terrorism and place those individuals on the no-fly list too. The Israelis have a much more restrictive vetting process at their airports and we need to adopt those policies as well.

Response by Sgt Ramon Nacanaynay made Feb 4 at 2017 8:50 AM

Sgt Ramon Nacanaynay — Sat, 04 Feb 2017 08:50:10 -0500

I am torn. What are the "alternative facts" that we are to believe?

Response by Lt Col John (Jack) Christensen made Feb 5 at 2017 12:30 PM

Lt Col John (Jack) Christensen — Sun, 05 Feb 2017 12:30:56 -0500

Short answer: Dumber than dirt! Nothing wrong with immigration restrictions, they've existed for years under all administrations. The problem with this one is the manner in which it was implemented and the fact that only certain countries with no record of terrorism within the US were singled out while other countries with records of terrorism within the US were not. Immigration laws to protect the US should be universal, not targeted against a religion from only certain countries.

Response by MSG Dan Castaneda made Feb 7 at 2017 11:02 AM

MSG Dan Castaneda — Tue, 07 Feb 2017 11:02:00 -0500

Totally support it.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 7 at 2017 7:18 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 07 Feb 2017 19:18:46 -0500

I lock my doors at night, not because I don't love the people outside but because I love the people inside.
We need to do a better job protecting our country from possible threats. I have no problem with immigration in fact that is what this country is based on. I just want to see people come to this wonderful place the right way.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 7 at 2017 7:24 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 07 Feb 2017 19:24:01 -0500

I lock my doors at night, not because I don't love the people outside but because I love the people inside.
Same principle with this country. I welcome immigrants that's what this country is based on. But they need to follow a process, just do it the right way just like most of our ancestors did that's all. It is important to remember, being here is a privilege not a right.

Response by PO1 John Watson made Feb 8 at 2017 7:42 AM

PO1 John Watson — Wed, 08 Feb 2017 07:42:08 -0500

It is a day late , something that should have been done years ago. The laws have not been enforced on immigration and enforcing them now is causing confusion and upsetting alot of people but I am fully behind President Trump in his effort to keep America safe.

Response by PO1 Bill O made Feb 14 at 2017 7:32 PM

PO1 Bill O — Tue, 14 Feb 2017 19:32:22 -0500

Try to stay out of the issue until I have no choice but to respond! Long Long Long subject, 15 bullet points at least, may I never go through those again!

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 23 at 2017 11:18 AM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 23 Feb 2017 11:18:03 -0500

I'm disgusted, that's my opinion. The Immigration and Nationality Act starts with he phrase "To promote family unity", while Trump and crew are rewriting to "Make America White Again".

Response by SGT Walter Lester made Feb 23 at 2017 6:52 PM

SGT Walter Lester — Thu, 23 Feb 2017 18:52:25 -0500

I still say that if we enforce the laws on the books on immigration and enforce our local laws on illegal's, we wouldn't have the problems we do now. What the government does from here on will be :too little too late:.

Response by SGT Robert Woods made Feb 23 at 2017 8:11 PM

SGT Robert Woods — Thu, 23 Feb 2017 20:11:05 -0500

To me, there was nothing wrong with the law as it stood. I think the only reason it was amended was to skirt around the courts which I also think they do not have the say so on this issue.

Response by CW4 Don Conlan made Feb 28 at 2017 6:52 PM

CW4 Don Conlan — Tue, 28 Feb 2017 18:52:01 -0500

The 'new' policies are not NEW. They're simply being enforced for the first time in a long time.

I've got no problem with the enforcement; though I must admit (based on the stories I read) the initial implementation was poorly executed. The limited implementation (7 countries) is at least an attempt to continue the immigration flow while choking off prime sources of people that want to kill us.

Current-day America has set itself up for immigration failure. Its large public-welfare programs (collectively) are the prime reason for the immigration failure. The ability for EMPLOYERS to use illegals as an alternate labor force is the second most important cause for our large number of illegals. The public-welfare programs support the illegals before hiring and then subsidize the employers' cost by allowing illegals to take jobs at a lower pay scale.

ANY attempt to fix immigration must focus on EMPLOYERS. When an employer is caught employing illegals, it must not only pay the current set of fines but should also have to pick up the tab for housing and maintenance of that illegal (and family) until such time as the illegal (and family) can be repatriated to their homeland; the employer will also pay the relocation costs. At some point in time if the employer is a repeat offender, corporate officers from the CEO down to the hiring manager should face imprisonment.

One other category of immigration needs to be handled differently too; that category is refugees.

A refugee (by my definition) is a person that has left an intolerable situation and sought refuge in America. If (sometime in the future) the refugee feels comfortable enough to return to his/her homeland then his/her refugee status in America should be immediately revoked and the refugee refused re-admittance to America under their original status.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 23 at 2017 4:40 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 23 Apr 2017 16:40:23 -0400

I completely agree with strict illegal immigration law enforcement. I married a woman overseas, paid thousands of dollars in fees, and submitted around a hundred pages of forms to petition her as an alien relative (spouse). We have been happily married ever since, and that was 17 years ago.

Illegals coming here without paying fees, without submitting forms and documents are exactly like someone cutting in front of the line at say a movies theater! Most veterans wouldn't tolerate that shit and would tell the line cutter a thing or two! So why is it all of a sudden ok to cut the line when it comes to immigration?

Hell I even had to fill out and submit a form on my wife called an I-864 (affidavit of support) where I had to prove my income was enough that support her and pledge to the U.S. government that she would not become dependent on welfare/food stamps!!! Yet Illegals come here and collect these and more bennies!!!

Response by SSgt Boyd Herrst made Apr 26 at 2017 9:43 AM

SSgt Boyd Herrst — Wed, 26 Apr 2017 09:43:38 -0400

Fantastic ! Sure it causes hurdles but those were already In place until obama set them aside ..

Response by SSgt Boyd Herrst made Apr 26 at 2017 9:46 AM

SSgt Boyd Herrst — Wed, 26 Apr 2017 09:46:28 -0400

President Trump wants to Vet them so to weed out any potential threats to our nation's security.

Response by CMSgt Gary Fichman made Apr 27 at 2017 12:51 PM

CMSgt Gary Fichman — Thu, 27 Apr 2017 12:51:33 -0400

Enforce the laws--we are a nation of immigrants and laws.

Response by LT Richard Mondak made Apr 28 at 2017 9:26 AM

LT Richard Mondak — Fri, 28 Apr 2017 09:26:19 -0400

I don't understand why there is such an open (mis)interpretation of the law - BY LAW MAKERS and some citizens - regarding immigration. If you ask "may I come to live in your country (state, city, rental property)?" there is a process you must follow, including registration of yourself and all family members, agreement to abide by standing regulations and ability to pay for most services. If you were to enter most other countries illegally, request free services, subsistence and a job, would this be immediately granted? Even legal immigrants to most other countries (I say "most", as there has been an emerging global governmental liberalism are subject to the 'Law of the Land'. Bona fide refugees should be granted protection from tyranny, but also know that they will be required to prepare for and accept citizenship or return to their place of origin.