My family came here legally, if they had come me legally I would be the first to say send them home. As I hope to see they do with the illegals that try to stand up and start people rioting in Mountain View during this demonstration, because I'm sure many of them are not here legally and should go home until they gain legal status and going to return here to work and take advantage of America the way it was intended. I sure hope ICE has representatives there...

Please stop employing the stark, misleading euphemism "immigrants" for immigration-law violators (the exact point at issue here).

The "immigrant advocacy groups" of the text are not, in fact, advocacy groups for immigrants, but for violators of US federal immigration policy. IMMIGRANTS to the US of all kinds, legal ones (as in, "US Immigration and Naturalization Service"), have always been vital to US society. Legal IMMIGRANTS have been outspoken in defense of US immigration law, though we seldom see that acknowledged in these pages.

The article, amazingly and without any evident sense of irony, emphasized that "Sessions . . . referred to DACA recipients as illegal aliens three times" -- the literal, impartial term for anyone present in the US in contravention of settled immigration law. It's a routine legal term, pervading federal statutes, and until recently in common use by journalists. DACA resulted from an executive order (aka Rule-By-Decree), when President Obama grew impatient with normal Congressional lawmaking. Any executive order can be undone just as quickly by another such order, therefore everyone seriously interested has always been aware that DACA was subject to the whim of whoever was in office and should not be surprised by this step. DACA's retraction does allow ample time for real, durable, consensus lawmaking in tge Constitutional tradition.

We are now at the point of the "War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery" rhetoric that Orwell fictionalized when writing allegorically in the 1940s about Stalin's USSR. Only: Stalin is long gone, the USSR not longer exists, yet Orwellian euphemism is alive and promoted in Mountain View. Do the people reading this realize what a groundswell exists throughout much of the US asking to "restoring the rule of law" in California and other border states, where it's selectively ignored for cynical political agendas (sold with euphemistic rhetoric about "compassion")?

I'd like the above posters to just straight out say what they're advocating: kicking out people who were brought here as young children, through no fault of their own, and casting them into a country that is foreign to them.

Is this truly what we've come to as a country, where showing compassion and love for our neighbors is derided? We are better than that, which is why California continues to lead the way. The Republican party continues to fail to live up to American values.

No, LOL's objection was already dealt with (even in the DACA repeal itself): Real, legal, durable federal immigration reform by Congress. And without encouraging still more children to be placed in limbo (to become, in their time, further rhetorical pawns) by more parents like those who created this whole situation, by deliberately bringing the children illegally. (Actions with consequences, yet somehow never acknowledged in all the glib rhetoric about "compassion.")

Placing your whole faith in a unilateral decree by the US president of the moment (when Congress wouldn't do his bidding) sets you up for reliable disappointment when the officeholder changes. But more: it shows the trend of impatience with, or basic misperception of, democracy. When democracy is working, no faction will ever get exactly what they want; yet that deep point seems increasingly lost on people whose reaction to policy changes isn't to examine policy, or their own assumptions, but to riot.

I am a huge proponent of legal immigration. I think we need to establish both faster paths for qualified (e.g., graduate students, entrepreneurs, etc.) applications to establish citizenship as well as offer an opportunity to work and pay taxes in the US without citizenship (e.g., guest-worker, Bracero program).

That being said, we do still have laws that control immigration. If someone has not followed the laws, then they are illegally residing in the country.

Within the past 30 years, the US has had several large scale amnesty programs (Web Link to try to ameliorate the issue, but these are just temporary patches.

Please contact your favorite politicians in Washington and urge them to allow people who wish to work and contribute in the USA to have a legal path to do so.

@Some,

I'm perplexed by your line of reasoning, or perhaps I don't understand what you actually want to happen. Certainly it's within the power of the President to institute DACA and to undo it. What I'm talking about is the wisdom of that choice and the real effects it has on actual people? I agree wholeheartedly that Congress should act to save these people, but isn't it prudent to have Congress fix it first, rather than, as you say, use real people as pawns?

In watching the news, what's interesting to me is the sense of entitlement that the "dreamers" exhibit (at least those heading the protests that I've watched on TV). They seem to feel that they're entitled to remain in the country despite entering illegally. These "dreamers' are no longer children. They've enjoyed free education (many through college), free food, free healthcare, etc., all on the backs of American taxpayers. Isn't it time that they take all the gifts the USA has bestowed on them back to their birth countries and use their USA funded education to better those countries? Maybe they could help their fellow countrymen rather than demanding their rights to remain in the US. A sort of pay-it-forward?

I keep hearing that it would be cruel to send them back to a country they don't remember. Really? Humans, from all over the world, for a variety of reasons, have relocated to new countries since the beginning of time. It's hardly a death sentence. These young (or not so young) adults are now educated and can fend for themselves wherever they choose to go. Maybe they can sneak into a new country and then claim their "right" to be there. Oh - and if they bring their kids with them, then the kids will surely be entitled to stay. Anything less would be inhumane.

DACA is not dead. Did you read Trump's message to Congress? By kicking DACA to Congress, it sets up an opportunity to trade something that Democrats want for something that Republicans want. So all us protesters tonight, take heart. I'm not sure what the Republicans want to trade for immigration reform: tax reform? But I predict a trade will happen.

As for all of you hard-hearted wretches, have you ever heard of Love Thy Neighbor? It's not just a commandment, it's one of the basic keys to happiness. It means you can choose to chase money and power and continue to feel empty inside or be of service and aid to others and live a life of contentment. You want to throw your neighbors out of the country? Take a guess which category you slot into...

Such a sad commentary on our town, although I know these views do not represent a lot of people here. You do realize slavery used to be legal, helping slaves escape, was illegal there did not used to be immigration laws? I'm assuming some of the commenters above would be the first to turn in their Jewish neighbors. Sometimes you need to fight unjust actions on all fronts. Dreamers, immigrants (both documented and undocumented - *people* cannot be illegal) are not the cause of problems either here or the rest of the US. Compassion and logic are in order here.
@MJM, I'm wondering what makes you entitled to stay here? And why are you so determined to kick someone out whom, as you said, we educated for free (by the way, they don't get everything for free - but if this goes forward they might be "allowed" to stay in school but not work). Lucky enough to be born here?

There are very few countries with absolutely open borders, and even countries with much less to offer than the US regulate who can go in and stay. We can't control the country into which we are born, and those of us who were fortunate enough to have been born in the US (to legal US parents) have totally hit the jackpot. (Contrary to what many liberals would have you believe!)

However, the plight of dreamers should be compared to the plight of children in every other country in the world who would be better off living in the USA. Why should these kids get to stay when children from Sudan, Pakistan, Syria, Central African Republic, etc. are not allowed to just come in and stay? Their plight is much more dangerous and dire. The number of immigrants the US can let in each year (and to a large extent support) is limited. Therefore, immigration should be done on a more fair basis than just bestowing the privilege of living in the US/US citizenship to the (now adult) kids of people who broke our laws to smuggle them in.

Thought experiment: If parents rob a bank, should their kids be allowed to keep the money?

Actually I think we should allow everyone in, especially those other kids too. We really do have plenty of resources, it's just that the way our system has been going we have slowly been separating the haves and have-nots, so the top 0.1% control the wealth and power and have decided they like it that way.
Thought experiment, if someone legally bought a slave should they owners get to keep the kids of that slave? If someone stole bread for their child should the store owner get to take the cost of that bread from that child?

I'm worse than a liberal, I'm a super left-wing feminist progressive. But more importantly, I'm a compassionate human being who does not believe letting kids who are already here, who know no other home country, who are not taking food out of your mouth or jobs from you (contrary to what some conservatives would have you believe!) should get to stay here and live their lives in peace vs being punished for something their parents did and for what our current politicians think is right.

@Cordelia, @Nicole - resorting to name calling rather than presenting cogent arguments is juvenile and self defeating. I mean really- comparing people that support legal immigration to slave owners, antisemites, hard hearted "wretches"? You're standing pretty high on your moral superiority soapboxes yet are quick to denigrate people that you don't know. That's not nice and not tolerant of diverse opinions. You may not agree with immigration laws (can't imagine how the country could survive open borders, but okay...) but the laws exist and therefore shoujd be enforced (and legal residents have a right to expect that they will be enforced). If you don't like our immigration laws then you should strive to change the laws. Promoting lawlessness is not the way to affect change.

@Nicole- most of the DACA recipients are adults, not children and there are 800,000 of them. How can you possibly say they're not taking American jobs? They're absolutely taking American jobs as well as slots in college, high schools and elementary schools. Those DACA recipients that are still minors can return to their home countries with their parents just like children from all over the world do when their parents relocate to a new country. They won't be alone- they'll have the security of loving parents (the same parents that smuggled them into the country).

Mr. Waylonis,

Could you please provide us with a credible news source regarding amnesty programs?

Web Link

Since the 1960's, other than the Bracero program, there has not been a path for Mexican nationals already in the country to become US citizens.

Web Link

Due to repeated violations of our Terms of Use, comments from this poster are automatically removed. Why?

Nicole, how does asking for people to follow our RULE OF LAW become a sad commentary on our town?

How is it a sad commentary to ask that people follow the RULE OF LAW?

The laws need to be fixed but until they are you cannot imply that people are not compassionate by wanting to follow the law.

It seems that there is a lot of misinformation about the DACA program. From reading the comments here, it seems that some are under the impression that everyone affected by DACA was brought here as a newborn:

"I'm a compassionate human being who does not believe letting kids who are already here, who know no other home country"

However, according to a CNN article, that is simply not so ( Web Link ). The story says:

"To be eligible, applicants had to have arrived in the US before age 16 and have lived there since June 15, 2007. They could not have been older than 30 when the Department of Homeland Security enacted the policy in 2012."

Ok, so if I'm reading this right, that means that some of these 'children' are actually now 35 years old! (adding 5 years to the max age in 2012) This also means that many of them do indeed remember a home before the U.S. since they had to have arrived before age 16.

Those who are familiar with my writings here know that I have been critical of Congress (both parties) for not doing their job to fix the immigration system and secure the borders. No one has the right to enter the country illegally. There must be a system to control the border to reduce the amount of illegal weapons and drugs that cross the border, as well as to know WHO is coming across the border. It is also necessary to ensure that people crossing the border are not infected with dangerous diseases; and if they are, then they can receive appropriate treatment so that it is not spread here. Now I know some people will immediately accuse me of saying that all immigrants are filthy, dirty, disease carrying scum; but that is not what I am saying. Let me be clear, I am saying that different countries have different standards of care and/or availability of medicines and vaccines. The US has wiped out many childhood diseases and therefore it is necessary for everyone entering the country to be checked so that these diseases are not reintroduced.

Some people want you to think that illegal immigration is compassionate. IT IS NOT! Illegal immigration is the quickest path to exploitation and human trafficking, and there is NOTHING compassionate about that. These people point to the few illegal immigrants who are able to become wildly successful; while ignoring the substandard living conditions of millions, and the deaths of 10's of thousands.

The most compassionate decision is to fix the border and fix the immigration system. Congress can make it nearly impossible to cross the border illegally, while speeding up immigration background and health screenings for those who want to immigrate and/or work in the U.S. so they take less than two weeks, but Congress won't do it and we all know why.


Jim Neal
Old Mountain View

The second poster and Jim Neal are refreshing voices of reason on this discussion. The MV Voice neglects to mention the 2139 DACA recipients accused of crimes including murder and rape. Search Laura Wilkerson to see how a dreamer did unspeakable acts when murdering her son. Why not a vigil for real victims? Oba-mao's 'amnesty' was unconstitutional and illegal. Ending DACA was the correct action to take if society is to continue to be based on law and order.

[Portion removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]

DREAMers commit crimes at a lower rate than actual U.S. citizens, but people [Portion removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]

@Randy - Why is everyone who disagrees with you a bigot? Why is it that the left cannot respond to any difference of opinion without violence or name-calling? MV resident brings up a valid point and, as usual when people present facts against illegal immigration, receives a personal attack.

I have a few questions of my own:

If 'Dreamers' are undocumented; how does anyone know that they are committing crimes at a lower rate than American Citizens? Especially when law enforcement is forbidden to ask their immigration status?

Even if the 'Dreamers' commit crimes at lower rates than American Citizens, why should we import criminals into the U.S. when we have so many of our own home grown criminals here? What is wrong with sorting out the criminals from the good at the border?

How does my criticizing Congress for failing to do its job, bring out bigots? Nothing that I said or even alluded to in my post was remotely racist or bigoted; and if you believe that part of my post was irrational, please point it out! In my opinion, name-calling is irrational.

When people come to this country legally, they have to promise to obey the laws or they can be expelled. Why then should those who arrive ILLEGALLY be given special exemptions from those laws?

DACA was illegal to begin with since all laws must originate in Congress. The previous President created a law, without it originating in congress or having any type of review process. Someone who can make their own laws that apply to everyone else without any checks and balances, is usually referred to as a dictator. People are already calling the current President a dictator, but he has not yet enacted any laws that did not first originate in Congress. So do people want the President to be a dictator or not? If the president had extended DACA, he would have been extending an already illegal law. It may be one that is popular with some people, but it is illegal nonetheless. So what if the President decided next, to strike down all the gun laws in the country? Or how about this, he gives amnesty to everyone who broke any gun laws and lets them keep their guns?


People need to start thinking about what will happen if we start having Presidents who can just make up the law as they go along and ignore the laws and parts of the Constitution that they don't like, or even that are unpopular with a majority of the people. Things CAN get a lot worse than they are now. Either laws apply to everyone; or they apply only to some and we end up with an oppressive society.


Jim Neal
Old Mountain View

[Post removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]

But hey, I'm feeling generous today, so against my better judgement I'll actually try to engage you, although I'm skeptical any amount of evidence will change your mind, aside from Trump deciding to reinstate DACA:

"Even if the 'Dreamers' commit crimes at lower rates than American Citizens, why should we import criminals into the U.S. when we have so many of our own home grown criminals here?"

Do you think we should have no immigration until we have zero crimes committed by U.S. citizens? Likely not, so you'll have to grant that we should be taking in immigrants. As such, taking in populations that have lower crime rates will only reduce our crime rates. That's simple math. They've got clean criminal records up to the time of application and have served our country. What further "sorting" would you like to do?

"When people come to this country legally, they have to promise to obey the laws or they can be expelled. Why then should those who arrive ILLEGALLY be given special exemptions from those laws?"

The average age of arrival for DACA recipients is 6 years old. These are people that have overwhelmingly been in the U.S.A. for the bulk of their lives. They're as American as you and me. They should be given exemptions because they were brought here through no fault of their own and have lived as Americans all their lives.

"DACA was illegal to begin with since all laws must originate in Congress."

Fortunately, we have a body designed to rule whether policies are legal or illegal, which we call the Supreme Court. They've never found DACA to be unconstitutional, so this is just an outright false statement. Until it's been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, it is the law. This is separate from morality or justice, but if all you care about is legality, that's settled, and you're wrong.

"Either laws apply to everyone; or they apply only to some and we end up with an oppressive society.

I'm glad you brought that up, Jim. Your man at the top has recently weighed in on this. Sheriff Joe Arpaio was convicted of defying a federal court order, and President Trump has decided that the law doesn't apply to some people.

@Randy - As happens so often with many people, you are conflating LEGAL and illegal immigration. I have been very clear on having a secure border with a two week immigration review policy. Also the Supreme Court only rules on cases brought before it. Thus far no one has brought the DACA case to them.


Jim Neal
Old Mountain View

Jim, I did no such conflating. Fully read my comment before making such allegations in the future, or point to the statements where you think I did that.

Re: the Supreme Court, should we regard all legislative and executive actions that have yet to be reviewed by the Supreme Court as illegal?

No statement on Sherrif Joe Arpaio? Duly convicted of defying a federal court order, only to be pardoned by Trump. The laws apply to everyone, eh?

I'll take the brevity and lack of substance in your response, in contrast to how verbose you usually are, as an indication that you have no rebuttal.

Thanks Jim Neal for pointing our reasoned arguments. I supported your city council efforts and its unfortunate that others did not. It is 100% correct that DACA has not been challenged in court YET.

Randy, what about Hillary Clinton not being charged with treason & sedition for mishandling classified information? I worked in the defense industry for over 10 years and saw people fired and walked out the door for infractions 1/10000th of the way Hillary acted with classified information she and her minions like Huma Abedeen were supposed to protect.

With regards to the prior president did you know that official communist party stores in China were selling his portrait next to Mao's? Every night market in the big Chinese cities had t-Shirts replacing Mao's face with Obamas. Disliking communism does not make one a bigot nor did I invent the term Oba-mao. Don't try to classify people you do not know as I do support LEGAL immigration but not ILLEGAL immigration.

I'll let MV Resident's comment stand on its own, since it makes my original point far better than I could hope to. Thank you for making your thought process clear for everyone to see :-)

Due to repeated violations of our Terms of Use, comments from this poster are automatically removed. Why?

How does one arrive at the conclusion that something called "Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals" was anything other than temporary when our former POTUS executed the EO to put it in place?

And, how does one arrive at the conclusion that an EO...regardless of topic....is not subject to being rescinded by the next POTUS?

That's not how the whole "crafting of laws" thing is designed to work.

@Randy - Most people complain that my responses are too long! You are right that normally I endeavor to provide more in depth responses, but I only had a short time to write, and therefore my brevity. With regard to the conflation of legal and illegal immigration, you stated: "Do you think we should have no immigration until we have zero crimes committed by U.S. citizens?". That indicated that you were stating that I was against having ANY immigrants both legal AND illegal, when I have made it clear that my comments addressed fixing the problems associated with illegal immigration.

With regard to executive actions, those are clearly laid out by the Constitution. The Executive branch has NO power to create or modify laws (the function of the Legislative Branch) nor to interpret laws ( the function of the Judicial branch).
However, what is interesting is that the 9th Circuit Court seems to be regarding many of the President's executive decisions as illegal even if they are specifically delineated by law. It is no coincidence that the 9th Circuit is the most overturned court in the United States as the recent 9-0 Supreme Court decision regarding the President's decision to temporarily halt certain categories of immigrants from countries that are both known sponsors of terror and for which verifying documentation is problematic. The same countries I might add that were identified by the previous President!

The Presidential pardon is the easiest of all! Check the Constitution. The President has the power to pardon anyone:


The President...shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

Article II, Section 2, Clause 1


So that's pretty clear.

Regarding DACA, just because the Supreme Court has not ruled on something yet does not make it legal. For example, the law clearly says that no person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb. If a Governor (for example) decides that he wants to have someone tried twice for the same crime and he gets the state or local court to go along with it, the Supreme Court should not have to rule on the issue because it is already in the Constitution as are the delimited powers of each branch of Government. If however the Governor were to persist in the unconstitutional action, then the person affected would have to go through the federal court system to have the issue remedied. The point is that any
executive can CHOOSE to issue executive orders that they know violates current law in the hopes that by the time it gets through the court system it will be too late to mitigate some or all of the effects.

Until Congress secures the borders and streamlines immigration, the policy will be whatever anyone wants it to be; and citizens and those seeking to come to this country will all continue to suffer needlessly.



Jim Neal
Old Mountain View

Jim, you were called out in another article for posting that false statement about the 9th circuit (Web Link Further, the Supreme Court decision you're referring to was unsigned, so the "9-0" you're claiming is completely fabricated as well.

Do you think that Trump's pardon of Arpaio was an appropriate use of the pardon power? Pardoning a man convicted of defying a federal court order isn't enough to undermine the rule of law for you?

@Randy - Your link merely measures the average rate of reversal. I said it was the MOST overturned, meaning having the greatest total number of reversals. Here is a study by the ABA ( Web Link ). As you can plainly see, between 1999 and 2008, the 9th Circuit was overturned 107 times and had 33 decisions vacated. The next closest circuit court was the 6th Circuit Court with 45 cases overturned during the same time frame. I know, now you'll say 'but that's old data! Ok, so lets look at the Scotusblog for 2016 ( Web Link ), the 9th Circuit wins again! This time they have 7 reversals with the 6th Circuit placing second again with 6 reversals.

As for the 9-0 ruling, I will admit that it is based on inference, given that no one on the court wrote a dissenting opinion, nor even spoke out afterward ( Web Link ). Justice Ginsberg has shown that she is not shy about expressing her opinions, so we can infer that the ruling must have been unanimous. If you have proof otherwise, that even one Justice on the Court ruled to uphold the 9th Circuit's decision, let's see it and I will admit I was in error.

As for Arpaio, yes it was an appropriate use of the pardon power since that is exactly the type of situation that the pardon power is designed for. If you are asking if I think it was a GOOD decision, I don't know.

So now that I have answered your questions (again) how about answering a few of mine? Should there be any limit to the number of people who come here legally or illegally? If so how many? Should people who came here illegally have the right to vote? Why? IF someone who comes here illegally murders someone or brings drugs with them, should they be allowed to remain in the US? Why?


Jim Neal
Old Mountain View

@Jim Neal Regarding the length of your responses:
I would like to thank you for your polite, reasoned, and evidence based responses. Frankly, I wish more like-minded people had the courage and depth of knowledge you possess to argue these issues.

Regarding the 9th circuit:
According to the article Randy Guelph referenced - they were the third most reversed, not the first most reversed. I will cede that they point and still side with most legal scholars and President Obama, himself, who believed that DACA was not constitutional and thus would not have withstood a Supreme Court ruling.

Web Link

I want to clear a few things out, students/young adults that hold DACA can't vote. Unless you are a citizen there is no way someone can vote. Just keep in mind that these people have been in our city and are perfectly blended in with the community. This is where they belong and were they grew-up. They have become a part of our society and crimes do occur but it comes from all sides, this kids/adults that hold DACA must have no criminal record to be able to hold this permit. They are our neighbors and for all we know they go with our kids to school and are friends perhaps, as well as co-workers and might go to church with us as well. We are a melting pot and I just hope that we don't start judging people and embrace them. I participated in this vigil and the love felt out there and people of all races and colors were embracing one another. I felt hope for a better humanity out there.
Just putting my 2 cents out there..

Jim, why do you think the total number is a useful measure here? A circuit that sees more cases will naturally have more reversals. For example, we have a lot more murders here in the United States as compared to El Salvador, but because our population are vastly different in size, they have a higher per capita murder rate. Do you see why comparing rates is a more useful measure than raw numbers?

For the Supreme Court, the only thing that they agreed unanimously on was to hear arguments: "While the full High Court said it would hear the case in the fall, six of the justices, including Chief Justice John Roberts, kept part of the injunction from lower courts in place." The "full court" portion was unsigned, so it's unclear if it was unanimous, but the only thing even possibly unanimous was the agreement to hear the case. Will you stop repeating this falsehood?

When it comes to Arpaio, are you trying to say that any Presidential pardon within the outlined power is "appropriate?" If so, I think you have a fundamentally different understanding of that word from most people.

No dog in the fight but how is the Arpaio pardon germaine to the conversation?

The pardon was "appropriate" in that it was legal under existing law. Whether it was the right thing to do or not is a different question.....one that seems outside the scope of this conversation.

There is a long and sordid history of POTUS' pardoning or commuting (clemency) the sentences of criminals. Our prior POTUS granted clemency to over 1900 individuals including an abject traitor and a terrorist. His predecessors granted clemency to ~100 & ~450 individuals respectively.

I'm glad you asked, True. Jim stated, "Either laws apply to everyone; or they apply only to some and we end up with an oppressive society." If you defy a court order, get convicted, and then are pardoned before serving a day, we've made it clear already that laws only apply to some. People arguing that it's an acceptable use of the pardon power are merely quibbling over whom the laws should apply to.

While a fun "gotcha" for you I'm sure, this logic doesn't scale.

While likely useful for BSing at work here, just saying "this doesn't scale" isn't actually an argument.

Today a deal was announced between the President and Democrat leaders in Congress regarding the 'Dreamers' ( Web Link ). The President did the right thing in repealing the executive order with a 6 month deadline, because as I stated previously, legislation must originate in Congress. The fact that the President was able to get a deal done so quickly proves that with the right motivation, Congress CAN do its job! It also is definitive proof that the President is not racist, anti-Mexican, anti-Brown, or any of the other ridiculous charges that have been levied against him with regard to immigration.

The fact that the President has been able to make 2 deals in as many weeks with some of the same members of Congress that have been some of his biggest and harshest critics also shows that the President, rather than concentrating on the politics of personal destruction and being distracted with insignificant matters, is instead focusing on the job of governing and trying to do the things that he sees as being in the best interests of the American people. It is now up to Congress to follow the President's lead and show us that they are capable of doing the job that we elected them to do!

While some of the thornier issues such as the wall were left out of the agreement, I think that this was a good start and perhaps instead of the mindless vitriol we have been hearing and reading aimed towards the President by Congress, the press and others; we will now see them begin to talk more about the important legislation needed to help Make America Great Again.


Jim Neal
Old Mountain View

Looks like I was right, Jim, all it took for you to come around on DACA recipients was Trump to reinstate it.

What do you think should happen to DACA recipients, should they get citizenship?

@Randy - The President did not reinstate it. If you had read the article, you would know that the legislation has to go through Congress; which is what I have been arguing all along. That is why he made the deal with the Democrat leaders instead of issuing another executive order. Nice try though.

As to your question about DACA, you haven't answered any of my questions, but I am glad to see that at least this time your question is relevant to the topic.


Jim Neal
Old Mountain View

I understand your dodging the question, Jim, but I guess I thought you just had a little more integrity than that. You wouldn't want to be caught out when Trump grants them citizenship and you have to backpedal and explain why it was the right thing to do that you supported all along.

@Randy - I find it amazing that you are accusing me of dodging a question, when you still haven't answered any of mine. If you want to have a conversation, then it should be an exchange. Do you feel that I am answerable to you or that I am obligated to reply to every one of your questions when you will not show me the same courtesy and instead respond with insults?

Also, trying to place the focus on me in no way detracts from the remarkable accomplishments of the President in the last few weeks: dealing effectively with two hurricanes, and getting Congress to get off their butts with regard to DACA and raising the debt ceiling. He has shown that he is willing to work with the opposition party to get things done and has done it twice in 2 weeks! I can't remember his predecessor doing it even once in 8 years!

Jim Neal
Old Mountain View

I rest my case, [Portion removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language] since odds are Trump will do something different. I, for one, am glad that the DACA recipients will receive citizenship!

[Portion removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]

@Randy - Responding with insults is not making a case. I have no problem answering questions if people want to actually have respectful conversations and share opinions here. I think this exchange demonstrates clearly which side is interested in discussing ideas rationally and which side appears interested only in trying to denigrate, smear and insult those they disagree with.


Jim Neal
Old Mountain View

@ Jim

I don't see Randy as behaving badly...I see you not answering or responding to simple questions. Likely because the answer will reveal some kind of logical inconsistency in your world view.

@Not Really - Really? Other than the last question, which one of Randy's have I not responded to? Why is the onus on me to respond to every question from someone who calls his opponents bigots and questions their integrity and courage? How many of my questions has Randy responded to?

I have tried to be polite and stay focused on the topic; whereas Randy's responses have increasingly consisted primarily of personal attacks, some of which have been deleted.



Jim Neal
Old Mountain View

Jim, you're obviously under no obligation to answer any questions, but any astute reader will notice that you've quickly decided to duck and dodge once it seems likely that Trump will support something you've previously opposed, but he hasn't actually revealed what that will be.

I'll reiterate, though, that I am overjoyed that DACA recipients will receive citizenship, as they are already Americans at heart.

@ Jim

The answer to your question is because it's fun and easy to make you respond. Like Trump, you can't help yourself.

Mods, I must respectfully disagree with your deletion of my comments. They were entirely respectful, and I used no offensive language.

Jim stated "I can't remember his predecessor doing it even once in 8 years!" which speaks more to Jim's memory than the actual event of the Obama administration. This is an entirely factual assessment.

Further, am I not allowed to point out the inconsistency of his responses? He has suddenly changed his tune on what should happen to DACA recipients, and now refuses to state what he believes, solely because Trump has changed his position. As "Not really" says above, is because his answers will reveal the logical inconsistency of his worldview.

Randy, instead of all your snide innuendos and inferences, why don't you just answer the questions (hell, even just one at this point would be refreshing)? You are a prime example of the "fake news" people are tired of seeing and hearing. You have no substance. No facts.

@Not really......fun and easy indeed. This is a silly little game to you and yet Jim is the one who has responded with intelligence, reason and fact. Consistently belittling him and trying to demean his comments and stance isn't funny.

Mods, why are you allowing mvresident's personal attacks against me stand?

I've posted a wealth of evidence countering all of Jim's claims here, yet they keep sniping personal attacks against me.

The fact remains that Jim is unable to confront the incoherency of his worldview, which is why he's refusing to answer the simple question of whether DACA recipients should receive citizenship. That's because it requires an opinion outside of "Trump did the right thing" and is likely to be contradicted by Trump's actions.

Never thought I'd say this but Randy, I do agree with you on something! Totally agree that your posts shouldn't have been deleted. Just because there's no substance doesn't mean they should be deleted!

@Randy - I have refused to answer because you have not answered any of my questions and instead of focusing on facts, continue to disparage me personally. I will be more than happy to answer your question if you answer just one of my questions first:

Should there be any limit to the number of people who come here legally or illegally? If so how many?

All you have to do if you really want a response is to answer that one question and treat me with the same respect that I treat you. That shouldn't be such a huge ask.

For the record, anyone reading my statements can see that from the start, my position has been that any decision on DACA has to be done by Congress and not an Executive order. I have also called for Congress to do their job to secure the border; and provide 2 week immigration and health checks to reduce exploitation and human trafficking. Are these what you are referring to as "The incoherency of my worldview"?


Getting back to the topic, I have to admit that it looks like I may have been fooled last night by Fake News. I posted a link from the AP regarding their report that the President agreed to a deal with the Democrats regarding DACA. However it has been widely reported today that the AP report was erroneous ( Web Link ). The AP is generally considered to be part of the mainstream media and I will leave it up to all of you to decide what that says about the quality of their reporting.



Jim Neal
Old Mountain View

Oh, that's an easy question, Jim. Anyone who fulfill The New Colossus test that so desires should be able to become a citizen in a timely fashion.

"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

So, considering that I've answered your question, what do you think should happen to DACA recipients, should they get citizenship? Further, what's your answer to your own question?

@ Jim

Just because a news story changes, doesn't make it "Fake News" (I love how you capitalize it like it's the name of a show or something). AP did a great job of reporting last night. This morning, after your man Trump realized the Democrats totally outfoxed him, started another tweet storm of drivel, making it essentially impossible to know where he really stands on DACA. AP reported the news. That's not "fake." That's what actually happened.

@Randy - Thank you for your response. My answers to your questions will probably be lengthy since the DACA question in particular is very complex.

For those who have been defined as DACA, I do not think that they should immediately become citizens of the U.S. The reasons for this are that it would encourage many more people to come here illegally (some at great risk to themselves and or their friends/family members). The world population is currently about 7.5 Billion people and about 80% of that population lives on less than $10/day. Even the United States does not have the ability to sustain the influx of people that uncontrolled borders and/or allowing everyone who wants to come would bring. Also, it would be extremely unfair to those who came to the U.S legally and had to wait many years and spend a lot of money to do so.

That being said, it is my opinion that those who are classified as DACA should have to apply for citizenship and meet all the same requirements as those who came here legally; but only after the border has been properly secured and Congress has fixed the immigration process. As someone who has worked his entire life in I.T., I know that it is possible, within a few years time, to revamp the immigration system so that applications can be processed in two weeks or less. As stated previously, this would allow us to properly screen people's backgrounds and medical status, virtually eliminate people being exploited for labor and human trafficking, raise wages for workers across the board, and lead to an increased standard of living for everyone. This would also allow for the citizenship applications of those classified as DACA to be processed within a 2 week time frame one the new system is up and running. The new system should be run by a corporation, but should have bi-partisan committee government oversight to maximize efficiency, control costs, and ensure accountability (after all, we wouldn't want a repeat of the health care rollout!).

As to "The New Colossus Test"; The New Colossus was a poem written by Emily Lazarus in 1883 to raise funds to build the pedestal for the Statue of Liberty and was engraved on a brass plaque and mounted inside the base in 1903 after Lazarus's friend Georgina Schuyler began an effort to memorialize Lazarus and her poem. While it is powerful, moving and inspiring poetry, it is not law, nor based in law. Some may believe that laws should be based on poetry, but I believe that laws should be based on reason.

Uncontrolled and unlimited immigration, in my opinion, would within a matter of years destroy any country that implemented it because it would very quickly lower the standard of living for everyone. There would be severe competition for housing, jobs, and resources; it would introduce millions (if not over a billion) people in a very short time that the country would be incapable of assimilating. There would be no common language so the country would be fractured and impossible to govern effectively.

Having said all that, my answer to the question that I asked you is; I believe that there has to be a limit to immigration and I would initially place that limit at no more than 1% of the total US population per year (right now that would be about 3.5 million. I think that a review of that number should be done every 3 years to determine whether or not the newcomers are assimilating (which doesn't mean giving up their cultures but rather are they becoming successful in the US) and whether that number needs to be adjusted up or down and what adjustments need to be made so that people are not trading poverty and misery in their own countries for poverty and misery in the US ( or even success in their own countries for a substandard existence here).

My problem with illegal immigration has always been that the government knows that millions of people are suffering and being exploited and murdered because of it and in my opinion, they allow it because they are only concerned with getting votes and cheap labor for themselves, their friends, and their donors.

I want to thank you again for your response to my question! This is the type of civic engagement I truly enjoy, even if we see things differently.


Jim Neal
Old Mountain View

I'm glad to hear you've endorsed a pathway to citizenship for DACA recipients.

As to your swipe about reason versus "poetry", I believe that we have a duty as a country to be that "shining city upon a hill," and have our policies have a strong moral basis. You may disagree, but basing our policy on anything but morals will what causes destruction of our country, not immigration.

I'm further encouraged that you'd like to triple the rate of immigration to the United States! I'd go much further obviously, but now we're just quibbling over numbers.

@Randy - I too agree that our policies have to have a strong moral basis; which is why I am adamantly against illegal immigration. Not because I think it's a bad idea for people to come into the US from other countries, but because of the massive exploitation and human trafficking that occurs as a result. As far as the pathway to citizenship for DACA recipients, the path I laid out would ensure that illegal immigration would be a thing of the past, and that fast and efficient legal immigration would ensure that no one in the future would have to live in a status of limbo and uncertainty and that so-called sanctuary cities would be obsolete so there would never be a need for another DACA program in the future. Also, immigrants could no longer be used as a political football by both major parties.


The media often portrays conservatives as being against any immigration and calls us bigots and racists when we demand that the system be fixed. Having attended a lot of conservative events, I can tell you that the vast majority are not racists and bigots, but people who want to see that our country is secure and that ALL people are being treated equally and fairly. It's a lot easier for the press and those in government to classify those who want to fix the immigration system as bigots, because then people won't ask the tough questions about why Congress is allowing this system of exploitation to continue when they could fix most of the problems in just a few years.

Lastly, what could make us a more brightly shining city on a hill than to have the fastest and most efficient immigration system in the world, secure borders that keep out illegal drugs, weapons, and criminals/terrorists, an increasingly prosperous populace, and an end to the exploitation of the poor?



Jim Neal
Old Mountain View

Well, you see, Jim, although you want to increase legal immigration (tripling it!), Trump and the conservatives in Congress want to cut it in half (Web Link Perhaps it's not me who is out of touch with what conservatives want.

@Randy - I thought it would have been quite plain from my writings that I disagree with what both parties in Congress are doing, and that when I speak about conservatives I am definitely not talking about Congress!

With the immigration system I described, immigration could be increased because of efficiency. Under the current system, the numbers have to be lower because the system too inefficient ( which I believe is on purpose).



Jim Neal
Old Mountain View

Jim, you ignored the fact that Donald Trump called for legal immigration to be cut in half.

Randy, on another thread you magnanimously stated 'we can do this together'. Jim put forth a thorough, comprehensive recommendation for immigration that touched on pretty much all the potential objections and issues for both sides.

Do you agree with his suggestion(s) and if not, what are your specific recommendations to what is surely an issue we would all like resolved. Because I agree, not only 'can' we do this together but we really need to start doing it together.

mvresident2003, I don't think you've been paying attention, or possibly you haven't been reading the content of my posts.

Both Jim and I have agreed that we need to increase legal immigration by 3x, contrary to the halving that Republicans in Congress and Donald Trump have endorsed, and that there should be a pathway to citizenship for DACA recipients. It's not my preferred option, as I laid out above, but I'm willing to take half a loaf, and meeting in the middle is something we can strive for.

How about you, mvresident2003, are you ready to stop sniping from the sidelines and put forth something constructive, for once?

I support what Jim presented 100%.

That's wonderful, mvresident2003! I'm so glad you're on board with tripling immigration levels and making sure all the DACA recipients can become citizens. We just need to make sure that Trump and the Republicans in Congress come around to it, too.

@Randy - Increasing immigration and allowing eventual citizenship for DACA recipients is only half of what I recommended. I also said that those two items would be contingent upon securing the border to prevent any additional illegal immigration; and revamping the immigration system so that it works more effectively and so that we know who is here. So basically, the increase in immigration that I recommended would only occur AFTER those two steps were taken. Right now though, the reason for the President and Congress cutting LEGAL immigration is to emulate the immigration systems currently in use in Canada and Australia. Personally, I would have recommended emulating the immigration system of Mexico so that those who hate the President wouldn't be able to say that the new policy is racist.

For anyone that is unfamiliar with Mexico's immigration laws, check them out. I think many people would be VERY surprised.


Jim Neal
Old Mountain View

Wait a second, Jim, you only want to increase immigration once we have no people who illegally cross the border? That would be an impossible standard. Surely, people that want to come here legally shouldn't have to wait until we eliminate all illegal border crossing or overstayed visas before we can accommodate them.

And you want us to have a higher legal immigration rate, but also want a system that will reduce legal immigration?

Jim, I'm frankly quite confused as to what your plan would be, and what outcomes you want. Perhaps you can clarify? I thought we understood each other, but this feels like we're moving backwards.

@Randy - It's not a difficult concept. I laid it out completely before but I will summarize again. First, the border would need to be secured. Second, Congress would need to reform the immigration system as I described to enable applications to enter the country legally to be processed in two weeks or less. After those systems are in place, those classified as DACA would then be able to apply for citizenship and their applications would be processed in the order they are received. In other words no special processing or 'jumping the line'. There is nothing in my system the reduces 'legal' immigration, just illegal immigration. I think you may be conflating my explanation for what Congress is doing with what my plan would allow. Let's assume Congress decides to adopt my plan, the 1% immigration I mentioned would not start until AFTER the new system is in place. It would make absolutely now sense to massively increase Legal immigration using the current system which is hopelessly broken and inadequate. Therefore, it probably would be necessary to temporarily decrease LEGAL IMMIGRATION for a few years as the resources and personnel are reallocated to the new system.

Lastly, no system is perfect, so I would expect there still would be some illegal migration and human trafficking, but hopefully greatly reduced to a few thousand or even less. My point is and has been, that with a fast and easy LEGAL immigration system, there would be no need for people to risk their lives or risk being abused, to cross illegally. It's all about having a system that is more humane while simultaneously eliminating the ability for Congress to keep perpetuating a system for their own special interests that leads to desperate people taking dangerous risks.

I hope that makes things more clear for everyone.


Jim Neal
Old Mountain View

Thanks for the reply, Jim. I'm still a little confused though. To be clear, you disapprove of the changes that Trump outlined which would cut legal immigration in half, correct?

As to the fuller point, I don't understand why you would wait until after we've reduced the number of people crossing the border or overstaying visas before you'd triple the legal immigration rate. This is akin to only wanting to end Prohibition once you've closed down all the speakeasies, and I don't see why we should deny people who want to come here legally in the meantime.