Are These Policies Good For America?

[ICU 812]

Will no one address either question?

The mayors of New York and Chicago have said that their social services are swamped with foreigners.

We have seen major retailers move out of city centers due to high crime.

How can any of that be desirable or beneficial for the Nation or We The People?

[eyecu2]

Originally Posted by farmstud60

LOL, sure, I deal with salesman spouting BS and overselling things weekly. You guys aren’t even good snake oil salesman.

Who's snake-oil salesman #1? Can you spell
T R U M P

[ICU 812]

So then, no one will speak of policies and practices over the character flaws of political celebrity personalities. . . . .that seems to be the case.

Let us now set aside the several personality cults on both sides for a bit and speak of what we, as a Nation, need to have happen moping forward.

Suppose the Republican nomination goes to someone other than Mr. Trump. That could very well happen, and while I have not looked it up, I am sure that there is a betting line on that in "Vgas.

Let us further suppose that President Biden is not the Democrat nominee, or that for some unfortunate health reason, he does not, in the end, run in November.

With neither of those prominent politicians in the mix, and ignoring any other specific personalities waiting in the wings, what polices and actions by any incoming elected president should we want enacted or acted upon to further the immediate interests of the Nation and the American people in terms of border security, legal immigration, urban crime and the economy?

Whoever becomes president will face significant issues in these areas and many others. Sweeping in either the Republicans or Democrats with gull control of the legislative and executive branches by itself will not make these issues go away on Jan 21st, 2025.

What would we want any candidate to support, endorse and act on?

[adav8s28]

Originally Posted by Jackie S

Revising history to suite the Liberal Democrat agenda now seems to be the norm.

The bipartisan Senate bill was written by a Republican Senator. What do you mean "liberal democrat agenda"?

Remember it was Bush43 who said in a State of the Union Address it's not practical to round up 11 million people and send then them back across the border.

Why won't the republicans agree to some kind of bill that has a pathway to citizenship for the ones that have been here thirty plus years?

Bottom line: The bipartisan bill was an improvement on what we have now. The House GOP turned it down. Shame on them.

[adav8s28]

Originally Posted by farmstud60

That wasn’t a compromise, that was surrendering to idiotic current policies and putting them into law.

Tell that to the Republican senator who wrote the bipartisan bill.

[eyecu2]

Originally Posted by adav8s28

The bipartisan Senate bill was written by a Republican Senator. What do you mean "liberal democrat agenda"?

Remember it was Bush43 who said in a State of the Union Address it's not practical to round up 11 million people and send then them back across the border.

Why won't the republicans agree to some kind of bill that has a pathway to citizenship for the ones that have been here thirty plus years?

Bottom line: The bipartisan bill was an improvement on what we have now. The House GOP turned it down. Shame on them.

My point is this- If you came here illegally, Even if you have an achor baby- you have to go back to another country of origin or safe harbor, where you can file the proper paperwork to become able to visit via VISA, or to immigrate to this country. If that means deporting 11 million ppl, then what's so big about that?

You broke the law getting here, and thats the price to pay for doing so. Now about those kids born here...is birth in the USA a reasonable mechanism TODAY for being a citizen? That's a great question that all legislature should take up?

These anchor babies are an easy out for folks that are currently in the country. I'd say- you can put the baby up for adoption, or give to a relative, or relinquish your parental rights to another family, or you can take them with you. BUT, I truly don't think our current system is set up to just let illegal ppl who are not here under valid premise, to enjoy all the benefits of citizenship just because they got knocked up.

That isn't how any of this was supposed to work.

As far as processing illegals, the COURTS need to get off their asses and process ppl within 120 days tops. If you miss or don't show up for your hearing and get caught in the USA., you are deported for a period of 10 yrs without the ability to return w a visa or any other method, except as a green card holder through approved means. That should keep the riff -raff down. And, if you have been linked to gang activities or have been incarcerated over seas having been found guilty of any violent crime or even pled guilty to one, you are NEVER allowed into the USA.


That's from my liberal perspective. RINO is more like it but ...yeah. Liberal

[Yssup Rider]

I believe policies are determined by Congress in the form of laws. The inability or unwillingness of Congress to act in the interest of the American people is what needs to be addressed.

Whoever becomes president will only be successful if he/she can build consensus. Otherwise we’ll continue to govern by EO and litigation.

[eyecu2]

I remember Obama doing the DACA thing and trying EO's and then to get legislation. The can was kicked right down the road ----again. The whole idea that you can avoid this with EO's is a ruse. The courts have proven that those get stopped in the road, subject to all different levels of appeals and other stuff. But the politics of it has never been agreed upon when we actually see presidential actions- or lack thereof.

[Levianon17]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

I believe policies are determined by Congress in the form of laws. The inability or unwillingness of Congress to act in the interest of the American people is what needs to be addressed.

Whoever becomes president will only be successful if he/she can build consensus. Otherwise we’ll continue to govern by EO and litigation.

They don't work for us anymore so you can forget about that idea.

[ICU 812]

It does not matter, really, from where a policy of national importance originates in my view. I weant to look aty what those policies and actions might be to advance the best interests of the Nation and the American people.

"Rmani In Mexico" was a policy formulated in the white House and implemented through executive order or some other executive action. That policy operaed within existing US law and was effective in regulatingh asylum applicants.

The various student loan relief measures were done through executive actions of one sort ot another originating from the White House. I am not a close follower of this issue, but it is my perception that congress did not enact any laws on that(?).

That a legislative program is voted on by congress is how other things become real, but the policy position driving that legislation often originates from the executive branch.

FDR ran on his concept for "The New Deal" and implemented a number of social progrms during the Great Depression. congress voted to formally establish many of them.

Lyndon Johnson did much the same thing with the "Great Society" programs of the 1960s. Congress followed his wishes and established most of his program.

We elect presidents often based on the policies they espouse, support or endorse and hope they will work to bring them into reality one way or another.

My questions are directed at discussing those policies and actions, whether originating from the executive or legislative branch, that will benafit the USA and its citizens.

What are they and how would they affect our society?