It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: MiddleInsite
a reply to: Byrd
If, when these welcome immigrants come in for a job, and if some of them commit a crime, lets hope that Fox puts it on the front page like they do now, and blame Trump for it, like they blame the Dems now. OK.
originally posted by: Annee
originally posted by: rickymouse
I see no problem with letting people from Mexico come here in work if they get the proper documentation and follow the rules of the agreement. I am against people sneaking in and causing problems, the good people should be able to come in if they do it legally and are not criminals.
I think the numbers of these people should be regulated though.
You should research the current difficulty of US farmers legally having Mexican workers.
Something needs to change.
originally posted by: jacobe001
originally posted by: Annee
originally posted by: rickymouse
I see no problem with letting people from Mexico come here in work if they get the proper documentation and follow the rules of the agreement. I am against people sneaking in and causing problems, the good people should be able to come in if they do it legally and are not criminals.
I think the numbers of these people should be regulated though.
You should research the current difficulty of US farmers legally having Mexican workers.
Something needs to change.
Most farms these days are corporate rather than family farms.
We had no problem in the past harvesting our own food until corporate farms ran the family farms out of business.
originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: jacobe001
Got a family farm next to (well, really surrounding) me here, from another side of the family. They don't seem to need migrant workers, and they farm several thousand acres.
It is incorporated (LLC, I think), but it's run by the family. They do pretty well for themselves.
TheRedneck
originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Byrd
In all fairness, I don't believe Trump has said that he was against guest workers or guest worker programs.The problem I have is that he does not seem to be advocating for ideas that make the process easier or more efficient.
originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Annee
They rotate... cotton, corn, soybeans, wheat... and they use equipment for harvesting. They also employ a crew of workers... all American.
Does that make a difference?
TheRedneck
Whether or not the "all Americans" - - are or that they have legal papers is always questionable.
originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: Byrd
As most other posters have pointed out he has never been against immigration. He is against illegal immigration as most people are.
originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Byrd
Contrary to the propaganda put out about Trump and his views on foreigners he merely wants current laws to be enforced and to prevent tax dollars from going to individual who are here illegally. At no time has Trump ever pushed to end al foreign travel / immigration to the US. He wants a fair deal instead of the US always taking the punch to the kidneys.
originally posted by: Byrd
That is also hard to reconcile. His first act (which caused a huge uproar) was not enforcing current laws but attempting to put a mass travel ban against Muslim countries. You might not remember the flap, but people I know were caught up in it. He's kicking the Dreamers out (or trying to use them as a negotiating point) and his scattershot policies have caused confusion among the agents (who can't decide how to uniformly apply it) and have fractured families and even deported immigrants who joined our armed forces and fought for us.
So it looks like he's expanding the laws and not simply enforcing the laws that exist (which we were already doing.)
So what's your case for the reverse notion?
WASHINGTON — A 15-month legal battle over President Trump’s efforts to impose a ban on travel to the United States from several predominantly Muslim countries reached a final stage on Wednesday at the Supreme Court, with its five-member conservative majority signaling it was ready to approve a revised version of the president’s plan.
The justices appeared ready to discount Mr. Trump’s campaign promises to impose what he repeatedly described as a “Muslim ban,” while giving him the benefit of the doubt traditionally afforded to presidents. Some expressed worry about second-guessing executive branch determinations about who should be allowed to enter the United States.
Immigrant rights groups had hoped that Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. or Justice Anthony M. Kennedy would join the court’s four-member liberal wing to oppose the ban as unconstitutionally discriminatory against Muslims. But their questioning was almost uniformly hostile to the ban’s opponents.
At one point in the oral arguments, Chief Justice Roberts asked whether Mr. Trump will forever be unable to address immigration in light of his campaign statements. “Is there a statute of limitations on that?” the chief justice asked.
Solicitor General Noel J. Francisco, representing the administration, said the latest travel ban, issued in September as a presidential proclamation, was not directed at Muslims.
“This is not a so-called Muslim ban,” he said. “If it were, it would be the most ineffective Muslim ban that one could possibly imagine.” It excluded, he said, “the vast majority of the Muslim world.”
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. added his own statistics.
“I think there are 50 predominantly Muslim countries in the world,” he said. “Five predominantly Muslim countries are on this list. The population of the predominantly Muslim countries on this list make up about 8 percent of the world’s Muslim population. If you looked at the 10 countries with the most Muslims, exactly one, Iran, would be on that list of the top 10.”
The chief justice then asked whether Mr. Trump could immunize his order from constitutional challenge simply by disclaiming his earlier statements. “If tomorrow he issues a proclamation saying he’s disavowing all those statements,” the chief justice asked, “then the next day he can re-enter this proclamation?”
Mr. Katyal said yes.
In his rebuttal argument, Mr. Francisco pursued the point. Mr. Trump, he said, has already made clear that “he had no intention of imposing the Muslim ban.”
“He has made crystal clear that Muslims in this country are great Americans and there are many, many Muslim countries who love this country, and he has praised Islam,” Mr. Francisco said. “This proclamation is about what it says it’s about: foreign policy and national security.”
Justice Kennedy noted that the latest travel ban was longer and more detailed than proclamations issued by earlier presidents. He also appeared to speak approvingly of a part of the proclamation that called for periodic reports.
originally posted by: Byrd
I'm not sure what the current impact of the trade spat with China is on farmers. My sources say they're concerned and that some crops have been left to rot due to a number of factors. However, I don't have solid data here.
originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: DontTreadOnMe
Politics aside does the US not have a problem attracting it's citizens to work on farms like the UK does?
Major problem here, crops would wither without foreign workers.
EDIT
Open question to anyone really, I'm just interested if it's the same over there.
originally posted by: Aazadan
originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: DontTreadOnMe
Politics aside does the US not have a problem attracting it's citizens to work on farms like the UK does?
Major problem here, crops would wither without foreign workers.
EDIT
Open question to anyone really, I'm just interested if it's the same over there.
It's a huge problem in the US. Some states have passed very harsh laws that stopped the agriculture industry from hiring illegals. It was very successful in doing so, but then no one worked the fields and the industry in those states nearly went bankrupt when all the produce rotted in the field.