Trump called birthright citizenship "ridiculous" and said that "it has to end."

[ItnStln]

On 11/1/2018 at 1:19 PM, steve4102 said:

This has already been decided by the Supreme Court.

President Trump for the win.

Elk v. Wilkins

 

Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884),^[1] was a United States Supreme Court case respecting the citizenship status of Indians.

John Elk, a Winnebago Indian, was born on an Indian reservation and later resided with whites on the non-reservation US territory in Omaha, Nebraska, where he renounced his former tribal allegiance and claimed citizenshipby virtue of the Citizenship Clause.^[2] The case came about after Elk tried to register to vote on April 5, 1880 and was denied by Charles Wilkins, the named defendant, who was registrar of voters of the Fifth ward of the City of Omaha.

The court decided that even though Elk was born in the United States, he was not a citizen because he owed allegiance to his tribe when he was born rather than to the U.S. and therefore was not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States when he was born.

Thanks, I’m going to use this. 

[ItnStln]

On 11/2/2018 at 8:52 AM, fortyofforty said:

Those who are arguing the nuances, ask them this hypothetical question:  If a pregnant woman jumps over the back wall at a United States embassy compound in a foreign country, then gives birth, is that baby a citizen of the United States?

According to the State Department embassies “are not part of the United States within the meaning of the [Fourteenth] Amendment."

On 11/2/2018 at 10:36 AM, Ricordo said:

I can say this. A very well-esteemed foreign employee at a US military base somewhere out there, started giving birth. Nobody was going to throw her out, she gave birth at the base caringly assisted by US medical personnel. By all accounts, the child was considered a US citizen.

Yes, cigars were distributed.

According to the Foreign Affairs Manual, which is published by the Department of State, "Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities abroad are not part of the United States within the meaning of the [Fourteenth] Amendment."

[ItnStln]

10 hours ago, Al Czervik said:

Yes, but the military certainly may be employed to repel an invasion or terrorists.  What constitutes an invasion?  How many suspected terrorists must there be?

 

 

Interesting read on some of the history:

 

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a472386.pdf

I’ve read that before, it’s a good read. 

[ItnStln]

6 hours ago, Dric902 said:

Not an invasion

 not a terrorist attack

not an armed military force

 jaywalking is not tresspassing

 speeding is not vehicular homicide

left isn’t right, even if you turn around

up isn’t down, even when you stand on your head

 black isn’t white, no matter who says it is

Illegals destabilize the economy, therefor they’re economic terrorists and your statement that it isn’t a terrorist attack is false. 

[Al Czervik]

2 hours ago, Dric902 said:

You mean a state owned, armed, trained, organized, commanded military force?

the armed forces of a foreign nation?

yes.

 

now please, explain to me how the caravan is just that.

 

.

Ok, I'll ask a third time.  Give me the statute.

[NPTim]

On 10/31/2018 at 7:07 AM, windowasher said:

Native Americans, people who were born and living here before Pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock, were not given American Birth Right Citizenship until 1924

But they ARE given citizenship to a sovereign nation, arn’t they? That nation receives free health (crappy) care from the US public health services.

[NPTim]

On 10/31/2018 at 9:34 PM, Dric902 said:

I keep hearing this;

We don't do stunts in this department. Thank you," Mattis told a reporter who posed the question after a Pentagon meeting 

 

But if you send 800, or 1500, or 50,000.

you can’t get past the “yeah but”

Federal law prohibits the military from acting as a domestic police force, which means the troops going to the border cannot detain immigrants, seize drugs from smugglers or have any direct involvement in stopping the caravan. Instead, their role largely will mirror that of the existing National Guard troops, including providing helicopter support for border missions, installing concrete barriers and repairing and maintaining vehicles.

I understand firing up the base.....but be honest about it

 

.

I don’t believe you are correct. I think the standing Army is allowed to protect our borders.

change the script some and the caravan was made up of Japanese 78 years ago. Would it have been legal for the Army to repel the Japanese? I say yes, it’s in their job description to protect our boarders. The fact that the new invaders are using women AND children only make the vicious, cowardly, crafty, ruthless enemies, willing to sacrifice “innocents” to achieve their goals.

[Dric902]

9 hours ago, Al Czervik said:

Ok, I'll ask a third time.  Give me the statute.

United States federal law (18 U.S.C. § 1385, original at 20 Stat. 152

The original provision was enacted as Section 15 of chapter 263, of the Acts of the 2nd session of the 45th Congress

Sec. 15. From and after the passage of this act it shall not be lawful to employ any part of the Army of the United States, as a posse comitatus, or otherwise, for the purpose of executing the laws, except in such cases and under such circumstances as such employment of said force may be expressly authorized by the Constitution or by act of Congress; and no money appropriated by this act shall be used to pay any of the expenses incurred in the employment of any troops in violation of this section and any person willfully violating the provisions of this section shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and on conviction thereof shall be punished by fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars or imprisonment not exceeding two years or by both such fine and imprisonment^[5]

18 U.S.C. § 1385. Use of Army and Air Force as posse comitatis

10 U.S.C. § 275. Restriction on direct participation by military personnel

 John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (H.R. 5122), which was signed into law on October 17, 2006.^[6]

Section 1076 

In 2008, these changes in the Insurrection Act of 1807 were repealed in their entirety, reverting to the previous wording of the Insurrection Act

Exclusions and limitationsEdit

There are a number of situations in which the Act does not apply. These include: 

• Army and Air National Guard units and state defense forces while under the authority of the governor of a state.
• Federal armed forces used in accordance to the Insurrection Act, as was the case of the 1st Marine Division and 7th Infantry Division being sent to curtail the 1992 Los Angeles riots.
• Under 18 U.S.C. § 831, the Attorney General may request that the Secretary of Defense provide emergency assistance if domestic law enforcement is inadequate to address certain types of threats involving the release of nuclear materials, such as potential use of a nuclear or radiological weapon. Such assistance may be by any personnel under the authority of the Department of Defense, provided such assistance does not adversely affect U.S. military preparedness. The only exemption is the deployment of nuclear materials on the part of the United States Armed Forces.
• Enforcement of federal law at the discretion of the President of the United States, such as with the 101st Airborne Division by President Dwight D. Eisenhower to integrate Little Rock Central High School in 1957.^{[citation needed]}
• Support roles under the Joint Special Operations Command.
• Provide surveillance, intelligence gathering, observation, and equipment for domestic law enforcement on operations such as drug interdiction and counter-terrorism missions.

wanna ask again?

third, fourth, fifth time gets you the same answer

 

.

 

[Dric902]

8 hours ago, NPTim said:

I don’t believe you are correct. I think the standing Army is allowed to protect our borders.

change the script some and the caravan was made up of Japanese 78 years ago. Would it have been legal for the Army to repel the Japanese? I say yes, it’s in their job description to protect our boarders. The fact that the new invaders are using women AND children only make the vicious, cowardly, crafty, ruthless enemies, willing to sacrifice “innocents” to achieve their goals.

The Japanese declared war that morning and attacked with a national military force

you cannot make this an invasion under military force law.

 

.

[fortyofforty]

10 hours ago, ItnStln said:

According to the State Department embassies “are not part of the United States within the meaning of the [Fourteenth] Amendment."

According to the Foreign Affairs Manual, which is published by the Department of State, "Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities abroad are not part of the United States within the meaning of the [Fourteenth] Amendment."

It's not up to the State Department, ultimately, which is why things like Federal judges matter so much.  And that doesn't explain how babies born on military bases become citizens of the United States, does it?

[fortyofforty]

Let's make a few changes and see how people like this:

The court decided that even though X was born in the United States, he was not a citizen because he owed allegiance to Honduras when he was born rather than to the U.S. and therefore was not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States when he was born.

[Dric902]

Allegiance doesn’t matter

Jurisdiction does

and is subject to SOFA and Embassy agreements signed with the host country

kids born on a military installation are generally born to two citizen parents, under the jurisdiction of the United States.

 

.

[Al Czervik]

3 hours ago, Dric902 said:

The Japanese declared war that morning and attacked with a national military force

you cannot make this an invasion under military force law.

 

.

An act of Congress, or what is expressly authorized by the Constitution both satisfy 18 USC 1385.

The statute is also referencing "for the purpose of executing the laws."  

The CINC can declare a national emergency, using the .mil to do under Article 4, Section 4, what is mandated, which is protecting States from invasion.  

 

[Dric902]

Not an invasion

might want it to be

might demand that it be

might decide that it is

maybe, maybe, might, could, if, if, if 

 

not an invasion by a foreign power, not a terrorist act, not a zombie apocalypse

sometimes it is blatantly obvious that our stereotypes are earned 

 

I’m done rehashing the same thing over and over. Talk amongst yourselves

.

Edited November 5, 2018 by Dric902

[Cougar_ml]

5 hours ago, Dric902 said:

Enforcement of federal law at the discretion of the President of the United States, such as with the 101st Airborne Division by President Dwight D. Eisenhower to integrate Little Rock Central High School in 1957.^{[citation needed]}

So is it a federal law that non citizen entities are not allowed to enter this country without some type of permission, i.e. a visa?

I'm sure there is more to it, but if a group too large for the regular border patrol to handle is attempting to enter illegally, wouldn't that allow this particular exception to the statute to be used?

[ItnStln]

5 hours ago, fortyofforty said:

Let's make a few changes and see how people like this:

The court decided that even though X was born in the United States, he was not a citizen because he owed allegiance to Honduras when he was born rather than to the U.S. and therefore was not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States when he was born.

That's a start. It'll keep illegals from having an anchor baby to avoid deportation.

[ItnStln]

5 hours ago, fortyofforty said:

It's not up to the State Department, ultimately, which is why things like Federal judges matter so much.  And that doesn't explain how babies born on military bases become citizens of the United States, does it?

So the following policy from the State Department is wrong?

 

8 FAM 301.1-2  WHAT IS BIRTH “IN THE UNITED STATES”?

(CT:CITZ-1;   06-27-2018)

a. INA 101(a)(38) (8 U.S.C. 1101 (a)(38)) provides that “the term ‘United States,’ when used in a geographical sense, means the continental United States, Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands of the United States.”

b. On November 3, 1986, Public Law 94-241, “approving the Covenant to Establish a Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands in Political Union with the United States of America”, (Section 506(c)),took effect.  From that point on, the Northern Mariana Islands have been treated as part of the United States for the purposes of INA 301 (8 U.S.C. 1401) and INA 308 (8 U.S.C. 1408) (see 8 FAM 302.1)

c.  The Nationality Act of 1940 (NA), Section 101(d) (54 Statutes at Large 1172) (effective January 13, 1941 until December 23, 1952) provided that “the term ‘United States’ when used in a geographical sense means the continental United States, Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands of the United States.”  The 1940 Act did not include Guam or the Northern Mariana Islands as coming within the definition of “United States.”

See the text of the 1940 Act on the CA/OCS Intranet, Acquisition of Citizenship, Legal and Regulatory Documents.

d. Prior to January 13, 1941, there was no statutory definition of “the United States” for citizenship purposes.  The phrase “in the United States” as used in Section 1993 of the Revised Statues of 1878 clearly includes states that have been admitted to the Union (see 8 FAM 102.2).

e. INA 304 (8 U.S.C. 1404) and INA 305 (8 U.S.C. 1405) provide a basis for citizenship of persons born in Alaska and Hawaii, respectively, while they were territories of the United States.

8 FAM 301.1-3  NOT INCLUDED IN THE MEANING OF "IN THE UNITED STATES"

(CT:CITZ-1;   06-27-2018)

a. Birth on U.S. Registered Vessel On High Seas or in the Exclusive Economic Zone:  A U.S.-registered or documented ship on the high seas or in the exclusive economic zone is not considered to be part of the United States.  Under the law of the sea, an Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) is a maritime zone over which a State has special rights over the exploration and use of natural resources.  The EEZ extends up to 200 nautical miles from the coastal baseline.  A child born on such a vessel does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of the place of birth (Lam Mow v. Nagle, 24 F.2d 316 (9th Cir., 1928)).

NOTE:  This concept of allotting nations EEZs to give better control of maritime affairs outside territorial limits gained acceptance in the late 20th century and was given binding international recognition by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) in 1982. Part V, Article 55 of the Convention states: Specific legal regime of the EEZ: The EEZ is an area beyond and adjacent to the territorial sea, subject to the specific legal regime established in this Part, under which the rights and jurisdiction of the coastal State and the rights and freedoms of other States are governed by the relevant provisions of this convention.

b. A U.S.-registered aircraft outside U.S. airspace is not considered to be part of U.S. territory.  A child born on such an aircraft outside U.S. airspace does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of the place of birth.

NOTE:  The United States of America is not a party to the U.N. Convention on Reduction of Statelessness (1961).  Article 3 of the Convention does not apply to the United States.  Article 3 provides “For the purpose of determining the obligations of Contracting States under this Convention, birth on a ship or in an aircraft shall be deemed to have taken place in the territory of the State whose flag the ship flies or in the territory of the State in which the aircraft is registered, as the case may be.” This is a frequently asked question.

c.  Birth on U.S. military base outside of the United States or birth on U.S. embassy or consulate premises abroad:

(1)  Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities abroad are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment.  A child born on the premises of such a facility is not born in the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth;

(2)  The status of diplomatic and consular premises arises from the rules of law relating to immunity from the prescriptive and enforcement jurisdiction of the receiving State; the premises are not part of the territory of the United States of America.  (See Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law, Vol. 1, Sec. 466, Comment a and c (1987).  See also, Persinger v. Iran, 729 F.2d 835 (D.C. Cir. 1984).

d. Birth on foreign ships in foreign government non-commercial service:

(1)  A child born on a foreign merchant ship or privately owned vessel in U.S. internal waters is considered as having been born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.  (See U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark.); and

(2)  Foreign warships, naval auxiliaries, and other vessels or aircraft owned or operated by a State and used for governmental non-commercial service are not subject to jurisdiction of the United States.  Persons born on such vessels while in U.S. internal waters (or, of course, anywhere else) do not acquire U.S. citizenship by virtue of place of birth.

e. Alien enemies during hostile occupation:

(1)  If part of the United States were occupied by foreign armed forces against the wishes of the United States, children born to enemy aliens in the occupied areas would not be subject to U.S. jurisdiction and would not acquire U.S. citizenship at birth; and

(2)  Children born to persons other than enemy aliens in an area temporarily occupied by hostile forces would acquire U.S. citizenship at birth because sovereignty would not have been transferred to the other country.  (See U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark.)

8 FAM 301.1-4  BIRTH IN U.S. INTERNAL WATERS AND TERRITORIAL SEA

(CT:CITZ-1;   06-27-2018)

a. Persons born on ships located within U.S. internal waters (except as provided in 8 FAM 301.1-3) are considered to have been born in the United States.  Such persons will acquire U.S. citizenship at birth if they are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.  Internal waters include the ports, harbors, bays, and other enclosed areas of the sea along the U.S. coast.  As noted above, a child born on a foreign merchant ship or privately owned vessel in U.S. internal waters is considered as having been born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.  (See U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark.)

b. Twelve Nautical Mile Limit:  The territorial sea of the United States was formerly three nautical miles.  (See, e.g., Cunard S.S. Co. v Mellon, 262 U.S. 100, 122, 43 S. Ct. 504, 67 L. Ed. 894 (1923).)  However, the three-mile rule was changed by a Presidential Proclamation in 1988, implementing the territorial-sea provision of the 1982 U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea.  (Presidential Proclamation 5928, signed December 27, 1988, published at 54 Federal Register 777, January 9, 1989.)  As decreed by that Proclamation, the territorial sea of the United States henceforth extends to 12 nautical miles from the baselines of the United States determined in accordance with international law.  (The Proclamation also stated that the jurisdiction of the United States extends to the airspace over the territorial sea.)  (See Gordon, Immigration Law and Procedure, Part 8 Nationality and Citizenship, 92.03(2)(b) territorial limits.)

c.  FAM guidance up until 1995 (7 FAM 1116.1-2  In U.S. Waters TL:CON-64; 11-30-95) advised that persons born within the 3-mile limit of the U.S. territorial sea were born “within the United States” and could be documented as U.S. citizens if they were also born subject to U.S. jurisdiction.  Some commentators took this view as well, such as Gordon.  Analysis of this issue undertaken in 1994-1995 revealed, however, that there is a substantial legal question whether persons born outside the internal waters of the United States but within the territorial sea are in fact born “within the United States” for purposes of the 14th Amendment and the INA.

d. Cases involving persons born outside the internal waters but within the U.S. territorial sea, must be referred to AskPPTAdjudication@state.gov for coordination with CA/PPT/L, L/CA, and L/OES and other appropriate offices within the United States government.

8 FAM 301.1-5  WHAT IS BIRTH IN U.S. AIRSPACE?

(CT:CITZ-1;   06-27-2018)

a. Under international law, the limits of a country's sovereign airspace correspond with the extent of its territorial sea.  The outer limit of the territorial sea of the United States is 12 nautical miles from the coastline.  Airspace above the land territory, internal waters, and territorial sea is considered to be part of the United States (Presidential Proclamation 5928, signed December 27, 1988, published at 54 Federal Register 777, January 9, 1989).

b. Comments on the applicability of the 14th Amendment to vessels and planes, are found in Gordon, Immigration Law and Procedure, Part 8, Nationality and Citizenship, Chapter 92, 92.03 (New York:  Matthew Bender, 2007).  This volume states: 

“The rules applicable to vessels obviously apply equally to airplanes.  Thus a child born on a plane in the United States or flying over its territory would acquire United States citizenship at birth.”

c.  Under the 1944 Convention on International Civil Aviation, articles 17–21, all aircraft have the nationality of the State in which they are registered, and may not have multiple nationalities.  For births, the nationality law of the aircraft's “nationality” may be applicable, and for births that occur in flight while the aircraft is not within the territory or airspace of any State, it is the only applicable law that may be pertinent regarding acquisition of citizenship by place of birth.  However, if the aircraft is in, or flying over the territory of another State, that State may also have concurrent jurisdiction.

d. Cases of citizenship of persons born on planes in airspace above the United States land territory or internal waters may be adjudicated by passport specialists at domestic passport agencies and centers or consular officers at posts abroad in accordance with 8 FAM 301.1-6.

e. Cases of persons born on planes in airspace outside the 12 nautical mile limit would be adjudicated as a birth abroad under INA 301 (8 U.S.C. 1401) or INA 309 (8 U.S.C. 1409) as made applicable by INA 301(g).

f.  Cases of persons born on a plane in airspace above the U.S. territorial sea (12 nautical mile limit) must be referred to AskPPTAdjudication@state.gov for consultation with CA/PPT/S/L/LA and L/CA.

8 FAM 301.1-6  DOCUMENTING BIRTH IN U.S. WATERS AND U.S. AIRSPACE

(CT:CITZ-1;   06-27-2018)

a. Proof of birth in U.S. internal waters or U.S. airspace consists of a U.S. birth certificate certified by the issuing authority in the U.S. jurisdiction.

b. There is no U.S. Federal law governing the report of such births.

c.  Generally speaking, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) would require some documentation of the birth, generally an excerpt of the ship’s/aircraft’s medical log or master/captain’s log, reflecting the time, latitude, and longitude when the birth occurred.

d. For ships/aircraft in-bound for the United States, the parents would then be responsible for reporting the birth to the civil authorities in the U.S. jurisdiction where the vessel put into port.  (See the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) publication “Where to Write for Birth Certificates.”)

(1)  The parents will have to contact the state vital records office to determine the exact procedures for report such a birth;

(2)  Parents should obtain a certified copy of the ship’s medical log, airplane’s log, or other statement from the attending physician or other attendant and attempt to obtain information on how to contact attendants in the future should further questions arise;

(3)  If the mother and child were immediately taken to a U.S. hospital, authorities there may be of assistance in facilitating contact with the appropriate state authorities; and

(4)  It is unlikely that the vital records office in the parents’ state of residence will issue such a birth certificate.  Parents may be redirected to the vital records office in the state where the ship first put into port after the birth of the child.

[ItnStln]

23 minutes ago, Dric902 said:

not a terrorist act

Illegals destabilize the economy, therefore, they are economic terrorists and, as a result, you are wrong.

Edited November 5, 2018 by ItnStln

[ItnStln]

1 hour ago, Al Czervik said:

An act of Congress, or what is expressly authorized by the Constitution both satisfy 18 USC 1385.

The statute is also referencing "for the purpose of executing the laws."  

The CINC can declare a national emergency, using the .mil to do under Article 4, Section 4, what is mandated, which is protecting States from invasion.  

 

Indeed

[Al Czervik]

21 minutes ago, Dric902 said:

Not an invasion

might want it to be

might demand that it be

might decide that it is

maybe, maybe, might, could, if, if, if 

 

not an invasion by a foreign power, not a terrorist act, not a zombie apocalypse

sometimes it is blatantly obvious that our stereotypes are earned 

 

I’m done rehashing the same thing over and over. Talk amongst yourselves

.

Right, because you say so.  Are you a Federal judge?

It has been an ongoing invasion for decades.  According to you, how many people does it take?  How many of each of many specific weapons must value X of people be transporting?  Must they have declared hostile intentions?  Must they be in recognizable uniforms?  Blah, blah, blah.  

Ultimately, the Trumpster can do what needs to be done, the "legality" of which will be decided in the courts.

 

What stereotypes do "we" earn?

 

[Dric902]

Watch

[fortyofforty]

Unless something is currently challenged in Federal court, probably up to and including the Supreme Court, such notions from the State Department are simply policy.  They are not law.  They are not rulings.  They are State Department interpretations.  If one Federal judge declares otherwise based on a court challenge, they are null and void.  See how judges overturned President Trump's immigration policy, when it was within his powers as enumerated in the Constitution.  So, your silly long State Department policy quote may not be worth the electronic bits it took to post it.  Simple enough for you?

[ItnStln]

1 hour ago, fortyofforty said:

So, your silly long State Department policy quote may not be worth the electronic bits it took to post it.  Simple enough for you?

Such a prick!

[ItnStln]

3 hours ago, Al Czervik said:

Right, because you say so.

He posts the same anti-Trump/pro-illegal rhetoric at Glock Talk. It isn't surprising to see it posted here as well.

[Dric902]

1 minute ago, ItnStln said:

He posts the same anti-Trump/pro-illegal rhetoric at Glock Talk. It isn't surprising to see it posted here as well.

Ok, that needs an answer

not pro-illegal, the border should have been secured decades ago. But if you solve the issue, you can’t campaign on the issue. That’s how we got here.

Trump can close the border with a memo. He is the top Law Enforcement official in the country, the Dept of Justice belongs to the Executive branch exclusively. The border can be close using ICE, Border Patrol, State, Federal, US marshals service, FBI tactical teams, Secret Service can control the border to control currency flow. If he decided to, he could create an office inside the DOJ for the express purpose of securing the border from human trafficking and drug enforcement. There is no requirement for Congress to approve or fund it, no legislation is needed, no reform of immigration laws required. Just enforced

Which he can do, all by himself, right now, today, immediately.

why doesn’t he???

 

what you cannot use, no matter how much you want to interpret, massage, twist, declare. Is the military. Not on invasion, no such thing as a “economic terrorist”, not an armed force.

But.......you can campaign on ‘putting the military on the border’ and sound tough, without actually closing it.

so when you see the military going to the border for tent building, vehicle repair, administrative support.............it’s bullshit.

stop buying into the political bullshit and fantasizing about some military engagement. It ain’t gonna happen.

Trump does not want to secure the border...or he would. The republicans don’t want to secure the border...or they would.

Trump wants you to believe he will secure the border and complain about funding for a wall from congress. It’s a dodge, it isn’t ever going to happen. Example: DACA

the republicans want you to believe they will secure the border, they won’t. They want you to vote for them so they can secure the border. They haven’t and won’t.

 

dont be a dupe, think.  Ride the Trump train if you want to, but look out the window and see what’s going on.

if you want to attack me for not chanting along side you, repeating a bunch of patriotic sounding slogans, demanding that Trump do all the things we didn’t want Obama to be able to do. You’re a follower

Your words are empty, your opinion is skewed, you are completely incorrect, and you look foolish and petty.

 

Watch what happens and remember it

 

.