"Can't happen" is very tenuous right now. Many people would have said Trump couldn't get elected President only a few months ago. I wouldn't put anything past a narcissist like him empowered by the precedent of executive overreach of the last one (or two) administrations.

As I said above, "I never heard him say this, and he can't do it. So move on to things of consequence. This is another snowflake issue."
Even so, big deal. He says "perhaps" and it can't happen, so who cares? Don’t get your amygdala in a knot of inconsequentials. Move on.

The only reason that illegal immigration is a problem and, in fact, that it is illegal in the first place, is due to the quota system that was introduced following Woodrow Wilson's embryonic welfare system. Prior to government handouts, all who came to the US came at their own risk and expense and had to produce to survive. Thus, there was no limit on immigration, as all immigrants added value to the country. The issue today is that people that come to the country often add much less than they consume - in healthcare, education, housing and a host of other "benefits" which they receive, while often paying only minimal taxes (sales?, but not many other taxes). Many immigrants do work, but on the balance cost the country more than they produce.
As to "zero data," I would disagree. The term "anchor baby" should mean something to you. Being "caught" hasn't been a problem for years. They just have to cross the border again.

Providing something to society is not a prerequisite to existing, being a US citizen, being ethical, or even being considered a good person. Stop asking people to act in accordance with self-sacrifice. It's collectivist and disgusting.

Then you haven't been paying attention. It was a tweet (why is he STILL tweeting??) on 11/29/2016.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/s...
Quote "Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag - if they do, there must be consequences - perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail!"
And this isn't some millennial whining. This is a first amendment issue.

There is absolutely zero data to suggest that the reason people are ignoring the limits set on annual "allowed" immigration and coming here anyway is welfare. They can't get welfare if they aren't a citizen. They would have to obtain fake documents and risk being caught.
The overwhelming conclusion of studies done on the subject suggests that immigrants who ignore our immigration quotas do so to find jobs, not to mooch off of a welfare system.

Every time I get into this discussion I can't help laughing over the Futurama episode that talked about flag burning. Very funny.

Good point! But the rights that the constitution says it will protect only applies to citizens, not just being within our borders. There would have to be a third status, like pending citizen. Have all the benefits except voting. But then you don't have to pay taxes. Hmm. I just don't see it as a tenable system.

Agreed entirely. With that being said, I can simply choose to ignore the dips*%ts who burn the flag. They either believe that liberty and justice (what our flag stands for) are bad, or they are uneducated imbeciles. I would bet on the latter. The act of punishing a moron for being a moron doesn't seem right... ;)

I participated in one physical protest my entire life. I went to the first Tea Party protest we had at the capitol in Oklahoma City. It looked nothing like the protests happening today. Yes we had signs, we had someone on a bullhorn, we were angry, but we stayed in one place in front of a capitol building. We espoused rational, thoughtful, concrete objections to government policy. We even spoke about actual solutions to problems. We didn't burn anything. We didn't loot. We didn't attack anyone. We didn't even scream at people. There were no more than 2 or 3 police officers on hand, with hundreds of protestors. I am pretty sure there were over 1000 people there. 2 cops. This happened all across the country, with the same result. Why is it OK for the left to not follow law and order? It makes no sense to me.

Hello unitedlc,
I have wondered why existing laws regarding incitement and disorderly conduct are not applied.
Respectfully,
O.A.

Loved that P&T video.

I agree.

I agree it was "the greatest country ever created" and it is a pity the US now ranks #23 in the world freedom rankings in the latest Freedom of the World report. Down 4 positions in one year.

I hope this is not an excuse for Trump.

You have to separate the legal from the moral.
We simply need to stand together in ostracizing them.

The funny thing is, they don't even understand what they are doing when they disrespect the flag or even the national anthem. The flag stands for the ideals and pursuit of freedom, justice, and basic human rights. When they make a comment about our nation being racist, or sexist, or Islamophobic, etc., they sound like idiots. The "nation" is none of those things. Sometimes, people within a nation can do or say things that are bigoted, but the United States itself is against every aspect of that by the Constitution. The flag is the one thing they SHOULD be respecting, representing the ideals of liberty. They can protest against people, or laws, or oppression of course, but they really don't understand that our country is founded on freedom and equality. "People" have been the problem, not the core values of the nation. "People" decided that blacks weren't human enough to have rights. That was a disgusting mischaracterization of reality. It was certain people who did that, not the nation. To burn the flag means that you don't believe in the pursuit of liberty and justice. Complete idiots.

I had a whole bunch of reaction to this post but will keep most of it to myself, it gets too long. As a combat Vet that saw friends die before my eyes, burning the flag is extremely "deplorable" to me and should be harshly punished. Apparently the flag seems to mean something different to veterans, especially combat veterans. Burning it shows a complete disrespect to my friends that came home covered with one of our flags. However I also believe in our Constitution and Bill of Rights, as these are evidence of things I believe I fought for. I think Trump's comments also reflect what's in his heart (he’s a patriot), but he would not actually push any legislation against it either (as long as his advisors remember to remind him).

My suggestion on flag burning and other deplorable demonstrations would be to require a permit or a license to demonstrate. It would only be fair to the rest of us where it’s the requirement of the government for us to get permission (a permit or license) to parade, to hunt, to fish, to drive, and all the other things requiring approval and documentation. Perhaps we should add a documented (or badged) individual registration in order to parade, demonstrate, etc., like that for fishing, driving, and the likes. The purpose of a registration/permit/license would be to properly identify those that participate and make them liable for the consequences of their actions, especially in the event of destruction of property or wrongful injury or death. It’s only the “fair” thing to do. Demonstrate without that registration/permit/license, go to jail as a fisherman can do. He can also lose his tackle and gear. The Fish and Game here also carry side arms. Demonstrations that destroy could be financed by sending out a bill to all registered demonstrators that they could share as restitution when their peers that caused damage could not be specifically identified. This would make it fairer to everyone.. OR, just revoke their citizenship and ship them out of the country..

Seems to me that addressing the root cause is the proper response - illegal immigration. Or, we can delve deeper - back to Woodrow Wilson, and eliminate the reasons for illegal immigration - welfare. Then, only (or mostly) people that add value to the society will be coming to America. No welfare - no issue with immigration. If they are not criminals, not subversives and not moochers - welcome!

i think the guarantee of basic rights would be part of being within the borders of the country, regardless of citizenship. The benefits of citizenship and the responsibilities to maintain citizenship would be a great topic for this forum actually.

It is complex, but citizenship by birth doesnt seem very good at this point in time. It gives citizenship to babies of illegal immigrants, which doesnt seem right.

I'm one of those who believes in the symbol, our flag, and what represents, more than I do our government. That said, I do not support the flippant statement DT made on twitter. And that's all it was a statement to setoff the left and get ahead if the media. Reagan kept the media off balance too (no deliberate comparison) - recall his "accidental" mic check that terrified the Soviets and the world.

In the Muslim world (that's why I presented the example of Pakistan), the Koran is a symbol of everything, political and religious. Just as we are abhorred by the Islamic punishments for desecrating the Koran, we should be as abhorred by any possibility of our legal system meeting out the same for the desecration of our symbols. The act (flag burning) is abhorrent, and should be treated as such, but strictly by individuals, and not by the legal system, e.g., government.

The only reason I have to oppose that is because it reduces the number of humans who are guaranteed basic rights. I'm more in favor of increasing access to the protections of the US Constitution than reducing it. This just seems to be a method of reducing rights to "fix" a perceived problem, like only allowing property owners or men to vote. While I do agree that the votes of a populous that "agreed to" the constitution would likely be better than the current populous, this smacks too much of pragmatism for me to support.

Of course, Robert Heinlein addressed this. This is a difficult subject, as not all members of the society mature at the same time, and not all are necessarily active politically, or should be. Should a brilliant biologist who discovers a vaccine lose a citizenship due to lack of participation in the voting process? You can see how hairy this becomes. On the other hand, moochers should not hold the keys to the store, either. I think that the original Constitution addressed this fairly, by granting citizenship at birth, with its protections, but limiting the voting to only those that have been adding value to the society.