And they are all different as individuals. A lot of them are nightmares, including those are and who sympathize with the so-called "domestic terrorists".

Go to the back of what “line”? There is no line. The government’s treatment of those brought here as children does not interfere with its dealings with other people navigating the standard immigration process. Immigration is not a zero-sum game. And we’re not talking citizenship here, we’re talking non-deportation. Separate issue. Most proposals for giving these people a “path to citizenship” are fairly difficult and time-consuming, and some even involve the payment of fines for living here illegally.

Objectivism does not claim that “Context does not matter when dealing with objective laws.” As Tara Smith, author of Judicial Review in an Objective Legal System, points out, “For courts to be objective, then, when engaged in judicial review, they must be guided by the law that they find in its full context, understood in light of the principles and the commitments that animate it. It would be non-objective for judges to ignore those values.”
http://theundercurrent.org/judicial-r...

That's the idea, yes. Makes it less about the money and more about actual representation.

Good ideas. Lowering the gross amount of spending by candidates is a must to allow real people who truly represent their districts to have a chance in elections. Limiting those elected to only one term breaks some of the power of parties, too.

Probably the media has polls that say the people would view it negatively. Politicians don't violate the polls unless its very important to their goals.
I think this is all just a side issue to distract Trump from his goals.

My idea is to simply clarify political donation contributions law to say that citizens (and only lawful voting-age citizens) can donate only to candidates in their respective voting districts. Make the candidates responsible for policing the donations on penalty of disqualification. Since neither "corporations" nor unions have voting rights, all political funding becomes a matter of individual choice.

Makes you wonder why they don't do that more often with these rallies. They would seem to be easy pickings...

"we are just about out of labor "
If I could find a job that doesn't support big government I might apply. Oh, but they won't hire someone my age and gender and color because age discrimination is legal, and I didn't earn my knowledge or abilities. That degree summa cum laude just proves I'm a racist, sexist, and whatever-ist.

Sorry, I'm grouchy today;^)

Not enough workers to sustain it? In a country of 360+ Million not enough labor? Someone is fudging numbers. Let's check the unemployment rolls. As long as there is a single unfilled non-technical job, no-one should get the freebies.

Limit donations to $1 for each voter and corporations do not vote or donate. (I'm a real "dreamer';^)

And the whiners can make a big fuss outside the capitol- until Trump calls in the INS.

There is no reason that we have to support non-citizens so cut them off. We will know who we have to deport when they complain. All who have jobs and clean records, give them a path to citizenship. There are 11 million here now, many of whom we are benefiting from their productivity. Our immigration laws are ridiculous, so fix them and don't make people criminals because they failed to be irrational and followed rules that made no sense and EVERYONE winked and looked the other way for years.
With the current low unemployment we are just about out of labor and are stimulating investment to create economic growth and more jobs. This is going to blow up in our face when there aren't enough people to sustain it. People who come here to work have to learn to speak English to do so. If they want to be successful, they will try to fit in and their children will assimilate even faster. This will not happen, only if we incentive them to do otherwise.

I wish there were more like them, but Party politics in the party of the Jackass long ago has become a matter of party financing for re-election. And if you don't toe the line and party policy, you don't get the funding. It puts the extremists in charge of the Party in control of the candidates. I'd prefer to eliminate all donations to political parties and say that if you want to donate to a particular candidate, that's fine. I think we'd find we'd have a lot better political process once we removed the RNC and DNC from the picture.

I agree. I think what Trump offered was overly generous. Remember, Reagan got this very same type of deal from the Democrats back in the '80's: a one-time "amnesty" in exchange for better security and some military spending. And the Dems reneged - as they always do when it suits them.

This time I think Republicans would be well off to just say "stick it" and build the wall and reform immigration - in spite of the Democrats. Set up the debate in the Senate so that cloture doesn't require a vote and if the Dems really want to filibuster, they have to do so the old-fashioned way rather than simply by obstructing a vote in the first place.

Australia actually made a deal with Indonesia to create camps for the illegals Australia catches. They are immediately taken to Indonesia and not even considered for immigration to Australia.

American Dream?
George Carlin on the American Dream
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-14Sl...

No ties? They have citizenship there.
But I can live with letting them apply in the same group with all other prospective immigrants and be judged on their merits. They should have already gained an advantage from living in the US by learning American customs and language, but they do not show any understanding of fair play that is a vital part of being American, imo.
I'm sick of whiners of all kinds. Whether it's immigrants or whining CEO's begging to have government give them an advantage over their domestic competition, they should all just produce and prove what they can do without taxpayer assistance. (Oh, and they should shut up and stop whining!)

The "path" they deserve is to the boat/bus to their home countries where they have citizenship. Those countries are not offering special citizenship treatment to Americans.

Australia has strict limits on immigration. They would have zero chance for special treatment unless they have lots of $ or are better qualified and sponsored by an Australian business (who must hire them if they sponsor them.)

Context does not matter when dealing with objective laws. It doesn't matter if you are Jean Valjean stealing to feed your family - you are still a thief. It doesn't matter if you were brought here to the US illegally before you were old enough to have a say in the matter - you are still here illegally. That's the whole point here. Context only matters during sentencing - not during trial. The fact of the matter is that if you are in this nation - or any nation - illegally, you are here/there illegally; your motives for doing so do not move those boundary lines one inch. Legal citizenship rests upon following the laws - not ignoring them.

To me, the longer they have been here without taking the proper steps to do so legally is evidence against lenient treatment - not for. They've had all that much more time to come clean and do things properly, yet they haven't. In some cases, all they have done is exacerbate the problem by bringing more people here behind them. Also, I don't buy the fear aspect: only those who are breaking the laws have any reason to fear. (And their open actions marching for these perceived "rights" indicate they really don't even have much fear.)

I support uniform immigration policy. I don't support any special privileges just because you've been here X number of years. You go to the back of the line behind everyone who applied in good faith before you.

It's something for everyone - a compromise: the Democrats get a path to citizenship for "Dreamers" and he gets his wall. That the Democrats aren't interested in compromise is what has been going on for 20+ years now but the Republicans have been unable to pin this tactic on them. This issue provides a huge chance to permanently label the Democrats - and the Democrats are (stupidly) going right along with it.

The only consistency on the part of the Democrats is their extreme views on socialism/communism. To call their views "consistent" with any form of logic or observation would be a smear against Reality.

"Perhaps Trump's "offer" was not intended to be to the Democrats but to Susan Collins."

That I could completely agree with, but I would add two more RINOs: John McCain and Lisa Murkowski. I can maybe (big caveats) understand a Senator from Arizona being concerned about immigration, but Alaska and Maine? We aren't getting invaded by the Canucks...

How do you get them to do that now that they are here? ........Just asking.

Open the gates. Don't support them. They have to work or depend on family. Sweden, Germany and France supported them blindly and asked nothing in return. The people that have come to America over the years came for opportunity not a handout. They didn't come for a handout because there wasn't any and there are those that are still crying about how heartless the Capitalists were. Ayn was right, it is the only moral system.

All examples are irrelevant in my mind. The only relevant issue is getting control of our borders and passing a legitimate law on our immigration policy. National origin, race, color, etc. are only political issues, none of which are relevant to border security or immigration policy. What we do with those that are now already here illegally is a completely separate issue. We need to decide if we're going to grandfather those that broke the law or deport them. It's like grandfathering Hillary's crimes. She's gotten away with them so far and she is now actually irrelevant. Whatever we decide is only temporarily relevant, soon it will all be forgotten. We need a decision on her too. Perhaps Trump will address that issue too someday.

So far all of this just shows me that the democrats don't want a solution, the latest offer made by Trump was a hell of a lot more than even Schumer expected. Perhaps after Maxine Waters does her critique on the State of the Union more progress will be made on getting something done on many more issues. I'm predicting after her critique we will not have to worry about the elections coming up in November.

So.....throw open the gates and c'mon in.Ask Sweden, Germany,France and others how that is working for them.The Massive Muslim Movement shows that immigration is not necessarily random.