Yes but since all of this fear-mongering is contrived by the liberal safe-space culture that has bred groups like this and not based in reality, we won't need to do any of that.
People in these areas usually are fine with them because "who cares". Businesses are fine because they usually represent cheap labor. Local governments have a lot to do on their plate already, they don't want to go in the immigration business.
These policies are basically "federal overreach". Feds fly in to do something the locals do not want.
Do you think LA is a sanctuary city because of Obama? It's the will of the people. Who cares what people in Iowa think?
For just one of so many appalling stories: https://www.thenation.com/article/immigrant-workers-are-bein...
If we actually wanted to stop illegal immigration, getting serious about e-verify and levying enormous fines on employers would get the job done.
But so far, the populism looks like hokum. For just one example, Carrier was bribed to stay. And probably in a way that gets more money to the execs than to the employees. My bet is grift all the way down...
Most people welcome immigrants, so long as they follow the rules others have to follow.
Arguably our system is in need of reform or many kinds (it's our prerogative to seek immigrants of high value to the economy, for example, or those who fill a skills gap or labor gap -say farm workers)
It was the same with the trans bathrooms. You might be surprised how many of us parents have kids with trans friends. The issues get real clear real fast when you see how they affect your kids friends. It's not at all hard to get a glimpse of how they'd affect your kids, if circumstances were different.
When people get into a country illegally, they know it's illegal. They know the consequences (for themselves and any dependents), but they hope they will not get caught and do it anyway, so it's hard to see it as if the state "did this" to them. I've seen this in China, Japan, etc. They know any day could be their last. Many had to have their friends sell their belongings for them because in those places you may have a week at most to get out.
However, the administration should consider these a lower priority but should enforce immigration policy so that we do not have as many of these cases come up. Basically continue the Obama approach but with better border security.
A "lower priority"? Shouldn't it be the opposite: the priority being that we don't tear up the families of our countrymen over paperwork issues?
I mention it because some people think "Oh, we're throwing the parents of American citizens out" --no it's the parents of someone who both hold foreign as well as American citizenship. So one could as equally say they're deporting the parents of a Serbian or Brazilian citizen, but it'd be most accurate to say the parents of a dual Brazilian and American or dual Serbian and American citizen.
So your parents were not more American than say they were Irish [if their parents were still legally Irish at their births]. They were the same. But we're trying to say they are more American than they are Irish and by law they would not be.
And replace it with what, exactly? That clause [0] is, after all, what created uniform national citizenship, and eliminated varying and discriminatory state citizenship policies. Even if one agrees that the "anchor baby" problem is something that warrants limiting citizenship to combat (highly contentious proposition itself), simply blowing up the entire post-Civil War model of US citizenship is a rather brute approach with wide ranging consequences outside the immediate target area.
[0] "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."
All the feds have to do is enforce e-verify. If anything Trumps win likely signifies distress from the working class. If the Dems dig in their heals and cater more to non citizens than they do their own citizens, I'm afraid they may lose in the next election again.
No, that is plainly not sufficient, which is obvious because many states already do this. Unless by "enforce E-Verify" you mean something far more drastic.
This is precisely why Trump won more than any reason. He made an appeal to the most important group in America, the middle class, and they agreed with him.
Trump should learn one thing. Black families like jobs. They'll vote for jobs. They also want, if not always like the police but jobs would go a long way to smoothing things over, as with any pop.
He won because everyone voted along party lines + similar turnout to 2000 (Dem marginally above Rep turnout). All other narratives do not match the actual results.
Sounds contradictory to http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/15/upshot/how-did-trump-win-o... for instance, but that's a bit older. Maybe I missed something.
[1]http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2016/10/12/nearly-100000-penn...
So theory is Trump mobilized a ton of voters who sat out in 2012?
Wrong. Trump won the election in a landslide of the electoral college and likely a majority of the popular vote if you audit the southwestern states you abhor to filter out "undocumented people" who voted. That is also not taking into account that Trump primarily campaigned in a small handful of states due to the nature of our electoral system and likely would have won larger in a system without the electoral college. He won the rust belt states which voted Obama into office for 8 years. Attempting to strip his victory from him by making empty statements about the white working class does little to advance any sort of counter-argument to his policies or achievements.
Nixon 1960: 49.55%
Gore 2000: 48.38%
Kerry 2004: 48.26%
Ford 1976: 48.01%
Romney 2012: 47.15%
Trump 2016: 46.17%
And if you see my reflection in the snow covered hills...
On HN it's 50/50.