You people need to look around and see what immigration is doing to the country. The crime is escalating. Open your eyes! Who the hell is paying for all the benefits. Don't you realize that it is getting close to more people on welfare than people working. What is wrong with you? Big government to good for what they vote in for amiricans. All government should get Obama care! And 2600 a month for social security just like us. Wake up before it causes big problems!

It all depends on the intention of immigration and why they are here. At this point it is not genuine immigration primarily just in v asion of we stern culture used as the tool from the e li tes to impover ish the western ta x payers.

During the Revolutionary War a message was sent to the Mercenaries hired by the criminal British (War of Aggression for Profit) and the moral, lawful, correct, useful, productive, prosperous, good, legal, immigration "policy" was stated in that documented message as follows:

Quote:
"To the officers and soldiers in the service of the king of Great Britain, not subjects of the said king :

"The citizens of the United States of America are engaged in a just and necessary war — a war in which they are not the only persons interested. They contend for the rights of human nature, and therefore merit the patronage and assistance of all mankind. Their success will secure a refuge from persecution and tyranny to those who wish to pursue the dictates of their own consciences, and to reap the fruits of their own industry.

"That kind Providence, who from seeming evil often produces real good, in permitting us to be involved in this cruel war, and you to be compelled to aid our enemies in their vain attempts to enslave us, doubtless hath in view to establish perfect freedom in the new world, for those who are borne down by the oppression and tyranny of the old.

"Considering, therefore, that you are reluctantly compelled to be instruments of avarice and ambition, we not only forgive the injuries which you have been constrained to offer us, but we hold out to your acceptance a participation of the privileges of free and independent states. Large and fertile tracts of country invite and will amply reward your industry.

"Townships, from twenty to thirty thousand acres of land, shall be laid out and appropriated to such of you as will come over to us, in the following manner."

That was at a time when the people (not the government) were powerful enough to defend themselves from criminal governments. The "policy" for immigration is simple: people who do not harm people for fun and profit (criminals) are welcome, on par, equal footing, with every other member of lawful, legal, moral, society. Those who must, and will, resort to criminal aggression will be discovered, indicted, tried by the country (trial by jury) and sentenced by the people (the country) to either return to moral society or be sentenced to death, or other punishment determined by the people themselves (trial by jury, trial by the country), not sentenced by a so-called government special interest group.

That all changed in 1789 with the take-over by the criminal slave traders, war-mongers, and central banking frauds.

If the law cannot keep the criminals out of government office, then it is not the law, it is counter to the law, it is counterfeit law. If the counterfeit law set's "immigration policy" those criminals will allow fellow criminals to share the loot stolen from the sheep, and those criminals will torture and murder everyone who does not obey without question. That is documented with precision by the way.

1. Controlled immigration with an 'off' switch can work.
2. Assimilation into a foreign society will help nullify a perception of 'takeover'
3. Repatriation needs to be a part of entry via refugee status.
4. See 1.

Properly vetted imagration is good for the country. But having no border walls allows people who have not understood the American way or have no concept of our rule of law to roam free and commit rapes, murders and crimes against American citizens. This is the case in Washington State where we had a sherriff killed by an illegal cartel member last week. (THIS IS POPULAR CONSERVITIVE RETERIC) Now the facts are our politicians are involved big time since we are a sanctuary state. Our apples, cherries and other fruits and veggies are picked by migrant workers. Our economy from produce alone is so massive due to exports to china and asia that we don't even have a state income tax. So Trump is not popular here, that is why Jay Insley our Governor has thrown his hat in the race for president. What the rest of the world may not understand is that in the western United States we have a long history and culture with Mexico. The Mexicans were here long before we settled here, thats why we have names like Santa Anna in California. The problem is we have families that are good people going back and forth to mexico seasonally to work in the fields and then go back home in the winter. Some choose to stay here and become part of the workforce doing the dirty jobs most Americans don't want to do like care giving, landscaping, maid service, fast food. Business owners here love the cheap labor by hiring illegals they can pay under the table. For a New Yorker its not a problem to fence off the border, for the west coast it's a big problem and the Feds aren't welcome here. Arnold Schwarzenegger should have woke everyone up to the fact that we love our Mexican here, so don't mess with our Latin Lovers. A bit of a bopolar spin in my comment but life is very bipolar. Our contractors love to role up to the Home depot early in the morning and pick up some
Mexican workers who work harder than Americans for alot less pay with higher qaulity work. Plus I love my mexican food, on every corner there is a food truck or mexican restaurant oh by the way I was born a catholic in Anaheim my God Father is Speedy Castillo he was a Mexican referee for the LA Lakers for his whole career. I'm white but I have always loved mexicans and they know it. I never had a problem with a single Mexican in fact, they just love feeding me. Thank you for posting this question.The Majority of Mexicans are good conservative Catholic Christians. POTUS should stop pushing them to the far left they would be easy votes for him. Muslims now thats a differnt story, the world is at war with them. There ideology does not work well with the rest of the world religious views. If you can't play well with others than you get locked out, plain and simple. Look at your history and then decide. France forgot that during the time of Monarchs the Muslims conquered most of France. Then lets not forget the crusades where we fought them in the holy land. Spaniards also intermarried with the French Monarchs and fought Muslims and became Mexicans with the Aztecs and Myans. So remebering the history of who our enimies are is important and making policy to protect our American way of life is paramount. So in conclusion I agree with POTUS on muslims but not with the Mexicans. Check your history. Weigh in.

Moving from one place to another place is a hatecrime against the immovable. Think of the tectonic plates!

It's too obvious to be a topic.

I just started reading "Conceived in Liberty" by Murray Rothbard and found this:

"But how was the ownership of this great new land mass to be allocated? Basically, new and previously unowned land can come into ownership in two different ways: either the settler – the pioneer who, in the later phrase of John Locke, “mixes his labor with the soil” and brings the previously unused and fallow natural resources into productive use – is conceded ownership of the land he has in this way “created”; or his is not."
Footnote: “If it be objected that the pioneer has not really created the land, it is also true that no producer “creates” matter. The builder of a factory has not in the ultimate sense “created” the matter in the factory; he has rather transformed by the use of his labor the previously nature-given matter. He has shifted this original matter into other forms more useful to himself and to his fellow men: this shifting is the meaning of “production.” And this is precisely what the pioneer has done in transforming the land." Page 37

The book (so far) details how people settled empty lands while escaping the ruinous despotism perpetrated by criminal governments all throughout Europe: runaway slaves running to sanctuary in America. And to those who appear to claim that Indians (Native people in America since migrating themselves from the area now known as Russia) owned the land and Americans stole it from them, there is clear evidence that this narrative ignores many competing powers and forces which work against despotic governments stealing ownership of land from anyone, including Indians.

In the time frame of the French and Indian Wars there were 6 Indian Nations that formed a confederacy. Had the criminal Federalist Party failed the coup to turn the American Confederacy into a Profitable Monopoly Nation-State in 1789, it is possible that Indian Nations could have joined the American Confederacy, as well as Canada. The so-called "immigration policy" could have moved decidedly towards the libertarian option rather than the despotic one created by the criminal Federalist Party in 1789: see for example the Naturalization Acts of 1790.

For a clear look into the despotic mentality that creates and maintains counterfeit governments (criminals posing as the government), and their "immigration policies" check this out from The Cambridge History of Law in America, Volume 1 Early America (1580-1815)
Edited by Michael Grossberg, Christopher Tomlins

"In all previous cases, and in the protracted English attempts to seize parts of norther France, conquest had been justified on the grounds of dynastic inheritance: a claim, that is, based on civil law. In America, however, this claim obviously could not be used. There would seem, therefore, to be no prima facie justification for "conquering", the Indians since they had clearly not given the English grounds for waging war against them.
Like the other European powers, therefore, the English turned to rights in natural law, or - more troubling - to justifications based on theology. The Indians were infidels, "barbarians," and English Protestants no less than Spanish Catholics had a duty before God to bring them into the fold and, in the process, to "civilize" them. The first Charter of the Virginia Company (1606) proclaimed that its purpose was to serve in "propagating of Christian religion to such people, [who] as yet live in darkness and miserable ignorance of the true knowledge and worship of God, and may in time bring the infidels and salvages living in these parts to humane civility and to a settle and quiet government." In performing this valuable and godly service, the English colonists were replicating what their Roman ancestors had once done for the ancient Britons. The American settlers, argued William Strachey in 1612, were like Roman generals in that they, too, had "reduced the conquered parts of or barbarous Island into provinces and established in them colonies of old soldiers building castles and towns in every corner, teaching us even to know the powerful discourse of divine reason."

"In exchange for these acts of civility, the conqueror acquired some measure of sovereignty over the conquered peoples and, by way of compensation for the trouble to which he had been put in conquering them, was also entitled to a substantial share of the infidels' goods. Empire was always conceived to be a matter of reciprocity at some level, and as Edward Winslow nicely phrased it in 1624, America was clearly a place where "religion and profit jump together." For the more extreme Calvinists, such as Sir Edward Coke who seems to have believed that all infidels, together presumably with all Catholics, lay so far from God's grace that no amount of civilizing would be sufficient to save them, such peoples might legitimately be conquered; in Coke's dramatic phrasing, because "A perpetual enemy (though there be no wars by fire and sword between them) cannot maintain any action or get any thing within this Realm, All infidels are in law perpetui inimici, perpetual enemies, (for the law presumes not that they will be converted, that being remota potential, a remote possibility) for between them, as with devils, whose subjects they be, and the Christians, there is perpetual hostility and can be no peace."

"Like all Calvinists, Coke adhered to the view that as infidels the Native Americans could have no share in God's grace, and because authority and rights derived from grace, not nature, they could have no standing under the law. Their properties and even their persons were therefore forfeit to the first "godly" person with the capacity to subdue them. "if a Christian King," he wrote, "should conquer a kingdom of an infidel, and bring them [sic] under his subjection, there ipso facto the laws of the infidel are abrogated, for that they be not only against Christianity, but against the law of God and nature contained in the Decalogue." Grounded as this idea was not only in the writings of Calvin himself but also in those of the fourteenth-century English theologian John Wycliffe, it enjoyed considerable support among the early colonists. As the dissenting dean of Gloucester, Josiah Tucker, wrote indignantly to Edmund Burke in 1775, "Our Emigrants to North-America, were mostly Enthusiasts of a particular Stamp. They were that set of Republicans, who believed, or pretended to believe, that Dominion was founded in Grace. Hence they conceived, that they had the best Right in the World , both to tax and to persecute the Ungoldy. And they did both , a soon as they got power in their Hands, in the most open and atrocious Manner."
By the end of the seventeenth century, however, this essentially eschatological argument had generally been dropped. If anything it was now the "papists" (because the canon lawyers shared much the same views as the Calvinists on the binding nature of grace) who were thought to derive rights of conquest from the supposed ungodliness of non-Christians. The colonists themselves, particularly when they came in the second half of the eighteenth century to raid the older discussions over the legitimacy of the colonies in search of arguments for cessation, had no wish to be associated with an argument that depended upon their standing before God. For this reason, if for no other, it was as James Otis noted in 1764, a "madness" which , at least by his day, had been "pretty generally exploded and hissed off the stage."
Otis, however, had another more immediate reason for dismissing this account of the sources of sovereign authority. For in America had been conquered, it followed that the colonies, like all other lands of conquest, were a part not of the King's realm but of the royal demesne. This would have made them the personal territory of the monarch, to be governed at the King's "pleasure," instead of being subject to English law and to the English Parliament. It was this claim that sustained the fiction that "New England lies within England, " which would govern the Crowns' legal association with its colonies until the very end of the empire itself. As late as 1913, for instance, Justice Isaac Isaacs of the Australian High Court could be found declaring that, at the time Governor Arthur Phillip received his commission in 1786, Australia had, rightfully or wrongly, been conquered, and that "the whole of the lands of Australia were already in law the property of the King of England," a fact that made any dispute over its legality a matter of civil rather than international law."

Coke, a confessed psychopath evidence in the above information, is one of the so-called Authorities on Law, so it may be a good idea to question such psychopathic authority.

To help connect the dots here, if someone is wondering what does all the information above have to do with "immigration policy," there is as Murray Rothbard explains 2 processes that work against each other when people attempt to coexist anywhere, and anytime. One way is to declare ownership of everything, people, land, resources, even what people are allowed to think, and then there is liberty: voluntary association based upon the golden rule.

If people only see the dictatorial powers, and people refuse to even look at the opposing powers, then discussions on "immigration policy" requires very narrow-minded thinking and actions based upon that narrow-minded thinking. Which do you prefer?

I think they should stop it period, until we get rid of the rotters that are here now that hate us