A top immigration hard-liner said Monday he thinks Donald Trump’s positions on immigration are like Jell-O and accused the president of backing “limited amnesty” for immigrants in the country illegally.
Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), who advised Trump on immigration issues during the 2016 campaign, said he has grown frustrated by Trump’s failed promises to build a wall on the southern border with Mexico and end protections for young immigrants enrolled in the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.
“We finally elected a president who called for the end of amnesty and he was going to end DACA at noon on Jan. 20, 2017, and we all expected that would happen without fanfare. Instead, we learned that permits were being issued. Then, he served [DACA] up as a bargaining chip” to build the wall, King told The Hill in an interview in the Capitol.
“When he sent out his tweet Sept. 5 that he was going to end DACA, that tweet was pretty clear: Get your act together, make your arrangements. It’s over,” King went on. “Then the next day, it seemed that things changed a little bit and he opened the door to negotiation” with Democratic leaders Sen. Charles Schumer (N.Y.) and Rep. Nancy Pelosi (Calif.).
“Now he’s for some sort of a DACA fix. And he has transformed himself as someone who’s going to restore the rule of law to the guy who’s essentially leading with a limited amnesty and trying to get enforcement on the other side of that. I said, why would you negotiate against yourself?" King said.
“He had a mandate to end DACA; he had a mandate to build the wall, a mandate to end sanctuary cities, a mandate to pass Kate’s Law,” King continued. “In fact, I actually wrote much of his first statement on immigration when he announced his candidacy.”
“So you’re saying the president has been waffling on the issue of immigration?” a reporter asked King.
“He knows that,” replied King, who spoke to Trump two weeks ago. “I’ve been talking to him about that. ... He says, ‘I’ve got to get this passed 500 people,’ meaning 535 lawmakers, so he’s saying he’s adjusting to the political reality. I say stand on principle.”
“It’s stunning to me that you can stand on principle, and when pragmatism kicks in, it trumps principle,” King said. “Where I live, in my ideological world, it’s the exact opposite.”
King and other immigration hawks are wary of a deal struck between Schumer and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) to reopen the federal government after a three-day shutdown.
McConnell has pledged to bring a bipartisan immigration bill to the floor by Feb. 8 that would shield from deportation hundreds of thousands of DACA recipients.
A bipartisan plan pitched by Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) would provide a path to citizenship for the young immigrants. But King is vehemently opposed to offering legal status to DACA recipients.
King’s criticism of Trump’s handling of the immigration issue echoed that of Schumer, who lambasted the president over the weekend as an unreliable negotiating partner who keeps changing his position.
“Negotiating with this White House is like negotiating with Jell-O,” Schumer said amid talks to fund the government.
Let's block Muslims the real killers, and not little kids from Mexico.
Let's block them all. I don't like Muslims and I have no use for reconquista talk from Mexicans. The white man built triving cities where there was nothing but plains, forests, deserts and swamps. The mexicans didn't have a damned thing to do with it. They didn't do anything with their own country. They didn't contribute to ours. Now they want to reconquer and take back what they never had. They're mad at us if we don't give it to them. It's economic disparity.
Let's block them all. I don't like Muslims and I have no use for reconquista talk from Mexicans. The white man built triving cities where there was nothing but plains, forests, deserts and swamps. The mexicans didn't have a damned thing to do with it. They didn't do anything with their own country. They didn't contribute to ours.
Well,not entirely true. California and Texas both belonged to Mexico at one time. I guess you could say so did Arizona,but I THINK the reality is that it and western Texas mostly belonged to the Comanche,who were not all that fond of tourists except when they wanted to build a fire.
Also,there were a hell of a lot of Mexicans fighting in Texas for independence from Mexico,and like it or not,a HELL of a lot of Mexicans who came to this country after it became America who worked hard and became valuable assets who helped build the country into the powerhouse it became. Many,many of them putting on uniforms and serving in our military during war time. I knew more than a few Americans most people that didn't know them wouldn't refer to as Americans,and they are every bit as much American as you,I,or anyone else.
Do a web search for the name Roy Benevidez and then tell me he was a Mexican and not an American,and that he should have been deported because his parents were Yanqui and Mexican. Roy is just one outstanding example of the kind of American we all want to be.
Now,if you want to talk about trash that sneaks across the border to squat and drop a child/welfare retirement check each month due to instant citizenship,I'm with you,but do NOT put all Mexicans in the same barrel.
BTW,I have two nephews that have a Mexican father who worked hard to build up his own body shop business,and send his youngest son to college. The older son is a oxygen thief on the best day he ever had. Nothing but a whining "Cholo" that has never had a steady job,fathered 5 different children by 5 different women,none of whom he supported,and who ran around wearing the Cholo "uniform" of white t-shirt,flannel shirt with only the top button buttoned,a "watch cap",and a beer in one hand. A professional "victim of white oppression because the while man just won't give a Mexican a break."
His younger brother,on the other hand,is a freaking heart surgeon and one of the nicest people you would ever hope to meet. Guess the white man didn't hear about him,and he sneaked under the bar,huh?
I have met many,many Mexican-Americans who are good people.
Well,not entirely true. California and Texas both belonged to Mexico at one time. I guess you could say so did Arizona,but I THINK the reality is that it and western Texas mostly belonged to the Comanche,who were not all that fond of tourists except when they wanted to build a fire.
It was the conquest of the West by the Gringos with their dominent numbers of population, industry, and superior weapons that made Mexican movement into America possible. The Co-manch as they are still refered to by old time Texans, typically found amusement in staking Mexicans out over red ant hills.
California and Texas never belonged to Mexico. When Cortez moved his army into Mexico, he got as far North as the mountain range in central Mexico rising up about 12,000 feet. He had to stop at the base of the mountains because there weren't enough people living there to steal from to feed his army. Being immaginative, He claimed all the land Northward nearly to the Canadian border in the name of Spain, on the basis of his voracious immagination, sight unseen. Had he known they were there, he would have claimed the Eskimos and their igloos. The Eastern half of Mexico is still uninhabited desert with the exception of a few gas stations servicing cars driving North.
When Mexico declared itself free on Spanish rule it laid claim to the Cortez land although by then it was inhabited by massive waves of Anglos heading West.
That is as much as I have time for. But when it comes to Western U. S. and Mexican history, you are as full of shit as a Christmas goose.
That is as much as I have time for. But when it comes to Western U. S. and Mexican history, you are as full of shit as a Christmas goose.
Uh,huh. Ever heard of the Presidio of San Francisco or Monterey or San Francisco?
And don't try that splitting historical hairs bullshit,Robert. Spain and Mexico are interchangeable when speaking of that historic era,and maybe even today in the minds of most Mexicans,who still call themselves "Spanish".
And don't try that splitting historical hairs bullshit,Robert.
Laying claim to nearly half the United States on the basis on the basis of Cortez's narcissistic unbridled fantasy although he had never seen, or even heard of any of it, is not splitting historical hairs. It's nothing more than a crude verbal attempt to steal the land from the people who eventually settled there and developed it.
Laying claim to nearly half the United States on the basis on the basis of Cortez's narcissistic unbridled fantasy although he had never seen, or even heard of any of it, is not splitting historical hairs. It's nothing more than a crude verbal attempt to steal the land from the people who eventually settled there and developed it.
Spare me the outrage. You understand the historical context,so quit playing games.
I especially appreciate the hypocrisy of wailing about how unfair it was to the English settlers who eventually settled here and developed it after killing off or running away the people who were already here.
I especially appreciate the hypocrisy of wailing about how unfair it was to the English settlers who eventually settled here and developed it after killing off or running away the people who were already here.
There were people here, but barely. There was no sense of unity within the population. American indians were sparse and the tribes were hostile and at war with each other. As far as physical development of the country, it was non existent. If you doubt this, try living in a teepee in South Dakota at sub zero temperatures and becoming old, sick, and worn out by age 35. Indian life in glorified in movies, but did not represent reality.
The reality was more like starved rock in Illinois.
There were people here, but barely. There was no sense of unity within the population. American indians were sparse and the tribes were hostile and at war with each other. As far as physical development of the country, it was non existent. If you doubt this, try living in a teepee in South Dakota at sub zero temperatures and becoming old, sick, and worn out by age 35. Indian life in glorified in movies, but did not represent reality.
My grandmother was a full-blooded Tuscarora,and the first time the British did a Tuscorara massacre was in 1700.. Which kinda pissed the Tuscarora off and they wiped out a British settlement,resulting in the British paying the Tuscarora traditional enemies to help them deal with their problem. The British eventually paid the tribe to go back to NY,and enslaved the ones they could catch that didn't leave or that came back.
You evidently don't know shit about the Eastern tribes. Ever heard of Roanoke Island and the Lost Colony?
Sounds like something I just posted. Intertribal war...
I'm not so sure they considered it inter tribal war so much as the Summer Olympics,where the young bucks got a chance to prove their courage will capturing new wives to freshen up the tribal blood line.
From what I know,none of the tribes really practiced warfare as the white man understands and practices warfare. Which is why the white man kept kicking their asses. For the Indians it was sport. For the white man it was something to be taken as seriously as a heart attack and you didn't stop until the enemy was totally defeated.
Sounds like something I just posted. Intertribal war...
I'm not so sure they considered it inter tribal war so much as the Summer Olympics,where the young bucks got a chance to prove their courage will capturing new wives to freshen up the tribal blood line.
Right. You're saying it's all right with other tribes when horney young bucks attack other tribes to take their women for genetic upgrade as a form romantic olympics and nobody gets killed, self protective, or angry about it. It's a a deminstration of adolesent bravery and reconized as good natured fun. If you expect me to believe that, one of us has a problem.
