President Donald Trump!

Post Reply New Topic

I think it's more like not wanting their neighborhoods to become like bad parts of Mexico. Look into what areas like Van Nuys and Panorama City transformed into by the 2000's. Many areas where I lived in Las Vegas as well. And it just keeps getting exponentially worse.

It is also a fact that most Mexican migrants are not gang members---in fact, they hate the gangs probably worse than the "Anglos" hate the gangs.

Additionally, most gang members are not migrants at all, but American citizens. Of many descents.

Associating the gang situation with immigrants from Mexico and other places.....just doesn't hold water.

It's a complex problem. Involving a lack of morals on the part of gang members, and a lack of economic opportunity, and family cohesion, which creates ripe conditions for the formation and the perpetuation of gangs.

Trump's salary will go to repair Civil War battlefield at Antietam

President Trump's first-quarter salary donation of $78,333 will go toward preserving the Civil War battlefield at Antietam, Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke announced Wednesday.

"As both the secretary of the interior and a military veteran, I'm deeply honored and humbled to deliver the donation to Antietam National Battlefield on behalf of President Trump," Zinke said. "Visiting the hallowed ground the day after Independence Day is incredibly moving and it underscores the importance of why we must preserve these historic grounds.

"The president's donation will allow generations of Americans to learn about our history and heritage on this sacred site."

Zinke announced how the money will be spent while touring the Western Maryland battlefield. He also announced that an additional $7.2 million in grants would be made to "identify, preserve and protect" historic battlefield sites.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trump ... le/2627800

I actually think this is okay.

Antietam, ironically, is the site of a severe Union LOSS.

It's good for Americans to learn their history; it teaches lots of lessons.

No. Antietam was a Union victory.

The North had been invading the south, and kept getting its ass kicked by Lee's Army of Northern Virginia.

Then finally the South invaded the North resulting in the first major battle to be fought on Union soil: near the Maryland town of Sharpsburg, near Antietam Creek.

Its true that the Union general, McClellan failed to act aggressively enough, and failed to follow through and destroy Lee's Army (which got McClellan dismissed by Lincoln), but Lee withdrew first, and retreated back into the Virginia. The South failed to achieve its objects of seizing northern territory and of getting into a position to attack Washington DC. So on a strategic level it was Northern victory. For once the South invaded the North, and the North successfully repelled the invaders.

I guess I was thinking about the losses the Union Army suffered, which were severe. People always speak of the "brutality" of Antietam.

But losses were severe on the Confederate side, too.

I believe this was the point where war stopped being a "spectator sport."

Well...the spectator phase ended two years earlier in the First Battle Bull Run (aka "The First Battle of Manassass) only days into the war.

Thousands of civilian families tagged behind the armies with picnic baskets to watch the first battle of Bull Run. And both the Northern Army, and the Washington DC civilian picnickers ended up beating a panicked retreat, causing northbound traffic jams on bridges.

What made Antietam (along with the lesser known battle of Perryville Kentucky- fought at about the same time because the South also invaded Kentucky at the same time they invaded Maryland) important was that it gave the Union two victories. And this gave Lincoln the right moment to announce the first of the two Emancipation Proclamations. Not the real second one issued at the end of the war that actually abolished slavery, but the earlier PR version of the EP. This earlier EP freed the slaves, but ONLY the slaves that Lincoln had no power at the moment to free (the ones in the states that had joined the Confederacy), and not the slaves in the slave states that had opted to stay with the Union (Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, Delaware). Exempted those precisely because he did not want to drive those states into the Confederacy. Though it freed only a few slaves it was good PR that got sympathy for the Union cause, and hurt sympathy and momentum for the European powers to recognize the Confederacy. So Lincoln was able to put a little political icing on to the cake of military victories.

Exactly. It's like people thinking Italians are in the mob. Hell I know Italians who are so antimafia they won't even play cards because the mob plays cards. People forget that more Italians were victims of the mafia than members of the mafia. Just like more Mexicans would be victims of Mexican gangs than members.

It's the same thing now with Mexicans, West Indians, Asian Indians, etc., as it was with the Irish, Italians, and Jews in the old days.

Most of these people, if anything, were/are more conservative than their American counterparts. Most wanted/want to "get ahead" by any (legal) means necessary.

It's the classic immigrant narrative. This is what "America" is all about. Most of us are the children/descendants of immigrants. Let's not forget that.

Trump wants to get rid of that. He wants us to become like the "old country." If this happens, the US will be cheapened permanently.

Hui Chen has resigned from her work on ethical compliance in the DOJ. She could not in good conscience hold companies to ethical standards which her own employer, the White House, routinely violates.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administrat ... ps-conduct

Maybe. I'm not sure about that. Like everyone points out, Canada has much a stricter immigration policy than we do. I've heard even Mexico has a stricter immigration policy than we do and harsher penalties for illegals. But I don't know if that's true.

And there's a lot more countries that come across the boarder through Mexico like Guatemala, El Salvador, Nicaragua etc. It's not like every illegal immigrant that comes over the boarder are Mexicans. And who knows, maybe Mexico has a problem with illegal immigration from other countries south of their boarder.

But I don't think America is like it was back in the early 20th century when it was a younger still developing country. I don't see any reason why these days it can't have stricter immigration policies. And a wall (which I don't necessarily think is a good idea) would not prevent legal immigration from Mexico and other central and south american countries.

If I'm correct, the immigration system of people coming over from europe in the old days was pretty strict in processing people through Ellis Island. It wasn't like the US just let them get off the boat unprocessed far as I know.

But now apparently as far as some are concerned it's perfectly acceptable to let people flow in here unchecked, take up residence and even collect welfare.

We had Ellis Island, and they really weren't very strict. They usually just excluded people who had diseases like trachoma and tuberculosis. Or who they suspected were mentally "unsound." There was no way, really, to check for criminal records in the "old country."

According to the statistics, about 99.3% of the people who went through Ellis Island were admitted.

Immigration became much more restrictive after 1924.

I don't believe in letting people in "unchecked." I don't believe in allowing people to just come on and collect welfare, either.

I've known plenty of immigrants in my time---and the vast majority of them are hard-working people who would feel shame if they went down to the point where they had to collect government benefits (welfare). And they look down on folks who do have to collect government benefits.

I'm proud of Germany.

Trump meets Putin. Manspreading festival ensues.

Without immigrants we wouldn't have as many doctors. I mean, do you have what it takes to become a doctor?

Look at the doctor-roster of any hospital in NYC. At least half are immigrants.