Forest Grove High students walk out in response to 'Build A Wall' banner

CSM (Join to see) - They did swing a Wicked Ruler.

CPT L S - My sister did her entire school years at Catholic School. 2 years was enough for me. It was a Bad Match. The Nuns would scold me for Playing with the "Irish" since it was a Mixed Neighborhood and they wouldn't use the N-Word I knew what they meant, They scolded me for Playing with Both Kind of Irish!

CPT (Anonymous) - I still stand by my comment. Although they may be hispanic that does not mean they understand the complexities of immigration. Drug mules, human trafficking, creating a dependent class, the impact on our economy, how they are exploited once they get here etc. They simply believe that everybody should be allowed to come here no matter what. Some of them are likely under the impression that the Southwest rightfully belongs to Mexico anyway. Ask a bunch of them to name a Supreme Court Justice, Vice President, Member of Congress or if we are a democracy or a republic. Chances are they will look at you like a monkey doing a math problem. Lets get them educated and once they are smart enough to think for themselves they can protest away.

Sorry, but I don't expect them to understand the impact of illegal immigration on the economy, drugs, human trafficking etc. They are likely looking at it from the perspective of people just wanting to come here for a a better life. Most of them are coming here for a better life but end up being terribly exploited once they get here. The Mexican government doesn't want them to come back simply because of the Billions of dollars that they send back to their families helps the Mexican economy. Liberals here want more of them so they can make them financially dependent so they become voters for life. I live in El Paso and my neighborhood is 90% Hispanic. Guess what? Every single one of my neighbors here in the old cul-de-sac want the border wall built. Most of my neighbors have relatives in Juarez. A very good friend is a Border Patrol agent and could tell you stories of the human suffering and exploitation these folks go through both on their journey here and afterwards. The solution is not to just open the border and let them come here and then give the ones here legal status. That doesn't solve anything. Control immigration. Deport those who are here illegally and speed up the legal immigration process.

PO1 (Join to see) - You missed it in the article because the author mis-lead you. She either doesn't know what she is saying or is lying trying to create a bigger racial statement. The slogan is trying to stop the use of the word 'retarded'.

http://www.r-word.org/

My son is a low-functioning Autistic. I am familiar with the slogan.

SSG (Join to see) - Thank you! That does seem to be a blatant lie.

I'm sitting here with my shocked face on. Who would ever believe a journalist would change things around to paint a different picture. Wow!

PO1 (Join to see) - Well I am as conservative as one can be and don't have a bigoted bone in my body. I treat people the way God made them; one at a time. I guess if the new definition of racist is believing in the constitution, limited government, keeping the money I earned and having a nation of laws with a secure border I have to say I am guilty as charged.

SPC Corbin Sayi - Experience trumps academics every time. For example, you might be able to memorize every fact about the M16 or M4 by reading a field or technical manual, but you can't know what it's like to use one until and unless you put some rounds downrange. People learn best by doing, so splitting hairs over what "lesson" means and using this as the basis for a rebuttal is pedantry.

Furthermore, you know as well as I do that the "build a wall" sign wasn't put there by a passionate advocate for wall building as a generally worthwhile activity. Setting aside the jaw-dropping fatuity of the Orange One's favorite dog whistle - since it's all about "law enforcement" shouldn't he also talk about building a wall along the Canadian border? Surely he could make the Canadians cough up the dough - it strikes me as deliberately disingenuous to dismiss the context or deny the racial and nativist undertones marking his campaign, especially with regard to building a wall on our Southern border. More to the point, the student responsible for the sign says he intended it to be provocative precisely because of its political baggage, rendering your argument here moot.

Red herrings aside, what bothers me most is the hypocrisy of saying we support & defend the Constitution while simultaneously condemning people for exercising the rights it guarantees. Unless, of course, we agree with them. I might add that, for this same reason, I'm somewhat ambivalent regarding the school's choice to discipline the student behind the sign.

Since you brought up the constitution I suggest you actually read it, especially what it says about establishing rules of naturalization. Amnesty is more or less unconstitutional because it bypasses the responsibility of the congress to pass laws governing immigration, and therefore naturalization. Oddly enough congress has passed laws that are valid dealing with immigration and naturalization. They are just ignoring the enforcement part in order to exploit cheap labor and get another dependent group to vote democrat for life.

I don't care who put the build the wall sigh up. It was likely somebody doing it based on race, and although they did it for the wrong reasons, the fact remains that we need to do something to stop the flow of exploited people to our country. I'm a compassionate person, but in many instance they are worse off here than they were in their home country.

I would like it if we applied Mexican immigration law here in this country. They are very strict on who can come in, but don't want the rules to apply to us.

CSM (Join to see) - I’m not a low information citizen, but your assumption is noted. I’ve read the Constitution many times. My reason for bringing it up here was in the context of the Bill of Rights - specifically the First Amendment - not the powers it grants to government to make and enforce laws. But I’ll get to that.

As I said from the start, my interest here revolves around our reaction to young people exercising their rights, not whether we agree with their message. Moreover, my reference to Trump’s campaign primarily involves its character, not whether illegal immigration is a legitimate constitutional issue or not. But to your point, no, I don’t believe the proposal to build a wall at the border has anything to do with law enforcement. If it was there’d be more sensible proposals on the table. Instead, it’s all about leveraging voter bias.

Regarding amnesty, immigration, and naturalization, let’s be clear in our terms. First, immigration and naturalization aren’t synonymous. Immigration refers to people making a permanent move from one country to another, while naturalization refers to people becoming citizens of whatever country they move to. Amnesty is merely a pardon extended to people who’ve committed an offense against the government. In this case, pardoning a misdemeanor committed by foreign nationals entering this country illegally.

As you pointed out, the Constitution grants Congress the power to establish rules governing naturalization, but it’s virtually silent on the question of immigration. Interestingly enough, the one allusion to it is found in Article I, Section 9, which prevented Congress from restricting the “migration and importation” of persons deemed fit by the states prior to 1808. Since then, the power to regulate immigration has been considered (by SCOTUS, typically) as one of Congress’ plenary powers - i.e., complete control over a particular area of law - not explicitly spelled out in the Constitution.

Under this rubric, Congress has power to enact any laws it considers appropriate to address the issue of immigration, including amnesty. In fact, Congress has enacted laws granting amnesty as a part of immigration reform seven times, starting with the Immigration Reform and Control Act, which President Reagan, icon of conservativism that he was, signed into law in 1986. IRCA granted amnesty to around 3 million immigrants - many (if not most) of whom were eventually naturalized - living here illegally prior to 1 January 1982. So, amnesty is clearly not unconstitutional. Not in itself.

What I think you’re actually talking about is Executive amnesty, i.e., amnesty granted under the authority of the President in this context. Whether or not this is constitutional seems to hinge on how to interpret Article II, Section 2 which empowers the President to grant pardons for offenses against the United States. Since amnesty is essentially a pardon, it would seem at face value that the President can indeed grant amnesty. But this seems to conflict with the plenary power of Congress to regulate immigration, so the real question of amnesty as it relates to the Constitution isn’t law enforcement. It’s the separation of powers.

Now, the efficacy of amnesty as a tool for dealing with immigrants categorized as illegal is an open question, but that’s not germane to its constitutionality. Ironically, if history is any kind of teacher, the fact that some immigration is considered illegal may in fact perpetuate the human trafficking problem you brought up. Desperate people are extremely vulnerable to exploitation, and are far more likely to fall for false promises made by bad actors. So, establishing a more permissive system of rules governing immigration and naturalization may actually reduce the trafficking problem by giving them something to look forward to without having to depend on someone who doesn't have their best interest in mind.

By the way, I’m not suggesting amnesty or a more permissive process solves every potential problem. I don’t know if anything will. It occurs to me that improved economic conditions in Mexico might help, but my point is that a wall is not a real solution. It’s an extremely expensive fantasy likely to create more problems than it solves, even if it were to be approved. And since it's always brought up in the context of stopping Mexicans from crossing the border illegally, it will always carry the stink of racial and/or cultural bias for a lot of people.

In any case, getting back to the topic of this protest, you and I agree that the person who put up the sign likely did so out of racial or cultural bias, aided and abetted by the words of a sadly serious presidential candidate. The students who protested in response had a right to do so, no matter what we say here and regardless of whether they fully understood why they have the rights they do. And good for them.