GOP Officeholders more interested in enforcing laws on the books than grabbing headlines.

While South Dakota Democrats are making their focus claiming the GOP candidates are just like Donald Trump because they are going to vote for him, the truth is much farther off.

If you noticed this AM, the Argus Leader took a break in political coverage from fawning over Rick Weiland, and noted that the Republican candidates aren’t exactly in lockstep with GOP Presidential Nominee Donald Trump when it comes to his comments about building a wall between the US and Mexico:

The Republican incumbents say they want better security at the borders and tougher penalties on people who enter the country illegally, but neither is fixated on Trump’s vision for a physical barrier.


“We’re a country with a history of welcoming people but we’re also a country of laws,” Sen. John Thune said. “We want to provide incentives to people who are going to come here and play by the rules, not illegal immigrants who are going to come and become citizens after they’re granted amnesty.”


Noem said the country’s top priority needs to be restoring security at the border and providing additional resources to aid border patrol agents. She said she doesn’t support Donald Trump’s proposal to deport millions of illegal aliens but wouldn’t support amnesty for immigrants that have arrived in the United States illegally.

“We certainly do not have control over what is going on at our border,” Noem said. “I believe we need to build a wall where it makes sense.”

Read it all here.

It sounds like the GOP candidates want to enforce the laws and responsibilities the Federal Government has, but isn’t honoring. Before we start digging deeper into the issue.

Maybe not sensationalistic. But we hire them to do a good job. And that’s what they’re doing.

36 Replies to “GOP Officeholders more interested in enforcing laws on the books than grabbing headlines.”

  1. Anonymous

    Isn’t doing nothing basically saying we are going to give you amnesty but you are going to be a second class citizen and work for less and run a higher risk of ending up in the sex trafficking industry? Basically Noem said she doesn’t want to deport or make them citizens so they are here.

    Noem said the country’s top priority needs to be restoring security at the border and providing additional resources to aid border patrol agents. She said she doesn’t support Donald Trump’s proposal to deport millions of illegal aliens but wouldn’t support amnesty for immigrants that have arrived in the United States illegally.

    1. Springer

      I don’t think it’s possible to deport millions of illegal immigrants either. But I also do not want to grant them amnesty as such. (1) If they are here and they didn’t come legally, and if they are law abiding and self-supporting, then they can stay, but they will never be a citizen and never be able to vote. (2) Stop the anchor babies. (3) Secure the border with increased agents, technology, wall, probably all of the above depending on the places. (4) Get rid of sanctuary cities. (5) If the visa program for temporary workers needs fixing, then fix it. (6) Instead of flooding Mexico with pamphlets telling their citizens how to get US freebies and benefits, flood Mexico with pamphlets stating that the party is over, there will no longer be freebies for illegal immigrants, they will no longer be able to get across the strengthened border, and if they do, they will be returned. (7) Legal immigrants from wherever will have to have a sponsor, become self-supporting within a certain limited amount of time, and be healthy (just as it was in times past). (8) No immigrant from a country that abets terrorism; if an immigrant does come here and then commits terrorism, his family will be deported back home immediately. (9) Extreme vetting.

      1. Noddy Holder

        Please explain “stop the anchor babies.” That sure sounds like Big Government. But then I don’t believe for a second Big Business wants to do away with cheap labor, either. Take a look as you drive around town at who’s doing the ditch digging, roofing, yard work, painting, and construction. Drive out to Pierre and see who’s cleaning game and wrangling the dogs at those “world class” hunting preserves.

      2. Anonymous

        I would also put (10) Fine the living Hades out of employers that knowingly hire those who are here illegally; that would shut off the jobs that they come here to get. (11) If you are an American citizen on welfare and don’t apply for jobs that you feel are beneath you, you get your welfare check cut; you should not consider any job beneath you if you need to feed your family.

      3. duggersd

        Actually, following the law will deport the illegal immigrants. If they are not allowed to work, not allowed to gain access to gov’t. programs, and cannot get health care unless they are in an emergency situation, they will leave. In my little world, I would fine employers at a very high rate and make it not worth the effort to pay people under the table. Also, there is another side to the sword. If there are not any illegal immigrants to do some of those jobs at a lower rate, employers will be forced to increase wages and there will necessarily be higher costs to consumers.

  2. Anonymous

    I lost a lot of respect for Noem with this terrible position that hurts immigrants, Americans and shows her desire to not take a position.

    1. Anon

      What are you reading her position as? Because I read it as: border security first. If you lost respect for her from that I suspect you were never a fan.

    1. Anonymous

      Photo op, how original. I suppose you don’t run for any office because you realize people would never elect you to represent them, or else you are so inarticulate that you realize you could never spit out a coherent sentence in public.

  3. Anonymous

    Anything short of deportation is a form of amnesty, and one of the most essential parts of stopping further illegal immigration is to build an impenetrable border wall. It is disheartening that the members of our Congressional delegation do not understand those fundamental truths or chose to ignore them because they are too deep in the pockets of the Chamber of Commerce members who want cheap labor.

    1. Anonymous

      You’re not supposed to vote when you’re dead (unless you’re a Demoncrat). Oh, wait. I get it! You were trying to say you will vote for whoever you want to. Yes, this is America, and we are all allowed to vote for idiots.

  4. Troy Jones

    Noddy Holder,

    Thanks for pointing out the “stop the anchor babies.” I agree with the list of prescriptions except that comment. People born on US soil are US citizens as per our Constitution. Unless one is proposing a Constitutional Amendment, the only way to “stop” them is to abort them.

    1. Springer

      The amendment allowing anchor babies was never in any way intended to be used as it is now, to encourage illegals to have a baby on US soil so that baby will “anchor” them to US citizenship. This needs to be changed, and if it takes a constitutional amendment to do so, then that should be done. Your comment about the only way to stop this is to abort them is ridiculous, and not a comment I expected from you.

    2. Anonymous

      Does the anchor baby allow the parents to stay here (or overstay here) due to them having a child here? If so, that needs to be stopped. Mom and dad can leave the kid here, but they need a sponsor citizen who can watch the child an PAY FOR the child, but mom and dad need to get out when their visa expires.

      1. Springer

        That never happens because you “can’t break up families”. Well, then the illegals should have thought about that in the first place!

    3. duggersd

      Troy, I believe the “anchor babies” question has never actually been tested in court. By tradition they have been considered citizens. Some people claim this is a misinterpretation as to what was intended at the time. Personally, I believe it is worth asking the question in the courts, although I doubt SCOTUS will change anything. Now, some people might say that since the 14th amendment has been interpreted in the way it has for so long, it should just go on being interpreted as it is. Sort of like the idea of marriage being between one man and one woman….

  5. Anonymous

    Hawks, Williams, and the rest of the socialists will vote for Hillary, so they are stupid for doing that. I guess I’d rather have a rep who votes for Trump than for the establishment darling, Hillary.

    Do people still read the Argus Liar?

  6. Troy Jones

    Dugger, it was tried in the late 1800’s with regard to the child of Chinese immigrants. If I recall the case correctly, the Chinese government wanted to have an entire family expatriated for some reason but the court ruled the child couldn’t be expatriated because she was born in the US and thus a US citizen.

  7. Troy Jones

    Dugger, you are right the facts are different as you mention. However, sometime legal principles get applied in ways that transcend facts. The same constitutional law groups who are laying the groundwork for overturning Roe v. Wade also advocate citizenship is a birthright without regard to the status (or wishes) of the parents. These Constitutional lawyers say that if anything with regard to the status/wishes of the parents becomes relevant (including the legal status of the parents of a child born here) it makes overturning Roe v. Wade virtually impossible without a Constitutional Amendment.

    1. duggersd

      Well, Troy, I am not going to disagree that if the case went before the courts that the status of “anchor babies” would most likely be established as citizens.Our courts do not seem to care much about what the Constitution says anymore. My only point is that it has not been tested and probably should be.

  8. Troy Jones

    Dugger, that isn’t my point. I have no idea what the result will be if changed. My point is that if the status of parents are relevant in this area, Constitutional lawyers who advocate the overturning of Roe v. Wade believe it will effectively kill any chance of Roe v. Wade being overturned. Be careful what you wish for.

    1. Anonymous

      Rich women have full reproductive freedom while those on the margins tend to give birth then apply for public assistance. Pro-life is simply code for white people breeding.

      1. Springer

        That is a purely racist statement, but then again the founder of Planned Parenthood was a racist and was for abortion to decrease the number of Black births in this country. She later changed her mind as I understand, but that is the reason for Planned Parenthood in the first place.

        Maybe people of all races should have a little more personal responsibility. If you don’t do the deed, or do it irresponsibly, you won’t end up with a pregnancy you don’t want.

        I highly doubt that Roe vs Wade will ever be overturned in this country anyway, so just let’s go ahead and address the issue of anchor babies. This could and should be fixed.

        1. Anonymous

          Seriously, how many women do you know in the Standing Rock Nation who can jump on the plane and fly to Denver or Minneapolis and have her procedure?