I've always felt America should change its immigration laws to treat illegal aliens the same as their county of origin treats illegal aliens

Which probably has more to do with Trump's soaring popularity than anything else, along with his promise to block Muslim immigrants from coming to the U.S.

The wall he proposes is an ambitious project. I wonder how he intends to do it. To build anything on the flood plain of the Rio Grande would violate the Boundary Treaty of 1970 between the U.S. and Mexico. An impermeable wall, assuming it can stay up, will force flood waters into Mexico. Plus, as DHS has experienced in the past (but refuses to learn from), walls built in flood plains do not last.

He could always go further into the United States, but that would necessitate using eminent domain to dispossess the landowners of some of their property. Something that Texans have not taken kindly to in the past.

Were I involved in Trumps campaign I'd urge him to proclaim as so many people are against the wall he has changed his mind, and as his first act as president would be to sign an executive order to tear down the border wall that liberals built along the California boarder under president Clinton and have never protested once in all these years

He doesn't need to build a wall. He just needs to outlaw Home Depot.

It's nice that Ms. Martinez has a full scholarship to Yale. What happens when she graduates?

She is here illegally. She cannot be hired by any reputable company. I don't care what degree she gets. While she is living in the US illegally her earning potential is sub minimum wage.

I don't know if her parent's country of origin will even take her back. She could be a woman without a nation. She certainly isn't the first smart person to end up in this situation. And it is rather sad she hasn't looked to find out what happened to others.

@Ben,

A friend of mine married that kind of woman. She has an MBA, graduated top of her class, got caught by the INS after a DUI incident; and the Judge told her that because she grew up in the USA (She arrived legally when she was 4 but parents didn't bothered to renew her papers and she didn't either of course)she could try and apply for a visa in eight years instead of being permabanned from entry.

Well, she's earning top money and managed to acclimate to the Caribbean. The drawback is that after work she just flops on the sofa and does nothing at all, because when she was in the USA, she lived with an old couple that had maid service.

She doesn't even bother to care of her kids, and had been in fights with her husband because she tends to go out to party even if the kids are sick.

I'm glad that the illegal status is being promoted.

It's allowing the legals to begin stating "That's my job you are taking." or "Get in line.".

If you think I'm joking I'm not. My friend from Russia's son has not been allowed to immigrate although his parents did (and they were working for upper politico types) so she's missing out on her kid and grandkids.

I know many working at labor jobs only types and they are not happy about illegals getting their jobs.

Like any true negotiator Trump opens up the discussion w/a bold statement to get his price. After that the best negotiator or most powerful party gets the best deal.

We the people are not getting the best deal at all.

Wow. She really illustrates the horror of "living in the shadows".

Cool. It would be nice if she would go back to Mexico to help make it a decent place to stay. They seem like they could use some smarter people down there.

>> She's not getting special treatment

She's not been deported because she is a Latina and benefits from a defacto exemption from immigration laws. If she were a Lithuanian, African, or Asian, she and her family would have had to deal with the law long ago.

It's very dangerous to encourage the development of an ethnic block that identifies by their estrangement from the larger society. We've seen the results at Trump rallies, where bands of young people freely assault citizens under the banner of their home country.

If they were really so oppressed and marginalized, they wouldn't feel free to do that, and they wouldn't be protected by the Press and political establishment.

There you go:

California moves closer to health insurance for undocumented residents

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/california-moves-closer-to-health-insurance-for-undocumented-residents/

I don't know if her parent's country of origin will even take her back. ~ Ben at June 12, 2016 5:26 AM

They'll take her. A US educated women with fluency in American English and familiarity with US customs. And if she doesn't get kicked out of Yale for being illegal (not "undocumented," illegal), then she'll have a valuable college education. Yeah, they'll take her.

The question is, what will she do when she gets there? She came here when she was very young. She has no friends there. She presumably speaks limited Spanish and has little familiarity with the culture of her country of origin. She'll be a stranger in her own land.

The thing is, as a class valedictorian and with a Yale degree, she'll have a chance at being a productive citizen here, depending upon her major. Why deport her at this point? We've spent good coin making her into a potentially productive citizen. She'll pay income taxes for the next 40 years. Let's get our money back.

She's fully assimilated, so the major issue we have with illegal aliens is resolved in her case.

That's not the point Conan.

We need to start citizens to force our Congress to fix "problems".

As long as everyone is happy (she gets an education that could have gone to a "legal", no one has to make the HARSH decision to actually do something unpleasant to someone, etc.) Congress does nothing except sell their souls.

Her parents and she may have paid their way but there are others that have/can not.

They may/probably want to but can not due to their "lacks" (education, skills, etc.). That's a shame but a fact.

We have the right to decide who attends our party since we are paying for it. The "let's let everyone in" people are not being challenged as they should be.

Might as well start w/these two. It's got to happen sometime.

Conan: "She's fully assimilated, so the major issue we have with illegal aliens is resolved in her case."

Well, I do get your point; but, I don't agree with the "fully" assessment of yours. If she were "fully" assimilated she would not be "proud" of being an illegal. She would not be advocating that there is nothing wrong with breaking laws for your (or your children's) betterment. She is doing both of those - so, no, I don't agree that she is "fully" assimilated.

And, further, she might very well end up being "productive" by going to law school, getting a law degree, only to help even MORE illegals break the laws to come here without being fair to other law-abiding immigrants.

Deport her. Yea, yea, yea, it isn't "her" fault. So what! Make an example out of her and other "children" so that the message gets out that you cannot break the law without it hurting your children and their future. You came illegally, then you AND your children do NOT belong. Get out!

Let's be clear here, it is unlikely that either one of these girls will actually graduate from these institutions. While both are bright and share a work ethic, they are both walking into academic buzz saws. If they can't do better than a 4.9 or 4.5 in their own high schools, they won't do well in fast paced, highly competitive schools like Yale and UT.

At my daughter's high school, also in Texas, the valedictorian graduated with a 5.6. The next 10 kids were very close behind at between a 5.4 and a 5.5. In this school tenths of points matter. Miss 4.5 wouldn't even crack the top 10% here and while Miss 4.9 would just make it, I am guessing she would have a harder time reaching that 4.9 here.

So what's going to happen is that they will get to their larger ponds and find out pretty quickly how unprepared they really are and then will search for "the reason why"? I am sure the answer won't be, I should have gone to Texas Tech or Texas State instead of giing to the most competitive instution I could find that needed to fill a quota; it will be racism. This is the saddest part of this story. If they were to attend a good solid university that is not too competitive, they could be very good students and live their dreams. The current situation is only setting them up for failure and angst and they will be left forever wondering why the hell it all went so wrong. Very sad.

I'm afraid the numbers just aren't comparable between schools Sheep Mommy. I know some schools where a 4.0 is more rigorous than a 5.6. I have no way to tell what any of those numbers mean for these girls. Also, you are correct about UT. They burn through students as fast as they can. Yale, not so much. It is hard to get into the ivys. But staying is easy.

Conan, like Charles I doubt they will be productive citizens. They will probably work towards a degree in the grievance industry. We have plenty of special snowflakes all ready. Now, if a president wants to pardon them for political points I'll be unimpressed, but hey it's his prerogative.

We have the right to decide who attends our party since we are paying for it. The "let's let everyone in" people are not being challenged as they should be. ~ Bob in Texas at June 12, 2016 12:30 PM

Fully agree. We do have the right to decide who attends our party.

How do you propose we get rid of the millions of party crashers already here? I don't like amnesty programs, but the logistical difficulties of deporting millions while also shielding ourselves against the invasion of millions more is going to require something more than a easily surmounted wall and an angry "get out!"

Although, to concede a point, her brazenness in announcing to the world in a public forum that she's an illegal immigrant doesn't indicate (a) that she's all that bright and (b) that our laws against illegal immigration are all that scary. So, maybe we should deport her and her parents just because she's that stupid.

Just enforce the employment laws Conan. The wall is a pointless bit of showmanship. It flat won't work. But the vast majority of the illegals in the US are economic migrants. If they can't find work they will leave. Obama clearly demonstrated this. By crapping out the US economy he has quite effectively shut down illegal immigration. And the bright side is no new laws need to be passed. The president just needs to enforce our current ones.

"The wall he proposes is an ambitious project. I wonder how he intends to do it. "

I suspect most of it won't be a physical wall. About ten years ago, the company I used to work for was working with INS on a "virtual fence" project. The project failed because INS didn't have any experience with procuring technology projects, and they didn't know what to ask for or what to pay / not pay for.

Things have advanced a lot since then. The Army and Air Force have technologies ready to roll, if and when they can get permission and funding.

As far as the illegals who are already here, I agree that it isn't practical to deport all of them, although that doesn't constitute an excuse for not trying. We can focus on the ones that are committing crimes and causing problems -- DUI, squatting, theft, vandalism, welfare and Social Security fraud, not to mention violent crimes. For the ones that have pursued clean lives since arriving, I'd be willing to consider -- once the borders are secure -- allowing them to apply for some kind of limited residency status. Basically, it would give them permission to remain and to seek jobs under the same terms as citizens (which means they have to be paid minimum wage and have all taxes deducted). It would include the rights to get a driver's license, buy property for a personal residence and place their children in public schools. It would not include rights to vote or possess a firearm. Conviction on any misdemeanor or felony would result in immediate deportation (not subject to appeal), along with spouse and minor children.

From that status, they would be allowed to pursue legal immigration and eventually citizenship, but they would have to apply and wait in line like everyone else does. Securing the border is a prerequisite to all of this.

While being valedictorian in any school is an accomplishment, I'd wager that the young lady from Austin's test scores are probably lower than most of the kids in the top 20% at Westlake High School, which is perhaps a 20-minute drive from Crockett High School.

I don't know which young lady plans to attend UT and which one is going to Yale, but I'll wager now that the one at Texas has a decent chance at making it while the Yale girl drops out and ends up at some little catholic school in San Antonio (or maybe Texas State or University of Houston).

Just enforce the employment laws Conan. ~ Ben at June 13, 2016 5:56 AM

Good luck selling that one to the voters. Mitt Romney tried to sell self-deportation and that went over like a lead balloon. Of course, so did Romney in general, so the self-deportation idea may have Romney-less legs.

Decades of lax enforcement of those laws has left us with millions of illegal immigrants, not all of whom came here seeking legitimate work and will self-deport when they cannot find it. Deporting those immigrants is going to take money and effort. And when you have "sanctuary cities" like San Francisco and states like California trying to legitimize illegal immigrants in open defiance of national law, that's going to be a tough and expensive proposition.

Obviously some voters, foolish though they may be, are in favor of amnesty and since they vote, their concerns must be given consideration.

Conviction on any misdemeanor or felony would result in immediate deportation (not subject to appeal), along with spouse and minor children. ~ Cousin Dave at June 13, 2016 7:18 AM

Not a bad policy, but I foresee problems arising that are similar to those caused by the Third Strike laws. Crimes escalating in severity in an effort to hide the perpetrator's identity to avoid the add-on punishment.

We are in a 50/50 situation Conan. Many people want open borders and universal citizenship. Many people vigorously and near violently oppose that. There is no acceptable compromise position. You pick one or the other. But a wall is pointless. Relatively few people go over the border that way as is. Adding a wall would change little.

But a wall is pointless.

Then tear down the one across the California border