Trump Is First GOP Candidate to Release Detailed Plan for Immigration!

[ClydeR]

Once again setting the standard for Republican candidates, Donald Trump yesterday became the first presidential candidate of 2016 to publish a detailed immigration plan. He promises to release more position papers gradually over the coming weeks. While the other candidates try to avoid describing their policies, Trump boldly makes his views known.

Tump's immigration paper calls for ending birthright citizenship, deporting people who are here illegally, and building a wall that Mexico will pay for. Sounds like a winner to me.

He's also giving kids free rides on his helicopter!

http://i372.photobucket.com/albums/oo166/rmi08a/bush-mexico_cap_zpsw2aav1lr.jpg

Ben Carson, who also has a lot of good ideas, is now in second place.

[elcidcannon]

I'm sure it's going to rub a lot of people the wrong way and it'll require fixing the (14th?) amendment, but ending birthright citizenship would do a lot to keep people from illegally coming over here (see: anchor babies/birth tourism).

[Androidpk]

Building a wall is just about the stupidest idea ever.

[Taernath]

Building a wall is just about the stupidest idea ever.

He wants to compete with China for 'Biggest Wall'.

Actually... that makes far too much sense.

[Latrinsorm]

I'm sure it's going to rub a lot of people the wrong way and it'll require fixing the (14th?) amendment, but ending birthright citizenship would do a lot to keep people from illegally coming over here (see: anchor babies/birth tourism).It rubs me the wrong way that you parrot someone else's talking points without thinking them through.

[elcidcannon]

It rubs me the wrong way that you parrot someone else's talking points without thinking them through.

I appreciate your homage to the Department of Redundancy Department, but parroting already implies thoughtless regurgitation.

I look forward to your thoughts on why the birthright citizenship is a necessary and productive part of the 14th.

[elcidcannon]

With the exception of citizenship by parentage.

[ClydeR]

The 14th Amendment to the Constitution says, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." Trump says it doesn't count if you sneak into the country illegally just to have a baby.


Under the 14th Amendment, O’Reilly told Trump on “The O’Reilly Factor,” mass deportations of so-called birthright citizens cannot happen.

Trump disagreed, and said that “many lawyers are saying that’s not the way it is in terms of this.”

“What happens is, they’re in Mexico, they’re going to have a baby, they move over here for a couple of days, they have the baby,” Trump said, telling O’Reilly that the lawyers said, “It’s not going to hold up in court, it’s going to have to be tested.

More... (http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/donald-trump-bill-oreilly-interview-121515.html)


“I don’t think they have American citizenship, and if you speak to some very, very good lawyers — some would disagree. But many of them agree with me — you’re going to find they do not have American citizenship. We have to start a process where we take back our country. Our country is going to hell. We have to start a process, Bill, where we take back our country,” Trump said.

There is a way to do it, O’Reilly said, in amending the Constitution.

Trump also said that he would not pursue an amendment to the Constitution to remedy the situation.

“It’s a long process, and I think it would take too long. I’d much rather find out whether or not anchor babies are citizens because a lot of people don’t think they are,” he said. “We’re going to test it out. That’s going to happen, Bill.”

[elcidcannon]

Yeah I'd be very interested to see how it holds up. There are requirements for citizenship by parentage (when children are born to US citizens overseas) for how long/how recently the parents must have lived in the US. Even adding a provision such as that towards children born here would go a long way to prevent abuse of the amendment.

[Candor]

The 14th Amendment to the Constitution says, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." Trump says it doesn't count if you sneak into the country illegally just to have a baby.

Well the 14th Amendment doesn't say anything about the matter, so guess what Trump, you're wrong.

Personally I wish the 14th Amendment did say something about illegal immigration, but it doesn't.

[drauz]

I think it would have to be tested in court. The closest supreme court cases I could find was United States v. Wong Kim Ark.

"In Wong Kim Ark the Supreme Court held that, under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, a man born within the United States to foreigners (in that case, Chinese citizens) who have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States and are carrying on business in the United States[3] and who were not employed in a diplomatic or other official capacity by a foreign power, was a citizen of the United States."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizenship_Clause

I think that looks pretty cut and dry though that "anchor babies" are citizens.

[Shaps]

--who have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States and are carrying on business in the United States[3]

That is not an anchor baby. And living in a place for a month till you drop a kid, and you are here illegally, should not count.

[Androidpk]

Eh, there are far more important things to be concerned about IMO, it's the economy stupid.

[Shaps]

So, someone didn't like my earlier "scientific experiment".. but what about this one.

You are at work.. you come home to find someone had broke in and just delivered a baby in your living room.. you are now responsible for his healthcare, education, and well being.

Would you allow that?

[Shaps]

Eh, there are far more important things to be concerned about IMO, it's the economy stupid.

Rough numbers again, but close:

11-15 million illegals in the US.

Lets say 75% of them work in some capacity.

That is roughly 10 million people working here illegally.

Would you rather legal citizens have those jobs? Would that not help the economy?

To take it a step further, lets say each of those averaged 50 dollars a day. Nothing extravegant. That comes out to near 200 billion a year in lost income for actual citizens.

[Androidpk]

So, someone didn't like my earlier "scientific experiment".. but what about this one.

You are at work.. you come home to find someone had broke in and just delivered a baby in your living room.. you are now responsible for his healthcare, education, and well being.

Would you allow that?

Talk about apples and oranges..

[Androidpk]

Rough numbers again, but close:

11-15 million illegals in the US.

Lets say 75% of them work in some capacity.

That is roughly 10 million people working here illegally.

Would you rather legal citizens have those jobs? Would that not help the economy?

To take it a step further, lets say each of those averaged 50 dollars a day. Nothing extravegant. That comes out to near 200 billion a year in lost income for actual citizens.

Oh noes, they're taking jobs that Americans don't even want!

[Shaps]

Oh noes, they're taking jobs that Americans don't even want!

So you hate Americans and think they're lazy, tired, worthless, have no work ethic?

Or is it you consider immigrants a slave class that should, and does, only work the shitty, low paying jobs?

[Shaps]

Talk about apples and oranges..

And that is not apples and oranges.. it is exactly what you are doing.. if you are a tax payer.

[Androidpk]

So you hate Americans and think they're lazy, tired, worthless, have no work ethic?

Or is it you consider immigrants a slave class that should, and does, only work the shitty, low paying jobs?

I think you are absurd is what I think.

[Shaps]

Here's an alternative for you.. to alleviate the financial burden the US bears for illegals in the country.

Scrap the whole tax code.. and go to a 20% consumption tax on everything. 5% on food. But 20% on everything else.

That way.. everyone in the country.. legal, illegal, on vacation, whatever.. is helping support the Nation.

[Tgo01]

Fuck all this shit. I'm voting for Deez Nuts.

[Androidpk]

I would rather base my opinion of actual data instead of silly anecdotal questions. There are both pros and cons to illegal immigrants and it needs to be explored in depth.

[~Rocktar~]

Here's an alternative for you.. to alleviate the financial burden the US bears for illegals in the country.

Scrap the whole tax code.. and go to a 20% consumption tax on everything. 5% on food. But 20% on everything else.

That way.. everyone in the country.. legal, illegal, on vacation, whatever.. is helping support the Nation.

Pretty sure that someone suggested a 13 percent one would do just fine, but I would be 100% behind a VAT/consumption tax and pretty much eliminate the IRS and make political and religious institutions taxable equally.

[kcostell]

For reference: Germany (which is the first country where I could find all this data for) has a value added tax of 19%, which brings in roughly 11.2% of their GDP in taxes (total taxation in Germany (http://www.keepeek.com/Digital-Asset-Management/oecd/taxation/revenue-statistics-2014_rev_stats-2014-en-fr#page93) is 35.7% of GDP, and 31.5% of taxation income is VAT).

Total taxation in the United States is 24.0% of GDP. So if we wanted to switch to a VAT or something similar, we'd be talking about a 40% rate.

[Kembal]

Anchor babies is such a useless term. It would currently take 31 years to legally gain citizenship via a US citizen child. (21 years for the kid to become an adult so that they can sponsor you for citizenship, and then 10 years of residing outside the country before gaining legal entry as a citizen)

I'm going to posit that the 14th amendment's guarantee of birthright citizenship is not a serious consideration for illegal immigrants.

Before someone starts arguing "amnesty!", you may want to remember that an actual amnesty would apply even if you didn't have a US citizen child, so that's not a consideration here.

Ending birthright citizenship would devastate legal immigration though, and that seems like a great way to kill our country. (for a second, I wondered if that'd take away my citizenship if that ever occurred, but my mother naturalized before I was born. I would have nephews and nieces though that would lose their citizenship, assuming the change was retroactive. The proposals coming from the GOP sound like they would be.) Pretty much every minority community in the US would vote Democratic if this keeps up.

[elcidcannon]

Anchor babies is such a useless term. It would currently take 31 years to legally gain citizenship via a US citizen child. (21 years for the kid to become an adult so that they can sponsor you for citizenship, and then 10 years of residing outside the country before gaining legal entry as a citizen)

I'm going to posit that the 14th amendment's guarantee of birthright citizenship is not a serious consideration for illegal immigrants.

That timeline may be true, but I imagine many parents who come to the US solely to have a child do it for the benefit of their child and not necessarily to secure citizenship for themselves (although it may also be more difficult to deport/remove the parents of a newborn US citizen, but that's pure speculation on my part).




Before someone starts arguing "amnesty!", you may want to remember that an actual amnesty would apply even if you didn't have a US citizen child, so that's not a consideration here.

Ending birthright citizenship would devastate legal immigration though, and that seems like a great way to kill our country. (for a second, I wondered if that'd take away my citizenship if that ever occurred, but my mother naturalized before I was born. I would have nephews and nieces though that would lose their citizenship, assuming the change was retroactive. The proposals coming from the GOP sound like they would be.) Pretty much every minority community in the US would vote Democratic if this keeps up.

I think there should be change, but I don't think it should be retroactive.

[Androidpk]

The GOP is just keen on shooting themselves in the feet I think.

[Parkbandit]

Eh, there are far more important things to be concerned about IMO, it's the economy stupid.

Obama already fixed that.

Der.

[Ruh]

Take back our country? He's going to take over England? That's where the Trumps are from.

[Astray]

Yeah, illegals are the biggest problem. Once those folks are sent to their own country, the US will be fucking fantastic.

[Kembal]

That timeline may be true, but I imagine many parents who come to the US solely to have a child do it for the benefit of their child and not necessarily to secure citizenship for themselves (although it may also be more difficult to deport/remove the parents of a newborn US citizen, but that's pure speculation on my part).

They come to the US because they have hopes of a better life and they can find work. Citizenship for their unborn children is incidental. In other words, they'd come anyway.



I think there should be change, but I don't think it should be retroactive.

Those in the GOP that are pushing for this recognize the impossibility of passing a constitutional amendment (which easily could be worded to not be retroactive). They instead are trying to push for a Supreme Court reinterpretation that denies birthright citizenship to any child whose parents aren't citizen or green card holders.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/birthright-citizenship-constitution

Such a reinterpretation would be pretty much retroactive, unless the Supreme Court can tie itself in knots and figure out a way to make it not. I don't think they can.

[elcidcannon]

They come to the US because they have hopes of a better life and they can find work. Citizenship for their unborn children is incidental. In other words, they'd come anyway.

I'm sure there are some who cross the border illegally, while near-term in pregnancy, who seek work, and that having the child here, automatically a US citizen, is a purely unintended benefit. I also think those numbers are small compared to those who seek a better life for their child and cross the border illegally for the sole purpose of having their child on US soil.

Unfortunately, I don't think there are numbers to support either side. Tie!

[elcidcannon]

Those in the GOP that are pushing for this recognize the impossibility of passing a constitutional amendment (which easily could be worded to not be retroactive). They instead are trying to push for a Supreme Court reinterpretation that denies birthright citizenship to any child whose parents aren't citizen or green card holders.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/birthright-citizenship-constitution

Such a reinterpretation would be pretty much retroactive, unless the Supreme Court can tie itself in knots and figure out a way to make it not. I don't think they can.

Sucks. Even though it's (I believe) been an abuse of the system, we've been turning a blind eye and should allow those who benefited to keep citizenship.

[Candor]

Sucks. Even though it's (I believe) been an abuse of the system, we've been turning a blind eye and should allow those who benefited to keep citizenship.

Even those with a prison record?

[elcidcannon]

Even those with a prison record?

Yes, but I'm only referring to those with citizenship due to being born here.

Everyone else who is illegal or undocumented (depending on your lean) should go and come back in the right way; and we should probably re-vamp the immigration system so that those without a criminal record have an easier time coming back.

[Archigeek]

I think we need more immigrants, and we've made it far too difficult to immigrate legally. Let's open up the gates like the good old days when most of our ancestors entered the country.

[Parkbandit]

I think we need more immigrants, and we've made it far too difficult to immigrate legally. Let's open up the gates like the good old days when most of our ancestors entered the country.

Why even have a gate? Isn't it every person's Constitutional Right to be an American if they want to be?

[Archigeek]

Why even have a gate? Isn't it every person's Constitutional Right to be an American if they want to be?

Because we don't want you to leave PB.

[Parkbandit]

Because we don't want you to leave PB.

Why would I leave?

But seriously, why do you insist on even having a gate? Our ancestors could come and go as they please and if it was good enough for them, why can't it be good enough for us?

[Shaps]

Good discussion all around so far in this post.

A few things:

People that are naturalized citizens, green card holders, or currently in the system applying for citizenship.. if they have a child here, of course they should be afforded citizenship.

Those that come over the border illegally, knowing if they have a child here they will become a citizen, and most likely not impose deportation on the parents.. that practice should be cut off. And for those that say there are not many that do this..

There are trips from countries all over the world put together by "travel agencies" that look for mothers close to term, and they all fly over on a tourist visa then have the child, so that the child will have US citizenship. Especially in Japan, Korea, China, etc.. This is a common practice.

As for just opening the gates, that was at a time when the country was still being established and the US was being formed. Through politics, laws, and societal changes we have become what we are. There is nothing wrong with a country that wishes to enforce it's sovereignty and expect of those that come to it, to adhere to the laws. If you do not like those laws, or process.. there are hundreds of other countries that they can move to.

Lastly, and here is a novel idea.. if you do not like your country, IMPROVE your country.. We as America did it.. and killed a million+ of our own citizens fighting each other to become what we wanted to be. No American should be ashamed they are American, they should also realize how blessed they are to have been born here.. but it does not obligate us as a country to take care of everyone else in the world, that was born in another place.

We can have sympathy for their situation, help through economic aid, medical suppliles, charity.. but if we allow everyone to just come into the country.. then we will simply become those other countries.

[Androidpk]

Shaps, you'd be great over at Fox news.

[Shaps]

Shaps, you'd be great over at Fox news.

If you care to express your opinion about anything I said, feel free.

Don't just fall back on a cliche one liner, that you think answers the questions or comments posed.

Expected more from you.

[Shaps]

By the way..

You must hate immigrants, because you said you would not allow them to live in your house, or care for a baby born in your living room. Xenophobic bastard.

[Androidpk]

If you care to express your opinion about anything I said, feel free.

Don't just fall back on a cliche one liner, that you think answers the questions or comments posed.

Expected more from you.

I'm just pointing out the obvious. You're coming across as the conservative version of Back.

[Shaps]

I'm just pointing out the obvious. You're coming across as the conservative version of Back.

? For what?

Stating a country should be able to enforce it's sovereignty?

Saying there is a common practice around the world, where people abuse our system and come here explicitly to have a baby and skirt the laws?

Saying that there are hundreds of other countries people can live in if they don't like the process to become a US citizen?

Saying that we killed 1 million+ of our own to form our Nation, and fought to form the type of country we want?

Saying that others around the world should work on improving their own country?

I guess I'm just a crazy, right wing, Fox news, immigrant hating, nutjob then.

I also think they should get rid of "participation trophies". Guess I hate kids too.

[Androidpk]

For dumb shit like this

"We can have sympathy for their situation, help through economic aid, medical suppliles, charity.. but if we allow everyone to just come into the country.. then we will simply become those other countries."

Is illegal immigration ideal? Of course not. There are two sides to every coin though. You're just too naive and simple minded to see beyond your fear mongering.

[Shaps]

For dumb shit like this

"We can have sympathy for their situation, help through economic aid, medical suppliles, charity.. but if we allow everyone to just come into the country.. then we will simply become those other countries."

Is illegal immigration ideal? Of course not. There are two sides to every coin though. You're just too naive and simple minded to see beyond your fear mongering.

Then explain why? How is illegal immigration good? How is knowingly breaking the laws of a country good? How is breaking those laws, and using that criminality to recieve benefits good?

What is the other side of the coin?

So are you advocating that it's perfectly fine to break a countries laws and benefit from it? That citizens of that country should be okay with it? When it is they that are paying for the lawbreakers benefits?

Help clarify my ignorance. Perhaps you mistake my naivety or simple mindness, for someone who doesn't get emotionally attached to an issue and thinks logicallly.

I'm sure you'll have another great retort, that doesn't answer shit again though. Just standard name calling and deflection.. typical traits by people who can not make an actual point.

[~Rocktar~]

For dumb shit like this

"We can have sympathy for their situation, help through economic aid, medical suppliles, charity.. but if we allow everyone to just come into the country.. then we will simply become those other countries."

Is illegal immigration ideal? Of course not. There are two sides to every coin though. You're just too naive and simple minded to see beyond your fear mongering.

Just because someone does not agree with your position does not mean they are simple minded or hate filled. After all, you love your child even when you must punish them. It is hte same principle, I don't expect you to understand it because you have demonstrated on these boards that lack the self control and maturity to recognize that.

[Shaps]

And before you say something silly about the emotional turmoil..

We already have a system in place for political refugees.

We already have a LEGAL path to citizenship.

We are a Nation of immigrants, for immigrants, and accepting of immigrants. As a Nation, we spend more money around the world than the next 100 countries combined to help impovereshed people in other countries. Through personal donations and charities, our populace are the most generous in the world.

But, I guess those facts are lost on others.. and we should just let whoever, whenever come here and be awarded the same benefits as the actual law abiding, tax paying citizens of the country.

[Vorpodu]

Why would I leave?

But seriously, why do you insist on even having a gate? Our ancestors could come and go as they please and if it was good enough for them, why can't it be good enough for us?

Because terrorists. By the way, that statement wins all arguments.

[Androidpk]

Here are some questions to consider.

How many Americans are lining up for the migrant farming jobs that most illegals take? The country is dependent on agriculture yet fewer and fewer Americans are going into this line of work.

What do these people do with the money they make? Arethey spending it in local stores? Sounds to me like a boon for stores in the area.

What about money they are paying into social security? Illegals cannot collect SS and reports have shown illegal immigration puts billions of dollars into SS yearly.

What about the cost of full on deportation? You're looking at billions of dollars a year, every year.

[Androidpk]

Just because someone does not agree with your position does not mean they are simple minded or hate filled. After all, you love your child even when you must punish them. It is hte same principle, I don't expect you to understand it because you have demonstrated on these boards that lack the self control and maturity to recognize that.

Coming from you of all people this is hilarious.

[shad0ws0ngs]

building a wall will just increase violence and drug costs, nothing useful.

[Androidpk]

building a wall will just increase violence and drug costs, nothing useful.

Not to mention insanely expensive to build and it wouldn't even be very effective.

[Shaps]

Finally some questions and thought to spur the discussion. Thanks.

I blame the citizens that will not take those jobs for that. They are decent paying, blue collar jobs that need doing. I think people look down on farming jobs nowadays. When it is a good way to make a living and support a family. I think if the hiring of illegals was greatly curtailed, or penalized, then job hiring campaigns would increase and Americans might get their head out of their asses and realize that there are good jobs out there to be had. Especially as entry positions to learn, work while they go to school, and use it as a starting block to advance their career.

On that note, I do not like seeing people think that illegals are some "slave class" to be used for menial labor and relegated to no potential elevation of status through hard work... due in part to their own illegality and the employer's knowledge that they can shortchange their workers some (either in pay, benefits, or advancement), because of that status.

As for the money.. that is why I proposed getting rid of the whole tax code, and go to a flat consumption tax. That way, regardless of legal status.. everyone stepping foot on US soil, is contributing to the economy fairly. 20% consumption tax on everything.. except food, water, and healthcare.. put those at a flat 5%. (Someone did some math earlier, the 20% was a number I came up with, but they were saying would have to be closer to 40% - but that could be reduced if we could get the Government to stop spending so much money and actually work in a budget I think).

As for full on deportation.. That would be a pain in the ass.. but so are a lot of things in this life. I am for a solid work visa program (renewable yearly).. I am for expanding our legal immigration cap yearly from (1 million I think?) to 2 million per year.. I am for Student Visas (renewable yearly).. I am for more stringent rules on US companies to only hire work visa approved people, and if they don't apply heavy fines.. I am for expediting the approval process for those who have tried to come here legally and been delayed over 8+ years in recieving their citizenship.. You get the idea, there are plenty more out there..

I am not for people breaking the laws that we as a Nation have decided upon, and expecting us to just like it. And as we discuss and improve the immigration system, they should wait.. as millions do each year.. Legally.

[Shaps]

http://www.kgns.tv/home/headlines/Mexican-government-cracking-down-on-rules-for-international-travel-322406232.html

Want to see some irony? Read that.

Want to see what it takes to become a Mexican citizen? Read this, with some links in it.

http://rollybrook.com/mexican_citizenship.htm

[Warriorbird]

Yes, my conservative friends, there really are such a thing as Trump voters.

[Latrinsorm]

I appreciate your homage to the Department of Redundancy Department, but parroting already implies thoughtless regurgitation.Parrots is smarter than dolphins, they is!
I look forward to your thoughts on why the birthright citizenship is a necessary and productive part of the 14th.1. That's not the opposite of what you said.
2. You being wrong doesn't necessarily make the opposite of your position right.
3. But since you ask, it prevents us from creating a racial underclass (again).

What you said was that ending birthright citizenship would do a lot to keep people from coming here illegally. This first of all doesn't make sense on its face. Birth tourism is an absolutely legal practice: foreigners enter the country like any other kind of tourist, then leave. As to anchor babies, children born to illegal immigrants do not anchor them to the United States in any significant way. The only figure I found puts it at less than 1 out of every 200 (http://cis.org/north/anchor-baby-mechanisms) grants of legal permanent residency to immigrants.

[Latrinsorm]

Those that come over the border illegally, knowing if they have a child here they will become a citizen, and most likely not impose deportation on the parents.. that practice should be cut off. And for those that say there are not many that do this..

There are trips from countries all over the world put together by "travel agencies" that look for mothers close to term, and they all fly over on a tourist visa then have the child, so that the child will have US citizenship. Especially in Japan, Korea, China, etc.. This is a common practice.People who are here on a tourist visa are by definition here legally.
We can have sympathy for their situation, help through economic aid, medical suppliles, charity.. but if we allow everyone to just come into the country.. then we will simply become those other countries.Since the birth of our country there have been people like you saying things like that. Luckily, since the birth of our country there have been more people like me... which led to the people that are specifically you and me being in this country.
Then explain why? How is illegal immigration good? How is knowingly breaking the laws of a country good? How is breaking those laws, and using that criminality to recieve benefits good?It is good if it produces more benefits than detriments. Since you brought up the Civil War, this is the same way that the criminals who ran the Underground Railroad were good.
We are a Nation of immigrants, for immigrants, and accepting of immigrants.You should look up the quota (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1965) we place on legal Mexican immigration, and the circumstances of its origin.

[Androidpk]

I'm agreeing with Latrin, the psychosis must be getting to me.

[elcidcannon]

1. That's not the opposite of what you said.
Ok, got me.

2. You being wrong doesn't necessarily make the opposite of your position right.
true statement

3. But since you ask, it prevents us from creating a racial underclass (again).

What you said was that ending birthright citizenship would do a lot to keep people from coming here illegally. This first of all doesn't make sense on its face. Birth tourism is an absolutely legal practice: foreigners enter the country like any other kind of tourist, then leave. As to anchor babies, children born to illegal immigrants do not anchor them to the United States in any significant way. The only figure I found puts it at less than 1 out of every 200 (http://cis.org/north/anchor-baby-mechanisms) grants of legal permanent residency to immigrants.

Sure, everything you said is correct. I, apparently incorrectly, was not pigeonholing 'anchor baby' solely to gain a legal status:


more important is the hidden, undocumented, and uncounted influence of the presence of a U.S.-citizen child in the household of an illegal alien; officials are less likely to deport the parent of such a child than they are to deport an alien who is otherwise similar, but childless.

[Shaps]

People who are here on a tourist visa are by definition here legally.Since the birth of our country there have been people like you saying things like that. Luckily, since the birth of our country there have been more people like me... which led to the people that are specifically you and me being in this country.It is good if it produces more benefits than detriments. Since you brought up the Civil War, this is the same way that the criminals who ran the Underground Railroad were good.You should look up the quota (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1965) we place on legal Mexican immigration, and the circumstances of its origin.

Latrin.. that is a "tourist visa".. not a right to have a baby while on vacation and become a US citizen. I stated in other comments, that I fully understand if someone is here legally on a work visa for a number of years and has a kid, then of course that kid should be a US citizen.

Your second point... In the past.. it took 3 months by boat to get here. It took mail months to travel. Our nation was new, laws were forming, and you would not have an influx of millions in a year. Our country made laws... if you want to try to talk in the context you just did.. then you must disagree with every immigration law that has been established and think they should be abolished. I didn't make the laws, I'm only asking for their enforcement. Or change them.

Do you really think it produces more good? For who? The civil war, and the 14th amendment, were made to afford those here, and their children citizenship.. at that time.. so people could not claim former slaves or indentured servants were not actually "citizens".. which was a noble act.. not how it currently is and "come on vacation have a kid and be a US citizen".. That's just fucking asinine.

I'll read through the quota and get back to you. Thanks for the link.

[Shaps]

Okay read through the link you sent Latrin.. interesting actually.. and yet telling.

I don't bias things on color, only culture/origins/etc.. so please don't call me racist for what I'm about to say..

I'm all for LEGAL immigration.. which would require ASSIMILATION into our culture. It adheres to the laws passed, and ensures we legally allow immigrants who will BENEFIT our society and country as a priority.

I am not for illegal immigration.. and in numerous instances people feel they do not have to adhere to the country's laws.. but yet they want to live here, and use certain laws to their benefit.

I stand by my statement.. travel around the world.. see how other countries are.. if you enjoy that.. live there.. then try to become a citizen of that country and see how long that takes.. or better yet, try to live there illegally, and see what happens if you are caught.

We are a generous and prosperous nation. We are a country of immigrants. Our forefathers/mothers formed what we now take for granted. And if we continue to allow illegal immigrants to move in.. we will just become the same as all the other Nations around the world.

Maybe you want that. That's okay, but admit it. Myself? I don't.. because if we become like everyone else.. then where do people strive to go? Then who helps the poor and needy in other parts of the world?

I understand the idea of "equality". The idea of "all created equal". And, you know what.. everyone is. Only the difference is.. what a person chooses to do with that given right. Either flee their homeland and recieve benefits from what we have formed.. or improve their own homeland?

Whatever, done discussing this. Some just are going to think what they want. Excellent discussion all.

[Shaps]

Last thing.. for those that think the 14th Amendment is supposed to mean.. "You are automatically an American citizen if born within it's geographical borders" argument.

******

Post-Civil War reforms focused on injustices to African Americans. The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 to protect the rights of native-born Black Americans, whose rights were being denied as recently-freed slaves. It was written in a manner so as to prevent state governments from ever denying citizenship to blacks born in the United States. But in 1868, the United States had no formal immigration policy, and the authors therefore saw no need to address immigration explicitly in the amendment.

In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by stating:

"Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."

This understanding was reaffirmed by Senator Edward Cowan, who stated:

"[A foreigner in the United States] has a right to the protection of the laws; but he is not a citizen in the ordinary acceptance of the word..."

The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was intended to exclude American-born persons from automatic citizenship whose allegiance to the United States was not complete. With illegal aliens who are unlawfully in the United States, their native country has a claim of allegiance on the child. Thus, the completeness of their allegiance to the United States is impaired, which therefore precludes automatic citizenship.

***

So argue with the writers and original intention of the law. Or you are going to claim, the writers of the law at the time are Fox News proxies as well?

[Androidpk]

It is the Supreme Court's job to interpret laws, not Congress.

[Shaps]

It is the Supreme Court's job to interpret laws, not Congress.

So if the court's look at it.. and the intent of the WRITER's of the law.. then this should be an easy case. Anchor babies are NOT US citizens.

Actually, those that support illegal immigrants should be the one that are forced to amend the 14th Amendment. The onus should be on them, as their current interpretation of the law.. is not what the writers of the law intended or drafted.

So, better get to filing the legal documents for your Supreme Court hearing, and Congressional lobbying.

[Ruh]

Sounds like the new war on drugs is going to be the war or illegal immigrants. We all know how the war on drugs turned out. They are going to be here no matter what. Really isn't more of a criminal issue rather than an immigration issue.

[Androidpk]

So if the court's look at it.. and the intent of the WRITER's of the law.. then this should be an easy case. Anchor babies are NOT US citizens.

Actually, those that support illegal immigrants should be the one that are forced to amend the 14th Amendment. The onus should be on them, as their current interpretation of the law.. is not what the writers of the law intended or drafted.

So, better get to filing the legal documents for your Supreme Court hearing, and Congressional lobbying.

Why should it be on me? You're the one that has a problem with it. Have you written to your congressman/women about this? What did they say?

[Androidpk]

Also, lol at easy case.. it's like you have no grasp of how government actually works :)

[Shaps]

Also, lol at easy case.. it's like you have no grasp of how government actually works :)

The problem is.. I understand exactly how it works.

I have just shown you the written/transcribed intent of the WRITERs of the law.. and you still want to contest what the law itself means. Sadly I know our Government.. and most people.. do not have any common sense.. and will ignore the most blantant evidence presented to them.. if it does not fit their idea of what things should be.

/shrug.. and that is why we.. as a Nation.. are fucked in about 100 years.

[Shaps]

Why should it be on me? You're the one that has a problem with it. Have you written to your congressman/women about this? What did they say?

Again.. because I just showed you what the WRITERs of the law intended the law to be/mean.

Hence the onus would be on others, if they choose to read it differently. Me? I'll side with who actually wrote it.

[Warriorbird]

Birthright citizenship happened before then... unless you mean the fact that it was denied to some people based on race? Is that what you want to go back to?

Seems pretty damn un-American to me but I'll gleefully watch the Republican Party shoot inward.

[Shaps]

Birthright citizenship happened before then... unless you mean the fact that it was denied to some people based on race? Is that what you want to go back to?

Did you even read what I wrote? Or you talking to PK?

The 14th Amendment was put in place to ensure Blacks were not denied their citizenship upon being freed. That is a noble endeavour.

It was not intended for people to just show up, have a baby, and recieve immediate rights to the country.

Stop trying to bring race into this. Because immigration has nothing to do with race (or shouldn't at least.. I hope it doesn't), but Nationality.

[Androidpk]

Again.. because I just showed you what the WRITERs of the law intended the law to be/mean.

Hence the onus would be on others, if they choose to read it differently. Me? I'll side with who actually wrote it.

Doesn't matter what that Senator said, it is still up to SCOTUS to interpret.

[Warriorbird]

Did you even read what I wrote? Or you talking to PK?

The 14th Amendment was put in place to ensure Blacks were not denied their citizenship upon being freed. That is a noble endeavour.

It was not intended for people to just show up, have a baby, and recieve immediate rights to the country.

Stop trying to bring race into this. Because immigration has nothing to do with race (or shouldn't at least.. I hope it doesn't), but Nationality.

People showed up, had kids, and they received rights long before the 14th amendment. It just didn't happen if they weren't white. This is obviously what you want to come back. It's fine to have this as a view. It just denies the spirit of America in a similar way to the Know Nothing Party and the KKK. They supported/support similar measures.

[Shaps]

People showed up, had kids, and they received rights long before the 14th amendment. It just didn't happen if they weren't white. This is obviously what you want to come back. It's fine to have this as a view. It just denies the spirit of America in a similar way to the Know Nothing Party and the KKK. They supported/support similar measures.

Stop trying to be a troll. And thinking just because you try to equate what I'm saying to the KKK. Very, very weak argument.

And again, the 14th Amendment was put in place to ensure such a practice of denying rights to people was put in place for. But it was not intended for people to break the sovereign rights of a Nation.. and assume they automatically are given those rights just because they had a child inside it's geographical borders.

Stop being a race baiter WB. I know you're a troll, but that is just a shallow attempt at it.

[Warriorbird]

Stop trying to be a troll. And thinking just because you try to equate what I'm saying to the KKK. Very, very weak argument.

And again, the 14th Amendment was put in place to ensure such a practice of denying rights to people was put in place for. But it was not intended for people to break the sovereign rights of a Nation.. and assume they automatically are given those rights just because they had a child inside it's geographical borders.

Stop being a race baiter WB. I know you're a troll, but that is just a shallow attempt at it.

People who were white immigrated frequently, had children, and those children became citizens.

What you're doing is putting the burden on the people of Mexico to defeat drug cartels that control over 50% of their country so that they don't have to pay corrupt officials huge bribes to "legally" get into our country and try to have a better life.

That's the very opposite of what "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free..." stands for. If you can't see that maybe you don't get how our country works.

I'll gleefully benefit from you working against your own political party (many of the people who benefit from illegal immigration included) though. Maybe I'll even support it... campaign for Trump like I did the Libertarians in my state's election for Governor.

[Shaps]

WB.. I actually agree with most of what you said. And I appreciate a thoughtful response. Could have done without the last portion, as I don't subscribe to a political party. You just think I do.

You are correct though.. I do put the burden on Mexico, or any country, to fight for their own country versus the drug cartels and other crime. I understand their officials are corrupt. I understand many in that country live in fear. But you are right.. I would love to see them rise up and kill anyone associated with the cartels and destroy them. I want people to fight for their homelands and make them the type of place they want to live.

To do that, as I said.. we as a Nation have provided more assistance financially, militarily, and politically than any other nation on earth.. That does not mean we as a Nation should allow people to break our laws.

Earlier I made some recommendations for a revised LEGAL immigration system to make this process easier for those that want to come here. If we as a country change the laws that says "anyone can come across with no papers or process".. then so be it. At least then it's been through the legal process by which we claim to exist.

But the fact is, our country will not sustain itself if we do not police who enters our country. That is just simple math economically, unless some drastic changes occur in the next 15-20 years, setting us up for the next 100+.

[Parkbandit]

Stop trying to be a troll. And thinking just because you try to equate what I'm saying to the KKK. Very, very weak argument.


LOL. It's all he has.

But he's "gleeful!"....

[Androidpk]

But the fact is, our country will not sustain itself if we do not police who enters our country. That is just simple math economically, unless some drastic changes occur in the next 15-20 years, setting us up for the next 100+.

I asked you before about this simple math. I'd like to see the numbers as well as your source.

[Latrinsorm]

Latrin.. that is a "tourist visa".. not a right to have a baby while on vacation and become a US citizen. I stated in other comments, that I fully understand if someone is here legally on a work visa for a number of years and has a kid, then of course that kid should be a US citizen.The right is granted to the child by the 14th Amendment. Neither a work visa nor a tourist visa nor any other visa grant a parent the right to have a baby and become a US citizen.
Your second point... In the past.. it took 3 months by boat to get here. It took mail months to travel. Our nation was new, laws were forming, and you would not have an influx of millions in a year. Our country made laws... if you want to try to talk in the context you just did.. then you must disagree with every immigration law that has been established and think they should be abolished. I didn't make the laws, I'm only asking for their enforcement. Or change them.You have specifically and repeatedly argued for the abridgment of birthright citizenship.
Do you really think it produces more good? For who?For society.
I'm all for LEGAL immigration.. which would require ASSIMILATION into our culture. It adheres to the laws passed, and ensures we legally allow immigrants who will BENEFIT our society and country as a priority.Into whose culture? I can promise you that your culture is not representative of everyone in America.
We are a generous and prosperous nation. We are a country of immigrants. Our forefathers/mothers formed what we now take for granted. And if we continue to allow illegal immigrants to move in.. we will just become the same as all the other Nations around the world.The irony here is that we are one of the very few countries that DO offer birthright citizenship. Getting rid of it would be a concrete step towards becoming like other countries.
So argue with the writers and original intention of the law. Or you are going to claim, the writers of the law at the time are Fox News proxies as well?Senators Howard and Cowan were not the only writers of the amendment, and Senators Trumbull and Conness expressed a different intent. None of that is relevant, because we are a nation of laws and not a nation of intents. What the law says is what matters, and the law says children born in these circumstances are citizens.