The President Trump Immigration Thread

[KG1]

There will always be people looking to exploit American exceptionalism then. Just gotta get here and anchor that baby.

 

[JettaKnight]

The president claimed we're the only country that allows this. NPR claims there's 14. Who's lying? Will we allow that party to lie to America?


Also, I really don't care for the vast generalization that "these people" are a drain on the American support system for 85 years. Is their any evidence to support that claim? Or could it be that they are an asset? I need more data, not nationalistic pandering.


I was told by INGO to not be deluded, so I'm trying to think critically.

 

[JettaKnight]

There will always be people looking to exploit American exceptionalism then. Just gotta get here and anchor that baby.

Gotta respect that level of determination, no?

That certainly makes for a good work ethic. Far better than many native Americans... wait, that phase doesn't work right... well, you know what I mean.


PS- Why isn't Sylvain taking advantage of this?

 

[Route 45]

The president claimed we're the only country that allows this. NPR claims there's 14. Who's lying? Will we allow that party to lie to America?


Also, I really don't care for the vast generalization that "these people" are a drain on the American support system for 85 years. Is their any evidence to support that claim? Or could it be that they are an asset? I need more data, not nationalistic pandering.


I was told by INGO to not be deluded, so I'm trying to think critically.

There are several countries that offer birthright citizenship. None that anyone are flocking to, though, with the possible minor exception of Canada:

https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/countries-who-offer-birthright-citizenship.html

Trump didn't lie, he misspoke. It's ok...Democrats do it all the time, and no one bats an eye.

 

[EMDX6043]

To be honest, I didn't really agree with the birthright thing YEARS ago, even before I became "politically aware".

From Route 45's link:

 

[KG1]

Gotta respect that level of determination, no?

That certainly makes for a good work ethic. Far better than many native Americans... wait, that phase doesn't work right... well, you know what I mean.


PS- Why isn't Sylvain taking advantage of this?

Well if it works and it's supposedly covered (never been tested) by the Constitution then why not give it a shot.

 

[EMDX6043]

The president claimed we're the only country that allows this. NPR claims there's 14. Who's lying? Will we allow that party to lie to America?


Also, I really don't care for the vast generalization that "these people" are a drain on the American support system for 85 years. Is their any evidence to support that claim? Or could it be that they are an asset? I need more data, not nationalistic pandering.


I was told by INGO to not be deluded, so I'm trying to think critically.

Yeah, I'm leaning this way. Upon further personal reflection, my father was born overseas and my mother was born in the U.S.

So, where does that put me and my brother-both born in Illinois?

I amend my previous position.

 

[JettaKnight]

There are several countries that offer birthright citizenship. None that anyone are flocking to, though, with the possible minor exception of Canada:

https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/countries-who-offer-birthright-citizenship.html

Trump didn't lie, he misspoke. It's ok...Democrats do it all the time, and no one bats an eye.

Oh, it's OK?



I'll remember that.

 

[HoughMade]

Oh, it's OK?



I'll remember that.

I don't know what Trump said, exactly, or what NPR said, but birthright citizen is not simply birthright citizenship. Every country has exceptions, limitations, conditions, it can be removed, etc. The U.S. may be alone in having the type of birthright citizenship that it has- automatic, unconditional, cannot be removed. I don't know....Trump probably doesn't either.

 

[Route 45]

Oh, it's OK?



I'll remember that.

Good. You'll be a lot less frustrated when you understand how things work.

 

[Hohn]

[video=youtube_share;YadFEDZPLWU]https://youtu.be/YadFEDZPLWU[/video]

 

[T.Lex]

It does need to be fixed. Sneaking across the border to have a free delivery and become a citizen should not be rewarded.

Fair enough. You're looking for Article V.

 

[HoughMade]

It does need to be fixed. Sneaking across the border to have a free delivery and become a citizen should not be rewarded.

Chain migration is a bigger problem though

By supporting the continuation of "birthright" citizenship, I am, in no way, supporting the notion that this should allow parents illegally in the country to stay here. The kid can stay and they must go or they can take their kid with them and raise them in their country of citizenship. Either way, people here illegally have to go.

As for chain migration, yeas, that needs to be severely curtailed.

 

[mmpsteve]

Sometimes we need to look at the intent of the writers of the Constitution, and the various Amendments. No way in Hell will you convince me they intended for a pregnant woman to literally swim or wade the Rio Grande, give birth five minutes later, and for that child to be a full US citizen, with all the rights contained therein. It doesn't pass the smell test, nor common sense. I'm not a Constitutional scholar, but some things just don't make sense. Has anyone here studied this subject in depth, and be willing to shed light on the intent of the legislators that passed the pertinent ammendment?

 

[MCgrease08]

Sometimes we need to look at the intent of the writers of the Constitution, and the various Amendments. No way in Hell will you convince me they intended for a pregnant woman to literally swim or wade the Rio Grande, give birth five minutes later, and for that child to be a full US citizen, with all the rights contained therein. It doesn't pass the smell test, nor common sense. I'm not a Constitutional scholar, but some things just don't make sense. Has anyone here studied this subject in depth, and be willing to shed light on the intent of the legislators that passed the pertinent ammendment?

Here is a link to the Senate's original record of the 1866 debate where the 14th Amendment's drafter, Jacob Howard, said it would NOT apply to "persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens" et al. (Relevant text in the middle column, about 2/3 of the way down.)

A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 - 1875

 

[HoughMade]

So all of a sudden we're not interested in what the words of the Constitution actually say?

We're back to 2nd Am. applies to muskets because that's all they knew at the time.

 

[indiucky]

I stole this from MC...He gets the credit......

 

[HoughMade]

I stole this from MC...He gets the credit......

Well here's the thing. The words speak for themselves. It's all well and good for even the person who originally wrote and offered the amendment to say "well I really didn't mean all", but "all" is what the amendment says. If he meant "not foreigners, aliens, etc." that should be in the amendment.

A more logical reading of the quoted portion above would be read in conjunction with the "and subject to their jurisdiction" only excludes people born here who are not subject to the jurisdiction of the states. In other words, children born to foreign nationals which are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

All people in the U.S. from everywhere, except those with a brand of diplomatic immunity, are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. The only logical reading of the text...if we care what the text says... is that if you are born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction of its laws, you are a citizen. Any other reading is not textual.

I will not invite activist judges to see limitations and clauses not in the text of the Constitution even if they see it "my way".

 

[MCgrease08]

So all of a sudden we're not interested in what the words of the Constitution actually say?

We're back to 2nd Am. applies to muskets because that's all they knew at the time.

I'm not sure who your question is directed toward. I'm sure some will try and argue intent vs the actual text of the amendment. I think you'll find that when the interpretation of any amendment arises. I only posted the link to the text of the debate because I found it interesting. It doesn't include my personal feelings on the matter one way or another.

Like you, I feel the text of the amendment is fairly straight forward, but I'm not a constitutional scholar or expert in case law by any means.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Seems to me the words about regulating a militia and those subject to the jurisdiction thereof mean what they meant when the writers wrote them or they mean whatever those with the most votes want them to mean.