Two-Thirds of Americans Favor Citizenship for Illegal Immigrants

[Fargo]

Maybe and maybe not. Study the 14th Amendment carefully, in particular this caveat: "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof."

The Founding Fathers added this qualifier for a reason. What that reason is lies at the heart of whether "anchor babies" are citizens. A child born to parents (both) who are in the country illegally may well not past this test.

Couple of things; the 14th amendment was not written by the founding fathers or anyone like the founding fathers. It was written by Yankee senators after the Civil War. Second, there is over 100 years of Supreme Court jurisprudence on the matter, all of which says you are incorrect. Let me know when you get all that consistent caselaw overturned.

 

[TopDog]

Looks like Rubio's original plan actually took the will of the people into consideration. It's pretty certain that Trump didn't. And this has been the outlook of the people in this country for the best part of the last decade. Candidates had better be paying attention.



Two-Thirds of Americans Favor Citizenship for Illegal Immigrants - Hit & Run : Reason.com

So you allow and encourage millions of illegals into the country. Then you poll them to see if they favor your liberal agenda. Classic, just classic. I wonder what a honest poll would reveal.

 

[Fargo]

Sounds like a rationale for Gastarbeiter. Or maybe drop the minimum wage and cut disability and welfare programs so people have an incentive to work and better themselves?

Beautiful ideas, unfortunately the Republican Party seems hellbent on thwarting any functional Braceros guest worker program. As to the latter, I would love to see our government stop robbing Peter to pay Paul to vote for them, but I don't see it happening.

 

[Peter Potamus]

Couple of things; the 14th amendment was not written by the founding fathers or anyone like the founding fathers. It was written by Yankee senators after the Civil War. Second, there is over 100 years of Supreme Court jurisprudence on the matter, all of which says you are incorrect. Let me know when you get all that consistent caselaw overturned.

The language of the Amendment was purposely written to reflect the same debates that had taken place 80 years prior. While the Amendment was not from the days of the signing, the caveat I have referenced in the 14th was added because of the same concerns that were expressed during those days. Neither in 1787 or 1866 was there an intent to say that, with no exceptions, those born here are citizens. The emphasis on those born here being citizens, no matter what, came much later and for politically agenda-driven reasons (that which you incorrectly labeled jurisprudence.) Nothing ever happens in America anymore until it's far too late and people become scared. When we finally get there, and the masses realize their way of life is quickly ending, the case law you reference may be chucked aside overnight.

 

[Fargo]

The language of the Amendment was purposely written to reflect the same debates that had taken place 80 years prior. While the Amendment was not from the days of the signing, the caveat I have referenced in the 14th was added because of the same concerns that were expressed during those days. Neither in 1787 or 1866 was there an intent to say that, with no exceptions, those born here are citizens. The emphasis on those born here being citizens, no matter what, came much later and for politically agenda-driven reasons (that which you incorrectly labeled jurisprudence.) Nothing ever happens in America anymore until it's far too late and people become scared. When we finally get there, and the masses realize their way of life is quickly ending, the case law you reference may be chucked aside overnight.

What exactly were the"politically agenda driven reasons" of 1898 you are referencing? Also just exactly how did that affect the Supreme Court and it's previously lifetime appointed members?

I was under the impression that the political winds of the time were the opposite of pro-Chinese....

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649

 

[OakRiver]

Couple of things; the 14th amendment was not written by the founding fathers or anyone like the founding fathers. It was written by Yankee senators after the Civil War. Second, there is over 100 years of Supreme Court jurisprudence on the matter, all of which says you are incorrect. Let me know when you get all that consistent caselaw overturned.

Beautiful ideas, unfortunately the Republican Party seems hellbent on thwarting any functional Braceros guest worker program. As to the latter, I would love to see our government stop robbing Peter to pay Paul to vote for them, but I don't see it happening.

What exactly were the"politically agenda driven reasons" of 1898 you are referencing? Also just exactly how did that affect the Supreme Court and it's previously lifetime appointed members?

I was under the impression that the political winds of the time were the opposite of pro-Chinese....

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649

Have you been able to find any information yet on how much in a $ amount illegal immigrants contribute to the US economy?

 

[Dead Duck]

Have you been able to find any information yet on how much in a $ amount illegal immigrants contribute to the US economy?

I am positive that the number starts with "Negative" and ends with a whole bunch of "Zeros".

 

[OakRiver]

I am positive that the number starts with "Negative" and ends with a whole bunch of "Zeros".

As am I, but as the claim was made that removing illegal immigrants would result in the "US economy sharply and painfully contracting" I wanted to see if there was any credible evidence.

 

[Dead Duck]

As am I, but as the claim was made that removing illegal immigrants would result in the "US economy sharply and painfully contracting" I wanted to see if there was any credible evidence.

When in CA, the main Liberal response to deportation was - "We'd all starve because there would be nobody to pick our produce".
I heard this over and over. It was sad.

 

[Fargo]

Have you been able to find any information yet on how much in a $ amount illegal immigrants contribute to the US economy?

You are comparing apples to oranges. Depending on which study you believe, there is either a small negative or positive net $ effect on GDP.

That, however, is not what I was referring to. I was referring to the economic effects of plucking several million laborers out of an economy via the deportation plans that some on here propose. Whether they are currently a net positive or negative negative to the economy is largely irrelevant to that calculation. You can't dramatically reduce an economy's bases of cheap labor without it having serious effects way beyond the simple net negative or positive that they have on a stable GDP.

For example, the big three automakers were for sometime a net negative to the US economy. However, if we simply deported those corporations and all of their employees, it would not constitute a net positive to the GDP. Instead, we would cripple our economy in a number of ways including but not limited to wrecking our own transportation system.

All the magical deportation plans that many on here are advocating would do is cripple our construction and food industries, along with some of our manufacturer.

 

[Dead Duck]

You are comparing apples to oranges. Depending on which study you believe, there is either a small negative or positive net $ effect on GDP.

That, however, is not what I was referring to. I was referring to the economic effects of plucking several million laborers out of an economy via the deportation plans that some on here propose. Whether they are currently a net positive or negative negative to the economy is largely irrelevant to that calculation. You can't dramatically reduce an economy's bases of cheap labor without it having serious effects way beyond the simple net negative or positive that they have on a stable GDP.

Oh, the cost of deporting them all.
I will gladly donate my time for booking the flights and all my air miles to get this done. If everyone pitches in, we'll get it done in no time.

When do we start?

For all the other "effects" we will suffer of having millions of criminals disappear overnight? I think America will be able to handle it.
Another reason to celebrate with a new American holiday.
Adiós Fiesta Day

 

[1DOWN4UP]

Illegals are now sueingBreitbart ^

 

[oldpink]

It's remarkable how the two refrains about illegal aliens are that "they're here to do the jobs that Americans won't do" and "they're just coming here to better their lives."
Meanwhile, our worker participation rate is at a record high, even higher than the next lowest level, during the 1970s, but it's a good thing we have that covered, right?
Also, in response to the second refrain, does anyone ever stop to consider that there is nothing unique or particularly noble about "wanting to better your life," i.e. yes, someone following our laws and working hard wants to better his life, but wouldn't that also apply to the guy who breaks into houses or robs banks?
Does anyone honestly believe that it instills respect for our laws and national sovereignty for people to just walk across our national boundaries, make up fake ID and Social Security numbers?
After all, the very first thing the illegal aliens did upon entering this country was their very act of sneaking into our country illegally.
How can that possibly encourage a mentality of these people as anything other than clandestine invaders?

 

[Grease]

I am positive that the number starts with "Negative" and ends with a whole bunch of "Zeros".

I read a few years back it was to the tune of over $45 BILLION per year getting sent south of the border through western union alone. I can't remember exactly where it was that I read it but, I do remember it being a credible source.

 

[AA&E]

I read a few years back it was to the tune of over $45 BILLION per year getting sent south of the border through western union alone. I can't remember exactly where it was that I read it but, I do remember it being a credible source.

This is absolutely true. Hispanics send a huge amount of money out of this nation to support their families back home. This directly impacts our local economy. Overall, the cost far outweigh any potential or perceived gains. Personally, I don't see any gain for anyone except those coming here to take our a) jobs, b) land (when we aren't allowed to buy where they came from), c) welfare, d)run up unpaid medical bills at area hospitals passing the costs on to us, e) send enormous amounts of cash out of our local economy and to another nation, f) create the need for Spanish speaking teachers to educate their non-native language speaking students, g)increased expense due to elevated crime....

and the arguments I get in favor are who will pick our produce and clean Donald Trump's toilet?

 

[OakRiver]

You are comparing apples to oranges. Depending on which study you believe, there is either a small negative or positive net $ effect on GDP.

That, however, is not what I was referring to. I was referring to the economic effects of plucking several million laborers out of an economy via the deportation plans that some on here propose. Whether they are currently a net positive or negative negative to the economy is largely irrelevant to that calculation. You can't dramatically reduce an economy's bases of cheap labor without it having serious effects way beyond the simple net negative or positive that they have on a stable GDP.

For example, the big three automakers were for sometime a net negative to the US economy. However, if we simply deported those corporations and all of their employees, it would not constitute a net positive to the GDP. Instead, we would cripple our economy in a number of ways including but not limited to wrecking our own transportation system.

All the magical deportation plans that many on here are advocating would do is cripple our construction and food industries, along with some of our manufacturer.

Your claim was that; "Deport every illegal and that giant sucking sound you hear is the US economy sharply and painfully contracting. God forbid we give them a way to get legal rights and a fair wage..."
https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...zenship-illegal-immigrants-2.html#post6010603

I asked you for the data that supported this claim. I am uncertain how you interpret this to mean that I am comparing apples to oranges. Either their is credible evidence to substantiate your claim, or there is not.

Your latest post quoted above continues to claim that the economy would suffer as without exploiting illegal aliens you believe it would "cripple our construction and food industries, along with some of our manufacturer.". I would ask again to see the figures that you are basing this claim on. How many illegal aliens are employed in these industries? What percentage of the workforce do they make up? What to these individuals contribute to the economy? What is the $ impact of replacing them with Americans/legal aliens?

You cannot make the claim that removing illegal aliens will "cripple" the US economy, or cause it to "painfully contract", and at the same time say that "Whether they are currently a net positive or negative negative to the economy is largely irrelevant to that calculation".

 

[OakRiver]

Oh, the cost of deporting them all.
I will gladly donate my time for booking the flights and all my air miles to get this done. If everyone pitches in, we'll get it done in no time.

When do we start?

For all the other "effects" we will suffer of having millions of criminals disappear overnight? I think America will be able to handle it.
Another reason to celebrate with a new American holiday.
Adiós Fiesta Day

If that is what the alleged financial burden is then as I said previously change the conditions to be less favourable for illegal aliens and they will remove themselves. That mitigates against any cost to the tax payer

 

[cobber]

And yet, many Blue cities will still offer 'sanctuary'...

 

[OakRiver]

And yet, many Blue cities will still offer 'sanctuary'...

If they don't comply with Federal laws then perhaps they should not receive Federal funding.

 

[Fargo]

Your claim was that; "Deport every illegal and that giant sucking sound you hear is the US economy sharply and painfully contracting. God forbid we give them a way to get legal rights and a fair wage..."
https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...zenship-illegal-immigrants-2.html#post6010603

I asked you for the data that supported this claim. I am uncertain how you interpret this to mean that I am comparing apples to oranges. Either their is credible evidence to substantiate your claim, or there is not.

Your latest post quoted above continues to claim that the economy would suffer as without exploiting illegal aliens you believe it would "cripple our construction and food industries, along with some of our manufacturer.". I would ask again to see the figures that you are basing this claim on. How many illegal aliens are employed in these industries? What percentage of the workforce do they make up? What to these individuals contribute to the economy? What is the $ impact of replacing them with Americans/legal aliens?

You cannot make the claim that removing illegal aliens will "cripple" the US economy, or cause it to "painfully contract", and at the same time say that "Whether they are currently a net positive or negative negative to the economy is largely irrelevant to that calculation".

You can't remove 11 million people from an economy and not expect that economy to contract. Anytime you remove both production and consumption from an economy it will contract. There are no two ways around that.

You really are comparing apples to oranges. You keep talking about the efficiency of a stable economy while I am talking about the size of economy. They are not the same thing and the efficiency of a stable economy is largely irrelevant to what an economy of a diminishing size will be.

No matter what 11 million people you remove from the US economy, it's going to contract. When you pick almost completely cheap laborers to remove, it's going to contract even more.