Any more Ukraine aid is to tied to securing our southern border

It is "pretty simple" if you're the sort of chap who doesn't care what the Constitution says.

 

The majority of people in welfare have someone in the household working. Children on free or reduced lunch make up a large chunk of these recipients. The biggest group of people receiving benefits who don't work are senior citizens. School kids and senior citizens are not a good replacement for immigrant work!

I also don't buy the US will turn into a third world country bull. The US is a nation of immigrants. We're also chock full of idiots, past and present who argue we shouldn't allow this group or that group in, because they'll turn the country into a shithole. 125+ years ago it was people with NINA signs against the Irish. 50 years ago saw Operation Wetback. And now, we have Trump quoting Hitler and blood poisoning. It's all racist bullcrap.

Cesar Chavez was anti immigrant. He was worried the new arrivals would work for cheaper wages and hurt the citizen Hispanic families already here. But that never happened. The Hispanic citizen kids went to school, graduated high school, and some college, and became middle class. It's why today, we still have millions of undocumented immigrants in our workforce, doing the same or similar jobs. And why DREAMers don't work those jobs, because they all have at least a high school education, and can get better jobs.

No politician who understands basic economics wants to do what Trump is proposing. It's spending billions to cause millions in GDP loss and upwards to double digit inflation. In short, we all lose.

 

People on food stamps generally already have jobs. Often multiple jobs. Same with Section 8 housing and just about every other government assistance program with the exception of Social Security.

No, you can't make prisoners go work the fields. That is absurd. It takes about two seconds to figure out why that is a bad idea. Obvious security concerns. Obvious lack of knowledge about how to actually do the job. Obvious ethical concerns and issues of moral hazard (encouraging incarceration as a method to obtain cheap labor).

That creates an incentive to utilize illegal labor. The more difficult and risky you make the process, the less likely people are to use the legal process and will instead utilize illegal processes. However, if you want to create an actual pathway where labor is matched with needs in somewhat of an efficient pathway, that would make sense (although, there is no reason that we should waste money in this sort of a system to send labor we need away before bringing it back in).

Given the current legal channels, which are not at all related to supply-and-demand in labor and are instead command-and-control mechanisms. Free markets are generally better than government at allocating resources.

I suppose I have a lot more confidence in people and America than you do. We spent the first 150 years of this country's history with functionally uncontrolled immigration (in which higher proportions of the country were immigrants than now). Did it destroy America? No, it actually made it exceptionally flexible and driven. Over a few generations, families that immigrated here ultimately contributed in ways that enriched this country monumentally. They did so in ways that they never would have in the largely poor and troubled areas where they originated (Ireland, Southern Italy, Eastern Europe, etc.). That is what made America truly unique. Unfortunately, in the 1920s, fears around race made us end that, and now, we have an aging and relatively less innovative society which is less capable of utilizing flexibility to better meet changing needs going forward than it would be if we didn't try to centrally plan immigration.

 

The only reason to install a security system and lock doors is because we don't have the only house or car around. As such, by raising the marginal cost of breaking into this house or car, you create an incentive for somebody looking to break into either a house or a car with an incentive to move on to the next house or car. There aren't many countries that need labor at the rates that we do. As such, a purely security based system is less likely to be effective.

 

Their children are only eligible for birthright citizenship if they are subject to our jurisdiction. Those born to illegal immigrants clearly are not, because if they were, they would have been deported.

 

Like your side has ever truly cared about the constitution. Besides, like your side would say, the constitution can be updated. Please answer this simple question for me gator_lawyer. Why should a child's citizenship status not be the same as that of their mother? Why should a child have a different citizenship status than their mother? There's absolutely no common sense in that at all.

And as the previous poster said, if the woman is here illegally, she is not under the jurisdiction or protection of the U.S. Therefore as far as I'm concerned birthright citizenship would not apply.

It's very simple. A child, at birth, is a citizen of the country of their mother.

 

I'm not sure if you're joking or not. If an undocumented immigrant isn't subject to our jurisdiction, that means they're immune to our laws. If they commit a crime, you couldn't charge them. Are you arguing that undocumented immigrants are immune to criminal prosecutions? Because I know for a fact you're wrong.

 

Answer my question. Shouldn't a child, at birth, be a citizen of the country of their mother?

 

And yet how many billions have we wasted in Ukraine? With the money we have given to Ukraine we could've completed the wall ten times over and had every expense covered for 50 years. So don't tell me we don't have the money because we absolutely have the money.

 

Nothing simple about citizenship. Almost every country has different rules for different reasons. Many other countries have birthright citizenship of some variety or another. It’s designed to attract people to the country that offers it.

 

And last time I checked the constitution can be amended if needed. Doesn't mean it's easy, but it can happen. Your side would love to dismantle the 1st Amendment and have hate speech laws. Your side would love to dismantled the 2nd Amendment. And if Democrats ever got enough power I don't doubt they would do it.

What is so wrong about a child, at birth, being a citizen of their country of their mother? Do you realize how screwed up it is that a mother and their child can have different citizenship currently?

 

Pretty sure we don't have any challenges attracting immigrants. The problem currently is that far too many immigrants are coming here. Far more than the U.S. can ever remotely hope to handle. The U.S. can not support the entire world or even every immigrant that wants to come here. And with all due respect I could care less how other countries handle citizenship. Not our problem.

Some of you just need to be honest. You don't want the U.S. to be a country in any sort of traditionally recognized way. You want the U.S. to be a glorified economic zone, trying to cater to everyone which means you truly represent no one. Without any border security the U.S. is an economic zone, not a country (heck I would argue it's already happened).

 

you sound a bit unhinged. I am 100% a proud American and desperately want to defend what we stand for. I think spending that money in Ukraine is far more important to our country than walling up the southern border. I also married a Central American who now has an advanced degree and is helping design drugs and vaccines and has probably added more to this country than most people born here to two American parents ever will. I weep for our country that people have been so easily influenced to become sad isolationists who blame all our problems on immigrants.

 

That isn't how the constitution says it works. And even in countries that have jus sanguinis rather than jus soli, the father's citizenship can be used, not just the mother's. A child born to parents with different citizenships can easily end up with a different citizenship than their mother.

 

If they were subject to our laws, they would have been deported before the baby was born.

Many people point to Wong Kim Ark as the ruling that declares children of illegal immigrants are citizens upon birth, but that ruling found that his parent's were here legally at the time he was born. As far as I know, we haven't had a SCOTUS ruling on children of illegal immigrants.

 

So you don't think the US was a country until 1924?

 

With all due respect you just admitted that you are biased on this issue. I'm assuming without immigration you would not have met your wife, so I absolutely understand your bias. It still doesn't change that for every Central American like her, there are 100, heck 1,000 who will do nothing but be a drain on the system.

With that said, I really don't care what your wife adds to the country. If she came here illegally or had to marry to get citizenship as far as I'm concerned she shouldn't be here. Citizens needs comes first and citizens opinions are more important the the opinion of non-citizens.

And I'm sorry but I just fundamentally disagree. Border security is my #1 issue above all else this election. I could care less what happens with Ukraine. They aren't NATO and they definitely aren't one of our close allies. Their war with Russia isn't our problem. What do we even remotely gain supporting Ukraine? All the money we've spent could've been spent far better at home. And at the end of the day Ukraine is still going to either lose the war to Russia or be in an indefinite stalemate. How long do we support Ukraine if that happens? 1 year? 5 years? 20 years? 100 years? It is not our job to the world's policeman.

You can be a part of the world community without having to be involved in ever single war in the world. If wanting us to get our sh*t together at home means I'm an isolationist than I'm an isolationist and proud of it. If wanting us to put our country and its citizens first and other concerns second then I'm glad to be an isolationist. If being pissed off that our government is putting immigrants needs over the needs of its own citizens means I'm an isolationist then so be it. I don't think being an isolationist is a bad thing at all. It means you put the needs of your own people first which is how every country should operate. But again I know I should re-evaluate my expectations since we are an economic zone now and not truly a country with any type of shared culture or really anything that brings us all together.

 

The world is a very different place than it was 100 years ago and you know it. How many immigrants were coming to the U .S. during those years compared to today?

Let me ask you this, what if half the world tomorrow decided to immigrate to the U.S? Are we forced to accept them all knowing we have no way or ability to support anyway near that amount of people?

Have you seen what's happened to our infrastructure? Our hospitals/medical system? Our schools? They are all overwhelmed due to the population increases largely due to immigration. Our country can't handle the amount of immigrants coming in.

100 years ago if the amount of immigrants coming in were what we have today it would be considered one thing: An Invasion

I'm being serious when I say I genuinely want an answer to this country. How many immigrants are too much? 1 million/year? 2 million/year? 5 million/year? 20 million/year? 50 million/year? At what point do we say no more? At what point does even someone like you decide that we simply can't handle the number?

 

Lol an invasion. People used the same language about Irish. About Italians. About anyone other. It’s gross. So many important issues and this is number one for you tells me all I need to know.

 

[citation needed]