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

We've had immigrants coming across the S border for generations. The Bracero Program brought over 1 million legally. An additional 1 million plus were granted amnesty under tea Reagan, and probably 1 million more were eligible but didn't register. We can handle the current flow just fine, and we could've had a Gang of 8 law a decade ago, and be handling the immigrants.

There is no invasion either. Armies invade to take over. The immigrants come to work and if they stay, integrate into society. Certainly, their kids do, and generally become successful.

Last, if the undocumented immigrants aren't under our jurisdiction, we wouldn't be able to charge them with any crime, including being here as an undocumented immigrant. They would be immune to our laws, which undocumented immigrants are not. Only people with diplomatic immunity aren't subject to our laws.

 

So you're arguing that undocumented immigrants are immune from our criminal laws, yes or no?

And you're incorrect about what Wong Kim Ark decided.

 

No. I'm arguing that they can't pick and choose when our laws apply to them. If they are not immune to our criminal law, they aren't immune to our civil laws either. If they are not immune to our civil laws, then they are deported and are not here to give birth.

What do you believe Wong Kim Ark decided?

 

That's really cute you genuinely believe they are all coming here to work. Just ignore all the Chinese that are coming over here through the Southern border. Ignore all the Middle Easterners coming over here through the Southern border. Thousands could be terrorists or agents of the Communist Chinese party and we would never know thanks to Biden's open border policy.

You aren't going to want to hear it, but a lot of the immigrants are not coming here to work. Many are here to smuggle illegal drugs and participate in human trafficking. Many are here as agents of foreign governments or terrorist organizations. Many are here just for the social programs to get free stuff. Many are here to leach off family. While many may be here for work please stop kidding yourself, there are still a bunch of people crossing our borders that are NOT here to work.

Let me ask you this question. And I want a genuine answer on it. How many times have you seen Mexicans here in the United States who might be all nice and here to work. And then when the El Tri (Mexican National Futbol Team) plays the U.S. not only are they openly disrespecting the U.S. team and its players, but downright threatening with violence.

It's ironic because I thought you Democrats were against anti-gay chants? Yet many of the Mexicans you champion flat out sing an anti-gay chant at Mexican National Team matches.

Fans of El Tri have outnumbered fans of the U.S. National Team at many matches on U.S. soil. Now before you say it's just a futbol game I largely agree and could care less. But let me ask you this, lets say relationships between the U.S. and Mexico really broke down badly? Let's say Mexico declared war on the U.S. or the U.S. declared war on Mexico. All of these Mexicans who now live in the U.S., where would their loyalties lie then? It's fine for a simple futbol match, but what happens when the stakes aren't so irrelevent?

So sure, they aren't an invading Army now. There's no guarantee they won't stay that way though. It's hard for most people to betray their true home, their home country. Do you really not believe that there wouldn't be significant amounts of Mexicans here on U.S. soil who would be glad to attack Americans any way they could in a U.S.-Mexico war?

This isn't the 1800's. You aren't going to have a huge invading Army. But by letting anyone in you are letting governments that are not friendly to the U.S. gain a foothold to do real damage if they need to. Whether this is through traditional terrorist attacks, cyber attacks, attacks on critical infrastructure, they can get the pieces in place far easier than if we actually had a true immigration and border policy. You are incredibly naive if you don't think foreign governments haven't used the open border to get some of their people in.

Ironically where the U.S. got lucky on January 6th was that there was no foreign agents there. Can you imagine what a foreign agent could've done if they had just followed the rioting mob into the U.S. Capitol? And now Biden's non-existent border policy has just made that possibility far more likely.

 

So you could be a country 100 years ago without a massive amount of border security but not today? When did that change?

Half the world wouldn't decide to immigrate to the US. So the hypothetical is unimportant.

Our population is growing slower than it has at literally any time in our history.

A higher percentage of the country was foreign born. And while some anti-immigration folks in those days used language like that, the country continued on just fine.

Why should it be up to me to decide? The market is better at deciding that than I am. I believe in free markets. Based on recent history, in which migration surges when we have labor shortages and declines substantially when we don't, I suspect that the market is more than capable of sorting this out, at least better than ever increasing government expenditures, which seems to be almost completely unrelated to the amount of migrants coming into the country.

 

I like how we have a poster here worried about enemy agents terrorists and the drug trade and simultaneously wants to dismantle the fbi and cia lol.

hilarious.

 

Know how many people who have come illegally over the S border who has committed a terrorist act? Zero. Total number who have been arrested for terrorism? 2. They came as kids and were arrested years later.

I also doubt spies are coming across. We catch about 1 in every 3 who crosses. Another percentage doesn't survive the trip. What country would spend all that time and money training a spy and have them risk getting caught or dying? Just like the 9/11 hijackers, much safer ways to enter with much less risk.

And illicit drugs? About 90% of them come in as contraband smuggled through legal ports of entry. People on foot? Can't carry enough, and again, risks are very high.

If anyone thinks Mexicans want a war, you're crazy. There was an Atzlan movement, but it was small, and died 50 years ago. There are also less and less Mexicans coming--their economy was doing very well pre-COVID, and has rebounded well. Yes, even those that still live here are proud of their Mexican heritage, but plenty of Irish soccer fans when they play on US soil too.

The idea we're being invaded? Ludicrous. The idea terrorists and spies are using the S border to cross. Equally ridiculous.

 

They are neither immune to our civil laws nor our criminal laws. They are subject to our jurisdiction in both. That is why we have the power to put them in civil removal proceedings, and it is why we have the power to prosecute them for crimes. Because we have jurisdiction over them. If they aren't subject to our jurisdiction, we have no power to haul them into court. That means we can't charge them with crimes. That's how jurisdiction works.

I'll offer you an example. I rob your house. I get away with it. I have committed a crime, but I wasn't caught. Does that mean our government lacks jurisdiction over me? If, for example, the government in five years figures out I robbed you, can they charge and punish me for it (let's assume the statute of limitations hasn't run)? The answer is yes. The same thing is true with a person who entered illegally. The government has jurisdiction over them and can exercise it whenever it catches them.

It's not a question of what I "believe" Wong Kim Ark decided. Wong Kim Ark was born in 1873, before there was such thing as an "illegal immigrant." We didn't have laws making it illegal for some folks to immigrate here until 1882. There was never a point in the case where the Supreme Court had to decide Wong's status in that sort of way. There was no legal/illegal distinction.

Its analysis of the 14th Amendment is correct. And because undocumented immigrants are subject to our jurisdiction (as they don't fall into one of the exceptions mentioned by SCOTUS*), their children, if born in America, are automatically American citizens. You can't just ignore what "jurisdiction" means because it's inconvenient to your position.

* - The three exceptions are children born to foreigners who have diplomatic immunity, children born on foreign ships, or children born to enemy forces engaged in hostile occupation of enemy territory. Native Americans were also excluded because they were considered sovereign nations.

 

Do you know what an "open border policy" is?

 

And since we're hitting people with facts, 91% of drug seizures at the border in 2022 were from U.S. citizens.
https://www.cato.org/blog/us-citize...ccurred at,“potentially removable” immigrants).

 

If you rob my house, then buy a car with what you stole from me, when you do eventually get caught, do you get to keep the car?

Exactly. Wong Kim Ark didn't say anything about birthright citizenship applying to undocumented immigrants because that category of people didn't exist yet. We haven't had a SCOTUS case that directly addresses this group. We should.

 

Phil, that's an irrelevant question. Let me ask you this one final time. If an undocumented immigrant commits a murder in this country, can we charge them with a crime, convict them, and send them to prison? Yes or no.

We don't need one. It's an obvious answer. Nobody doubts that they are subject to our jurisdiction. Not even you. That's why you keep dancing around the question.

 

It's hilarious you actually think the FBI and CIA are worried about stopping terrorists and the drug trade. Heck the FBI and CIA are probably in on it, hence why they should be completely dismantled. I still think some of the worst people on 1/6 were FBI agents undercover. The FBI and CIA are the biggest bunch of scumbags in this country. They are politicized and nothing more than a law enforcement arm of the Democrat party.

 

If all of your immigrants are so wonderful how come so many of them are just hanging out at the O'Hare Airport? Or just hanging out at NYC hotels, kicking out other people. Why aren't they getting to work already?

 

Focusing on the last sentence.
"Why aren't they getting to work already?"
Maybe because they're not authorized to work. If you're so concerned by applicants for asylum (and almost all of the immigrants transported from the border to cities governed by Democrats are applicants for asylum not undocumented immigrants) not working would you favor a policy giving them immediate authorization to work? Although the Biden Administration has changed the previous policy denying virtually all of them authorization to work,it still takes time before they receive that authorization. If they work before they receive authorization they lose their eligibility for asylum.

 

And once the immigrants are authorized to work, they generally find jobs and thrive. Chicago recently got permits for 11,000 to work. I'm sure they will have little problems finding jobs.

 

I guess we know why people like Mike Johnson can get elected

 

Why is it irrelevant? Does the robber get to keep what they gained after they are caught?

Yes, if an undocumented immigrant commits a murder in this country, once we catch them, we can charge them with a crime, convict them, and send them to prison. Until we catch them, are they meaningfully in our jurisdiction?

The answer isn't obvious. If they were subject to our jurisdiction, they wouldn't be in our country. They would have been deported. If they had been deported, the child wouldn't have been born here. Therefore children born to undocumented immigrants shouldn't be citizens of the United States upon birth.

Wong Kim Ark was a citizen on birth because his parents were legally present in the United States when he was born. It is obvious that children born to parents who are legally present in the United States and not diplomats or agents of another country receive citizenship upon being born here.

In British Common Law, which the language of the 14th amendment was based on, there are two parts to the "subject to the jurisdiction" phrase. One is that they can't be born to diplomats or agents of a foreign power. The other is that they can't be in hostile occupation of the place they were born. There is a valid argument to be made that a child born to undocumented immigrants is in hostile occupation of the United States, given that they are here in violation of our laws.

A phrase used in the Wong Kim Ark ruling to describe the aliens whose children should be granted citizenship upon birth is "owes obedience to the laws of that government". If the parents are here in defiance of our laws, then their children have no claim to birthright citizenship.

 

Good. Then they can immediately start paying taxes and while we're at it they can pay Texas back for the complimentary transportation they received up to Chicago to get those jobs. And while we're at it they can pay back all the free food and services they received.

And I'm sure they're allllll doctors, scientists and PhD's who are the best and brightest from their country. I'm guessing you actually believe that.

 

I'm happy to tell you why it's irrelevant, Phil. Do you know why the court can take ill-gotten gains from the robber? Because it has jurisdiction over them and the ill-gotten gains. If the court lacked jurisdiction, it couldn't take the ill-gotten gains. Your argument is that undocumented immigrants aren't subject to the jurisdiction of our government and courts, so this point doesn't further your argument.

If we can charge them, convict them, and send them to prison, they are subject to our jurisdiction. It's that simple. That's what jurisdiction means and how it works. You're conflating custody with jurisdiction.

To put a fine point on this, in order to convict somebody of a crime, a court must be able to exercise jurisdiction over them. That's why foreign diplomats are immune to criminal prosecution in this country (unless they or their country waive diplomatic immunity). Because they aren't subject to our jurisdiction.

Undocumented immigrants are subject to our jurisdiction. In order for the Citizenship Clause to not apply to them, they'd have to be immune to criminal prosecution. And something tells me the last thing anti-immigrant folks want to do is make "illegals" immune to our criminal laws.

No, there isn't a valid argument that they're an enemy force in hostile occupation of the United States. In fact, Texas tried to make that sort of ridiculous argument recently (relying on the Invasion Clause) and was laughed out of court. No credible person thinks migrants are a hostile force occupying this country. The Supreme Court was speaking of a military force (like Russia in Ukraine).

You're misapprehending what that means. Owing obedience to our laws means that you're bound by them. Basically, you have to follow them or suffer consequences. It means you don't have diplomatic immunity (for example). In other words, it means you're subject to our jurisdiction. You don't stop owing "obedience to the laws" of the U.S. government just because you break the law.