another indoctrinated lost little lamb. Im legit sad for you and by extension sad for this country that you’ve allowed liars and thieves to convince you that the heros (most of them) defending this country are actually our enemy and meanwhile a self serving rich man, a known liar and grifter, is somehow our savior. May you find peace this holiday season.
And what are the ill-gotten gains of having a child while in the United States in violation of our laws? No, I'm saying that if they are exempting themselves from our jurisdiction (by being here in violation of our laws), then they don't get to claim birthright citizenship for their children. You are arguing theory, I'm arguing practicality. Yes, they are subject to our jurisdiction, once we find them. And because they were here in violation of our laws, they shouldn't be able to keep their ill-gotten gains. Ignoring the distinction between legal and illegal immigration that didn't exist at the time. Again. And if they are bound by our laws and have to follow them or suffer consequences, why can't one of the consequences for being here in violation of our laws be that their children aren't eligible for birthright citizenship?
There are none. We can charge the parents with a crime if they've committed one and/or deport them. The child itself has done nothing but be born. They don't get to exempt themselves from jurisdiction. Our laws apply to them whether they like it or not. And they don't "claim" anything. Their child is a citizen because the Constitution says they are. We don't punish children for their parents' crimes. I'm arguing law. Because we're talking about constitutional interpretation. You can't charge somebody with a crime if they aren't subject to our jurisdiction. You have to make a choice. Undocumented immigrants are subject to our jurisdiction and can be charged with crimes or undocumented immigrants aren't subject to our jurisdiction and can't be charged with crimes. It's that simple. Why would I be ignoring something I pointed out to you? The distinction is legally irrelevant. Undocumented immigrants are subject to our jurisdiction. Even you don't dispute that. You readily admit we can exercise jurisdiction over them. 1. Because the Constitution says differently. If you disagree with it, you are free to argue for amending the Constitution. 2. Because we don't punish children for their parents' crimes!
Who said they were doctors, lawyers, and scientists? You're reaching. The immigrants coming are usually blue collar, but hard workers that work in agriculture, construction, hospitality, and other blue collar jobs. Jobs citizens generally don't take because there are better, higher paying jobs available. Again, there are more than 3 million undocumented immigrants in our work force than there are unemployed citizens. And half those unemployed citizens will be employed within the next 3 months. What we should do is allow the supply of immigrant labor to legally meet demand. Let the market decide how many immigrants we should have. And when there's more undocumented working than there are unemployed, that's the market screaming we need more legal immigration.
Except the free market doesn't always get it right. Sometimes rules have to be established and followed regarding of the free market, regardless of supply and demand. Many National Park areas in California could easily be developed to create more affordable housing for the middle and working class. But we don't allow that because we establish that National Parks are important to us, even if it means less land to develop. The free market can't decide anything and it definitely can't overrule the rule of law, unless of course you just want to have an economic zone and not a country.
Free markets aren't perfect. But anyone have a better solution? And again, when there are 3 million more undocumented working than current unemployed, what is the market saying about immigration needs? The Canadian system is a good model. If employers need help and can prove they can't find citizens to fill their needs, businesses can hire immigrants. Supply meeting demand with protection for citizens.
I'm okay with this but on a seasonal basis only. And once the need has concluded the immigrant is required to go back to their home country.
That simply won't work. Not all immigrants work seasonal positions. And even seasonal farm workers can work 12 months a year if they follow the harvest from one place to another. A better plan would be a set Visa limit. When that expires, it's either return or a pathway to citizenship. Sort of like the Gang of 8 plan!
Sorry. A pathway to citizenship is a no go for me and I will actively vote against and campaign against any politician who tries to do a pathway to citizenship for immigrants who don't go through the established legal process. And I don't care if it's a Republican or Democrat, I will vote against them and do everything I can to keep them out of power.
A seasonal work visa only is a no go. Approximately 11% of Nevada's work force is undocumented. And nearly 400,000 people work on the strip alone. What season would Vegas be? There is none. It's 24/7. And if immigrants are going to stay here years, and pay taxes, should they want to stay, they should get a pathway to citizenship. Otherwise, it would be taxation without representation, which is un-American. To get on the citizenship pathway would require years of employment and staying out of trouble. Any longterm unemployment spell or a felony conviction, and no pathway to citizenship. And why wouldn't we want citizens who stay out of trouble and are gainfully employed, paying taxes?
I read this back and forth over the years here on Too Hot. It is simple to me, you have to secure the border FIRST. Control the flow of those claiming asylum to a level that you can deal with them judicially. Nothing else works if you can't stop the flow of illegals crossing the border.
I'm sure it sounds simple, but it's like saying we must end crime. Our border has never been "secure." (And people asking for asylum at the border aren't "illegals.") If you want to be able to better deal with asylum claims, you're going to need to pump money into the system and hire a lot more people (from immigration judges to asylum officers).
This plus realizing that Republicans DON’T WANT to do anything about the border. It’s their one issue that they can pound on incessantly, plus their voters want the cheap labor. Solve the problem and all of their photo ops and performative nonsense goes away.
Why doesn't an asylum seeker that is being processed and then given a court date, up to five years from now, immediately be allowed to work and pay taxes? Why does the taxpayer have to pay the burden of housing, food and transportation for these asylum seekers? If they are processing up to 12,000 a day at one entry point, and it was just boasted that some 11,000 in Chicago just received work permits this will never get caught up. And I read somewhere (link?) that nearly 90% of asylum seekers are turned down. If this is the number or even if it 50%, why can't we let these folks work and pay taxes immediately and let them find their own housing. We are told regularly that a wall will not stop these folks after traveling 1000 miles to get here, well finding their own housing and food shouldn't be much of a challenge either!
Securing the border is just a slogan though. What does it mean? What are the actual specifics? To say we are not going to do anything else until the border is secure means we are just not going to do anything. I’m 100% for controlling immigration, but building walls isn’t the solution. At least half of illegal immigrants come on a plane. What we need is a comprehensive program that allows for the workers that are needed, makes it hard and punitive to hire workers that are not documented, provides a path to status normalization for those that have been in this country for let’s say 5+ years and have a clean record, clean up the asylum process so it only applies to very specific categories, and clean up the green card process so it incentivizes talented foreigners to stay here, and takes them away from people that don’t even live here but come in every 6 months just to comply with green card rules. Unfortunately a plan like this would require compromise, which seems impossible given the clowns, mostly right wing clowns, we have in government these days.
Truth: Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador has said he’s willing to help, but he wants to see progress in U.S. relations with Cuba and Venezuela, two of the top sources of migrants, along with more development aid for the region. “We have always talked about addressing the causes (of migration). The ideal thing is to help poor countries,” López Obrador said before the meeting. US delegation meeting with Mexico’s government about migrants
Thoughts ? Illegal Immigrants With Anchor Babies Using Up More Welfare Than American Citizens: Report | ZeroHedge
Variations of the CIS study have surfaced for well over a decade. It's essentially b*ll sh*t. https://www.cato.org/blog/c CIS Exaggerates the Cost of Immigrant Welfare Use - Foster Global Fudging Facts - A Look at CIS Studies Four Reasons Why Report on Immigrant Welfare Use Is Wrong Immigrants Don't Drain Welfare. They Fund It.
It's quite obvious he doesn't understand that "jurisdiction" has different meanings in different legal contexts. He's using that legal term very imprecisely.
