I heard a snippet of his stump speech today in which he said Florida is a vision of what America could become.
I assume he's just counting on the gut reaction from voters that immigrants are bad. It doesn't make any difference if his solutions are doable or constitutional.
Florida is unique. Ron seems to be a big fan of one-size-fits-all. I think this is a loser as a talking point.
If the parents were subject to our jurisdiction, they would have been deported already. The fact that they are here illegally indicates that they are not subject to our jurisdiction, or they would have been removed and the child would not have been born here.
The 14th amendment says that people born here subject to our jurisdiction are automatically citizens. The argument against the children of illegals automatically becoming US citizens upon birth is that their parents aren't here subject to our jurisdiction. The evidence being that if they were subject to our jurisdiction they would have been deported and the child would have been born here. Separately, the fact that there is a birth tourism industry suggests that our current way of doing things has some issues.
Rambo Ron on using deadly force against border crossers: “If the cartels are cutting through the border wall, trying to run product into this country, they’re going to end up stone cold dead as a result of that bad decision,” DeSantis told reporters." Hey, dummy! The "product," isn't being carried across the border by individuals. It's being flown in by planes, shipped in by boats. The individual undocumenteds are the thieves and rapists, geez, get it right. "Product," and "stone cold dead." What a tool.
So is the trump wall effective? A given its not 100% as people still get thru it, but is it better than nothing? And also the approx cost spent on it was approx $15B. My very rough calcs, that would employ roughly 6,000 agents for 10 years. and border crossings are dropping, see link. put me down as a country needs to have basic control over who crosses their border. Unlawful southern border entries down 70% from record highs since end of Title 42
You are still subject to the jurisdiction of the United States by being present, even if you are not here legally. Otherwise, you couldn't be prosecuted for crimes you commit here. That's a cornerstone of "jurisdiction", i.e., a Court's power over you, for centuries of Anglo jurisprudence, even before the founding of the Republic. Plus, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof", is more often applied to those former Sen. McCain, born in the Canal Zone. Plus, to the extent someone has requested asylum, they are subject to US jurisdiction by treaty, which have Constitutional status as supreme law once ratified. We have agreed by treaty to adjudicate all requests for asylum. I am not bothered by the existence of a birth citizenship industry. It's a function of the US being a preeminent destination. Plenty of countries have birthright citizenship without issues because they are not desirable for citizenship status. It's the same reason we will have a logistically unsolvable problem at the southern border for the foreseeable future. It's a corollary of why Roman citizenship was desired in antiquity. And other highly "successful" nations through history.
The babies of undocumented immigrants aren't "persons." All DeSantis, Trump, and their ilk need is for the Republicans in the judiciary to issue a new Dred Scott ruling.
There are actual effective ways to lessen illegal border crossings that cost a fraction of a wall. I agree that a country needs to control its borders. A wall ain't the way. It's a "solution" for dummies.
If one is actually an honest adherent to originalism (and let's be honest, 99% of self-proclaimed originalists aren't), you only look to original meaning if there is ambiguity in the text. There's no ambiguity in the 14th Amendment. The fact that the amendment's plain meaning would have consequences not anticipated by the Framers is not something an honest originalist would care about. But again, these people aren't honest originalists. For the vast majority, "originalism" is simply a façade for right-wingers to push their preferred policy outcomes. I wouldn't vote for Will Hurd, but he's not a bad guy. He's the sort of Republican nominee who would be good news for the country, an omen that they've embraced sanity, intelligence, and reasonableness. I would not be afraid of him being President.
I don’t know anyway to “control” our Southern border, if by “control” you mean no or close to no unauthorized entry. I have always analogized it to trying to ensure that star athletes in high revenue sports receive no extra benefits- you are trying to suppress a naturally occurring market. Plenty of other examples.
Agree, it’s like with parole evidence lol. The text does not include any test or exceptions. One would have to create them. Is there a real or purported distinction between strict constructionism (at least as applied to statutes) and originalism? I feel like I recall some supposed constitutional originalists subtly say it’s about the plain text but also how that plain text would have been understood at the time of ratification rather than today. I think that allows them to claim they are still relying on the plain language while avoiding an argument that they are making subjective assessments regarding intent.
By "control" I mean lessen the benefit to coming here illegally. Hardcore punish any company employing illegals and institute a solid worker visa program. Amnesty those here but discourage more from coming illegaly. Neither party has interest in doing this, it wouldn't be hard.
Even a 1898 case, Wong Kim Ark, didn’t suggest any different understanding at the time of ratification, which was accurate. They weren’t called “Radical” for nothing. They were wonderful radicals, and we have been trying to undo what they did ever since. But this one was too ironclad. Plus we have so benefitted from immigration. Always have. From the Founding. Remember one of our top grievances against Queen Charlotte’s mad husband set forth in the Declaration was as follows: "He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
Honestly, the easiest way to do it would be to just create some sort of a labor allocation system that is vaguely efficient. If somebody wants to come here, they can come to a center on the border, undergo a check, and then a matching process starts where the worker's skills and geographic preferences are matched to people who need labor. Then, after virtual interviews, the company hires somebody, and pays to transport them up to wherever they are located. Make the process easy on both sides and let the market solve the problem. If you want to have a stick, to make sure companies don't hire people who wouldn't pass the check, that would be fine as well.
