Trump: Get Rid of Birthright Citizenship

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: introvert

Here's a thought...withhold foreign aid to said countries until they fund the return of their illegal immigrants here in the U.S. That would negate cost concerns for us, and it would save us money in foreign aid.

And yes, I have a heart, and I know that sounds harsh, but if we're just talking dollars and cents, here...

You haven't thought that through very well have you?

If the country's in question economys tank even more..........you will get MORE illegals streaming across your border....

Cause and effect is a bitch.

a reply to: charolais

You do realize the 14th amendment doesn't define the requirements for citizenship don't you? It's so broad based done on purpose really because this would allow Congress to still control citizenship. Now you say a president can't make this decision that's true not without help.. But he can write a bill and present it to congress. And in the mean time could use executive order until Congress votes on it.

So to say the president can't decide what constitutes a is citizen is silly. But a president truly doesn't even have to do that. If the parents of a child are deported the child naturally would go with them. Currently it's the opisit if a child is born in the US the parents can stay with them. There is no reason that should be so meaning the president has a lot of power over this issue if he chose to use it.

Do I think we should strip them of US citizenship no. Do I think the parents should be allowed to stay if they cross the border to have a child no. Is there an answer to this problem the only thing I can think of is they get a passport giving them the right to return to the United States being a US citizen. Parents would still have to apply for a visa but being parents of a us citizen does help in a visa process.

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
Can you honestly say that if George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were standing here today that they would be ok with the idea of people sneaking across the border in the middle of the night, having babies for the sole purpose of gaining citizenship regardless of their past or their intentions, and would approve of using taxpayer money to support those people?

While I agree with the premise of the question, it's worth keeping in mind that GW and TJ had no hand in the 14th amendment to the Constitution.

But as with every part of the Constitution, there will always be people who find unintended uses for the law or procedure and then exploit it. It's our job as a nation to react when this becomes the rule rather than the exception.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: introvert

Here's a thought...withhold foreign aid to said countries until they fund the return of their illegal immigrants here in the U.S. That would negate cost concerns for us, and it would save us money in foreign aid.

And yes, I have a heart, and I know that sounds harsh, but if we're just talking dollars and cents, here...

What will we do with them until their return is paid for? Will we round them up? Will we resort to gestapo-like tactics and march around the country pulling people out of their homes?

Do we intern them like the Japanese?

I doubt it. It's not going to happen and it makes absolutely no sense to attempt to send them home.

In Europe its Islam taking over by out breading every one around them, the US will be the same soon. Its an invasion with out fighting, a war without killing but the end result is the same. At some point there will have to be a winner

originally posted by: crazyewok
You haven't thought that through very well have you?

If the country's in question economys tank even more..........you will get MORE illegals streaming across your border....

Cause and effect is a bitch.

No, I thought it through just fine. We need to focus on ourselves and our economies, not other countries'. If we ensure that illegals are sent back--first at the cost of the home government, then if not, at our cost (obviously)--then they'll find another country into which they can stream, or they can do this interesting thing called apply for legal citizenship.

And seriously, if a country is only economically sound because of U.S. foreign aid, they have no right being an individual country.

So, yes, cause and effect is a bitch, but concerning your response, I think your effect is based on whimsical hyperbole and would be less impactful than you believe.

a reply to: imod02

Um... No... You apparently seem to think that these invading cultures can't appropriate the cultures of the places they are moving to and its only the places that they move to that have to change their culture. Everything you said is baseless fearmongering. All it takes is TWO generations for a foreign culture to naturalize to the surrounding culture's customs. Many times it doesn't even take that long.

I mean think about it, what's more likely that a small group of people is able to push their culture into the culture at large OR the pressure of the larger culture pushing in on all sides causes the small group of people to change (of if not them, their children)?

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

My intent was not to deflect, but to compare the two situations.

OK, but you still didn't answer my question. I would like you to do so please.

I think the same thing about illegal immigration. Of course the writers of the 14th amendment foresaw it. They talked about it in depth. Senator Howard was THERE.

I know you agree with Howard's interpretation but I do not.

And if we amended the 14th amendment, there would still be illegal immigration tomorrow.

This is where I must disagree. In the immediate days following the amendment, yes, there would still be illegal immigration. But you cant deny that one of the reasons we have so much illegal immigration today is because of the disagreement regarding the interpretation of that amendment. If a final decision were made, and it turned out to be against illegal immigration, we would have a means and the impetus to stop the influx of illegal aliens. We know it can be done. Other nations do it. We have the ability. We simply do not have the desire.

There are so many ways we could stop illegal immigration. Building walls is just one. The best weapon we have is making it financially undesirable to be here illegally. Without the handouts immigration would change to basically two groups. Those who wish to immigrate legally and work for a living, and those who intend to exist by criminal means.

Our best tool in this fight is to make legal immigration the desirable path. I have no problem with legal immigration. In fact, I am all for it. Make legal immigration so attractive that no one would willingly choose illegal immigration unless they had a specific reason to do so. That person should under no circumstances be allowed into this country.

a reply to: introvert

Holy hell, everyone--I'm sorry that I haven't had my aids type up a formal proposal for every aspect of my comment, but we won't fix the problem by coming up with excuses as to why not to round up illegal immigrants and send them packing.

How about we just take the money out of the foreign aid and pay for it up front, then whatever is left over in the promised aid at the end of the year, the country gets it. If there's nothing left, so be it.

But, please, explain to me why "it makes absolutely no sense to attempt to send them home" if that is what the law calls for us to do?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: AboveBoard

Thank you for bringing some historical context to this debate for once. So many wade into this debate without knowing that they are just rehashing old arguments that have been made for centuries, and the rhetoric has NEVER changed. Only the direction of the distrust for foreigners.

Hey, thanks so much for that response. Sometimes I wonder if I've spoken into a vacuum as I get nothing back when I post - though I do appreciate the stars!!

I appreciate people reading what I put time and thought into!!

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
a reply to: charolais

This is what makes Trump different than the others - he is a die-hard CEO whose base instinct is to continuously improve through policy adjustment. The US private sector is at least 20 years ahead of the government when it comes to adaptation to market trends and the laws of supply and demand.(no brainer to most folks)

Trump know this, that's the edge he has over the politicians - he has all their bad habits already, but they have none of his drive and determination.

For instance, sitting on the other side of the planet - the debate last week may as well have been the Trump-Kelly show - and Trumps ratings have subsequently proven positive.

No-one has his charisma - he's like the silver-tongued Mohammed Ali or Conor MacGregor who can actually put his money where his mouth is.

Here's the down-side, Trump may not be able to distinguish between a US citizen and an "employee" when it comes time to take the torch and implement is "policies to make America great again", so be very careful what you wish for, by their very nature, successful CEO's are Dictators in every sense of the word and will do and say anything to maintain the blessing of the board of directors and shareholders (elite bloodlines).

Very good explanation Sublimecraft (I personally find most of your posts spot-on 99% of the time). I wish I could write like you

originally posted by: imod02
In Europe its Islam taking over by out breading every one around them, the US will be the same soon. Its an invasion with out fighting, a war without killing but the end result is the same. At some point there will have to be a winner

American was not designed or founded to be a nation of white people majority. We are a nation of all different types of people. If, over time, the majority becomes Hispanic, so be it. That's the natural progression of things.

A big takeaway on the immigration issue for me is that we should not be exploiting those who come here with good intentions. I understand that there are some who come here to take advantage of our system, and that is very unfortunate.

But, there are also MANY who come here because of the opportunities in America and they come here to work. That is something that we as a country should take pride in. The fact that people want to come here, out of all the other countries, to work and better themselves is something we should be proud of. These are the people who will really be hurt if someone like Trump get's their way.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

But, please, explain to me why "it makes absolutely no sense to attempt to send them home" if that is what the law calls for us to do?

We are talking about millions of people. Are we really considering the ramifications of uprooting millions of people and sending them out of the country? Not only do we have to cover the costs up front, we also have to consider the economic consequences, breaking-up families and we also cannot forget international perceptions.

How would the world perceive us if we went around the country and rounded-up illegals to send home? I'm sure a few Nazi references would make it way out front.

The entire idea is ridiculous and that is why most people do not even consider it a viable option. It would only lead to violence and heartbreak. We're better off letting them stay, join the workforce and live along side them.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: introvert

Here's a thought...withhold foreign aid to said countries until they fund the return of their illegal immigrants here in the U.S. That would negate cost concerns for us, and it would save us money in foreign aid.

And yes, I have a heart, and I know that sounds harsh, but if we're just talking dollars and cents, here...

What will we do with them until their return is paid for? Will we round them up? Will we resort to gestapo-like tactics and march around the country pulling people out of their homes?

Do we intern them like the Japanese?

I doubt it. It's not going to happen and it makes absolutely no sense to attempt to send them home.

I don't believe trying to find them and send them home is the answer. The far easier way is to make it impossible to find a job they would go home on their own. So so it would require enforcement of existing laws nothing more. As far as funding this simple you have any business caught with an illegal employed they lose all tax breaks and just have to pay the corporate tax rate.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

As a CEO, Trump is used to barking out orders and "making" things happen without resistance. This is one problem I have with the whole idea of a Trump presidency. He seems to think he'll be "King Trump"... What he says, goes. He's not considering the House and Senate, not to mention the American people's desires. What HE wants is what's important...

He's ignorant on how government functions and on world affairs. It's alarming how so many people are ignoring the fact he's clearly unqualified to be president. You can't promote government change if you're totally clueless how government functions.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: imod02
In Europe its Islam taking over by out breading every one around them, the US will be the same soon. Its an invasion with out fighting, a war without killing but the end result is the same. At some point there will have to be a winner

American was not designed or founded to be a nation of white people majority. We are a nation of all different types of people. If, over time, the majority becomes Hispanic, so be it. That's the natural progression of things.

The problem is as in Europe its not natural, its man made, Hitler tried it with war, other cultures are trying it with mass immigration and out breading.The USSR did the same thing by moving mass amounts of there people into the occupied country's Im not saying this out of racism but out of fact, and this is as far as I go with the opening of this can of worms.

originally posted by: AboveBoard
This is an argument that needs historical context.

From the Immigration Policy Center - Myths and Facts About Birthright Citizenship

This is very interesting, and definitely NOT light reading regarding this issue. Here is a quote but it is embedded in the larger context of this extensive document, and specifically within one of the articles. I've only read part of the document as it is very long.

Firstly - the language of, and an explanation of the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

SOURCE


Now a smidgen of the historical context:

Accordingly, the text of the Citizenship Clause plainly guarantees birthright citizenship to the U.S.‐born children of all persons subject to U.S. sovereign authority and laws. The clause thus covers the vast majority of lawful and unlawful aliens. Of course, the jurisdictional requirement of the Citizenship Clause must do something – and it does. It excludes those persons who, for some reason, are immune from, and thus not required to obey, U.S. law. Most notably, foreign diplomats and enemy soldiers – as agents of a foreign sovereign – are not subject to U.S. law, notwithstanding their presence within U.S. territory. Foreign diplomats enjoy diplomatic immunity, 12 while lawful enemy combatants enjoy combatant immunity. 13 Accordingly, children born to them are not entitled to birthright citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment.

On May 29, 1866, six days after the Senate debate on the addition of the 14th Amendment began, Senator Jacob Howard (R‐MI) proposed language pertaining to citizenship.

Mr. HOWARD. ... This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States.

This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.”

This was the CONTEXT in which the 14th Amendment was debated. Everyone understood the universality of the application of the Amendment, and it's exclusion, which pertained ONLY to foreign ministers/ambassadors.

The argument over the repeal of the 14th Amendment has ALWAYS had strong elements of xenophobia and racial/ethnic exclusion. Back in the day, the opposition didn't want to grant freed slaves citizenship! They certainly didn't want the Chinese who were here to get full citizenship, nor "gypsies" as they called them, nor any group of people that the Governors would wish to expel from the ranks of their state's citizenry. It's history. Please take a look.



Now explain how the argument today is different? It really isn't, is it? I don't think people realize that they are making these arguments.

I'm not accusing anyone here of racism, but history is history, and history is FULL of racism regarding immigration. SOURCE

Access to United States citizenship was restricted by race, beginning with the Naturalization Act of 1790 which refused naturalization to "non-whites". Many in the modern United States forget the institutionalized prejudice against white followers of Roman Catholicism who immigrated from countries such as Ireland, Germany, Italy and France.[156] Other efforts include the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act and the 1924 National Origins Act.[157][158] The Immigration Act of 1924 was aimed at further restricting the Southern Europeans and Russians who had begun to enter the country in large numbers beginning in the 1890s.

In conjunction with immigration reform in the late 1980s (seen with the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986), there have been noted IRCA-related discriminatory behavior toward Hispanics within employment. As the measure made it unlawful to hire without authorization to work in the United States, avoidant treatment toward "foreign-appearing workers" increased to bypass the required record-keeping or risk of sanctions.[159]

Now is now, and I wish we could just deal with the fact that MOST of our own ancestors came from somewhere else, legally or not so legally. Many of our OWN ancestors would NOT be allow in today! SOURCE

Nativism and racial purism have always been a part of this argument. At one point the Irish were scorned (because they were poor and Catholic), the Italians (similar reason), the Jewish people (religious reason), the Chinese (racial/cultural reason), etc. etc., not to mention the inherent superiority that people apparently felt over African slaves and Native Americans (see the language of the debates sources above in the first document to know what I mean).

This is an OLD story being recycled again and again in US history. So far we have decided to retain the status of Melting Pot, in the hopes of creating a greater country from the whole of our individual parts, than some sort of homogeneous mass of culturally identical people - instead we have pockets of individual cultures held under the umbrella of the United States of America, and I, for one, think we are richer for it.

peace,
AB

Thank you for sharing this AboveBoard! It really goes to show that the same argument has been being made for the last... 150 years.

It also shows that even back then, there were opponents who didn't want immigrants and aliens to become naturalized citizens, but that was only the minority vote and the majority approved the 14th amendment anyways.

a reply to: introvert

The entire idea is ridiculous and that is why most people do not even consider it a viable option. It would only lead to violence and heartbreak. We're better off letting them stay, join the workforce and live along side them.

No we are not better off.....FORCED??? Maybe.....But better off? Absolutely not! Again from one thread to another to another....

I would like to ask 2 questions, first why does such a rich and powerful man want to be the leader of the US, and the second would such a man ever be interested in what is best for the people or would he be more interested in what is best for him and his powerful friends