Total Posts:30|Showing Posts:1-30
Jump to topic:

Trump's Immigration Plan

katie.snappy
Posts: 108
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2015 3:26:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Trump has been very outspoken about his beliefs on immigration and recently released a 1,900 position paper/plan on immigration reform. In the paper he states his three core principles: a nation without borders is not a nation, a nation without laws is not a nation, a nation that does not serve its own citizens is not a nation.

To summarize, Trump says that we should make Mexico pay for the wall. He accuses the Mexican government of "publishing pamphlets on how to illegally immigrate to the United States." Until Mexico pays for the wall, Trump says that we need to:

-Impound all remittance payments derived from illegal wages.
-Increase fees on all temporary visas issued to Mexican CEOs and diplomats.
-Increase fees on all border crossing cards.
-Increase fees on all NAFTA worker visas from Mexico.
-Increase fees at ports of entry to the United States from Mexico.


Trump also says that American needs to triple the number of ICE officers, institute a nationwide e-verify system, deport all criminal aliens, detain immigrants until they can be deported, defund sanctuary cities, enhance penalties for overstaying a visa, cooperate with local gang street task forces, and end birthright citizenship.

As a plan to "put American workers first," Trump lays out a plan that includes hiring American workers first, end welfare abuse, and begin a refugee program for American children.

What are your thoughts? Do you agree/disagree with Trump's plan?

(Here is a link to the whole document: https://www.donaldjtrump.com...)
Praesentya
Posts: 195
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2015 7:02:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
If I were to list the top twenty problems with this country, immigration might barely be in the top ten. To focus so heavily on this issue is only pandering to the far right GOP base.
I do not think, nor does census data support, that the immigration problem is as rampant as some Republicans like to say it is.

To start, the net immigration of Mexican citizens to this country is zero - most immigrants come from other parts of Central America. But that aside, I do not think that building a wall will change much - if there's a will, there's a way, basically.

The immigration problem will not be resolved through physical boundaries with our neighbors, nor through increased enforcement of our cities; it will only be resolved when the standard of living in Central American countries is improved. This is true of Mexico - as the Mexican economy, and thus the infrastructure and government, improved, fewer and fewer Mexican citizens crossed into this country.

Problems like NAFTA, which Trump wants to regulate, have improved the Mexican economy and therefor reduced our immigration problem. To regulate NAFTA will only worsen the immigration problem, no matter how high a wall you build. Further, if Mexico spends billions of dollars on a wall, that's billions of dollars you can't spend on schools, or roads, or other domestic programs which encourage Mexican citizens to stay in Mexico...

I strongly disagree with Mr. Trump's plan on immigration. I think it is founded on unsubstantiated claims and proposes solutions which will only worsen the problem. The one part I do agree with, however, is a program to assist American children living in poverty. That is a real problem which needs to be addressed.

As an anecdote, I find it interesting that for the 'anti-regulation' party, a Republican would propose 1,900 pages of regulations...
Todd0611
Posts: 99
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2015 7:49:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/17/2015 3:26:38 PM, katie.snappy wrote:
Trump has been very outspoken about his beliefs on immigration and recently released a 1,900 position paper/plan on immigration reform. In the paper he states his three core principles: a nation without borders is not a nation, a nation without laws is not a nation, a nation that does not serve its own citizens is not a nation.

To summarize, Trump says that we should make Mexico pay for the wall. He accuses the Mexican government of "publishing pamphlets on how to illegally immigrate to the United States." Until Mexico pays for the wall, Trump says that we need to:

-Impound all remittance payments derived from illegal wages.
-Increase fees on all temporary visas issued to Mexican CEOs and diplomats.
-Increase fees on all border crossing cards.
-Increase fees on all NAFTA worker visas from Mexico.
-Increase fees at ports of entry to the United States from Mexico.


Trump also says that American needs to triple the number of ICE officers, institute a nationwide e-verify system, deport all criminal aliens, detain immigrants until they can be deported, defund sanctuary cities, enhance penalties for overstaying a visa, cooperate with local gang street task forces, and end birthright citizenship.

As a plan to "put American workers first," Trump lays out a plan that includes hiring American workers first, end welfare abuse, and begin a refugee program for American children.

What are your thoughts? Do you agree/disagree with Trump's plan?

(Here is a link to the whole document: https://www.donaldjtrump.com...)

Being that I have lived in Houston for the past 30 years, I can attest that the problem is real. I spent about 15 years in the restaurant industry, and now work in construction, and there is an abundance of illegal immigrants here (not all from Mexico though). I've worked along side many of these individuals, and many have work visas, but stay even after they have expired. If you live in the area, people around here know where you can drive to every morning and find 20-30 workers hanging out on the corner waiting to get picked up for day labor. Many of these individuals are hard working, good, honest people, and they send some of their wages back home to support their families. There is a smaller percentage who sell drugs, drink a lot, and drive illegally.

The problem I have with some people who want to allow these people to stay, is that they almost never recognize the FACT that the law was broken. If you are in the US without a student visa, work visa, or another form of documentation that allows you to be here legally, then those people are breaking the law. A small percentage of crimes could have been avoided if these illegal immigrants weren't here, but I believe in general, and overall that these people are here to work, and provide for their families. I'm not against letting people earn a living, but as natural born citizens, we have the right to be here, while there is a system in place that will legally allow non citizens to be in the US legally.

I really don't believe a giant wall will dissuade those who are determined to come here illegally. I know people claim racial profiling, but there should be a way to determine one's legal status. Logic is that if people from Mexico, Central America, and Latin America are coming to the US illegally, that they would look like Hispanics. I'm not sure what else to call it, except logic, that law officers would want to ask Hispanics their legal status. That being said, remember, I live in Houston, where close to 40-50% of the population is Hispanic, so I can see why a Hispanic citizen would be offended if a law officer asked for proof of citizenship. How else can you check LEGAL status, without offending LEGAL Hispanic Americans.

These are the kinds of questions that need to be discussed if we are going to truly try to tackle illegal immigration. Race is a tough issue to deal with, and open, honest discussion is how you can try to solve the problems.
katie.snappy
Posts: 108
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2015 9:08:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/17/2015 7:02:45 PM, Praesentya wrote:
If I were to list the top twenty problems with this country, immigration might barely be in the top ten. To focus so heavily on this issue is only pandering to the far right GOP base.
I do not think, nor does census data support, that the immigration problem is as rampant as some Republicans like to say it is.

To start, the net immigration of Mexican citizens to this country is zero - most immigrants come from other parts of Central America. But that aside, I do not think that building a wall will change much - if there's a will, there's a way, basically.

The immigration problem will not be resolved through physical boundaries with our neighbors, nor through increased enforcement of our cities; it will only be resolved when the standard of living in Central American countries is improved. This is true of Mexico - as the Mexican economy, and thus the infrastructure and government, improved, fewer and fewer Mexican citizens crossed into this country.

Problems like NAFTA, which Trump wants to regulate, have improved the Mexican economy and therefor reduced our immigration problem. To regulate NAFTA will only worsen the immigration problem, no matter how high a wall you build. Further, if Mexico spends billions of dollars on a wall, that's billions of dollars you can't spend on schools, or roads, or other domestic programs which encourage Mexican citizens to stay in Mexico...

I strongly disagree with Mr. Trump's plan on immigration. I think it is founded on unsubstantiated claims and proposes solutions which will only worsen the problem. The one part I do agree with, however, is a program to assist American children living in poverty. That is a real problem which needs to be addressed.

As an anecdote, I find it interesting that for the 'anti-regulation' party, a Republican would propose 1,900 pages of regulations...

I agree. Right now the spotlight is on immigration because Trump has brought it in to the spotlight. I think that the other Republicans feel the need to focus on it now simply to speak out against Trump. And I agree that they will come regardless. A wall isn't going to keep people from crossing the border.

As a side note, I noticed that I forgot to add 'words' to my OP. It should say a 1,900 word position paper/plan. My bad!
katie.snappy
Posts: 108
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2015 9:09:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/17/2015 7:49:59 PM, Todd0611 wrote:
I'm not sure what else to call it, except logic, that law officers would want to ask Hispanics their legal status. That being said, remember, I live in Houston, where close to 40-50% of the population is Hispanic, so I can see why a Hispanic citizen would be offended if a law officer asked for proof of citizenship. How else can you check LEGAL status, without offending LEGAL Hispanic Americans.

These are the kinds of questions that need to be discussed if we are going to truly try to tackle illegal immigration. Race is a tough issue to deal with, and open, honest discussion is how you can try to solve the problems.

I never actually thought about that before, but that's a very valid point. Then the issue of racial profiling would come into play.
imabench
Posts: 21,220
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2015 9:15:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Trump's plan also includes revoking 'birthright citizenship', which is actually guaranteed and protected by the 14th amendment....

http://thinkprogress.org...

It seems that whenever Trump actually DOES give any details about his policies, they tend to clash directly with existing laws
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2015 11:36:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/17/2015 9:15:55 PM, imabench wrote:
Trump's plan also includes revoking 'birthright citizenship', which is actually guaranteed and protected by the 14th amendment....

http://thinkprogress.org...

It seems that whenever Trump actually DOES give any details about his policies, they tend to clash directly with existing laws

I agree, this part of his plan is very troubling. I don't agree with most of it, but that is because I view immigration pretty favorably.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
slo1
Posts: 4,351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2015 1:45:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/17/2015 3:26:38 PM, katie.snappy wrote:
Trump has been very outspoken about his beliefs on immigration and recently released a 1,900 position paper/plan on immigration reform. In the paper he states his three core principles: a nation without borders is not a nation, a nation without laws is not a nation, a nation that does not serve its own citizens is not a nation.

To summarize, Trump says that we should make Mexico pay for the wall. He accuses the Mexican government of "publishing pamphlets on how to illegally immigrate to the United States." Until Mexico pays for the wall, Trump says that we need to:

-Impound all remittance payments derived from illegal wages.
-Increase fees on all temporary visas issued to Mexican CEOs and diplomats.
-Increase fees on all border crossing cards.
-Increase fees on all NAFTA worker visas from Mexico.
-Increase fees at ports of entry to the United States from Mexico.


Trump also says that American needs to triple the number of ICE officers, institute a nationwide e-verify system, deport all criminal aliens, detain immigrants until they can be deported, defund sanctuary cities, enhance penalties for overstaying a visa, cooperate with local gang street task forces, and end birthright citizenship.

As a plan to "put American workers first," Trump lays out a plan that includes hiring American workers first, end welfare abuse, and begin a refugee program for American children.

What are your thoughts? Do you agree/disagree with Trump's plan?

(Here is a link to the whole document: https://www.donaldjtrump.com...)

Classic Trump making empty promises. Half the stuff he has listed is a form trade protectionism, much of which would not fly with the WTO. Is a trade war with Mexico good for our economy?. I'll say this much the unions love Trump's proposal.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2015 3:39:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Well, lets see. He wants to deport all illegal immigrants. That has a cost associated with it between 250-600 billion. It would be a horrific forced deportation, and virtually logistically impossible, but lets just assume the Trump the Great can pull it off.

Then we have the birth-right issue. OK, well that is going to need a constitutional amendment. That is a he11 of a lot of work, but OK, lets say he is really Trump the Great and gets that done.

When he has finished all this, what was really gained? Did we really need to kick all these people out? What is the effect of this wall? This is a issue for the GOP base only. It gets them all riled up, but there just is no real advantage to accomplishing all of this.

Properly fine the company's and individuals hiring illegals. Implement better tracking of immigrants, and improve border security. Its a shorter list, something that can actually get done, and might have some positives rather than all negatives.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,291
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2015 5:36:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/19/2015 3:39:33 PM, TBR wrote:
Well, lets see. He wants to deport all illegal immigrants. That has a cost associated with it between 250-600 billion. It would be a horrific forced deportation, and virtually logistically impossible, but lets just assume the Trump the Great can pull it off.

Then we have the birth-right issue. OK, well that is going to need a constitutional amendment. That is a he11 of a lot of work, but OK, lets say he is really Trump the Great and gets that done.

When he has finished all this, what was really gained? Did we really need to kick all these people out? What is the effect of this wall? This is a issue for the GOP base only. It gets them all riled up, but there just is no real advantage to accomplishing all of this.

Properly fine the company's and individuals hiring illegals. Implement better tracking of immigrants, and improve border security. Its a shorter list, something that can actually get done, and might have some positives rather than all negatives.

It's standard in negotiations to ask for the outrageous, and later settle on the reasonable. Were Trump to go to Congress with all this, it is a lot more likely he will actually get the nod for the reasonable beef-up of security, fines, and electronic tracking than any of the previous administrations "attempts"
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2015 5:41:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/19/2015 5:36:56 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 8/19/2015 3:39:33 PM, TBR wrote:
Well, lets see. He wants to deport all illegal immigrants. That has a cost associated with it between 250-600 billion. It would be a horrific forced deportation, and virtually logistically impossible, but lets just assume the Trump the Great can pull it off.

Then we have the birth-right issue. OK, well that is going to need a constitutional amendment. That is a he11 of a lot of work, but OK, lets say he is really Trump the Great and gets that done.

When he has finished all this, what was really gained? Did we really need to kick all these people out? What is the effect of this wall? This is a issue for the GOP base only. It gets them all riled up, but there just is no real advantage to accomplishing all of this.

Properly fine the company's and individuals hiring illegals. Implement better tracking of immigrants, and improve border security. Its a shorter list, something that can actually get done, and might have some positives rather than all negatives.

It's standard in negotiations to ask for the outrageous, and later settle on the reasonable. Were Trump to go to Congress with all this, it is a lot more likely he will actually get the nod for the reasonable beef-up of security, fines, and electronic tracking than any of the previous administrations "attempts"

So we agree the plan is complete bulsh1t, packaged for the far right of the base?
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,291
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2015 5:46:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/19/2015 5:41:50 PM, TBR wrote:
When Trump says "believe me", the lie is just a negotiation tactic?

Truthful people make bad negotiators, and worse politicians.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2015 5:53:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/19/2015 5:46:39 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 8/19/2015 5:41:50 PM, TBR wrote:
When Trump says "believe me", the lie is just a negotiation tactic?

Truthful people make bad negotiators, and worse politicians.

I will grant you, Trump is not truthful.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,291
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2015 5:56:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/19/2015 5:53:54 PM, TBR wrote:
At 8/19/2015 5:46:39 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 8/19/2015 5:41:50 PM, TBR wrote:
When Trump says "believe me", the lie is just a negotiation tactic?

Truthful people make bad negotiators, and worse politicians.

I will grant you, Trump is not truthful.

Charity of knowledge is for teachers, not businessmen or politicians.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2015 6:01:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Charity of knowledge is for teachers, not businessmen or politicians.

I think not blatantly lying to get votes makes for a good politician. What makes you believe that the lie you see so perfectly through is the only lie?
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,291
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2015 7:32:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/19/2015 6:01:41 PM, TBR wrote:
Charity of knowledge is for teachers, not businessmen or politicians.

I think not blatantly lying to get votes makes for a good politician.

That makes a politician unelectable.
Mr_Anderson
Posts: 116
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2015 7:56:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I agree with all of it except the birthright citizenship. Children of LEGAL immigrants should have citizenship, but not illegal ones.
1Percenter
Posts: 781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2015 9:26:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/19/2015 3:39:33 PM, TBR wrote:
Well, lets see. He wants to deport all illegal immigrants. That has a cost associated with it between 250-600 billion. It would be a horrific forced deportation, and virtually logistically impossible, but lets just assume the Trump the Great can pull it off.


This is a bargain considering that illegal immigrants currently cost over $100 billion every year. If given amnesty, the illegals could cost around $6 trillion over their lifetime.
Also, history proves that mass deportation is neither difficult nor necessarily violent. It's been done before, it can be done again.

Then we have the birth-right issue. OK, well that is going to need a constitutional amendment. That is a he11 of a lot of work, but OK, lets say he is really Trump the Great and gets that done.


Not necessarily. Congress could pass a law defining who is "within jurisdiction of the United States" to specifically exclude illegal immigrants, as was the intention of the 14th Amendment's framers.

When he has finished all this, what was really gained? Did we really need to kick all these people out? What is the effect of this wall? This is a issue for the GOP base only. It gets them all riled up, but there just is no real advantage to accomplishing all of this.

Every generation of immigrants has brought our politics further and further to the left. Why would Americans want their country overrun by people that have no respect for our laws and have no concept of liberty and limited government?

Properly fine the company's and individuals hiring illegals. Implement better tracking of immigrants, and improve border security. Its a shorter list, something that can actually get done, and might have some positives rather than all negatives.

While these are desirable improvements, recent events show that all of these measures will more than likely be immediately overturned or declared unconstitutional by an immigrant-friendly judge.
Huntress
Posts: 60
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2015 2:44:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I agree with Trump on the issue in general, but Mexico is merely the entry point, not always the home country of the illegal immigrants, so punishing Mexican CEOs doesn't seem helpful, but I imagine he's trying to encourage the Mexican government to stop allowing their country to be used as a gateway to the US.

Are people aware of how difficult it is to become a citizen of Mexico and some of the other countries in question? Why can't we have an immigration policy that resembles their policy?

Why would it cost 600 billion dollars to deport illegals? Considering the losses we suffer from remittances the actual cost would pale in comparison. Where does that figure come from though?

You choose to break the law then you must face the consequences. Rights come with responsibilities. What's horrific is that laws for the good of our nation and its people aren't being enforced, because of corrupt officials, and people like Kate Steinle are dead because of it. Pity for the guilty is treason to the innocent.

Constitutional amendments can be amended and have been amended. I don't see too many people today mourning the loss of the Eighteenth Amendment. New problems need to be addressed as they arise. Technology and such sometimes renders old laws antiquated or even irrelevant.

I do see how this would be extremely difficult to implement in full without being intrusive and unfairly judging legal Hispanic immigrants, but I think it can be done, at least in part, as long as we are mindful of that fact.

https://www.youtube.com...
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2015 3:48:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Well, lets see. He wants to deport all illegal immigrants. That has a cost associated with it between 250-600 billion. It would be a horrific forced deportation, and virtually logistically impossible, but lets just assume the Trump the Great can pull it off.


This is a bargain considering that illegal immigrants currently cost over $100 billion every year. If given amnesty, the illegals could cost around $6 trillion over their lifetime.
Also, history proves that mass deportation is neither difficult nor necessarily violent. It's been done before, it can be done again.

Care to back that number in any way?
MakeSensePeopleDont
Posts: 1,106
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2015 4:21:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/17/2015 9:15:55 PM, imabench wrote:
Trump's plan also includes revoking 'birthright citizenship', which is actually guaranteed and protected by the 14th amendment....

http://thinkprogress.org...

It seems that whenever Trump actually DOES give any details about his policies, they tend to clash directly with existing laws

Nope...you should do your own research before speaking...here you go, enjoy the free constitutional and legal education :)

AMENDMENT 14, SECTION 1: Passed By Congress June 13th, 1866. Ratified July 9th, 1868

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.

EXPLANATION

1) Proponents of amnesty and open borders look at section 1 listed above and do 1 of 2 things:

1.1) They read the first 9 words All persons born or naturalized in the United States and ignore the rest
1.2) The read it through fully but incorrectly define the word "Jurisdiction" as a geographical term. The correct, legal definition is provided below, under the section "DEFINITIONS"

2) The proponents then do something else very interesting: they fail to do any research at all; not on the intent, the definitions, the time period, the reason the amendment was authored, why they go to work every day, why the sky is blue, why powerful men used to wear wigs and makeup...sorry I'm getting a bit off track

2.1) Coincidentally, you liberals on this site always disregard me and try and make me look like a fool when I say you're wrong and tell you to do your own research. Well, tie your shoes tight; I don't want you losing them as research knocks you on your butt starting.....now:

3) The 14th Amendment, Section 1 was primarily authored by Congressman John A. Bingham and introduced in Congress by Senator Jacob Howard to ensure recently freed slaves were considered citizens and no state could refuse them rights afforded to them as such.

4) To quell concerns in congress of vague language being represented by the 14th Amendment, while presenting the 14th Amendment in 1866, Senator Jacob Howard CLEARLY defined the intent; and in doing so, for the first time in American Constitutional history, gave clear definition to the word citizenship. This can be found a bit lower under the section "DEFINITIONS"

4.1) The important piece here of his definition of citizen is: "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."

5) Senator Edward Cowan reaffirmed Sen. Jacob Howard's definition of "citizen" by stating: "[A foreigner in the United States] has a right to the protection of the laws; but he is not a citizen in the ordinary acceptance of the word[...]

SUPREME COURT RULINGS

1) Abstract of Rulings -- A person holding allegiance to another nation, sovereign state, or other recognized group not directly mentioned; is unable to attain citizenship. In order to be a naturalized citizen, a person must pledge full, direct and immediate allegiance to the U.S. and be completely subject to its jurisdiction.

2) Elk v. Wilkins 1884 -- the phrase "subject to its jurisdiction" was interpreted to exclude "children of ministers, consuls, and citizens of foreign states born within the United States."

2.1) The court stated 'Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States ... although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more 'born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof' within the meaning of the first section of the fourteenth amendment, than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government...'

3) U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. 649 [1898] -- Wong Kim Ark, a child born in CA to legal Chinese immigrants was determined to be a U.S. citizen as his parents were legal immigrants at the time of his birth. Legal Immigrant defined in DEFINITIONS section.

3.1) This case made the clear distinction between children born from illegal immigrants as opposed to the children born to legal immigrants

SUMMARY OF FACTS

1) 14th Amendment was passed to protect freed slaves

2) As the amendment lists The U.S. before State, the citizen my first be a citizen of the nation before he can be a citizen of a state

3) The 14th Amendment states "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"; this was intended to exlude American-born persons from authentic citizenship whose allegiance to the U.S. was not complete

4) The intent and definition of citizen was made clear by Sen. Howard and affirmed by Sen. Cowan

5) Elk v. Wilkins & U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark are two notable Supreme Course Cases making the distinction between legal and illegal immigrants as well as the process of citizenship

DEFINITIONS

Jurisdiction -- The power and authority constitutionally conferred upon (or constitutionally recognized as existing in) a court or judge to pronounce the sentence of the law [...]

Citizen -- "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. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."

Legal Immigrant -- Is subject to the jurisdiction of his birth country. Meaning in his native land (China for example) he can still vote, join the military, attend public school, own property, etc. For example: an individual holding dual citizenship; Chinese as birth citizen, U.S. as legal immigrant.
1Percenter
Posts: 781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2015 5:59:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/20/2015 3:48:27 PM, TBR wrote:
Well, lets see. He wants to deport all illegal immigrants. That has a cost associated with it between 250-600 billion. It would be a horrific forced deportation, and virtually logistically impossible, but lets just assume the Trump the Great can pull it off.


This is a bargain considering that illegal immigrants currently cost over $100 billion every year. If given amnesty, the illegals could cost around $6 trillion over their lifetime.
Also, history proves that mass deportation is neither difficult nor necessarily violent. It's been done before, it can be done again.

Care to back that number in any way?

http://www.heritage.org...
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2015 6:51:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Reading it now, but there are issues right off the bat.

Direct benefits. These include Social Security, Medicare, unemployment insurance, and workers" compensation.
Nope. They are going to have to explain how illegals are getting these services, and in excess of what they are paying. Everything I have seen shows the opposite is true.

Means-tested welfare benefits. There are over 80 of these programs which, at a cost of nearly $900 billion per year, provide cash, food, housing, medical, and other services to roughly 100 million low-income Americans. Major programs include Medicaid, food stamps, the refundable Earned Income Tax Credit, public housing, Supplemental Security Income, and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families.
Again, there are no legal ways for illegal immigrants to get any of these services. I will keep reading, but not off to a great start.

Public education. At a cost of $12,300 per pupil per year, these services are largely free or heavily subsidized for low-income parents.
This one is true. However, just chucking that number out, without the offset of the same taxes they are paying (just like American students) is faulty math.

Population-based services. Police, fire, highways, parks, and similar services, as the National Academy of Sciences determined in its study of the fiscal costs of immigration, generally have to expand as new immigrants enter a community; someone has to bear the cost of that expansion.
Again, the assumption is the immigrants are not paying the same taxes that fund these services.
MakeSensePeopleDont
Posts: 1,106
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2015 7:22:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/20/2015 6:51:01 PM, TBR wrote:
Reading it now, but there are issues right off the bat.

Direct benefits. These include Social Security, Medicare, unemployment insurance, and workers" compensation.
Nope. They are going to have to explain how illegals are getting these services, and in excess of what they are paying. Everything I have seen shows the opposite is true.

@TBR

Again, you fail to read and research things and again you are wrong. Buddy, you should really stop listening to media and start doing your own research.

For example: the Social Security Administration has confirmed that amnestied illegals are currently slated to being collecting Social Security as early as 2017.

http://www.breitbart.com...

Then, as far as government benefits supplied by tax payers: Remember Obama's push for amnesty and his public announcements of how horribly these illegal immigrants are treated on the journey over the border; getting raped, forced to drug mule, watching some of them die or be murdered, so on and so forth? Yeeeaaaa well there was a very calculated reason for that. There are stipulations in our benefits packages that DIRECTLY state that basically any illegal immigrant who is deemed to have been mistreated during their trek here illegally is eligible for full benefits. The term mistreated is never defined or categorized and is instead left up to...you guessed it, the government. Then there is the clause for human trafficking victim, which they have also pushed as a "woe is me" argument for the illegals without telling us that calling them victims of human trafficking gives these illegals a direct route to benefits.

http://www.ssa.gov...

Ill stop there for now.
1Percenter
Posts: 781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2015 7:47:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/20/2015 6:51:01 PM, TBR wrote:
Reading it now, but there are issues right off the bat.

Direct benefits. These include Social Security, Medicare, unemployment insurance, and workers" compensation.
Nope. They are going to have to explain how illegals are getting these services, and in excess of what they are paying. Everything I have seen shows the opposite is true.


They become legal citizens through amnesty. Apparently you didn't even read the reports title. After 13 or so years, they begin collecting welfare.
Means-tested welfare benefits. There are over 80 of these programs which, at a cost of nearly $900 billion per year, provide cash, food, housing, medical, and other services to roughly 100 million low-income Americans. Major programs include Medicaid, food stamps, the refundable Earned Income Tax Credit, public housing, Supplemental Security Income, and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families.
Again, there are no legal ways for illegal immigrants to get any of these services. I will keep reading, but not off to a great start.

Public education. At a cost of $12,300 per pupil per year, these services are largely free or heavily subsidized for low-income parents.
This one is true. However, just chucking that number out, without the offset of the same taxes they are paying (just like American students) is faulty math.


What is the mysterious "education tax" that you are talking about? The only taxes that need to be considered are state and federal taxes, which are used when evaluating the net cost of each illegal immigrant household.
Population-based services. Police, fire, highways, parks, and similar services, as the National Academy of Sciences determined in its study of the fiscal costs of immigration, generally have to expand as new immigrants enter a community; someone has to bear the cost of that expansion.
Again, the assumption is the immigrants are not paying the same taxes that fund these services.

Such assumption was never made. Taxes are accounted for. The expenses in services, benefits and education are far greater than the taxes they would pay into the system. Read the whole thing.
xus00HAY
Posts: 1,390
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2015 11:33:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
What Trump should is base a immigration policy on his personal life. Build a high wall, yes but let in young women who are particularly good looking.