Real "Immigration Reform"

DGS49

Diamond Member
Apr 12, 2012
15,888
13,431
2,415
Pittsburgh
Our Beloved President is hell-bent on securing his "legacy" with Democrats of the future by accelerating the apparently-inevitable process of turning all the outlaws who have violated our immigration laws into voting Democrats.

One of the first incremental moves is what he euphemistically calls, "immigration reform." He wants to "legalize" the parents of "Anchor Babies" children who were born here, then "legalize" the kids who are not American citizens because they were born overseas, then brought here illegally by their parents. These "dreamers," the thinking goes, should not be "punished" for the illegalities of their parents. And then, the families of the "dreamers" would follow into legal residency, then citizenship. In total, we are talking about at least five million individuals.

For the moment, I will not even go into what a HUGE incentive this two-pronged Presidential Initiative would be to our Amigos who are at this moment planning to emigrate from Mexico to los Estatos Unidos.

But this is not immigration reform. Immigration reform would be to review the laws we have, make sure they are being enforced, and see what changes need to be made, if any. And ironically, the reforms that are necessary - reforms that would incentivize "high value" immigrants to come here, and discourage future Govenrment Teat Suckers - are of no interest to Our Beloved President, or to his Fellow Travelers in the Democrat party.

Real immigration reform would start by reversing a unique, perverse, and anti-American line of court cases that dictates that anyone who happens to be born on American soil is legally a citizen of the United States of America. No other country has this perverse practice, and the basis on which ours is based in tenuous indeed.

The first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment begins as follows: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States..."

Well.

The proponents of the prevailing (and incorrect) view read this sentence as: All persons born...in the United States...are citizens of the United States." But this renders meaningless the words, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." I'm not sure what the authors of the 14th Amendment meant by those words, but surely they were not just using up the leftover ink in their quill. They must have meant something by it, and to conclude that they INTENDED that every piss-ant who henceforth had the good fortune of being born on United States dirt was, de jure, a UNITED fucking STATES CITIZEN is ridiculous and untenable. As I said above, no other country in the world adopted this principle, either before or after the ratification of our 14th Amendment.

So JOB #1, as the saying goes, is to do whatever is necessary to squash this ridiculous rule, whether it be by another Constitutional Amendment, or by legislation, or by "Proclamation." It doesn't matter. The important thing is that it STOP IMMEDIATELY.

Then, we can talk intelligently about "immigration reform."
 
Real "immigration reform"

Not if the Republicans can stop it and, thanks to racism, unfounded fear and low information RWs, they've been pretty successful so far.
 
The people who agree with you have neither the influence nor the numbers nor the money to change the 14th Amendment and its century long interpretation.
 
Dipshit is planning to issue his executive order tomorrow. I just hope the GOP asks SCOTUS for a temporary injunction based on obama's previous assertions that he lacks the authority to unilaterally change existing immigration law.
 
It is difficult to get an injunction to prevent someone from not doing something (deporting criminals who have breached our borders and violated our immigration laws).
 
If an interpretation is old, does that make it correct? (Consider: No court in the first couple hundred years after the Constitution was passed knew that there was a "right of privacy" in the Constitution that voided scores of sodomy laws. Was that understanding correct because it was universal and old?)

Is a lawbreaker entitled to rely on a previous misunderstanding of the Constitution?

Would correcting this blatant misinterpretation be "judicial activism"?

Would this misinterpretation continue if Federal judges were elected?
 
Is the moon green at low tide?

Stop the nattering philosophy, and offer a workable solution.
 

Forum List

Back
Top