Should we go back to the early 19th century immigration policy?

[pinqy]

given all the debate on immigration, and calls for rescinding birthright citizenship, a simple question.

Should we go back to the immigration policy prior to passage of the 14th amendment?
I am not talking about citizenship, just who we let in.

 

[Oddball]

Yes....Simultaneously going back to 18th century welfare policy.

 

[Toro]

This OP is at least 3x the intelligence of the average twaf poster here.

 

[MisterBeale]

This OP is at least 3x the intelligence of the average twaf poster here.

er. . . what is a "twaf poster?"

I Googled and only got this;

5 Twaf Posters and Art Prints | Barewalls

 

[ty.fetty]

given all the debate on immigration, and calls for rescinding birthright citizenship, a simple question.

Should we go back to the immigration policy prior to passage of the 14th amendment?
I am not talking about citizenship, just who we let in.

Well, let me ask you this question. How do you interpret the article of the 14th amendment? Let me ask you this also, should that anchor baby give everyone amnesty or do we still believe in individualism


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[anotherlife]

We would need to examin though how that pure form of immigration legislation gets muddied up with welfare state laws which didn't exist back then.

 

[harmonica]

it should be stricter/less people in

 

[Moonglow]

Only allow hot chicks to enter.

 

[danielpalos]

given all the debate on immigration, and calls for rescinding birthright citizenship, a simple question.

Should we go back to the immigration policy prior to passage of the 14th amendment?
I am not talking about citizenship, just who we let in.

Our welfare clause is General and should cover this contingency due to this express power: To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization

We also have a Commerce Clause. The right wing seems to be all Talk regarding their subscription to Capitalism.

We should not be losing money on border policy. A wall only Costs.

 

[danielpalos]

given all the debate on immigration, and calls for rescinding birthright citizenship, a simple question.

Should we go back to the immigration policy prior to passage of the 14th amendment?
I am not talking about citizenship, just who we let in.

Well, let me ask you this question. How do you interpret the article of the 14th amendment? Let me ask you this also, should that anchor baby give everyone amnesty or do we still believe in individualism


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

the right wing and their Doctrine is worthless if they have nothing but Repeal, instead of better solutions at lower cost.

 

[ty.fetty]

given all the debate on immigration, and calls for rescinding birthright citizenship, a simple question.

Should we go back to the immigration policy prior to passage of the 14th amendment?
I am not talking about citizenship, just who we let in.

Well, let me ask you this question. How do you interpret the article of the 14th amendment? Let me ask you this also, should that anchor baby give everyone amnesty or do we still believe in individualism


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

the right wing and their Doctrine is worthless if they have nothing but Repeal, instead of better solutions at lower cost.

True, but we cannot just use the liberal idea of no boarder because at what point do we have a legitimate conversation about security and, stopping criminal activity? Well, you can say that every person is illegal. Not really the case but if you are entering illegally then you are trespassing


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Mr Natural]

Those tables are not going to bus themselves.

 

[pinqy]

given all the debate on immigration, and calls for rescinding birthright citizenship, a simple question.

Should we go back to the immigration policy prior to passage of the 14th amendment?
I am not talking about citizenship, just who we let in.

Well, let me ask you this question. How do you interpret the article of the 14th amendment?

Assuming you’re only referring to the citizenship clause, I don’t think there is any interpretation: the children born in the U.S. to those who were legally in the country at that time, with the exceptions of Indians born on reservations and the children of those with diplomatic immunity. The exception for Indians was done away with by the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924. I think that it should be the same now...regardless of any later changes in the law, if someone would be here legally under 1868 immigration laws then their children born here are U.S. citizens

Let me ask you this also, should that anchor baby give everyone amnesty or do we still believe in individualism

It never has given amnesty. Having a U.S. citizen child doesn’t have any affect on the mother or father’s legal status.

 

[fncceo]

We would seem to have plenty of potatoes these days and the railroads are already built.

So there really doesn't seem to be a need.

 

[ty.fetty]

Does anyone remember how the past administrations are on immigration policies?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[danielpalos]

given all the debate on immigration, and calls for rescinding birthright citizenship, a simple question.

Should we go back to the immigration policy prior to passage of the 14th amendment?
I am not talking about citizenship, just who we let in.

Well, let me ask you this question. How do you interpret the article of the 14th amendment? Let me ask you this also, should that anchor baby give everyone amnesty or do we still believe in individualism


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

the right wing and their Doctrine is worthless if they have nothing but Repeal, instead of better solutions at lower cost.

True, but we cannot just use the liberal idea of no boarder because at what point do we have a legitimate conversation about security and, stopping criminal activity? Well, you can say that every person is illegal. Not really the case but if you are entering illegally then you are trespassing


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

There is no express wall building power. Or any power for alleged wars on crime, drugs, or terror.

 

[Taz]

given all the debate on immigration, and calls for rescinding birthright citizenship, a simple question.

Should we go back to the immigration policy prior to passage of the 14th amendment?
I am not talking about citizenship, just who we let in.

Well, let me ask you this question. How do you interpret the article of the 14th amendment? Let me ask you this also, should that anchor baby give everyone amnesty or do we still believe in individualism


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

the right wing and their Doctrine is worthless if they have nothing but Repeal, instead of better solutions at lower cost.

True, but we cannot just use the liberal idea of no boarder because at what point do we have a legitimate conversation about security and, stopping criminal activity? Well, you can say that every person is illegal. Not really the case but if you are entering illegally then you are trespassing


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

There is no express wall building power. Or any power for alleged wars on crime, drugs, or terror.

Have your hundreds of cousins not made it up yet?

 

[danielpalos]

given all the debate on immigration, and calls for rescinding birthright citizenship, a simple question.

Should we go back to the immigration policy prior to passage of the 14th amendment?
I am not talking about citizenship, just who we let in.

Well, let me ask you this question. How do you interpret the article of the 14th amendment? Let me ask you this also, should that anchor baby give everyone amnesty or do we still believe in individualism


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

the right wing and their Doctrine is worthless if they have nothing but Repeal, instead of better solutions at lower cost.

True, but we cannot just use the liberal idea of no boarder because at what point do we have a legitimate conversation about security and, stopping criminal activity? Well, you can say that every person is illegal. Not really the case but if you are entering illegally then you are trespassing


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

There is no express wall building power. Or any power for alleged wars on crime, drugs, or terror.

Have your hundreds of cousins not made it up yet?

most would rather engage in Commerce with us over there than have to come here due to the chaos induced by our drug war over there.

 

[Taz]

Well, let me ask you this question. How do you interpret the article of the 14th amendment? Let me ask you this also, should that anchor baby give everyone amnesty or do we still believe in individualism


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

the right wing and their Doctrine is worthless if they have nothing but Repeal, instead of better solutions at lower cost.

True, but we cannot just use the liberal idea of no boarder because at what point do we have a legitimate conversation about security and, stopping criminal activity? Well, you can say that every person is illegal. Not really the case but if you are entering illegally then you are trespassing


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

There is no express wall building power. Or any power for alleged wars on crime, drugs, or terror.

Have your hundreds of cousins not made it up yet?

most would rather engage in Commerce with us over there than have to come here due to the chaos induced by our drug war over there.

We’re not forcing them to deal drugs. And we’re full up on drug dealers up here.

 

[danielpalos]

the right wing and their Doctrine is worthless if they have nothing but Repeal, instead of better solutions at lower cost.

True, but we cannot just use the liberal idea of no boarder because at what point do we have a legitimate conversation about security and, stopping criminal activity? Well, you can say that every person is illegal. Not really the case but if you are entering illegally then you are trespassing


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

There is no express wall building power. Or any power for alleged wars on crime, drugs, or terror.

Have your hundreds of cousins not made it up yet?

most would rather engage in Commerce with us over there than have to come here due to the chaos induced by our drug war over there.

We’re not forcing them to deal drugs. And we’re full up on drug dealers up here.

there is no express drug war or wall building clause in our Constitution.