Trumps deportation plan would cost $100-$200 BILLION

[OnePercenter]

Why are liberal morons so eager to subject employers to jail terms but perfectly content to allow illegals, who obviously broke the law, to remain here and enjoy government benefits? People who say this stuff are just commies who hate capitalism.

So by allowing employers to break the law is promoting capitalism?

How many illegals in the United States of America are Canadian?

Are you legal?

 

[bripat9643]

How do you find and deport 11 million people? And what legal theory allows the deportation to Mexico of American citizens?

Who's talking about deporting American citizens?

Trump. The children of undocumented.

'anchor babies' are all about citizenship and 'anchoring' extended families....meaning practically whole villages come here because they are 'related' to the 'anchor baby' and we wouldn't want to deny the baby his 'family'......a totally insane practice....also called 'chain migration'.....

'anchor babies' is a fraud cooked up via an insane Justice Brennan footnote in a 1982 case....even Harry Reid thought it crazy as he introduced a bill in 1993 to end citizenship for babies of illegals....
Justice Brennan's Footnote Gave Us Anchor Babies | Human Events

Bullshit. Natural born citzenship

Who's talking about deporting American citizens?

Trump. The children of undocumented.

Was it Ok with you when Harry said it?
“no sane country” would give automatic citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants.

I do not care what a Senator said. The Constitution states otherwise.

Our 14th Amendment was for Slaves not illegals who come here to give birth.

The 14th Amendment, you constitutionally illiterate asshole, was for all citizens. It prohibits states from denying due process or equal rights to any citizen, defined as anyone born in the United States.

Nope. A citizen is someone born under the "jurisdiction" of the United States. That means the legal jurisdiction. Note. That didn't include Indians and it didn't include the children of ambassadors, so why should it include the children of illegal aliens?

 

[bripat9643]

How do you find and deport 11 million people? And what legal theory allows the deportation to Mexico of American citizens?

Who's talking about deporting American citizens?

Trump. The children of undocumented.

'anchor babies' are all about citizenship and 'anchoring' extended families....meaning practically whole villages come here because they are 'related' to the 'anchor baby' and we wouldn't want to deny the baby his 'family'......a totally insane practice....also called 'chain migration'.....

'anchor babies' is a fraud cooked up via an insane Justice Brennan footnote in a 1982 case....even Harry Reid thought it crazy as he introduced a bill in 1993 to end citizenship for babies of illegals....
Justice Brennan's Footnote Gave Us Anchor Babies | Human Events

You cite Ann Coulter? She is a ******* moron. The 14th Amendment is 150 years old. It has never been construed other than to provide for citizenship to those born here.

Wrongo. It's only been construed that way since the 1960s. You're an idiot who doesn't know a thing about the Constitution.

 

[bripat9643]

Trump. The children of undocumented.

Was it Ok with you when Harry said it?
“no sane country” would give automatic citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants.

I do not care what a Senator said. The Constitution states otherwise.

You might want to read what the writers of the 14th Amendment had to say on the subject.

Before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, citizens of the states were automatically considered citizens of the United States. In 1857, the Dred Scott v. Sanford decision had held that no black of African descent (even a freed black) could be a citizen of the United States. The Fourteenth Amendment was thus necessary to overturn Dred Scott and to settle the question of the citizenship of the newly freed slaves. The Fourteenth Amendment made United States citizenship primary and state citizenship derivative. The primacy of federal citizenship made it impossible for states to prevent former slaves from becoming United States citizens by withholding state citizenship. States could no longer prevent any black from United States citizenship or from state citizenship either.

The Civil Rights Act of 1866 had previously asserted that "All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States." The immediate impetus for the Fourteenth Amendment was to constitutionalize and validate the Civil Rights Act because some had questioned whether the Thirteenth Amendment was a sufficient basis for its constitutionality. A constitutional amendment would also have the advantage of preventing a later unfriendly Congress from repealing it.

One conspicuous departure from the language of the Civil Rights Act was the elimination of the phrase "Indians not taxed." Senator Jacob Howard of Ohio, the author of the Citizenship Clause, defended the new language against the charge that it would make Indians citizens of the United States. Howard assured skeptics that "Indians born within the limits of the United States, and who maintain their tribal relations, are not, in the sense of this amendment, born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States." Senator Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, supported Howard, contending that "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" meant "not owing allegiance to anybody else...subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States." Indians, he concluded, were not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States because they owed allegiance—even if only partial allegiance—to their tribes. Thus, two requirements were set for United States citizenship: born or naturalized in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction.

By itself, birth within the territorial limits of the United States, as the case of the Indians indicated, did not make one automatically "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. And "jurisdiction" did not mean simply subject to the laws of the United States or subject to the jurisdiction of its courts. Rather, "jurisdiction" meant exclusive "allegiance" to the United States. Not all who were subject to the laws owed allegiance to the United States. As Senator Howard remarked, the requirement of "jurisdiction," understood in the sense of "allegiance," "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."

Guide to the Constitution

Since the Supreme Court has ruled against you, more than 100 years ago, now what?

You clearly have a trouble with comprehension. The only persons born in the US who would not be considered citizens, by virtue of their birth would be. "foreigners, alien, WHO BELONG TO THE FAMILIES OF AMBASSADORS OR FOREIGN MINISTERS..." Only foreigners who are the children of ambassadors or foreign ministers here on official duty would not be considered to be natural born citizens.

What about Indians? Where they considered citizens in 1870? If the children of ambassadors and Indians are not citizens, then why are the children of illegal aliens citizens?

 

[bripat9643]

But, I think the supreme court could rule that the 14th does not provide children of people here illegally are citizens without amending the 14th.

The court could rule that a cat is a dog if it wants to, and I wouldn't put it past the current court.

 

[bripat9643]

But, I think the supreme court could rule that the 14th does not provide children of people here illegally are citizens without amending the 14th.

Wrong, Article 1 gives congress the exclusive right to establish uniform rules of naturalization and as I have posted above the writers of the 14th and no intention of conferring birth right citizenship on foreigners.

Well you can stamp your tiny feet all you want, but fed courts have consistently construed Wong Kim Ark to mean anyone born here is a citizen. However, Wong Kim Ark actually involved parents legally here ... from china. I think congress could pass a law in an attempt to change birth citizenship, because to my knowledge the scotus has not explicitly said children born to illegals here are citizens. Of course the scotus could overturn that law. If the scoutus has ruled illegal immigrant births resulting in citizens, the congress can't do jack shite about it. The supreme court could hold otherwise, or there could be a constitutional amend. Absent that, neither you nor the Donald get a vote.

I get it, your cool with the courts ignoring original intent and just doing what ever the hell they want.

the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch."

-- Thomas Jefferson

I'm for the rule of law. Original intent is a fallacy, because on abortion guns the 14th, you name it, original intent can be argued either way.

What you mean is that there is always some leftwing scumbag who will argue that the Constitution is ambiguous when it's really clear as day.

 

[Ame®icano]

Trump wants them deported as well. There would be no way to keep the family together otherwise. Read what he says instead of trying to impose your own vision. If he doesn't want to split up families then he would have to deport the kiddos. There's no other way.

People are reading and listening what Trump is saying and so far, message is reaching out. Maybe you lefties should listen your own advise and listen what Obama was saying before he got elected instead of trying to impose your own vision.

Second, funny that lefties are talking about keeping families together... really?

 

[bripat9643]

Yep, I knew, it's a start but only deals with one small facet of the problem. 40% of illegals come in legally on temporary visas and never leave. I proposed to my congresscritters that they establish a return bond system. They pay a small fee to purchase a return bond, then if they fail to exit as agreed, bounty hunters will track them down and turn them over for removal with just the clothes on their backs. No need for a court as they would be declared a fugitive when they fail to leave.

That would be illegal under current immigration law, and the 14th requires DP even to non-citizens when they are deported.... and that involves a court hearing.

Not really, when a person applies for a temporary visa they are essentially entering into a contract to return home as agreed, just being here beyond that date is all that would be necessary to put them on a plane. Terms of the bond could stipulate that, so there would no denial of due process.

Sorry Tex, but due process requires a judicial hearing. The exception is when a deportee goes back voluntarily, or if he/she NEVER had a legal right to be here, and under present law, has only been here a short time and is apprehended near the border
Expedited removal deportations: Immigrants don't get due process | The New Republic

What I proposed was a change to the law, can't you read?

Yes, but you appear unable to comprehend that the change you proposed would be unconstitutional, because the ONLY exception to due process requiring a judicial hearing is the deportee was never legally here. Your "proposal" cannot fly because deportees cannot waive a right to challenge their visa should have been extended.

If they haven't tried to extend their visa, then why is a hearing required?

 

[bripat9643]

Why are liberal morons so eager to subject employers to jail terms but perfectly content to allow illegals, who obviously broke the law, to remain here and enjoy government benefits? People who say this stuff are just commies who hate capitalism.

So by allowing employers to break the law is promoting capitalism?

How many illegals in the United States of America are Canadian?

Are you legal?

There's no law saying employers go to jail for hiring illegals, numskull. They are subject to fines.

 

[Ame®icano]

There's no law saying employers go to jail for hiring illegals, numskull. They are subject to fines.

Correct.

And that should change. First offense for hiring illegal, $100K per head. Second offense, lock the door.

There would be no illegal working in US within a month or less.

 

[Ame®icano]

They do want to deport American citizens, the little brown ones whose parents are not here legally. That's what Trump means when he says keeping the family together. It means the kids go as well only they are Americans.

He said that? How about link?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

They do want to deport American citizens, the little brown ones whose parents are not here legally. That's what Trump means when he says keeping the family together. It means the kids go as well only they are Americans.

He said that? How about link?

Since he wants the kids, who are Americans, to go with the parents, that means deporting the parents is deporting the kids. If he could remove their birthright citizenship, he would do that as well.

 

[bedowin62]

They do want to deport American citizens, the little brown ones whose parents are not here legally. That's what Trump means when he says keeping the family together. It means the kids go as well only they are Americans.

He said that? How about link?

Since he wants the kids, who are Americans, to go with the parents, that means deporting the parents is deporting the kids. If he could remove their birthright citizenship, he would do that as well.

YAWN again idiot. who WOULDNT want children to stay with their parents? dont you?

the chain of events leading to the situation where that choice had to be made was put in motion by the person who entered the country illegally.

 

[bedowin62]

They do want to deport American citizens, the little brown ones whose parents are not here legally. That's what Trump means when he says keeping the family together. It means the kids go as well only they are Americans.

He said that? How about link?

Since he wants the kids, who are Americans, to go with the parents, that means deporting the parents is deporting the kids. If he could remove their birthright citizenship, he would do that as well.

or they can stay with relatives or something right dummy???

maybe YOU can take them in?

 

[Ame®icano]

They do want to deport American citizens, the little brown ones whose parents are not here legally. That's what Trump means when he says keeping the family together. It means the kids go as well only they are Americans.

He said that? How about link?

Since he wants the kids, who are Americans, to go with the parents, that means deporting the parents is deporting the kids. If he could remove their birthright citizenship, he would do that as well.

Don't tell me what it means in your skewed mind. Provide a link where he said it.

 

[bedowin62]

Paint your own house idiot; you got company coming over and they aint leaving until they are at least 18. do the right thing here son!

 

[PaintMyHouse]

They do want to deport American citizens, the little brown ones whose parents are not here legally. That's what Trump means when he says keeping the family together. It means the kids go as well only they are Americans.

He said that? How about link?

Since he wants the kids, who are Americans, to go with the parents, that means deporting the parents is deporting the kids. If he could remove their birthright citizenship, he would do that as well.

YAWN again idiot. who WOULDNT want children to stay with their parents? dont you?

the chain of events leading to the situation where that choice had to be made was put in motion by the person who entered the country illegally.

You are fine with deporting small brown Americans, I am not.

 

[OKTexas]

I do not care what a Senator said. The Constitution states otherwise.

You might want to read what the writers of the 14th Amendment had to say on the subject.

Before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, citizens of the states were automatically considered citizens of the United States. In 1857, the Dred Scott v. Sanford decision had held that no black of African descent (even a freed black) could be a citizen of the United States. The Fourteenth Amendment was thus necessary to overturn Dred Scott and to settle the question of the citizenship of the newly freed slaves. The Fourteenth Amendment made United States citizenship primary and state citizenship derivative. The primacy of federal citizenship made it impossible for states to prevent former slaves from becoming United States citizens by withholding state citizenship. States could no longer prevent any black from United States citizenship or from state citizenship either.

The Civil Rights Act of 1866 had previously asserted that "All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States." The immediate impetus for the Fourteenth Amendment was to constitutionalize and validate the Civil Rights Act because some had questioned whether the Thirteenth Amendment was a sufficient basis for its constitutionality. A constitutional amendment would also have the advantage of preventing a later unfriendly Congress from repealing it.

One conspicuous departure from the language of the Civil Rights Act was the elimination of the phrase "Indians not taxed." Senator Jacob Howard of Ohio, the author of the Citizenship Clause, defended the new language against the charge that it would make Indians citizens of the United States. Howard assured skeptics that "Indians born within the limits of the United States, and who maintain their tribal relations, are not, in the sense of this amendment, born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States." Senator Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, supported Howard, contending that "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" meant "not owing allegiance to anybody else...subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States." Indians, he concluded, were not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States because they owed allegiance—even if only partial allegiance—to their tribes. Thus, two requirements were set for United States citizenship: born or naturalized in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction.

By itself, birth within the territorial limits of the United States, as the case of the Indians indicated, did not make one automatically "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. And "jurisdiction" did not mean simply subject to the laws of the United States or subject to the jurisdiction of its courts. Rather, "jurisdiction" meant exclusive "allegiance" to the United States. Not all who were subject to the laws owed allegiance to the United States. As Senator Howard remarked, the requirement of "jurisdiction," understood in the sense of "allegiance," "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."

Guide to the Constitution

Since the Supreme Court has ruled against you, more than 100 years ago, now what?

You clearly have a trouble with comprehension. The only persons born in the US who would not be considered citizens, by virtue of their birth would be. "foreigners, alien, WHO BELONG TO THE FAMILIES OF AMBASSADORS OR FOREIGN MINISTERS..." Only foreigners who are the children of ambassadors or foreign ministers here on official duty would not be considered to be natural born citizens.

Evidently you don't understand english composition, when terms are separated by a comma they stand alone. What is it you didn't understand when he said: And "jurisdiction" did not mean simply subject to the laws of the United States or subject to the jurisdiction of its courts. Rather, "jurisdiction" meant exclusive "allegiance" to the United States."

I understand better than you. So do the numerous judges who have held that those born here are citizens.

Right, some leftist judge knows better than the guy who wrote it. Does it hurt to be that gullible?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

They do want to deport American citizens, the little brown ones whose parents are not here legally. That's what Trump means when he says keeping the family together. It means the kids go as well only they are Americans.

He said that? How about link?

Since he wants the kids, who are Americans, to go with the parents, that means deporting the parents is deporting the kids. If he could remove their birthright citizenship, he would do that as well.

Don't tell me what it means in your skewed mind. Provide a link where he said it.

Google is your friend.

"Donald Trump would reverse President Obama's executive orders on immigration and deport all undocumented immigrants from the U.S. as president, he said in an exclusive interview with NBC's Chuck Todd.

"We're going to keep the families together, but they have to go," he said in the interview, which aired in full on NBC's "Meet the Press" Sunday.

Pressed on what he'd do if the immigrants in question had nowhere to return to, Trump reiterated: "They have to go."

"We will work with them. They have to go. Chuck, we either have a country, or we don't have a country," he said."
Donald Trump: Undocumented Immigrants 'Have to Go'

 

[bedowin62]

They do want to deport American citizens, the little brown ones whose parents are not here legally. That's what Trump means when he says keeping the family together. It means the kids go as well only they are Americans.

He said that? How about link?

Since he wants the kids, who are Americans, to go with the parents, that means deporting the parents is deporting the kids. If he could remove their birthright citizenship, he would do that as well.

YAWN again idiot. who WOULDNT want children to stay with their parents? dont you?

the chain of events leading to the situation where that choice had to be made was put in motion by the person who entered the country illegally.

You are fine with deporting small brown Americans, I am not.

good one stupid. but i'm trying to understand how republicans seperated the little brown ones from the rest

fill me in dummy