Trumps deportation plan would cost $100-$200 BILLION

[Boss]

I'm going to say this again because it needs to penetrate your thick head... SCOTUS has NEVER ruled that children born of illegal aliens are citizens by birthright. NEVER!

Yes, they have, in US v Wong. They did not care how mom and dad got here, just were you bron here, period, and almost without exception. It's in the ruling.

Again, Wong was not about illegal immigrants. If you read the ruling you see SCOTUS found Wong met the criteria of jurisdiction as "jurisdiction" is intended to mean by the authors. It is not a geographical jurisdiction but a political question of allegiance.

Nothing is IN the ruling that cannot be there. SCOTUS does not have power to determine the naturalization of anyone... period! That is a power specifically enumerated to Congress and Congress alone. Article 1 Section 8 Clause 4.

 

[charwin95]

Illegals have no place in the United States. A person who applies for a work visa and is given one is not illegal. And it is ridiculous for anyone to imagine that police would go door to door. They would simply wait until an illegal did something wrong and then deport him and any illegal family members.

A child born to an illegal in the US, should also be deported with the family unit. A child belongs with his parents but should be able to re-enter the US when he reaches 21.

Anyone who is not willing to see the logic in what I've stated, is likely only seeking votes for the Democratic party ---- or they wish to keep their household staff. My ancestors certainly needed to go through Ellis Island protocol. I cannot imagine why selected races should receive preferential treatment.

Paragraph 1. Yes there are illegals that committed crimes like drug dealers, rapist, killers etc. and they are in jail. And this is what is going on right now. Most came here to seek better life for their families. So how long you have to WAIT till these other illegals commit heinous crimes before you start deporting?
How do you deport 11 millions + illegals by force without drastic, inhumane and irresponsible move? You have to raid houses, schools, malls, churches, airport etc. etc. marines on every streets checking IDs. Do you have other ideas how to accomplish this mission?

Let me give you 2 scenarios. I hope you have kids.
#1. Deport 11 millions + illegals with their US citizen kids. On the low side 20 millions to maybe 30 to 40 millions of these kids. Somewhere in Mexico these kids don't have home to live, no land, no food, no education, no future. Nothing. If you are parent are you willing to starve your kids? What do you think these of kids will become but criminal way of how to survive.
When they grow older they return to US criminals and uneducated. These are by the millions and millions and more because some will have families that they can bring to US. What kind of jobs do you think these people can find in U.S. except crimes and welfare. Don't bother to count that they can now petition their inlaws, inlaws petition their siblings, sibliibgs can petition and so on. ALL on welfare. Is that acceptable to you or anybody?

#2. Deport illegal parents and leave us citizen kids behind min. 20 to 30 to millions of these kids. Who do you think will take care these kids. Food, day care, clothing, schools etc. Friends, relatives, FEMA camps, orphanage? Tax payers will carry most or all of these expenses. Which we never have to take care before to begin with.
Most or all will pick #2. At least they have a future.
As an example SA American countries shoved unaccompanied children as young as 4 years old to our border in Texas. We tax payers take care these kids without parents. Numbers is only 30k and they are having a difficult time placing them. Think of 30 millions us citizen kids.
What is the realistic way of facing this problem? BTW I was a republican.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I'm going to say this again because it needs to penetrate your thick head... SCOTUS has NEVER ruled that children born of illegal aliens are citizens by birthright. NEVER!

Yes, they have, in US v Wong. They did not care how mom and dad got here, just were you bron here, period, and almost without exception. It's in the ruling.

Again, Wong was not about illegal immigrants. If you read the ruling you see SCOTUS found Wong met the criteria of jurisdiction as "jurisdiction" is intended to mean by the authors. It is not a geographical jurisdiction but a political question of allegiance.

Nothing is IN the ruling that cannot be there. SCOTUS does not have power to determine the naturalization of anyone... period! That is a power specifically enumerated to Congress and Congress alone. Article 1 Section 8 Clause 4.

Wong dealt with illegal immigrants having babies here in the opinion. And it was geographical. Since he was a US citizen, he was born here, went to China but always planned to return and did not renounce his American citizenship, he was let back in even though immigration from China at that time was banned. What you think matters in this case, doesn't.

And, Congress sets naturalization, the Supreme Court deals with Constitutional items, like Amendments, including the one granting birthright citizenship!!!

 

[Boss]

Illegals have no place in the United States. A person who applies for a work visa and is given one is not illegal. And it is ridiculous for anyone to imagine that police would go door to door. They would simply wait until an illegal did something wrong and then deport him and any illegal family members.

A child born to an illegal in the US, should also be deported with the family unit. A child belongs with his parents but should be able to re-enter the US when he reaches 21.

Anyone who is not willing to see the logic in what I've stated, is likely only seeking votes for the Democratic party ---- or they wish to keep their household staff. My ancestors certainly needed to go through Ellis Island protocol. I cannot imagine why selected races should receive preferential treatment.

Paragraph 1. Yes there are illegals that committed crimes like drug dealers, rapist, killers etc. and they are in jail. And this is what is going on right now. Most came here to seek better life for their families. So how long you have to WAIT till these other illegals commit heinous crimes before you start deporting?
How do you deport 11 millions + illegals by force without drastic, inhumane and irresponsible move? You have to raid houses, schools, malls, churches, airport etc. etc. marines on every streets checking IDs. Do you have other ideas how to accomplish this mission?

Let me give you 2 scenarios. I hope you have kids.
#1. Deport 11 millions + illegals with their US citizen kids. On the low side 20 millions to maybe 30 to 40 millions of these kids. Somewhere in Mexico these kids don't have home to live, no land, no food, no education, no future. Nothing. If you are parent are you willing to starve your kids? What do you think these of kids will become but criminal way of how to survive.
When they grow older they return to US criminals and uneducated. These are by the millions and millions and more because some will have families that they can bring to US. What kind of jobs do you think these people can find in U.S. except crimes and welfare. Don't bother to count that they can now petition their inlaws, inlaws petition their siblings, sibliibgs can petition and so on. ALL on welfare. Is that acceptable to you or anybody?

#2. Deport illegal parents and leave us citizen kids behind min. 20 to 30 to millions of these kids. Who do you think will take care these kids. Food, day care, clothing, schools etc. Friends, relatives, FEMA camps, orphanage? Tax payers will carry most or all of these expenses. Which we never have to take care before to begin with.
Most or all will pick #2. At least they have a future.
As an example SA American countries shoved unaccompanied children as young as 4 years old to our border in Texas. We tax payers take care these kids without parents. Numbers is only 30k and they are having a difficult time placing them. Think of 30 millions us citizen kids.
What is the realistic way of facing this problem? BTW I was a republican.

No one has suggested raiding houses and checking IDs... so why do you bring this up as if someone has? Do you really fear that this will become mob mentality? I think we all comprehend the problem in deporting 11-20 million illegal aliens. This is precisely why the wall needs to be built and we need to stop creating excuses for not building it.

As for your imagination, I can't do much about the ideas you create in your head. I don't care about who takes care of these kids or what kind of upbringing they get. It's not my problem, I am trying to support my family.

So let's talk about Option #3:

Build a ******* big ass wall!
Deport ALL illegal aliens who violate the law, AND their kids.
When we've stopped the influx of illegals coming in...
We can reasonably discuss 'paths to citizenship' or whatever.
Amnesty isn't fair to those who come here legally, so it can't be amnesty.

 

[Boss]

Wong dealt with illegal immigrants having babies here in the opinion.

No... it didn't! It dealt with LEGAL immigrants.

 

[Boss]

And it was geographical.

No it wasn't.. It's in the text of the ruling itself.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Wong dealt with illegal immigrants having babies here in the opinion.

No... it didn't! It dealt with LEGAL immigrants having babies here.

It dealt with both, dumbass. Why do you think the dissenters didn't like the ruling? Because it opened the door, that has stayed open.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

And it was geographical.

No it wasn't.. It's in the text of the ruling itself.

I read it, remember, and all that mattered in the end was that he was born here, on US soil under US jurisdiction. That's it.

 

[LittleNipper]

Illegals have no place in the United States. A person who applies for a work visa and is given one is not illegal. And it is ridiculous for anyone to imagine that police would go door to door. They would simply wait until an illegal did something wrong and then deport him and any illegal family members.

A child born to an illegal in the US, should also be deported with the family unit. A child belongs with his parents but should be able to re-enter the US when he reaches 21.

Anyone who is not willing to see the logic in what I've stated, is likely only seeking votes for the Democratic party ---- or they wish to keep their household staff. My ancestors certainly needed to go through Ellis Island protocol. I cannot imagine why selected races should receive preferential treatment.

What about people who only want to work in the US, make some money, and go home?

Let them apply for a work visa. This means that we know they are here, what they are doing, and can be expelled when they do things we find unacceptable.

 

[Kondor3]

And it was geographical.

No it wasn't.. It's in the text of the ruling itself.

I read it, remember, and all that mattered in the end was that he was born here, on US soil under US jurisdiction. That's it.

And, once 'jurisdiction' is sub-divided into convenient 'aspects' (law-enforcement, citizenship status, etc.) the courts will be free to rule to re-interpret the 14th in that light.

After all, the Constitution is not a suicide pact, and various aspects of the Constitution are re-interpreted from time to time, to suit the needs of the Nation and its People.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

And it was geographical.

No it wasn't.. It's in the text of the ruling itself.

I read it, remember, and all that mattered in the end was that he was born here, on US soil under US jurisdiction. That's it.

And, once 'jurisdiction' is sub-divided into convenient 'aspects' (law-enforcement, claims to citizenship, obligations to the nation, etc.) the courts will be free to rule to re-interpret the 14th in that light.

After all, the Constitution is not a suicide pact, and various aspects of the Constitution are re-interpreted from time to time, to suit the needs of the Nation and its People.

If the court will take the case, but I doubt it. It's been on the books since 1898 eh?

 

[Kondor3]

...If the court will take the case, but I doubt it. It's been on the books since 1898 eh?

Yep. However long it's been, it's been a while. That's why 'jurisdiction' will have to be compartmentalized rather than treated holistically; in order to merit such a review.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

...If the court will take the case, but I doubt it. It's been on the books since 1898 eh?

Yep. However long it's been, it's been a while. That's why 'jurisdiction' will have to be compartmentalized rather than treated holistically; in order to merit such a review.

Good luck trying to find a way to go against more than 100 years of history...

 

[Kondor3]

...If the court will take the case, but I doubt it. It's been on the books since 1898 eh?

Yep. However long it's been, it's been a while. That's why 'jurisdiction' will have to be compartmentalized rather than treated holistically; in order to merit such a review.

Good luck trying to find a way to go against more than 100 years of history...

You mean, like, overturning 230 years of anti-homosexual statute (sodomy laws, etc.)?

 

[Boss]

It dealt with both, dumbass.

How could it have dealt with both when it wasn't about both?

You're such a dumbass it's not even funny. No... SCOTUS cases about one thing are NOT about totally different things it never heard a case on. Sorry, that's not how SCOTUS rulings work.

If you read the Wong finding, you will see that "jurisdiction" is clearly and unequivocally understood and reiterated to mean "political allegiance" and not "geography" as you seem to want to pervert it into. The Court found Wong met the criteria for "subject to jurisdiction" regardless of Chinese nationality. Just 6 years before Wong, the same Court ruled a Native American born on US soil was NOT a citizen by birth because the "political allegiance" criteria had not been met.

Again... The 14th Amendment says:
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.

If they intended to confer birthright citizenship automatically, as a result of simply being born on US soil... there would be no need for the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." It is not there so they could make it look fancy or sound important. The phrase has a very important meaning behind it and that is what is being explained to you.

So they have to be born or naturalized in the US, but they also have to meet the criteria of being "subject to jurisdiction thereof" and I posted a very good article explaining what that meant as well. You want to ignore that and pretend the phrase doesn't exist. I'm really sorry... I wish this wasn't going so badly for you... but the words are there, they have meaning.

 

[Boss]

...If the court will take the case, but I doubt it. It's been on the books since 1898 eh?

Yep. However long it's been, it's been a while. That's why 'jurisdiction' will have to be compartmentalized rather than treated holistically; in order to merit such a review.

Good luck trying to find a way to go against more than 100 years of history...

This is not about history, it's about the Constitution. Congress can (and has) made all kinds of determinations on naturalization and what constitutes a legal vs. illegal immigrant. That is entirely their power under Article 1 Section 8 Clause 4... it has NOTHING to do with SCOTUS.

 

[Boss]

I read it, remember, and all that mattered in the end was that he was born here, on US soil under US jurisdiction. That's it.

No I keep reading your misinformed opinion on what mattered. You're an idiot.

I gave you a case from 6 years before which a Native American who was born on US soil, under geographical jurisdiction of the US government was DENIED citizenship! So how can this be, if being born here is all that matters and all that is required? He WAS born here! His parents and grandparents were born here!

 

[PaintMyHouse]

...If the court will take the case, but I doubt it. It's been on the books since 1898 eh?

Yep. However long it's been, it's been a while. That's why 'jurisdiction' will have to be compartmentalized rather than treated holistically; in order to merit such a review.

Good luck trying to find a way to go against more than 100 years of history...

This is not about history, it's about the Constitution. Congress can (and has) made all kinds of determinations on naturalization and what constitutes a legal vs. illegal immigrant. That is entirely their power under Article 1 Section 8 Clause 4... it has NOTHING to do with SCOTUS.

This doesn't have a damn thing to do with naturalization.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I read it, remember, and all that mattered in the end was that he was born here, on US soil under US jurisdiction. That's it.

No I keep reading your misinformed opinion on what mattered. You're an idiot.

I gave you a case from 6 years before which a Native American who was born on US soil, under geographical jurisdiction of the US government was DENIED citizenship! So how can this be, if being born here is all that matters and all that is required? He WAS born here! His parents and grandparents were born here!

Native Americans were one of the exceptions. Being here legally or illegally was not. And in Wong's case what they cared about was was he born here even though he was born to two Chinese Nationals, both of whom were "subject to"...

 

[PaintMyHouse]

So they have to be born...in the US, but they also have to meet the criteria of being "subject to jurisdiction thereof"...

Close enough for government work, and illegals are "subject to" which is why their children born here are American Citizens, automatically.

Who is not, someone with Diplomatic Immunity. They are not "subject to" no matter where they go in US jurisdiction...