Trumps deportation plan would cost $100-$200 BILLION

[PaintMyHouse]

But, Trumpettes say that the constitution does not mean what it says. It means something that it doesn't say.

I've noticed that. Quite remarkable since it's petty damn clear and that's the law of the land currently: The GOP’s Birthright Citizenship Flip-Flop

And, it was a GOP idea. That damn Lincoln fellow and company again. Boy do they hate his guts, for freeing the slaves and such...

Sorry but you and Politico don't arbitrarily decide law of the land. The Constitution does not confer birthright citizenship, the SCOTUS has never ruled on such and it would not matter if they did because they don't have the power to establish naturalization laws.

You are flat out LYING to the people... trying to make something a Constitutional right that simply isn't a Constitutional right. You are grossly misinterpreting the Constitution as well as case law, to try and insinuate this is settled law... it's not. You're wrong! I've showed you why you're wrong and still you insist on lying.

Do tell?

"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."

 

[Boss]

There is no amendment needed the court only has to uphold the law as written. Illegal's aren't citizens unless their parents are subject to the jurisdiction of the US government. We've ignored that part for far too long.

Ah, but their parents aren't mentioned now are they?

"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."

Looks like the court is upholding that exactly as written, now isn't it my little *******...

Again, if the Constitution was meant to say what you claim, there is no purpose or reason for "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" ...it would simply state that "all persons born in the US are citizens." Since it doesn't say that, we have to look at what it means... "subject to jurisdiction" is not referring to geographic jurisdiction, it is political allegiance... and even your beloved Wong case recognized this. I point this out to you and you just keep yammering the same stupid shit like a little shit-drone.

Even the person who WROTE the 14th said it did not apply to illegal aliens.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

There is no amendment needed the court only has to uphold the law as written. Illegal's aren't citizens unless their parents are subject to the jurisdiction of the US government. We've ignored that part for far too long.

Ah, but their parents aren't mentioned now are they?

"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."

Looks like the court is upholding that exactly as written, now isn't it my little *******...

Again, if the Constitution was meant to say what you claim, there is no purpose or reason for "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" ...it would simply state that "all persons born in the US are citizens." Since it doesn't say that, we have to look at what it means... "subject to jurisdiction" is not referring to geographic jurisdiction, it is political allegiance... and even your beloved Wong case recognized this. I point this out to you and you just keep yammering the same stupid shit like a little shit-drone.

Even the person who WROTE the 14th said it did not apply to illegal aliens.

Link (not that it matters a damn)? And although the "subject to" does matter, illegals here are "subject to", which ***** you completely. Regardless of what you believe, if the baby is born here and is not part of the very few exceptions, then it is "subject to" and therefore an American citizen, automatically.

In the case of Wong, he was born here and "subject to", period. That is all that mattered...

 

[Boss]

There is no amendment needed the court only has to uphold the law as written. Illegal's aren't citizens unless their parents are subject to the jurisdiction of the US government. We've ignored that part for far too long.

Ah, but their parents aren't mentioned now are they?

"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."

Looks like the court is upholding that exactly as written, now isn't it my little *******...

Again, if the Constitution was meant to say what you claim, there is no purpose or reason for "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" ...it would simply state that "all persons born in the US are citizens." Since it doesn't say that, we have to look at what it means... "subject to jurisdiction" is not referring to geographic jurisdiction, it is political allegiance... and even your beloved Wong case recognized this. I point this out to you and you just keep yammering the same stupid shit like a little shit-drone.

Even the person who WROTE the 14th said it did not apply to illegal aliens.

Link (not that it matters a damn)? And although the "subject to" does matter, illegals here are "subject to", which ***** you completely. Regardless of what you believe, if the baby is born here and is not part of the very few exceptions, then it is "subject to" and therefore an American citizen, automatically.

In the case of Wong, he was born here and "subject to", period. That is all that mattered...

What ‘Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof’ Really Means

In Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment (1998) the court said “jurisdiction is a word of many, too many, meanings.” Therefore, it is important to discover the operational meaning behind “subject to the jurisdiction” as employed under the Fourteenth Amendment rather then assuming its meaning from other usages of the word jurisdiction alone. Both Sen. Trumbull and Sen. Howard provides the answer, with Trumbull declaring:

The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.

Illegal aliens do not meet the criteria. Sorry!

 

[PaintMyHouse]

There is no amendment needed the court only has to uphold the law as written. Illegal's aren't citizens unless their parents are subject to the jurisdiction of the US government. We've ignored that part for far too long.

Ah, but their parents aren't mentioned now are they?

"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."

Looks like the court is upholding that exactly as written, now isn't it my little *******...

Again, if the Constitution was meant to say what you claim, there is no purpose or reason for "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" ...it would simply state that "all persons born in the US are citizens." Since it doesn't say that, we have to look at what it means... "subject to jurisdiction" is not referring to geographic jurisdiction, it is political allegiance... and even your beloved Wong case recognized this. I point this out to you and you just keep yammering the same stupid shit like a little shit-drone.

Even the person who WROTE the 14th said it did not apply to illegal aliens.

Link (not that it matters a damn)? And although the "subject to" does matter, illegals here are "subject to", which ***** you completely. Regardless of what you believe, if the baby is born here and is not part of the very few exceptions, then it is "subject to" and therefore an American citizen, automatically.

In the case of Wong, he was born here and "subject to", period. That is all that mattered...

What ‘Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof’ Really Means

In Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment (1998) the court said “jurisdiction is a word of many, too many, meanings.” Therefore, it is important to discover the operational meaning behind “subject to the jurisdiction” as employed under the Fourteenth Amendment rather then assuming its meaning from other usages of the word jurisdiction alone. Both Sen. Trumbull and Sen. Howard provides the answer, with Trumbull declaring:

The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.

Illegal aliens do not meet the criteria. Sorry!

Tell me, how does a baby have allegiance? Oh wait, they don't have one meaning, they cannot be denied citizenship based upon that. And notice, this Constitutional Amendment mentions nothing about the parents, which is why Wong, born to two Chinese nationals, was considered to have allegiance only to America. Now what, hot shit?

"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."

 

[Boss]

There is no amendment needed the court only has to uphold the law as written. Illegal's aren't citizens unless their parents are subject to the jurisdiction of the US government. We've ignored that part for far too long.

Ah, but their parents aren't mentioned now are they?

"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."

Looks like the court is upholding that exactly as written, now isn't it my little *******...

Again, if the Constitution was meant to say what you claim, there is no purpose or reason for "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" ...it would simply state that "all persons born in the US are citizens." Since it doesn't say that, we have to look at what it means... "subject to jurisdiction" is not referring to geographic jurisdiction, it is political allegiance... and even your beloved Wong case recognized this. I point this out to you and you just keep yammering the same stupid shit like a little shit-drone.

Even the person who WROTE the 14th said it did not apply to illegal aliens.

Link (not that it matters a damn)? And although the "subject to" does matter, illegals here are "subject to", which ***** you completely. Regardless of what you believe, if the baby is born here and is not part of the very few exceptions, then it is "subject to" and therefore an American citizen, automatically.

In the case of Wong, he was born here and "subject to", period. That is all that mattered...

What ‘Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof’ Really Means

In Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment (1998) the court said “jurisdiction is a word of many, too many, meanings.” Therefore, it is important to discover the operational meaning behind “subject to the jurisdiction” as employed under the Fourteenth Amendment rather then assuming its meaning from other usages of the word jurisdiction alone. Both Sen. Trumbull and Sen. Howard provides the answer, with Trumbull declaring:

The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.

Illegal aliens do not meet the criteria. Sorry!

Tell me, how does a baby have allegiance? Oh wait, they don't have one meaning, they cannot be denied citizenship based upon that. And notice, this Constitutional Amendment mentions nothing about the parents, which is why Wong, born to two Chinese nationals, was considered to have allegiance only to America. Now what, hot shit?

"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."

If the baby's parents are illegal aliens who are not under complete jurisdiction of this country, it's allegiance is the default of it's parents, since babies are not self-sufficient individuals. And let's again be perfectly clear... They CAN be denied citizenship on any basis the Congress decides. It's entirely under the power of Congress according to Article 1 Section 8 Clause 4.

Wong was about LEGAL immigrants. It was because they WERE LEGAL that Wong meets the "jurisdiction thereof" requirement. It's in the very ruling itself if you have enough brain to actually read and comprehend it.... you obviously don't... probably huffed too many paint fumes.

 

[Kondor3]

If the baby's parents are illegal aliens who are not under complete jurisdiction of this country, it's allegiance is the default of it's parents, since babies are not self-sufficient individuals. And let's again be perfectly clear... They CAN be denied citizenship on any basis the Congress decides. It's entirely under the power of Congress according to Article 1 Section 8 Clause 4.

Wong was about LEGAL immigrants. It was because they WERE LEGAL that Wong meets the "jurisdiction thereof" requirement. It's in the very ruling itself if you have enough brain to actually read and comprehend it.... you obviously don't... probably huffed too many paint fumes.

That's the Approach Vector, alright...

Now, the question becomes, will the concept get its day in court?

Regardless of whether Trump stays in the race or not, the odds seem to be improving, dramatically.

 

[danielpalos]

As you agreed we can't compete with other countries because of cheaper labor.
However re-negotiate a current agreement because we didn't like it or not to our advantage. Is a lot easier to say than done.
1. All 11 to 40 millions of illegals should be deported.
2. I will re-negotiate the trade agreement if they don't. I will penalized them.
The biggest problem for people like me or many others that rely on facts is. HOW, WHAT and WHERE are the specifics in accomplishing these kind of wet dreams? Not just saying. I will do this and that. He might as well say, I will stop the Niagara Falls using a bucket.
The very sad and very shocking but lots of people are buying into this like you.

Okay... so here is the thing... A GOOD negotiator is not going to tell you exactly how everything is going to happen. The very people who he would have to work with are listening... you understand this, right? So why does he want to tell them what and how he is going to do this? Does it give him some advantage to let them have a heads-up on what he has in mind? I don't think it does, it's kind of a bonehead strategy if you ask me.

He has explained to you in as much detail as you need to know, how he IS going to do this and how it CAN be done. And I think his supporters 100% believe he means it.

Not good enough. He is talking about tariffs there are no secret about tariffs negotiations. We are not talking a used car here.

Well I didn't say anything was secret. If you don't understand why it's wise to keep your cards close to the vest in negotiation, you're an idiot I can't help. I don't know what else to tell you... I'm sorry you're an idiot?

just another cost center instead of a profit center; how Capitalist is that.

As they are deported, profit is realized.

Why. Will the laws of demand and supply suddenly cease to exist?

 

[danielpalos]

Millions of children born in the USA to illegal immigrants have been granted citizenship, and been given all the privileges thereof, including the right to vote, for generations. Suddenly Trump says that he does not agree that this has been the correct interpretation of the law, and suddenly, all of his followers have decided that granting these millions of children with citizenship was simply an error in legal thinking. Therefore, as if by magic, Trump will be elected, and singlehandedly disenfranchise all of these people, in spite of legal precedent, Supreme Court rulings, State and federal law, etc., etc., etc.

And his followers actually believe that he can do this........

just another Social Program from the allegedly Capital Right.

 

[Boss]

If the baby's parents are illegal aliens who are not under complete jurisdiction of this country, it's allegiance is the default of it's parents, since babies are not self-sufficient individuals. And let's again be perfectly clear... They CAN be denied citizenship on any basis the Congress decides. It's entirely under the power of Congress according to Article 1 Section 8 Clause 4.

Wong was about LEGAL immigrants. It was because they WERE LEGAL that Wong meets the "jurisdiction thereof" requirement. It's in the very ruling itself if you have enough brain to actually read and comprehend it.... you obviously don't... probably huffed too many paint fumes.

That's the Approach Vector, alright...

Now, the question becomes, will the concept get its day in court?

Regardless of whether Trump stays in the race or not, the odds seem to be improving, dramatically.

It doesn't need a day in court, in fact... the SCOTUS would probably turn down such a case for lack of judicial discretion. Article 1 Section 8 Clause 4 makes this very clear... this is a matter of Congressional statute.

We either have separation of powers in this country or we don't. Apparently, liberals think that we don't. If the executive branch wants to over-step it's powers to enforce liberal policy... that's fine... If the court wants to over-step it's power... fine as long as they are doing it to advance liberalism!

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Ah, but their parents aren't mentioned now are they?

"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."

Looks like the court is upholding that exactly as written, now isn't it my little *******...

Again, if the Constitution was meant to say what you claim, there is no purpose or reason for "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" ...it would simply state that "all persons born in the US are citizens." Since it doesn't say that, we have to look at what it means... "subject to jurisdiction" is not referring to geographic jurisdiction, it is political allegiance... and even your beloved Wong case recognized this. I point this out to you and you just keep yammering the same stupid shit like a little shit-drone.

Even the person who WROTE the 14th said it did not apply to illegal aliens.

Link (not that it matters a damn)? And although the "subject to" does matter, illegals here are "subject to", which ***** you completely. Regardless of what you believe, if the baby is born here and is not part of the very few exceptions, then it is "subject to" and therefore an American citizen, automatically.

In the case of Wong, he was born here and "subject to", period. That is all that mattered...

What ‘Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof’ Really Means

In Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment (1998) the court said “jurisdiction is a word of many, too many, meanings.” Therefore, it is important to discover the operational meaning behind “subject to the jurisdiction” as employed under the Fourteenth Amendment rather then assuming its meaning from other usages of the word jurisdiction alone. Both Sen. Trumbull and Sen. Howard provides the answer, with Trumbull declaring:

The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.

Illegal aliens do not meet the criteria. Sorry!

Tell me, how does a baby have allegiance? Oh wait, they don't have one meaning, they cannot be denied citizenship based upon that. And notice, this Constitutional Amendment mentions nothing about the parents, which is why Wong, born to two Chinese nationals, was considered to have allegiance only to America. Now what, hot shit?

"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."

If the baby's parents are illegal aliens who are not under complete jurisdiction of this country, it's allegiance is the default of it's parents, since babies are not self-sufficient individuals. And let's again be perfectly clear... They CAN be denied citizenship on any basis the Congress decides. It's entirely under the power of Congress according to Article 1 Section 8 Clause 4.

Wong was about LEGAL immigrants. It was because they WERE LEGAL that Wong meets the "jurisdiction thereof" requirement. It's in the very ruling itself if you have enough brain to actually read and comprehend it.... you obviously don't... probably huffed too many paint fumes.

Where does it say anything about the parents? Oh, it doesn't...

"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."

 

[PaintMyHouse]

If the baby's parents are illegal aliens who are not under complete jurisdiction of this country, it's allegiance is the default of it's parents, since babies are not self-sufficient individuals. And let's again be perfectly clear... They CAN be denied citizenship on any basis the Congress decides. It's entirely under the power of Congress according to Article 1 Section 8 Clause 4.

Wong was about LEGAL immigrants. It was because they WERE LEGAL that Wong meets the "jurisdiction thereof" requirement. It's in the very ruling itself if you have enough brain to actually read and comprehend it.... you obviously don't... probably huffed too many paint fumes.

That's the Approach Vector, alright...

Now, the question becomes, will the concept get its day in court?

Regardless of whether Trump stays in the race or not, the odds seem to be improving, dramatically.

It doesn't need a day in court, in fact... the SCOTUS would probably turn down such a case for lack of judicial discretion. Article 1 Section 8 Clause 4 makes this very clear... this is a matter of Congressional statute.

We either have separation of powers in this country or we don't. Apparently, liberals think that we don't. If the executive branch wants to over-step it's powers to enforce liberal policy... that's fine... If the court wants to over-step it's power... fine as long as they are doing it to advance liberalism!

The Supreme Court has the final say, baring an Amendment, on what is Constitutional. This is pretty much grade-school civics, which you are failing at, badly.

 

[danielpalos]

If the baby's parents are illegal aliens who are not under complete jurisdiction of this country, it's allegiance is the default of it's parents, since babies are not self-sufficient individuals. And let's again be perfectly clear... They CAN be denied citizenship on any basis the Congress decides. It's entirely under the power of Congress according to Article 1 Section 8 Clause 4.

Wong was about LEGAL immigrants. It was because they WERE LEGAL that Wong meets the "jurisdiction thereof" requirement. It's in the very ruling itself if you have enough brain to actually read and comprehend it.... you obviously don't... probably huffed too many paint fumes.

That's the Approach Vector, alright...

Now, the question becomes, will the concept get its day in court?

Regardless of whether Trump stays in the race or not, the odds seem to be improving, dramatically.

It doesn't need a day in court, in fact... the SCOTUS would probably turn down such a case for lack of judicial discretion. Article 1 Section 8 Clause 4 makes this very clear... this is a matter of Congressional statute.

We either have separation of powers in this country or we don't. Apparently, liberals think that we don't. If the executive branch wants to over-step it's powers to enforce liberal policy... that's fine... If the court wants to over-step it's power... fine as long as they are doing it to advance liberalism!

dude, stick to capitalism because you are a lousy socialist.

 

[Boss]

The Supreme Court has the final say, baring an Amendment, on what is Constitutional. This is pretty much grade-school civics, which you are failing at, badly.

No, they do not. WE THE PEOPLE ALWAYS have the final say!

You are a failure and a product of public education.

 

[Boss]

dude, stick to capitalism because you are a lousy socialist.

Thanks, I try my best.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

No, they do not. WE THE PEOPLE ALWAYS have the final say!

You are a failure and a product of public education.

Yep, you lose. That's neither American history, nor reality.

 

[danielpalos]

No, they do not. WE THE PEOPLE ALWAYS have the final say!

You are a failure and a product of public education.

Yep, you lose. That's neither American history, nor reality.

We have a Ninth Amendment; if the "State" cannot cite it, it does not exist as a recognized social Power delegated to our federal Congress.

 

[Jackson]

NOt including the fence, that Mexico does not have the money to pay for, and would not pay for, even if they did, especially since a large % of illegals are from other countries.

"Back in 2011, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) deputy director Kumar Kibble said it costs $12,500 to deport an individual undocumented immigrant.

So when you multiply that cost for the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants living in the U.S., that comes to $137.5 billion."


Donald Trump s Deportation Plan Would Cost 100-200 Billion - NBC News

So, that means we shouldn't start deporting any? Well, that makes sense.

Since the beginning of the Obama administration, 2,000,000 have been deported. How did you managed to spin that into, "So, that means we shouldn't start deporting any?"?

The poster I was responding to said it was expensive. So, I responded.

 

[eagle1462010]

And on and on and on. We HAVE ICE LAWS...............The Oath of office of the President and the Executive Branch is to enforce these laws..................

Those who are here illegally, are violating our immigration laws PERIOD. The LEFTIST here can talk this shit in circles forever and it doesn't change this fact.

Our Gov't CAN DEPORT THEM, which DOESN'T MEAN A WITCH HUNT, because it is the LAW OF THIS COUNTRY.............again.............PERIOD.

It is costing us too much money, both Federally and with the States allowing millions into this country that are NOT PART OF THE LEGAL PATH to either work here or be a citizen.

So...............

 

[Boss]

No, they do not. WE THE PEOPLE ALWAYS have the final say!

You are a failure and a product of public education.

Yep, you lose. That's neither American history, nor reality.

We have a Ninth Amendment; if the "State" cannot cite it, it does not exist as a recognized social Power delegated to our federal Congress.

Article 1 Section 8 delegates Congressional powers in the Constitution.
Clause 4 specifies Congress has plenary authority on all matters of naturalization.

This is not within the power of the SCOTUS to change.