My Proposals for Immigration Reform to Counter the Wall.

[Captain Adverse]

We are at a fiscal impass with President Trump, supported by a Majority of the Senate holding out for wall funding, and a Majority of the House pushing for appropriations without Wall funding.

Some people opposed to “Trump’s Wall” are arguing that it will never be 100% effective, even if built. That it’s a boondoggle that migrants will go over, under, and around anyway. Many of these same people say our current Immigration system is either fine, as is, or needs to be tweaked to make it more “fair and easier to navigate.” Some few even argue there is no need for border security at all.

On the other hand, some people for the Wall point out that no wall is 100% effective, yet we still use them anyway because they do help to control and channelize access. That if properly manned and monitored it would greatly decrease illegal migrant access.

I suggest that we would not need a wall if ALL of the following were done through the legislative process:

1. Enact legislation defining birthright citizenship per original Congressional intent; i.e. a baby born of either a current citizen or a non-citizen legal resident. This would eliminate the anchor baby lure.

2. Enact a law requiring immediate deportation of anyone caught entering or residing illegally after a simple proof of legal residence hearing in immigration court. If you don’t have proper verifiable documentation, you are deported with prejudice (i.e. found guilty of violating immigration law and will be imprisoned for up to one year if you return, followed by immediate deportation again.)

2a. Enact a law creating a central record (much like the NCIC) and require all apprehended illegal aliens be fingerprinted, photographed, and (maybe) DNA identified.

2b. Enact a law making return from deportation incrementally greater punishment if found guilty at trial via imprisonment (misdemeanor, 3rd degree felony, 2nd degree felony, etc.) then deportation.

3. Enact a law that authorizes path to citizenship for DACA members, followed by a PERMANENT ban on future immigration amnesty. Immigration law can still be modified by quotas or other methods, but ALL immigrants must come in via legal methods.

4. Require E-Verify for ALL employment which would qualify someone for unemployment benefits, or if working for a 501 (c) 3 tax exempt Religious, Charitable, etc. organization, or suffer loss of ALL Federal funding until it is enacted at the State level. (This has the added advantage of addressing identity theft). It would also leave small non-taxed employers free of the expense. Your lemonade stand or other family-employed business is safe.

5. Offer rewards for reporting employers who hire illegal immigrants, followed by civil fines, and/or criminal prosecution of repeat offenders.

or to be fair:

6. Immigration law? We don't need no stinking new immigration law.

and:

7 Other (explained).

Those are the poll selections and it is a multiple choice poll. Let's see where people stand when it comes to alternative to a border wall.

Moderators. It keeps timing out without letting me add the 9 choices. Please add items 1 through 7 with 2a and 2b. Thanks.

 

[Carjosse]

I think the courts would have something to say about the first two.

 

[Cephus]

Not only the courts but the political left. The Supreme Court does not want to negate one of their own findings and #1 would require them doing that. It is exceedingly rare that they overturn themselves, especially on a politically contentious issue like this. Honestly, the left are opposing any rational immigration reform, instead just wanting us to throw open the gates and let anyone in who wants to be here. They don't want a border at all. This is just not a rational issue, especially the farther left one goes.

 

[Exquisitor]

Put all that into a Constitutional Amendment.

 

[Captain Adverse]

I think the courts would have something to say about the first two.

Not only the courts but the political left. The Supreme Court does not want to negate one of their own findings and #1 would require them doing that. It is exceedingly rare that they overturn themselves, especially on a politically contentious issue like this. Honestly, the left are opposing any rational immigration reform, instead just wanting us to throw open the gates and let anyone in who wants to be here. They don't want a border at all. This is just not a rational issue, especially the farther left one goes.

Not really.

Item one is supported by legislative intent at the time the Amendment was proposed, as a simple examination of the available records will show. Moreover, the main SCOTUS precedent United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) based the argument on legal residence of the plaintiff's parents, who had resided in the US for work purposes under a treaty with China all of his life.

Congress can easily clarify what constitutes birthright citizenship. Only an activist Court would then overrule such a definition.

Put all that into a Constitutional Amendment.

It already exists, it has just been misinterpreted.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

We are at a fiscal impass with President Trump, supported by a Majority of the Senate holding out for wall funding, and a Majority of the House pushing for appropriations without Wall funding.

Some people opposed to “Trump’s Wall” are arguing that it will never be 100% effective, even if built. That it’s a boondoggle that migrants will go over, under, and around anyway. Many of these same people say our current Immigration system is either fine, as is, or needs to be tweaked to make it more “fair and easier to navigate.” Some few even argue there is no need for border security at all.

On the other hand, some people for the Wall point out that no wall is 100% effective, yet we still use them anyway because they do help to control and channelize access. That if properly manned and monitored it would greatly decrease illegal migrant access.

I suggest that we would not need a wall if ALL of the following were done through the legislative process:

1. Enact legislation defining birthright citizenship per original Congressional intent; i.e. a baby born of either a current citizen or a non-citizen legal resident. This would eliminate the anchor baby lure.

2. Enact a law requiring immediate deportation of anyone caught entering or residing illegally after a simple proof of legal residence hearing in immigration court. If you don’t have proper verifiable documentation, you are deported with prejudice (i.e. found guilty of violating immigration law and will be imprisoned for up to one year if you return, followed by immediate deportation again.)

2a. Enact a law creating a central record (much like the NCIC) and require all apprehended illegal aliens be fingerprinted, photographed, and (maybe) DNA identified.

2b. Enact a law making return from deportation incrementally greater punishment if found guilty at trial via imprisonment (misdemeanor, 3rd degree felony, 2nd degree felony, etc.) then deportation.

3. Enact a law that authorizes path to citizenship for DACA members, followed by a PERMANENT ban on future immigration amnesty. Immigration law can still be modified by quotas or other methods, but ALL immigrants must come in via legal methods.

4. Require E-Verify for ALL employment which would qualify someone for unemployment benefits, or if working for a 501 (c) 3 tax exempt Religious, Charitable, etc. organization, or suffer loss of ALL Federal funding until it is enacted at the State level. (This has the added advantage of addressing identity theft). It would also leave small non-taxed employers free of the expense. Your lemonade stand or other family-employed business is safe.

5. Offer rewards for reporting employers who hire illegal immigrants, followed by civil fines, and/or criminal prosecution of repeat offenders.

Not bad, I actually agree with a lot of it. Not ALL of it but hey, "whaddya gonna do..."

I might be tempted to support something where, if a person did come in illegally but they have demonstrated that they're making significant contributions to the community, and they've been here for a long time (say perhaps, ten years or more) and they've learned English, allow them to try to negotiate fines and some other restitution to pay for their misdeed.

By the way, English is very important. I believe that anyone coming in, legally or no, needs to demonstrate at least the bare essential basics in English if they ever wish to acquire legal residency.

Birthright citizenship? Sigh, I am conflicted on that one. If they are refugees who can prove that they're fleeing some kind of humanitarian crisis, give the babies their US citizenship.

But overall, despite some minor disagreements, I believe you are on the right track.
I just don't think this kerfuffle over this stupid wall, which will not be built and would cost between 24 and 50 billion if it was, is constructive or worthwhile. I think this "wall" is really a metaphor for Trump's ego and nothing more.

I think you and a lot of other people have better ideas.

 

[chuckiechan]

Not really.

Item one is supported by legislative intent at the time the Amendment was proposed, as a simple examination of the available records will show. Moreover, the main SCOTUS precedent United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) based the argument on legal residence of the plaintiff's parents, who had resided in the US for work purposes under a treaty with China all of his life.

Congress can easily clarify what constitutes birthright citizenship. Only an activist Court would then overrule such a definition.



It already exists, it has just been misinterpreted.

Enough republicans and democrats dont want the problem solved. Their constituents want the cheap labor. Chicago has high black unemployment and is a sanctuary city. You know why. They prefer to hire hungry, docile, unempowered Latinos.

 

[Cephus]

Enough republicans and democrats dont want the problem solved. Their constituents want the cheap labor. Chicago has high black unemployment and is a sanctuary city. You know why. They prefer to hire hungry, docile, unempowered Latinos.

Also, because the blacks have been told by the Democrats that they don't have to work, they're victims and they just get a check every month in exchange for a vote in the D column.

 

[Lutherf]

We are at a fiscal impass with President Trump, supported by a Majority of the Senate holding out for wall funding, and a Majority of the House pushing for appropriations without Wall funding.

Some people opposed to “Trump’s Wall” are arguing that it will never be 100% effective, even if built. That it’s a boondoggle that migrants will go over, under, and around anyway. Many of these same people say our current Immigration system is either fine, as is, or needs to be tweaked to make it more “fair and easier to navigate.” Some few even argue there is no need for border security at all.

On the other hand, some people for the Wall point out that no wall is 100% effective, yet we still use them anyway because they do help to control and channelize access. That if properly manned and monitored it would greatly decrease illegal migrant access.

I suggest that we would not need a wall if ALL of the following were done through the legislative process:

1. Enact legislation defining birthright citizenship per original Congressional intent; i.e. a baby born of either a current citizen or a non-citizen legal resident. This would eliminate the anchor baby lure.

2. Enact a law requiring immediate deportation of anyone caught entering or residing illegally after a simple proof of legal residence hearing in immigration court. If you don’t have proper verifiable documentation, you are deported with prejudice (i.e. found guilty of violating immigration law and will be imprisoned for up to one year if you return, followed by immediate deportation again.)

2a. Enact a law creating a central record (much like the NCIC) and require all apprehended illegal aliens be fingerprinted, photographed, and (maybe) DNA identified.

2b. Enact a law making return from deportation incrementally greater punishment if found guilty at trial via imprisonment (misdemeanor, 3rd degree felony, 2nd degree felony, etc.) then deportation.

3. Enact a law that authorizes path to citizenship for DACA members, followed by a PERMANENT ban on future immigration amnesty. Immigration law can still be modified by quotas or other methods, but ALL immigrants must come in via legal methods.

4. Require E-Verify for ALL employment which would qualify someone for unemployment benefits, or if working for a 501 (c) 3 tax exempt Religious, Charitable, etc. organization, or suffer loss of ALL Federal funding until it is enacted at the State level. (This has the added advantage of addressing identity theft). It would also leave small non-taxed employers free of the expense. Your lemonade stand or other family-employed business is safe.

5. Offer rewards for reporting employers who hire illegal immigrants, followed by civil fines, and/or criminal prosecution of repeat offenders.

or to be fair:

6. Immigration law? We don't need no stinking new immigration law.

and:

7 Other (explained).

Those are the poll selections and it is a multiple choice poll. Let's see where people stand when it comes to alternative to a border wall.

Moderators. It keeps timing out without letting me add the 9 choices. Please add items 1 through 7 with 2a and 2b. Thanks.

We would not need a wall if we simply got rid of all our immigration laws, opened our borders to all comers, revamped our voting system so that anybody present in the US can vote and legalized all drugs. We should also make employers who hire illegal aliens go to jail for a long time...but there won't be any illegal aliens so we'll have to find some other reason to put employers in jail....and Russians.


OK. That just wouldn't work. What we REALLY need to do is deport all the Republicans and THEN we need to build a wall to keep them from coming back.

Wait, that won't work either because then we'll have a wall.

Well, this sure is vexing. Maybe what we really need to do is just go on the news and social media and complain about everything Trump does, might do, could do, may have done, wishes he could do or would do if he actually thought of it. Now THAT is a brilliant plan as we can do it!!!! Si Se Pueda!!

 

[Mycroft]

We are at a fiscal impass with President Trump, supported by a Majority of the Senate holding out for wall funding, and a Majority of the House pushing for appropriations without Wall funding.

Some people opposed to “Trump’s Wall” are arguing that it will never be 100% effective, even if built. That it’s a boondoggle that migrants will go over, under, and around anyway. Many of these same people say our current Immigration system is either fine, as is, or needs to be tweaked to make it more “fair and easier to navigate.” Some few even argue there is no need for border security at all.

On the other hand, some people for the Wall point out that no wall is 100% effective, yet we still use them anyway because they do help to control and channelize access. That if properly manned and monitored it would greatly decrease illegal migrant access.

I suggest that we would not need a wall if ALL of the following were done through the legislative process:

1. Enact legislation defining birthright citizenship per original Congressional intent; i.e. a baby born of either a current citizen or a non-citizen legal resident. This would eliminate the anchor baby lure.

2. Enact a law requiring immediate deportation of anyone caught entering or residing illegally after a simple proof of legal residence hearing in immigration court. If you don’t have proper verifiable documentation, you are deported with prejudice (i.e. found guilty of violating immigration law and will be imprisoned for up to one year if you return, followed by immediate deportation again.)

2a. Enact a law creating a central record (much like the NCIC) and require all apprehended illegal aliens be fingerprinted, photographed, and (maybe) DNA identified.

2b. Enact a law making return from deportation incrementally greater punishment if found guilty at trial via imprisonment (misdemeanor, 3rd degree felony, 2nd degree felony, etc.) then deportation.

3. Enact a law that authorizes path to citizenship for DACA members, followed by a PERMANENT ban on future immigration amnesty. Immigration law can still be modified by quotas or other methods, but ALL immigrants must come in via legal methods.

4. Require E-Verify for ALL employment which would qualify someone for unemployment benefits, or if working for a 501 (c) 3 tax exempt Religious, Charitable, etc. organization, or suffer loss of ALL Federal funding until it is enacted at the State level. (This has the added advantage of addressing identity theft). It would also leave small non-taxed employers free of the expense. Your lemonade stand or other family-employed business is safe.

5. Offer rewards for reporting employers who hire illegal immigrants, followed by civil fines, and/or criminal prosecution of repeat offenders.

or to be fair:

6. Immigration law? We don't need no stinking new immigration law.

and:

7 Other (explained).

Those are the poll selections and it is a multiple choice poll. Let's see where people stand when it comes to alternative to a border wall.

Moderators. It keeps timing out without letting me add the 9 choices. Please add items 1 through 7 with 2a and 2b. Thanks.

One through five would do the trick if you also added that only legal residents can receive any taxpayer benefits...to include taxpayer supported education and health benefits.

That would pretty much de-incentivize any illegal alien.

But...

That stuff will never happen.

 

[Lord of Planar]

We are at a fiscal impass with President Trump, supported by a Majority of the Senate holding out for wall funding, and a Majority of the House pushing for appropriations without Wall funding.

Some people opposed to “Trump’s Wall” are arguing that it will never be 100% effective, even if built. That it’s a boondoggle that migrants will go over, under, and around anyway. Many of these same people say our current Immigration system is either fine, as is, or needs to be tweaked to make it more “fair and easier to navigate.” Some few even argue there is no need for border security at all.

On the other hand, some people for the Wall point out that no wall is 100% effective, yet we still use them anyway because they do help to control and channelize access. That if properly manned and monitored it would greatly decrease illegal migrant access.

I suggest that we would not need a wall if ALL of the following were done through the legislative process:

1. Enact legislation defining birthright citizenship per original Congressional intent; i.e. a baby born of either a current citizen or a non-citizen legal resident. This would eliminate the anchor baby lure.

2. Enact a law requiring immediate deportation of anyone caught entering or residing illegally after a simple proof of legal residence hearing in immigration court. If you don’t have proper verifiable documentation, you are deported with prejudice (i.e. found guilty of violating immigration law and will be imprisoned for up to one year if you return, followed by immediate deportation again.)

2a. Enact a law creating a central record (much like the NCIC) and require all apprehended illegal aliens be fingerprinted, photographed, and (maybe) DNA identified.

2b. Enact a law making return from deportation incrementally greater punishment if found guilty at trial via imprisonment (misdemeanor, 3rd degree felony, 2nd degree felony, etc.) then deportation.

3. Enact a law that authorizes path to citizenship for DACA members, followed by a PERMANENT ban on future immigration amnesty. Immigration law can still be modified by quotas or other methods, but ALL immigrants must come in via legal methods.

4. Require E-Verify for ALL employment which would qualify someone for unemployment benefits, or if working for a 501 (c) 3 tax exempt Religious, Charitable, etc. organization, or suffer loss of ALL Federal funding until it is enacted at the State level. (This has the added advantage of addressing identity theft). It would also leave small non-taxed employers free of the expense. Your lemonade stand or other family-employed business is safe.

5. Offer rewards for reporting employers who hire illegal immigrants, followed by civil fines, and/or criminal prosecution of repeat offenders.

or to be fair:

6. Immigration law? We don't need no stinking new immigration law.

and:

7 Other (explained).

Those are the poll selections and it is a multiple choice poll. Let's see where people stand when it comes to alternative to a border wall.

Moderators. It keeps timing out without letting me add the 9 choices. Please add items 1 through 7 with 2a and 2b. Thanks.

Number 2 may be a problem in some cases. If there is no ID, that doesn't mean a person isn't a citizen. Some people are in that situation. It would take a linguistics professional to determine their origination country to deport to if they weren't cooperative.

We will never achieve 100%. We simply need to settle for the best we can.

I do like what they did in Iraq on their first election.... The purple dye... And... We should have to prove citizenship to vote. If a few people cannot, then... Oh well...

 

[RabidAlpaca]

We are at a fiscal impass with President Trump, supported by a Majority of the Senate holding out for wall funding, and a Majority of the House pushing for appropriations without Wall funding.
Some people opposed to “Trump’s Wall” are arguing that it will never be 100% effective, even if built. That it’s a boondoggle that migrants will go over, under, and around anyway. Many of these same people say our current Immigration system is either fine, as is, or needs to be tweaked to make it more “fair and easier to navigate.” Some few even argue there is no need for border security at all.
On the other hand, some people for the Wall point out that no wall is 100% effective, yet we still use them anyway because they do help to control and channelize access. That if properly manned and monitored it would greatly decrease illegal migrant access.
I suggest that we would not need a wall if ALL of the following were done through the legislative process:
1. Enact legislation defining birthright citizenship per original Congressional intent; i.e. a baby born of either a current citizen or a non-citizen legal resident. This would eliminate the anchor baby lure.
2. Enact a law requiring immediate deportation of anyone caught entering or residing illegally after a simple proof of legal residence hearing in immigration court. If you don’t have proper verifiable documentation, you are deported with prejudice (i.e. found guilty of violating immigration law and will be imprisoned for up to one year if you return, followed by immediate deportation again.)
2a. Enact a law creating a central record (much like the NCIC) and require all apprehended illegal aliens be fingerprinted, photographed, and (maybe) DNA identified.
2b. Enact a law making return from deportation incrementally greater punishment if found guilty at trial via imprisonment (misdemeanor, 3rd degree felony, 2nd degree felony, etc.) then deportation.
3. Enact a law that authorizes path to citizenship for DACA members, followed by a PERMANENT ban on future immigration amnesty. Immigration law can still be modified by quotas or other methods, but ALL immigrants must come in via legal methods.
4. Require E-Verify for ALL employment which would qualify someone for unemployment benefits, or if working for a 501 (c) 3 tax exempt Religious, Charitable, etc. organization, or suffer loss of ALL Federal funding until it is enacted at the State level. (This has the added advantage of addressing identity theft). It would also leave small non-taxed employers free of the expense. Your lemonade stand or other family-employed business is safe.
5. Offer rewards for reporting employers who hire illegal immigrants, followed by civil fines, and/or criminal prosecution of repeat offenders.
or to be fair:
6. Immigration law? We don't need no stinking new immigration law.
and:
7 Other (explained).
Those are the poll selections and it is a multiple choice poll. Let's see where people stand when it comes to alternative to a border wall.
Moderators. It keeps timing out without letting me add the 9 choices. Please add items 1 through 7 with 2a and 2b. Thanks.

So we should kick out people who were born in the US and lived there for decades and know no other home? Hard pass. That absolutely isn't going to happen, you won't be reversing birth right citizenship, and all 7 are required, so go for the wall bud.

Also, because the blacks have been told by the Democrats that they don't have to work, they're victims and they just get a check every month in exchange for a vote in the D column.

Jesus H. Christ. :roll:

 

[Lord of Planar]

I think the courts would have something to say about the first two.

The first one shouldn't be too hard. If legislation is passed to clarify that the 14th amendment was meant for slaves, and not outsiders, I think the courts would be satisfied with that.

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.
​

The citizens are of Mexico and subject to their laws when they illegally come here to give birth. There is plenty written in the debates of the time that this was meant for slaves. It shouldn't be hard for congress to solidify that position in law.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Not only the courts but the political left. The Supreme Court does not want to negate one of their own findings and #1 would require them doing that. It is exceedingly rare that they overturn themselves, especially on a politically contentious issue like this. Honestly, the left are opposing any rational immigration reform, instead just wanting us to throw open the gates and let anyone in who wants to be here. They don't want a border at all. This is just not a rational issue, especially the farther left one goes.

True.

The left doesn't care about the intent of the highest law. They simply want to bend it to their will.

 

[chuckiechan]

Also, because the blacks have been told by the Democrats that they don't have to work, they're victims and they just get a check every month in exchange for a vote in the D column.

I disagree. With few exceptions they are willing and able workers. Plus you can easily talk to them directly rather than through a “caudillo” - kind of like a foreman, or facilitator, leader, which, BTW often leads to problems.

The bottom line is America is catching this attitude that you describe, and it needs to end. If it cost $20 an hour to get your G.D. Car washed, pay it or wash it yourself. Same- O with every other job in America. Some inflation is worth paying for.

They Bracero program worked just fine in California.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

The first one shouldn't be too hard. If legislation is passed to clarify that the 14th amendment was meant for slaves, and not outsiders, I think the courts would be satisfied with that.

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.
​

The citizens are of Mexico and subject to their laws when they illegally come here to give birth. There is plenty written in the debates of the time that this was meant for slaves. It shouldn't be hard for congress to solidify that position in law.

Foreigners on U.S. soil are absolutely subject to U.S. jurisdiction and laws. They are still held to the same laws as citizens and everyone within our borders is within our jurisdiction. Therefore, people born here and subject to our jurisdiction are Americans, and you won't be changing that.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Enough republicans and democrats dont want the problem solved. Their constituents want the cheap labor. Chicago has high black unemployment and is a sanctuary city. You know why. They prefer to hire hungry, docile, unempowered Latinos.

It's also a "third rail" issue.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

One through five would do the trick if you also added that only legal residents can receive any taxpayer benefits...to include taxpayer supported education and health benefits.

That would pretty much de-incentivize any illegal alien.

But...

That stuff will never happen.

What health benefits do illegals receive. Be detailed in your response, please. Links would be helpful.
As to education, I can't think of a better prison pipeline than hordes of truants running around in the streets. Talk about a JOBS PROGRAM!! WOW!

 

[Lord of Planar]

Foreigners on U.S. soil are absolutely subject to U.S. jurisdiction and laws. They are still held to the same laws as citizens and everyone within our borders is within our jurisdiction. Therefore, people born here and subject to our jurisdiction are Americans, and you won't be changing that.

No. Your are not correct. We cannot 100% impose our law on 100% of the foreign people in our nation. That invalidates your position. We have always had agreements with other countries where sometimes we have to ignore our laws for their citizens.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Also, because the blacks have been told by the Democrats that they don't have to work, they're victims and they just get a check every month in exchange for a vote in the D column.

With that attitude, you will never have any minorities voting Republican. Basically, you are saying that the only reason why blacks vote Democrat is they are lazy and they like free stuff.

 

[Skeptic Bob]

We are at a fiscal impass with President Trump, supported by a Majority of the Senate holding out for wall funding, and a Majority of the House pushing for appropriations without Wall funding.

Some people opposed to “Trump’s Wall” are arguing that it will never be 100% effective, even if built. That it’s a boondoggle that migrants will go over, under, and around anyway. Many of these same people say our current Immigration system is either fine, as is, or needs to be tweaked to make it more “fair and easier to navigate.” Some few even argue there is no need for border security at all.

On the other hand, some people for the Wall point out that no wall is 100% effective, yet we still use them anyway because they do help to control and channelize access. That if properly manned and monitored it would greatly decrease illegal migrant access.

I suggest that we would not need a wall if ALL of the following were done through the legislative process:

1. Enact legislation defining birthright citizenship per original Congressional intent; i.e. a baby born of either a current citizen or a non-citizen legal resident. This would eliminate the anchor baby lure.

Acceptable

2. Enact a law requiring immediate deportation of anyone caught entering or residing illegally after a simple proof of legal residence hearing in immigration court. If you don’t have proper verifiable documentation, you are deported with prejudice (i.e. found guilty of violating immigration law and will be imprisoned for up to one year if you return, followed by immediate deportation again.)

Agreed on immediate deportation of those entering illegally and those who have only been here a short time. I’m conflicted regarding people who entered illegally but then have kept a clean record for many years and have built a life and pay their taxes. I can’t personally support a blanket rule like that. I would like immigration judges to have some leeway in determine that.

2a. Enact a law creating a central record (much like the NCIC) and require all apprehended illegal aliens be fingerprinted, photographed, and (maybe) DNA identified.

Support.

2b. Enact a law making return from deportation incrementally greater punishment if found guilty at trial via imprisonment (misdemeanor, 3rd degree felony, 2nd degree felony, etc.) then deportation.

Acceptable.

3. Enact a law that authorizes path to citizenship for DACA members, followed by a PERMANENT ban on future immigration amnesty. Immigration law can still be modified by quotas or other methods, but ALL immigrants must come in via legal methods.

Support

4. Require E-Verify for ALL employment which would qualify someone for unemployment benefits, or if working for a 501 (c) 3 tax exempt Religious, Charitable, etc. organization, or suffer loss of ALL Federal funding until it is enacted at the State level. (This has the added advantage of addressing identity theft). It would also leave small non-taxed employers free of the expense. Your lemonade stand or other family-employed business is safe.

Support.

5. Offer rewards for reporting employers who hire illegal immigrants, followed by civil fines, and/or criminal prosecution of repeat offenders.

Support.

 

[Mycroft]

What health benefits do illegals receive. Be detailed in your response, please. Links would be helpful.
As to education, I can't think of a better prison pipeline than hordes of truants running around in the streets. Talk about a JOBS PROGRAM!! WOW!

No free health care from taxpayer funded health care providers.

Guess what'll happen if those "truants" get apprehended...they and their families get deported.

 

[Pedestrian]

Not only the courts but the political left. The Supreme Court does not want to negate one of their own findings and #1 would require them doing that. It is exceedingly rare that they overturn themselves, especially on a politically contentious issue like this. Honestly, the left are opposing any rational immigration reform, instead just wanting us to throw open the gates and let anyone in who wants to be here. They don't want a border at all. This is just not a rational issue, especially the farther left one goes.

Except that the US has continued to have this situation for all of my life because illegal immigration


...is a profit center. It has to be the cause or they wouldn't be hired.

 

[Lord of Planar]

With that attitude, you will never have any minorities voting Republican. Basically, you are saying that the only reason why blacks vote Democrat is they are lazy and they like free stuff.

I wouldn't interpret it that way, but his words have merit.

Some will take that attitude. But to extend it as "the only reason" is very, very short sighted in my opinion.

 

[Pedestrian]

No free health care from taxpayer funded health care providers.

Guess what'll happen if those "truants" get apprehended...they and their families get deported.

Just like the free health care citizens receive in the ER because they choose not to buy insurance.