- Joined
- Jun 22, 2013
- Messages
- 20,271
- Reaction score
- 28,078
- Location
- Mid-West USA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
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.
Put all that into a Constitutional Amendment.
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 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.
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 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 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 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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?