My Proposals for Immigration Reform to Counter the Wall.

[ALiberalModerate]

Based on the tone of the responses from MOST of the Trump supporters, both here and elsewhere, that is EXACTLY what they want. He has drummed up the fear response in their super-sized amygdalas to the point where there is no point in even discussing it with them anymore.

At least Captain Adverse gets credit for trying to hammer out something reasonable.
It's mostly conservative, but that's not poison. We can work with regular conservatives.

The others, not so much.

They would only have to shoot the first few that tried crossing the border illegally and the rest would get the message.


*That is exactly how they would rationalize it.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

They would only have to shoot the first few that tried crossing the border illegally and the rest would get the message.


*That is exactly how they would rationalize it.

Hmmmm, [sarcasm] Maybe they could start by shooting the mothers and little children first. [/sarcasm]

That would REALLY drive the message home - Murrikuh!!!

 

[Captain Adverse]

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.

A clear misinterpretation of what was meant when the Amendment was proposed:

Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.

A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 - 1875

That was the 1866 statement of Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, the man who proposed the 14th Amendment, of which Section 1 is a part.

In 1862 he had also said this:

All from other lands, who by the terms of laws and compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty[/U], are natural born citizens.

http://memory.loc.gov/ll/llcg/059/0600/06811639.gif

The Congress did not intend the 14th Amendment's "subject to the jurisdiction" to mean parents who owed allegiance to any other country at the time of birth.

It is NOT referring to criminal or civil law jurisdiction, it was referring to citizenship jurisdiction. Yes, visitor's are subject to our laws, but they are citizens subject to all the jurisdiction of citizenship under a foreign sovereignty.

That includes being called up for war, voting in elections, civil rights of their home nation, etc.

 

[Bullseye]

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.

Aren't most of these already on the books? The problem I see is that most of your proposals are focused at illegals already IN the country but does little to stop or slow the influx. By the way, I don't THINK anyone has ever claimed any wall would ever be 100% effective - has ANY law ever been?


That said, you have some good ideas but desperately trying to avoid acknowledging the value of a physical barrier as part of the solution is a short coming. I have to ask are you making that choice because you think a physical barrier would work or because it's Trump proposing it?

 

[Xelor]

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.

Pink:
Well, folks who so argue are fools and as such don't deserve to be dignified with a substantive response.

Their remark belies their foolishness not because of the extent of wall's potential effectiveness, but because the "all or nothing" absolutist nature of their basis for arguing against it.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

A clear misinterpretation of what was meant when the Amendment was proposed:

A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 - 1875

That was the 1866 statement of Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, the man who proposed the 14th Amendment, of which Section 1 is a part.

In 1862 he had also said this:

http://memory.loc.gov/ll/llcg/059/0600/06811639.gif

The Congress did not intend the 14th Amendment's "subject to the jurisdiction" to mean parents who owed allegiance to any other country at the time of birth.

It is NOT referring to criminal or civil law jurisdiction, it was referring to citizenship jurisdiction. Yes, visitor's are subject to our laws, but they are citizens subject to all the jurisdiction of citizenship under a foreign sovereignty.

That includes being called up for war, voting in elections, civil rights of their home nation, etc.

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.

Haha, OK, good luck changing the Constitution, boys. Be sure to get your hopes up.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Haha, OK, good luck changing the Constitution, boys. Be sure to get your hopes up.

There is no talk of changing it. Just enforcing it's intent.

 

[Disputatious71]

All these except the last two AND the WALL !!!

 

[RabidAlpaca]

There is no talk of changing it. Just enforcing it's intent.

Uh huh, completely changing the interpretation because you know you can't change the amendment itself. Good luck, you'll certainly be able to retroactively take back the citizenship of millions of Americans.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Uh huh, completely changing the interpretation because you know you can't change the amendment itself. Good luck, you'll certainly be able to retroactively take back the citizenship of millions of Americans.

Yes, many people interpret it wrong. To correct the interpretation is not changing the constitution.

 

[What if...?]

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.

Thank you.

It is refreshing to see a conservative admit its not just the dems refusing to actually deal with the problem

 

[What if...?]

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.

Which states have lifetime welfare again?

I keep hearing this but I don't see anybody posting any proof that "black folks just get to collect a check because" (insert something they heard on Fox).

To my knowledge, welfare is limited. Able bodied males in CA are only eleigible for "general relief" (a months food stamps and a couple hundred dollars) once every couple of years.

What you presume would be some kind of fraud.

 

[What if...?]

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!!

I notice you included going after employers with the obviously stupid.

I see what you did there.

Original, or did you pick it up somewhere? If its original you should have been paid.

 

[What if...?]

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.

Yet you believe a wall will.

Have you really thought this through?

Donors have prevented these things for decades. OBVIOUSLY on both sides, because reps never do anything when they have all the marbles.

Why would donors allow something now they have been paying millions to prevent for decades?

Loss of cheap labor and general wage depression. And scapegoats for wage stagnation.

The political math doesn't add up.

It won't get built, dems will get the blame. You watch.

 

[Mycroft]

Yet you believe a wall will.

Have you really thought this through?

Donors have prevented these things for decades. OBVIOUSLY on both sides, because reps never do anything when they have all the marbles.

Why would donors allow something now they have been paying millions to prevent for decades?

Loss of cheap labor and general wage depression. And scapegoats for wage stagnation.

The political math doesn't add up.

It won't get built, dems will get the blame. You watch.

Nah...since rational laws and enforcement, such as that proposed by the OP, is something that'll never happen, I WANT a wall to be built. I certainly realize that there are those in both Parties who don't want it built...chiefly for the reasons you presented. I also know that Trump is determined to build it one way or another.

It's a battle. But I'm not at all certain that Trump has lost the battle...yet...so I'm not willing to say, as you do, that it won't get built.

 

[NeverTrump]

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.

Very idealistic and naive but at least your ideas are more well thought out than Trumps....

 

[MrWonka]

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.

You seem to be forgetting something. Just a couple weeks ago both the House and Senate passed a bill to continue funding without a wall. That was back when both houses of Congress were controlled by Republicans. It was only after Fox News and Rush Limbaugh started freaking out that this suddenly became something that Trump and Republicans started focusing on.

 

[Vadinho]

I am still trying to figure out why people hate Mexicans so much. Can you add another option? Arrest anyone who looks like a Mexican?. Should fit right into your theme, it worked for others in the 30s.

 

[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.

Since you asked, none of what you listed is a good alternative to a border wall. It's all stuff that should happen along with building a recognizable impediment to crossing the border.

Right now everyone seems to be wrapped up on the word "wall". Part of the reason for that is because a lot of people take Trump's words literally instead of as an expression of the concept he's trying to get across. When Trump says "wall" he's talking about the idea of stopping people from crossing the border illegally. In some places that WOULD be a physical barrier and in some places that kind of barrier is PART of what's needed. In other areas it would be a better idea to use signage, fencing and electronic monitoring. In all cases it would mean an increase in manpower. No matter how much of an impediment you build it will be useless if there isn't someone there to effect an apprehension of someone trying to circumvent it.

Also, along with the barrier there needs to be a general overhaul of the immigration system. If my great grandfather could come here legally and obtain work as a mason or a carpenter or a shop keeper then why can't people do that now? If you make the process for LEGAL immigration reasonably easy then there's a much better chance that someone coming here illegally is doing so with bad intentions.

 

[Xelor]

I ticked "Other." I did because I've elsewhere on DP outlined what I'd cotton to.
-- Part I
-- Part II
Poll answer options 2a and 4 are somewhat similar to what I've previously described and elements of 2a and 4 could perhaps reasonably incorporated into the suggestions I shared.

 

[What if...?]

True.

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

The right hasn't done anything either.

Hatchet tried to have the sanctions removed from Reagan's amnesty shortly after passage.

Your side has NEVER been honest about the issue. If they had, they would have been vilifying employers all along.

I have yet to see any vilifying.

Which means its all just propaganda.

Above all else, illegals are useful scapegoats. THEY are why wages have been flat for decades.

Do you think the donor class is gonna let you eliminate their scapegoats?

Because that conversation will come REAL quick when prices go way up if something is actually done about the problem.

The donor class doesn't want to pay cost of living adjustments. They certainly don't want to cough up what it would cost to offset the wage/price suppression illegals provide.

Y'all should be mad at being played by YOUR side. Or at least that would be more logical than being mad at your opponents for opposing you. That's what opponent do.

Your side is supposed to be on your side. But they aren't. They are on the side of their donors. NOT YOU.

 

[TheParser]

Excellent proposals.

Only one problem: They will never be implemented.


Too many people (of ALL political orientations and of ALL ethnicities) have a vested interest in keeping things the way they presently are.

We have already passed the point of no return. Nothing can be done to stop the flow of undocumented immigrants, for there is no will to do so.

As one activist said some time back: If you do not like what's happening (to California, in this particular case), leave.

(P.S. According to the Drudge Report, "many" Americans are considering leaving the United States. No doubt this will become a reality during the next 50 years.)

 

[chuckiechan]

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, but SCOTUS might.

The original reason for it was as the boundaries of the USA were expanded, those who suddenly found themselves to be "Mexican on Sunday, and American on Monday" became citizens with all the rights and privileges as other Americans. The other subtext was to de facto make freed slaves citizens with all the same rights as any other American for the same reason.

The "hop the fence, drop a citizen" is a political aberration of the law and has out lived it's usefulness and is ripe for challenge.

Especially as the USA seems to want to move toward Socialism-lite, you can't get there with open borders. The math flat out won't ever work. You have to give up one to have the other. Importing poverty is no longer the political winner it once was. We are awash with unskilled, low end labor coming out of our own education system and they don't need the competition from immigrants.

 

[What if...?]

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.

Honestly, birthright citizenship is a legitimate issue. Including "birth tourism" like those Russian women in the trump hotels.

It is one of the draws, along with employment, that draw illegals here.

I wouldn't include those legitimately here, seeking citizenship. Refugees, etc. But not the work permitted. (We should have a guest worker program. But I don't think giving birth while being here on a work permit, for instance, should make your child an American citizen.

I think illegal immigration is a legitimate concern. It does cause problems. I just think we should address the things that draw them here before we start persecuting people for wanting a better life.

Ending universal birthright citizenship is one of the things that can be done. It can be done fairly and humanely.

 

[What if...?]

Nah...since rational laws and enforcement, such as that proposed by the OP, is something that'll never happen, I WANT a wall to be built. I certainly realize that there are those in both Parties who don't want it built...chiefly for the reasons you presented. I also know that Trump is determined to build it one way or another.

It's a battle. But I'm not at all certain that Trump has lost the battle...yet...so I'm not willing to say, as you do, that it won't get built.

I suspect some "placebo" wall will get built. With carefully designed "holes" so it won't actually do anything beyond a calculated twmprary drop. For show purposes.

So your side can point to it as a victory. While not getting primaried by their donors.

We'll check back on this in a year or two. But I'm betting I'm right.