• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trumps Official "Immigration Reform" Plan!

Empirica

~Transcend~
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 25, 2011
Messages
4,696
Reaction score
1,910
Location
Lost at sea~
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
IMMIGRATION REFORM THAT WILL MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
The three core principles of Donald J. Trump's immigration plan

"When politicians talk about “immigration reform” they mean: amnesty, cheap labor and open borders. The Schumer-Rubio immigration bill was nothing more than a giveaway to the corporate patrons who run both parties."

You can read the entire plan here at Trumps official campaign website:
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/immigration-reform

I for one am quite impressed! :thumbs: Have a lovely day~ Empi
 

Can not Stump the Trump...
 

So you think part of the constitution is unconstitutional?
 
This sort of thing will excite the base, but most becomes problematic getting past Congress. Assuming for a moment Trump wins, he will need a 115th Congress that is solidly Republican but not necessarily establishment. Operating within existing law is one thing, altering conditions of trade agreements and budgetary issues is another. The constitutional part is even more a challenge. And if a wall is what is wanted, he needs to shuffle on over to Saudi Arabia and see their desires for a wall between them and Iraq.
 
jmotivator said:
What are your thoughts on the 18th Amendment? Is the 21st Amendment unconstitutional?
Click to expand...

By definition, Constitutional amendments can't violate the Constitution. As much as I think the 18th sucked, its Constitutionality isn't in question, since it was part of the Constitution. Which is why it took another amendment to get rid of it.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Trump can pass constitutional amendments?
Click to expand...

he may not need to. there is no established constitutional right of citizenship for the children of two illegal aliens. no supreme court case addresses the issue, it's a long standing practice, but not specifically mandated. it depends entirely upon how one interprets a single clause of the 14th, which was never intended to settle immigration issues.
plus the constitution grants congress the right to establish laws for the naturalization of aliens.

so the reality is, if congress could pass legislation, it would be a geniune question for dispute in the courts.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
he may not need to. there is no established constitutional right of citizenship for the children of two illegal aliens.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure there is.. Its pretty basic, and does not deviate between citizen and noncitizen... Its called the 14th amendment.

no supreme court case addresses the issue,
Click to expand...
Except they have:

United States v. Wong Kim Ark | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law

it's a long standing practice, but not specifically mandated.
Click to expand...
To what? Follow the constitution?

it depends entirely upon how one interprets a single clause of the 14th, which was never intended to settle immigration issues.
Click to expand...
Except it was.....
"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"
Under US law "any person who is subject to the jurisdiction of the USA", means: The term person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States includes:
(a) Any individual, wherever located, who is a citizen or resident of the United States;
(b) Any person within the United States as defined in § 515.330;

"§ 515.330" states: § 515.330 Person within the United States.
(a) The term person within the United States, includes:
(1) Any person, wheresoever located, who is a resident of the United States;
(2) Any person actually within the United States

plus the constitution grants congress the right to establish laws for the naturalization of aliens.
Click to expand...
Key word... Naturalization.

so the reality is, if congress could pass legislation, it would be a geniune question for dispute in the courts.
Click to expand...
Nope.
So since has enacted a law and/or won a lawsuit at the USSC level based on an interpretation means an act/law that has not passed or undone the 14th amendment means he can? What? But there have been challenges.....
Click to expand...
 
TheDemSocialist said:
United States v. Wong Kim Ark | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law
Click to expand...

That case had NOTHING to do with birthright citizenship. His parents were in the US legally so that send NO precedent for birthright citizenship.

You libs can stop posting that caselaw now.




And by the way, I think its pretty sickening that libs think that a pregnant illegal alien has more authority over citizenship than Congress. All she has to do is give birth within our borders...and libs are making the (wrong) assertion that Congress would have to amend the Constitution? Give me a break.

The authors of the 14th Amendment specifically stated that children born to illegal aliens (people who are NOT under the jurisdiction of the United States) are NOT CITIZENS.
 
WSUwarrior said:
That case had NOTHING to do with birthright citizenship. His parents were in the US legally so that send NO precedent for birthright citizenship.
Click to expand...
no they werent. Entered not as citizens of the USA, and never were "naturalized".

You libs can stop posting that caselaw now.
Click to expand...
That it established the bedrock for jus-soli citizenship policy?

Yea! Libs! They suck!
The authors of the 14th Amendment specifically stated that children born to illegal aliens (people who are NOT under the jurisdiction of the United States) are NOT CITIZENS.
Click to expand...
Really? Where does it say that?
 
TheDemSocialist said:
That it established the bedrock for jus-soli citizenship policy?
Click to expand...

Too bad the Constitution did not establish that...the Constitution established the exact opposite in fact....the authors were very clear in that. They even wrote that Native Americans were not citizens due to the fact that they could live under the jurisdiction of their respective tribe. Hmmmm so much for that jus soli BULL**** huh????

Yea! Libs! They suck!
Click to expand...

I knew that would be your non-response.

Really? Where does it say that?
Click to expand...

Where it says you have to be under the jurisdiction of the US...which you are NOT if your parents are illegal aliens.
 

Lets go to our handy dandy legal system of ours.
You are correct it does say "the jurisdiction". Specifically it does say, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof".
Guess what as stated earlier:
Under US law "any person who is subject to the jurisdiction of the USA", means: The term person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States includes:
(a) Any individual, wherever located, who is a citizen or resident of the United States;
(b) Any person within the United States as defined in § 515.330;

"§ 515.330" states: § 515.330 Person within the United States.
(a) The term person within the United States, includes:
(1) Any person, wheresoever located, who is a resident of the United States;
(2) Any person actually within the United States
 

If your assertion was correct (it definitely is not, hence why even Native Americans were not US citizens originally) then that phrase would not be necessary in the Amendment. If citizenship was meant to be jus soli they could have just stopped at "All persons born or naturalized in the US".

They put the "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" for a reason...and that is to disqualify illegal aliens from pooping out anchor babies.



You can stop pretending that those 6 words are frivolous.
 

Oh my gosh. I literally have no idea how much more clear it has to be.... The law literally word for word and the definition of the words..... And then a supreme court case to back it up....
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Oh my gosh. I literally have no idea how much more clear it has to be.... The law literally word for word and the definition of the words..... And then a supreme court case to back it up....
Click to expand...

What do you think the purpose of putting those 6 key words was? Dont you see that it would be pointless to put those words in there if your interpretation was correct????????


Here is what your interpretation of the 14th Amendment boils down to: "Any person born in the United States, AND any person born in the United States, are citizen of the United States...."

LOL! That makes a ton of sense :roll:...good job lib.
 
Kobie said:
By definition, Constitutional amendments can't violate the Constitution. As much as I think the 18th sucked, its Constitutionality isn't in question, since it was part of the Constitution. Which is why it took another amendment to get rid of it.
Click to expand...

Indeed, Presidents and presidential candidates advocate a lot of changes that they can't make happen on their own.
 

What the hell do you think this means?
"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."

Pay attention to the underlined portion!


"You are correct it does say "the jurisdiction". Specifically it does say, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof".
Guess what as stated earlier:
Under US law "any person who is subject to the jurisdiction of the USA", means: The term person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States includes:
(a) Any individual, wherever located, who is a citizen or resident of the United States;
(b) Any person within the United States as defined in § 515.330;
Citation: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/31/515.329

"§ 515.330" states: § 515.330 Person within the United States.
(a) The term person within the United States, includes:
(1) Any person, wheresoever located, who is a resident of the United States;
(2) Any person actually within the United States"
Citation: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/31/515.330
 


So you agree that YOUR (ridiculous) interpretation of the 14th Amendment makes "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" MEANINGLESS?
 
jmotivator said:
As many as he advocated for.
Click to expand...

So Trump can pass constitutional amendments because "He has a pen and a phone just like Obama does.", but when asked how many Obama passed your answer is, "Obama passed 0.0 laws"...... Soooooooo.... Trump can do it just because he has Obama magic pen which passed 0 laws? So how can Trump do it, but Obama somehow passed amendments using it? But then again he has the super magical power of advocation which changes 0 to "as many as he wants". I asked, "So then if your counting"'advocacy" how many did he pass?'", you answered with"As many as he advocated for.". SO he didnt pass laws but passed as many as he wanted to? Me so confused.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…