The immigration thread: American Melting Pot or Get off my Lawn

[Why am I Mr. Pink?]

27 minutes ago, Jumbo said:

 

i'v already seen this thrown up elsewhere....

 

reid didn't want that --it was part of a compromise with the gopers---if you  weren't paying attention while it was happening, then go read up...and not on some political website

 

It is not just California. The public hospitals in Texas have become the equivalent of the family doctor for thousands of people who live on the other side of the border in Mexico.

In 48 of 50 States, illegal aliens can get a driver’s license, the de facto ID document in this country, without having to prove that they are legally in this country in the first place. If you think this is no big deal, think again. Mohammed Salameh, an illegal alien and the alleged driver of the bomb-laden truck that blew up the World Trade Center, happened to live in New Jersey–illegally, of course–one of the two States that actually bothers to require proof of legal residence.

So he crossed the Hudson River and got himself a driver’s license in New York–very simple. He was not a legal resident of the United States. He was not a resident of New York legally or New Jersey or any State. But the State of New York handed him that vital document needed to live and work, not to mention rent a truck that he could place explosives on, with no questions asked and no proof required. And we wonder in this country why we have an illegal immigration problem.

If making it easy to be an illegal alien is not enough, how about offering a reward for being an illegal immigrant? No sane country would do that, right? Guess again. If you break our laws by entering this country without permission and give birth to a child, we reward that child with U.S. citizenship and guarantee full access to all public and social services this society provides. And that is a lot of services. Is it any wonder that two-thirds of the babies born at taxpayer expense in county-run hospitals in Los Angeles are born to illegal alien mothers?

Just when the American people think nothing can be more absurd than the way we deal–or rather do not deal–with illegal immigration, they discover we have a political asylum system that would qualify us for Senator Proxmire’s Golden Fleece Award 1,000 times over. I do not know why he did not make this award; he should have. Last year more than 100,000 people showed up in this country, landing at our airports, washing up on our shores in leaky boats, crossing our borders illegally, overstaying their visas, saying two magic words, `political asylum,’ and virtually assuring themselves of being allowed into the United States forever.

 

Harry Reid Senate Speech - Sept. 20, 1993

https://www.conservativereview.com/news/sen-harry-reids-senate-speech-transcript/

 

I assume the transcript is accurate.

 

Obama ran on a platform of vigorous enforcement of current immigration laws .... I dont know why Dems now say nothing negative about illegal immigration. Well, I know why ... we have to keep our extreme left on our side much like republicans have to keep their far right on their side w issues like abortion, gun rights etc

[Larry]

34 minutes ago, Jumbo said:

were it from another poster, i'd say it either suggests a deliberately disingenuous approach or living in an ignorant echo chamber where you googled your way to some right wing spin on this because they're being put out there now

 

, but since it's from this one, you're completely certain. 

 

(Yeah, bad joke. Couldn't help it.)

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

 

[twa]

14 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

, but since it's from this one, you're completely certain. 

 

(Yeah, bad joke. Couldn't help it.)

 

 

Unfortunately we all do things we don't want to in the right circumstances....be it Reid ,Cruz,you or even me.

[Jumbo]

i would not assume the transcript is accurate, myself, and i don't know that the article includes his whole speech or all the necessary context, but i remember the actual time and events, was involved in campaigns, talked about the policy issues during that time and since with many an elected officials of both parties at the state level, and have a lot of remembered info that leaves me pretty sure....but i see that excerpt, am usually fine to to find out i'm wrong about something, but that said i don't have time to do a dive on it and may not make it a thing to do

 

so here's the thing and let me include @twa

 

i made it clear that i didn't accuse twa of stuff but used his post as a springboard...now if i'm wrong in saying reid came to that position twa cited as part of him/dems compromising (and if that entire speech reflects that or not), let me apologize for being in error just in case...i take being accurate seriously...and frankly i don't have a dog in the fight as to whether reid did have that position or not, it doesn't really matter a lot to me, but it isn't what i remember from the time or since

 

but everyone know that i stand by the main intent and the other content  of that post

 

also, it pisses me off the dems don't have a smart, humane-but-firm (of course you can do both ) border security spiel...shouldn't be that hard (the spiel, not passing the legislation)

[visionary]

 

 

 

 

 

Something to keep in mind, Trump’s attacks on immigration often don’t have as much to do with illegal immigration as we might think despite their outward appearance.  If he claims he wants to do something to hurt illegal immigration it’s smart to assume there is another agenda at work as well.

Edited October 30, 2018 by visionary

[Springfield]

What a ****ing piece of ****

[PleaseBlitz]

22 minutes ago, visionary said:

 

 

 

 

39 minutes ago, visionary said:

 

 

 

 

Memo to Lindsey.  You can't erase the Constitution without 2/3 of the Senate (and the House) or 2/3 of the states.  

But, I guess, you can bolster your crazy-person cred.  

 

 

 

Edited October 30, 2018 by PleaseBlitz

[twa]

I don't think a EO would withstand legal challenge, but a properly directed act of Congress narrowly focused on illegal immigrants giving birth here might very well.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Destino]

1 hour ago, Why am I Mr. Pink? said:

I assume the transcript is accurate.

 

Obama ran on a platform of vigorous enforcement of current immigration laws .... I dont know why Dems now say nothing negative about illegal immigration. Well, I know why ... we have to keep our extreme left on our side much like republicans have to keep their far right on their side w issues like abortion, gun rights etc

 

He didn't just run on a platform of vigorous enforcement, his administration boasted about the fact that he had deported more people than Bush. 

 

Quote

"It has been another record-breaking year at ICE - one that has seen ICE enforce the law at record levels, and in sensible, firm and thoughtful ways," said Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano.

 

Officials said that they had also stepped up audits of employers suspected of using unauthorized immigrants as workers, part of a strategy to undercut the magnet of jobs that draws many migrants. Officials said that 180 owners, employers or managers had been criminally charged and $50 million had been levied in fines.

 

The announcement comes less than a month before November's midterm elections, in which Democrats are fighting to retain control of Congress. Obama administration officials, always wary of criticism that they are insufficiently committed to immigration enforcement, pointed out that the actions against employers and the number of deportations were higher than during the Bush administration.

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/06/AR2010100607232.html

 

In the rush to release photo of kids in cages, many of the images were from the Obama administration.  This doesn't mean that Trump is blameless or somehow just as bad.  He's taken a bad system and made it far worse with his zero tolerance policy (just one example of many).  Worse yet his crazy rhetoric has fueled open racism.  The last time I felt as uncomfortable speaking in Spanish in public was the 80s.  It's gotten bad.  I've received open hostility from people in restaurants for speaking to me own parents in Spanish.

 

So yes, Obama and the democrats did not prove to be friends to the same people they're now (conveniently) defending, but they were much better than whats happening now.   

 

 

15 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

Memo to Lindsey.  You can't erase the Constitution without 2/3 of the Senate (and the House) or 2/3 of the states.  

But, I guess, you can bolster your crazy-person cred. 

Unless the new right wing supreme court lets them.

[PleaseBlitz]

5 minutes ago, Destino said:

 

Unless the new right wing supreme court lets them.

 

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.

 

So what's the argument? That illegal immigrants are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?  That seems to open a fraught can of worms.  Roberts won't go along with that. 

[twa]

PB

 

You could argue the parent being illegally present puts them in extrajudicial status if a act of Congress clarified that status further than exists now.

Gaining citizenship due to a criminal act(by your parent) could be forbidden possibly, or a probationary status might be created.

 

sounds rather messy though.

 

 

[Bozo the kKklown]

 

[Larry]

Coming soon:  Trump Tweet claiming (without support) that there are pregnant people in the caravan. 

[Destino]

54 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

 

 

I hate to give Trump credit but we’re too far into this for his habit of saying, or doing, something outrageous at opportune times to be coincidence.  This is intentional.  He’s found a strategy seen as too unsavory and risky for career politicians (which is really saying something).  With this latest move he’s turned the national discussion to immigration before an election.  I think republicans are much happier discussing this than hateful rhetoric fueling mass murders, for example.  In the short term, it’s pure evil genius.  

 

I can’t believe this will work long term, certainly not if Democrat’s ever come to control Congress.  

[visionary]

 

[Larry]

14 minutes ago, Destino said:

 

I hate to give Trump credit but we’re too far into this for his habit of saying, or doing, something outrageous at opportune times to be coincidence.  This is intentional.  He’s found a strategy seen as too unsavory and risky for career politicians (which is really saying something).  With this latest move he’s turned the national discussion to immigration before an election.  I think republicans are much happier discussing this than hateful rhetoric fueling mass murders, for example.  In the short term, it’s pure evil genius.  

 

I can’t believe this will work long term, certainly not if Democrat’s ever come to control Congress.  

 

An article early in the administration said that its SOP for Putin & co. They call it "the firehose of falsehood". 

[bearrock]

Trump's view of "subject to jurisdiction thereof", which also happens to be shared by Steve King and some other conservative judicial commentators, might have prevailed had a case been brought shortly after the passage of the 14th amendment.  There are records to indicate that 39th Congress that passed the 14th amendment viewed "subject to jurisdiction" as not having allegiance to foreign power (which they viewed as something that can only be severed by naturalization).  

 

This view was of course torpedoed by Wong Kim Ark, which recognized citizenship to son of a legal alien resident.  Could the Roberts court distinguish children of legal alien and illegal without ceding US govt's authority over illegal aliens?  Probably could.  SCOTUS cases have already acknowledged that the term jurisdiction could mean different things in different context.  Would SCOTUS have the appetite to overturn long standing practice and jeopardize decisions like Pyler v Doe?  Probably not.  At least not without at minimum a congressional action.  And I don't see Congress being able to pass such a law (what happens to all the people who lived as citizens until now?)

 

There could be a middle ground though.  No immigration benefit from children if parents broke immigration law (for now, the ban only applies to parents who crossed illegally, not overstayed).  Lock more federal benefits behind work credits of parents or self. 

 

At the end of the day, US should look around the world.  Declining birth rate is a headache for lot of developed countries.  Having a willing flow of new, motivated citizens is not such a bad thing.

[twa]

 IMO ,Wong Kim Ark hinged on a established permanent domicile and residence which does not exist for any new arrivals.

 

if we look around the world the latest trend is not allowing citizenship simply by location of birth.

I certainly agree having folk wanting to come here is a good thing though

[LD0506]

Don't kid yourself, Stephen Miller is sitting in the dark thinking about repealing the 14th and using it to retroactively deport all "those" people that came in here boats with chains but without papers, and touching himself.

[visionary]

 

[visionary]

 

 

 

[LD0506]

If the POSUS can force a court challenge on the 14th don't convince yourself that it would automatically fail, see Korematsu

[Gibbit]

If these folks were driving over in Mercedes benz nobody would care....its not racist. Its poor folk competing with other poor folk for jobs....Cali has more bridges to tent under right?

 

...but If theyre going to come over legit and pay into social security so it stays viable for me then Im all for em 

Edited October 31, 2018 by Gibbit

[PleaseBlitz]

18 hours ago, twa said:

PB

 

You could argue the parent being illegally present puts them in extrajudicial status if a act of Congress clarified that status further than exists now.

Gaining citizenship due to a criminal act(by your parent) could be forbidden possibly, or a probationary status might be created.

 

sounds rather messy though.

 

 

 

Yea, not really.

 

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States

 

No mention of parents' status. So, sure you could argue what you are saying.  You can also drive a car with your feet.  In both cases, you just look stupid. 

 

 

******

And thus ends my entertaining this proposal as serious, and not just Trump fanning flames because he is a demagogue and that's what he does and an election is 6 days away.  

Edited October 31, 2018 by PleaseBlitz