Republican Governor and GOP candidate Scott Walker recently said that our entire immigration system, legal and illegal, needs to be overhauled and that even legal immigration may need to be reduced because the influx of cheap foreign labor is hurting the American middle class.
“In terms of legal immigration, how we need to approach that going forward is saying – the next president and the next Congress need to make decisions about a legal immigration system that’s based on, first and foremost, on protecting American workers and American wages,” Walker said Monday in an interview with Glenn Beck. “It is a fundamentally lost issue by many in elected positions today – what is this doing for American workers looking for jobs, what is this doing to wages, and we need to have that be at the forefront of our discussion going forward.”
MSDNC quickly jumped in to denounce this “hardline” position. John McCain and Orrin Hatch … very old and wealthy men who never need to worry about anyone in their families losing out on a job or an educational opportunity to an illegal immigrant… denounced the “hardline” radical position of favoring Americans over illegal immigrants. Voters who have actual skin in the game tend to see the issue differently.
There are over 42 million immigrants in the USA. Legal and immigration add nearly 2 million more people per year. That’s adding a city larger than Dallas to the American landscape each year; with the attendant demands on resources, infrastructure and services. This is on top of an economy that is stagnant at best. Like everything else the political class supports, this is an unsustainable situation unless turning the USA into a Third World country is the actual goal.
And the politicians remained baffled why no one trusts them with “Comprehensive Immigration Reform.” One clue might be that in 2006, Congress passed and President Bush signed a law requiring them to build a fence and secure the border. The law was gutted the very next year and only 37 out of 900 miles of actual fence was actually built. And they profess to be baffled that the public does not trust them to follow the next border security law they pass.
Donald Trump’s reforms would end “birthright citizen,” the notion that a person in the country illegally can still claim welfare and other benefits by dint of giving birth on American soil. There is no reason being born in the USA should automatically entitle one to citizenship, unless such citizenship means nothing. Which is how Obama, Jeb, Hillary, McCain and anyone else who would hand out citizenship at the border like it was a library card treats it. These politicians find it hateful and “rayciss” that some citizens actually want to save what’s left of the American culture and the American standard of living.
California is already well on its way to third world status; with a disappearing middle class, a swath of extreme wealth along the coast, a growing impoverished underclass, and a permanently embedded one-party government. This is the endgame of unrestricted immigration.
You can’t end “birth right” citizenship without amending the Constitution. I don’t think there is enough support for that. I certainly don’t support changing the Constitution just because some people don’t like it.
1.You can’t end “birth right” citizenship without amending the Constitution.
False. The relevant statute is in 8 US Code 1401.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthright_citizenship_in_the_United_States#Statute.2C_by_birth_within_U.S.
“California is already well on its way to third world status; with a disappearing middle class, a swath of extreme wealth along the coast, a growing impoverished underclass, and a permanently embedded one-party government. This is the endgame of unrestricted immigration.”
I disagree
I don’t believe that is the endgame.
I think violence is the endgame.
I think immigrants are the tool the politicos are using to end “Western Civilization” for whatever reason I haven’t figured out yet.
If you notice all across Europe and the UK,immigrants are being brought in by the hundreds of thousands.
And the more the local populations scream in protest,the more the politicos and media types push to add MORE immigrants to the landscape.
And it is getting more and more violent across the Atlantic.
The U.S. immigration problem is South of the border with Mexico,Central America and South Americans.(As well as quite a few middle easterners)
The Europeans and Uk are dealing with an unsustainable Arab and Muslim immigration population.
The legal POV is that “native-born” can be restricted to those who’s mothers are lawfully resident in the US, not those here illegally — or under student or tourist-visas. The doctrine being that one can not benefit legally from an illegal-act…or status.
Personally it’s an interesting interpretation, but I’m not sure it meets Constitutional-muster without amending the COTUS, which I suspect is impossible on this topic during Peacetime.
14th Amendment to the United States Constitution: SECTION. 1. 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.
You are mistaking codification with constitutionality. This has been reviewed by the Supreme Court twice. Please learn.
Illegal immigrants are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the USA.
Plain language. Do you speak it?
But, I’m down with an Article V convention if that’s what it takes.
“I certainly don’t support changing the Constitution just because some people don’t like it.”
Nut you are okay with the SCOTUS just casting the Constitution aside to enact the political agenda of the far left. (gay marriage, Obamacare)
I don’t think they will end birthright citizenship-I think its too difficult to amend the constitution. They can modify the issue of anchor babies. F a baby is born here to illegal adults then they can report the adults and citizen baby can move here when he/she is an adult.
What they really need to do is end the practice of making immigration about family relationships and make it about jobs and occupations. Canada and Australia both have immigration policies that are related to job and education not whether you have a famy member here.
Walker is right about one thing-immigration policy should be about jobs and what’s best for the American worker. If we have people on unemployment for months and years we don’t need more illegal immigrants or legal immigrants to take more jobs.
Mark Steyn brings great clarity to this immigration hot button which Trump has punched:
It is Trump, after all, who has caused this “immigration” issue to go front burner.
Yesterday, Dana Perino did a meltdown shout-a-thon on The Five about the impending Elain Gonzoles outrage writ large as ICE agents round up all the little children and drag them from their sanctuary closets in chains at the muzzle of assault weapons while German Shepherds nip their little, innocent toes.
Now, understand, Dana Perino and Geraldo Rivera are on the same page on this one. They go to their opposite corners on selling aborted fetal tissue, but on the poor little aliens, they are simpatico.
More Steyn:
Trump said to Chuck Todd on “Meet the Press”: “They have to go. We will work with them. They have to go. Chuck, we either have a country, or we don’t have a country.”
So now the DemonizingRats have been given everything they could ever desire to go after Trump as a reincarnation of Eichmann tattooing little people, issuing identity papers to all Americans and unleashing a Homeland Security Gestapo/TSA to ferret out the poor, huddled masses of undocumented humanity yearning to breathe free.
But, it just may be that Americans have had more than enough of this “no effective doors” policy. Obama demagogued his way into office by doing Big Rock Candy Mountain malarky wrapped up in “hop’n change.” The pendulum swing from that sugar high may just be to toss the illegals out.
Trump did not indicate the ultimate process. He just said that “they have to go.” Plenty enough of them will self-deport once the “social worker” is no longer a mouthpiece for sustaining illegality.
You know, Saint Franklin of Roosevelt rounded up the Japanese and put them in camps behind barded wire and ended up getting his face on the dime. Lincoln, Jefferson, Roosevelt are on the coins. Powerful company for a concentration camp guy. Maybe Trump could end up replacing his mug.
Just Me, I agree with you, for the most part. Deporting US citizens because their parents are illegal may be pushing it a little too far. All citizens are allowed due process, no matter how young they are. Sending a citizen to another country in order to deny them access to social services isn’t right. I don’t know the answer, but a citizen is a citizen.
I definitely agree that family ties are not sufficient grounds to allow an illegal to stay. Immigrants should only be allowed if they provide some benefit to the nation, legally. If illegals choose to take their US citizen child with them that is their decision, but they can’t stay.
What Heliotrope said…thanks for the link…great read.
The orignal intent of the the 14th Amendment was to define the status of the children of emancipated slaves. It was a protection of those children so that the southern states couldn’t deny them citizenship. The intent is that born in the United States citizenship is national as well as of the state. It is the misreading of the Amendment in 1898 that has caused the situation we are in today. Wong Kim Ark, born in San Francisco, of Chinese parents who returned to China, partly due to the Chinese Exclusion Act in 1882: thanks to the Knights of Labor, who in 1885 added a prohibition to the importation of cheap labor from China. Ark went to visit his parents in China and on his return was denied entry. He sued and won. His parents never applied for U.S. citizenship. His parents never renounced their loyalty to the Chinese Emperor. Hence the U.S. did not have “jurisdiction thereof.” That is the operative phrase in the Amendment. Ark never should have been granted citizenship. This is the case with many of today’s illegals. They remain citizens of the home country. Many of the Dream children live in single parent homes, the fathers never married their mother, and they are recognized as citizens of their mother’s country of origin. Those persons are not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” So they should be deportable. Just as the 18th was repealed by the 21st, the 14th can be repealed with sections two through five retained in the new amendment.
Great Britain will grant citizenship to a new born if at least one parent is a legal resident. France repealed birthright citizenship in 1981.
Of course they’re are, otherwise you would be placing them Above the Law, and immune to any sanction or legal accountability. And forcibly-deporting US citizens is both illegal, and in contravention to a number of International Treaties and UN Conventions against forcible-exile. You would have to legally strip them of their US citizenship first, then deport them; and that wold probably trigger the Ex post facto Clause in the Constitution and the Bill of Attainer Clause just for starters.
Does anybody truly thing the 14th amendment was ratified so that foreign born people could enter the United States illegally, and then have a foothold by having a baby here? You may not be able to strip the ones that are here of their citizenship, but you can surely amend the law to make it where one parent must have citizenship. Most other countries have that requirement for citizenship. Heck, go rid Mexico’s immigration policy, and then call all of a xenophobe for having NO policy compared to theirs.
Dang it, grammar apparently hurts my brain.
the 14th amendment only meant anchor babies since 1980, before that the creators intent was published in newspapers with an example of foreigners working at an embassy wouldn’t have a citizen child. There is not enough white people to support the rest of the 3rd world living in 1st world standards.
There are two relevant legal parties in the anchor baby cases: the illegal parents and the child. The child can be argued as a legal citizen of the US via the 14th. The parents, however, are not legal citizens and are breaking the laws of the US. They, the parents, are therefore equivalent, or should be viewed as equivalent, to felons or other criminals. Are they even capable of taking care of a child? Can they provide sufficiently for the future needs of the child, such as education, food, etc.? Probably not.
The simplest way to solve the issue, legally–anyway, is to deport the parents and confiscate the children. Of course, these children will become wards of the State and further empowers child services, problems in their own right, BUT how many parents are going to have an anchor baby if, at any time, the great a benevolent Gman can come down and rip apart their family and toss the parents out?
Ted B, (Charging Rhino)
Illegal aliens are not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S.A. and it does not place them Above the Law; it places them Outside the Law, that’s why they are called illegals. The requirement to be a resident of the U.S.A. is to renounce their allegiance to the laws and authorities of their natal country.
I am a U.S. citizen living in El Salvador as a permanent resident. I can be, deported under Article 97 of the Constitution of El Salvador if I should express a political opinion, take part in a political demonstration my residency will be permanently revoked with no right of return. lt burns me up to see illegals in the U.S., particularly on May Day, marching, carrying placards demand congress make them legal now. They are interfering with our political system, for which they should be arrested and deported. The INS should have their buses on site and herd them all into detention.
Here is a curious notion about the 14th Amendment that is almost universally ignored on the grounds of being silly: “Born.” In some parts of the world, your birth is marked from your approximate conception date. That makes the person 9 months older than the emerge-from-the-womb date if we were use that conception date definition.
Now, is an aborted fetus “born” or not? If you can use the human parts and pieces of what hits the pie plate, it would certainly seem so. The little critter has emerged from the womb. Dead? you stay? OK. We call that stillborn and use the term rather readily when a dead baby arrives by natural birth in the third trimester. Of course, the abortion crowd does not want “citizenship” and due process rights to interfere with the mother’s right to choose to kill the fetus dwelling in her womb. Her right to exivction must trump the right to life within her womb.
The point is this: words change meaning over time or over time context changes the scope of the meaning of the word.
The 14th Amendment was created to clear up citizenship complications thrown at former slaves by the Democrats in some of the states.
In the early part of the twentieth century, the Supreme Court decided that the 14th Amendment concept of “born” applied to corporations.
There was some concern and flap over whether Indians on reservations were compelled to state jurisdiction under the 14th Amendment or if they could have their own jurisdiction which was unmentioned in the 14th Amendment.
And so forth….
The concept of jus soli comes from English common law and it says the person born attains the citizenship of the soil upon which he is born. Not necessarily his sole citizenship as the citizenship of his parent(s) may be part of the picture.
We can deport the non-citizen family of a child having US citizenship via jus soli. The “mess” begins if the parents decide to abandon the citizen child. If the child leaves, he retains his US citizenship.
A great deal of false “certainty” is being laid out about what “born” means legally in the 14th Amendment. If it were so cut and dried as some would have it, there would be no 8 U.S.C. § 1401, 1409, 1411, etc. determinations necessary or discussion of “birthright” citizenship of any kind. The “hook” in the U.S. Code is the qualifier:
Our current discussions revolve around anchor babies which are kids born here as a shortcut to getting U.S. residency for the parent(s). If there is no possibility of dealing with question due to the finality of the 14th Amendment, why does Congress keep entering Citizenship Acts and Citizenship Reform Acts?
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/08/germany-to-accept-nearly-750000-migrants-this-year-in-country-of-80-million/