Trump's immigration plan (for real)

JerryBobCoJerryBobCo Senior MemberPosts: 6,472 Senior Member
Part of his plan is to deport all illegal immigrants (ok by me), including anchor babies. When asked about breaking up families in a recent interview, he said he would not do that, but deport entire families instead, even if some of the family members were born in the U.S. His position is that persons born here whose parents illegally entered the country are not granted citizenship simply by the fact they were born here.

My take is that doing this would be in violation of section 1 of the 14th amendment. I am fully aware that this amendment was written specifically to grant citizenship to former slaves during the reconstruction period. My guess is that the anchor baby phenomena was not even a consideration when this was ratified. However, the wording is pretty clear to me.

Here's the text of section 1 of the 14th amendment.

"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. 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."

According to Judge Napolitano, who is a frequent guest on various Fox News programs, the supreme court has upheld this any and every time a case has been brought before them to try and deport someone born in this country. And, per him, the due process part would take decades to do for over 11 million people.

My opinion is that this is yet another case of Trump pandering to his base. He has some good points, but this is not one of them.
Jerry

Gun control laws make about as much sense as taking ex-lax to cure a cough.
«1

Replies

  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 13,046 Senior Member
    A LOT of the stuff Trump says he'll do, I have to ask a one-word question: "How?" While he's the head of the Executive Branch of the US government, he's not the Supreme Executive in a business sense who can say to do something and it'll be done. He's bound by the Constitution and interpretations as supported by the Courts, and will be dependent on Congress to fund his actions. Much like his claim to build a wall and make Mexico pay for it, there's no real methodology told and it's dependent on those outside his direct supervision to act on and fund his ideas.

    He's also talked about amending the Constitution to get rid of the anchor baby protection. That'll take approval of 2/3 of the House and the Senate PLUS 3/4 of the several states. Not.
    Going.
    To.
    Happen.
    Overkill is underrated.
  • Big ChiefBig Chief Senior Member Posts: 32,976 Senior Member
    He is getting a whole lot more support for his run than anyone would have believed just a few months ago.

    Talking heads were WRONG and can't stand it. They all said he would have fizzled out way before now. A lot of them are backtracking and trying explain why they were wrong, modifying their predictions.

    I'll vote for Donald as a REP if he wins the nomination over any DEM.
    It's only true if it's on this forum where opinions are facts and facts are opinions
    Words of wisdom from Big Chief: Flush twice, it's a long way to the Mess Hall
    I'd rather have my sister work in a whorehouse than own another Taurus!
  • Big ChiefBig Chief Senior Member Posts: 32,976 Senior Member
    If they just enforced the immigration laws already on the books we wouldn't have 10-14 million illegals here now.
    It's only true if it's on this forum where opinions are facts and facts are opinions
    Words of wisdom from Big Chief: Flush twice, it's a long way to the Mess Hall
    I'd rather have my sister work in a whorehouse than own another Taurus!
  • JerryBobCoJerryBobCo Senior Member Posts: 6,472 Senior Member
    Big Chief wrote: »
    If they just enforced the immigration laws already on the books we wouldn't have 10-14 million illegals here now.

    :that:
    Jerry

    Gun control laws make about as much sense as taking ex-lax to cure a cough.
  • VarmintmistVarmintmist Senior Member Posts: 6,460 Senior Member
    The other thing to consider is that the precedent has been set in this country that criminals cannot profit from their crime. A killer cant write a book in jail and make money off of his crime, why should a person or persons be allowed to profit by being allowed to stay here because they had a kid? If it is true that the baby is a citizen, the parents are still not. So you grant the kid citizenship, place him or her in a orphanage, and toss the parents back over the Rio Grande. "But that would break up a family!!" No it wouldnt. The parents will have the absolute right to take their kid back to wherever they came from and that kid will have dual citizenship and can come back after the age of majority or the death of the parents. Parents choice.

    Problem solved.

    As to Trump. He is a clipper ship. Looks real good under full sail, because he goes where the wind blows.
    It's boring, and your lack of creativity knows no bounds.
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,549 Senior Member
    The most honest solution to this problem is stiffening and enforcing laws against hiring illegal immigrants. Empower local sheriffs and police to charge any employer who doesn't have a copy of birth certificate or green card for every employer, and let the feds round up the forgers of them. I'm thinking $3000-$10,000 per employee and $10,000-$50,000, plus jail for forging a green card. It is the obvious solution that no politician will mention. Also, offer generous rewards for any citizen whose testimony convicts offenders.

    This would impact the economy for a while, and would run some small companies out of business, and I'm sure other measures would be needed to prevent corruption of the system. But, it's simple and honest and would create job opportunities for people who have run out of unemployment insurance, or were booted off welfare, and kids.
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 21,802 Senior Member
    JerryBobCo wrote: »
    Part of his plan is to deport all illegal immigrants (ok by me), including anchor babies. When asked about breaking up families in a recent interview, he said he would not do that, but deport entire families instead, even if some of the family members were born in the U.S. His position is that persons born here whose parents illegally entered the country are not granted citizenship simply by the fact they were born here.

    My take is that doing this would be in violation of section 1 of the 14th amendment. I am fully aware that this amendment was written specifically to grant citizenship to former slaves during the reconstruction period. My guess is that the anchor baby phenomena was not even a consideration when this was ratified. However, the wording is pretty clear to me.

    Here's the text of section 1 of the 14th amendment.

    "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. 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."

    According to Judge Napolitano, who is a frequent guest on various Fox News programs, the supreme court has upheld this any and every time a case has been brought before them to try and deport someone born in this country. And, per him, the due process part would take decades to do for over 11 million people.

    My opinion is that this is yet another case of Trump pandering to his base. He has some good points, but this is not one of them.

    Now he's talking out his ask me no questions and I'll tell you no lies. He knows better than that but he gets on a roll and knows there are people out there that will believe anything he says and so he gives them something they really want, even if it really can't happen. All this is election hype.

    Besides, if something was deemed legal when it happened you can't go back retroactively and change it, no expostfacto. Those that are already here as anchor babies will stay here as anchor babies. Now he may get the Constitution amended but that ain't retroactive. That will only pertain to future cases. If not, then this country is in worse shape with him than Obama. No president can arbitrarily change the Constitution or its amendments without due process. And like I said, once something is done under the Constitution as is, it can't be retroactively undone due to an amendment or change in the law. All those anchor babies who are now citizens will be grandfathered if he does get the Amendment amended.
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 21,802 Senior Member
    Big Chief wrote: »
    He is getting a whole lot more support for his run than anyone would have believed just a few months ago.

    Talking heads were WRONG and can't stand it. They all said he would have fizzled out way before now. A lot of them are backtracking and trying explain why they were wrong, modifying their predictions.

    I'll vote for Donald as a REP if he wins the nomination over any DEM.

    Yeah me too. There's better candidates running, but if he gets the nomination as a Rep, he gets my vote, pure and simple. Because no matter how bad he could be, he would still be a lot better than a Hillary or Bernie.
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 21,802 Senior Member
    A LOT of the stuff Trump says he'll do, I have to ask a one-word question: "How?" While he's the head of the Executive Branch of the US government, he's not the Supreme Executive in a business sense who can say to do something and it'll be done. He's bound by the Constitution and interpretations as supported by the Courts, and will be dependent on Congress to fund his actions. Much like his claim to build a wall and make Mexico pay for it, there's no real methodology told and it's dependent on those outside his direct supervision to act on and fund his ideas.

    He's also talked about amending the Constitution to get rid of the anchor baby protection. That'll take approval of 2/3 of the House and the Senate PLUS 3/4 of the several states. Not.
    Going.
    To.
    Happen.

    So is Obama, but have you noticed the Constitution slowing him down?

    Another thing, if he wants a wall, and congress won't pay for it all, he's got enough money to build 4 walls and have change left over. I think he'd use his own money just to make his point.
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • TxwheelsTxwheels Member Posts: 151 Member
    Getting the illegals out is easy contrary to what some think. As illegals they are technically invaders. so in that case, task the military with rounding them up and load them on buses and semis and ship them to the border. Once there, point them south and any of them that try to come back north, drop them where they stand.
    Crap on all the PC BS that protects them!
    If I don't answer the phone, I'm probably in the Senate taking a POTUS and wiping my Congress
  • alphasigmookiealphasigmookie Senior Member Posts: 8,570 Senior Member
    bisley wrote: »
    The most honest solution to this problem is stiffening and enforcing laws against hiring illegal immigrants. Empower local sheriffs and police to charge any employer who doesn't have a copy of birth certificate or green card for every employer, and let the feds round up the forgers of them. I'm thinking $3000-$10,000 per employee and $10,000-$50,000, plus jail for forging a green card. It is the obvious solution that no politician will mention. Also, offer generous rewards for any citizen whose testimony convicts offenders.

    This would impact the economy for a while, and would run some small companies out of business, and I'm sure other measures would be needed to prevent corruption of the system. But, it's simple and honest and would create job opportunities for people who have run out of unemployment insurance, or were booted off welfare, and kids.

    Yep, bottom line is there are lots of illegals here because there is demand for them. This country has always relied on immigrants to fill the lowest rung on the labor ladder. It helps drive down costs and drive up profits in all sorts of businesses. Consequently it also helps drive down wages for actual citizens. Since these companies make a lot of money and our politicians are for sale for cheap, it's much more profitable to continue exploiting illegal labor and spending the profits on lobbying the government to keep the laws as they are than to change and hire only legal residents. As long as money drives politics nothing will change. The profit motive leans far too heavily towards the status quo.
    "Finding out that you have run out of toilet paper is a good example of lack of preparation, buying 10 years worth is silly"
    -DoctorWho
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 21,802 Senior Member
    Yep, bottom line is there are lots of illegals here because there is demand for them. This country has always relied on immigrants to fill the lowest rung on the labor ladder. It helps drive down costs and drive up profits in all sorts of businesses. Consequently it also helps drive down wages for actual citizens. Since these companies make a lot of money and our politicians are for sale for cheap, it's much more profitable to continue exploiting illegal labor and spending the profits on lobbying the government to keep the laws as they are than to change and hire only legal residents. As long as money drives politics nothing will change. The profit motive leans far too heavily towards the status quo.

    I agree with you, but this is the very reason George W. wanted a guest worker program. You don't need illegals to do this sort of thing. The guest worker program allows for documenting foreign workers and paying them better than what they can earn in their own country but cheap for the US. Now tell me what's unfair about that? The number of Filipinos alone that I know who would relish such an opportunity is in the thousands and that's just me. There's millions of non citizens who really want to do work U.S. Citizens don't. Document them and let them at it.

    Of course, your party will take advantage of any potential vote and screw up a good thing and have non citizens voting before we know it.
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • alphasigmookiealphasigmookie Senior Member Posts: 8,570 Senior Member
    snake284 wrote: »
    I agree with you, but this is the very reason George W. wanted a guest worker program. You don't need illegals to do this sort of thing. The guest worker program allows for documenting foreign workers and paying them better than what they can earn in their own country but cheap for the US. Now tell me what's unfair about that? The number of Filipinos alone that I know who would relish such an opportunity is in the thousands and that's just me. There's millions of non citizens who really want to do work U.S. Citizens don't. Document them and let them at it.

    Of course, your party will take advantage of any potential vote and screw up a good thing and have non citizens voting before we know it.

    Documented workers always cost more than undocumented workers, you also have to treat them better. I completely agree that a large guest worker program can and should be part of the solution. I'm just fairly convinced that those who pull the strings of the people in power don't want a real solution because they like things the way they are.
    "Finding out that you have run out of toilet paper is a good example of lack of preparation, buying 10 years worth is silly"
    -DoctorWho
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 25,715 Senior Member
    The border fence is one idea that will work. For those that say a fence won't work, I will give you two examples of border fences that DO work; the fence between North and South Korea, and the border fence between Mexico and Guatemala. Bet you didn't know about the fence between Mexico and Guatemala, with razor wire on top and guard towers spaced out for medium range rifle shots.
    Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.


  • JerryBobCoJerryBobCo Senior Member Posts: 6,472 Senior Member
    tennmike wrote: »
    The border fence is one idea that will work. For those that say a fence won't work, I will give you two examples of border fences that DO work; the fence between North and South Korea, and the border fence between Mexico and Guatemala. Bet you didn't know about the fence between Mexico and Guatemala, with razor wire on top and guard towers spaced out for medium range rifle shots.

    I suspect that it's those medium range rifle shots that are the most effective deterrent.
    Jerry

    Gun control laws make about as much sense as taking ex-lax to cure a cough.
  • JeeperJeeper Senior Member Posts: 2,952 Senior Member
    JerryBobCo wrote: »
    I suspect that it's those medium range rifle shots that are the most effective deterrent.

    THIS. Any "border barrier" not enforced to the death of those who choose to attempt to surpass it is NOT a real border, and is instead, nothing more than "I wish you would stay over there" wishful thinking.

    Sort of like the difference between a 4' wall around your back yard, and a 4' wall around your back yard with a big mean **** dog that will bite intruders. One is a deterrent, and the other is not.

    A real deterrent HAS to have "teeth".

    Luis
    Wielding the Hammer of Thor first requires you to lift and carry the Hammer of Thor. - Bigslug
  • BigslugBigslug Senior Member Posts: 6,939 Senior Member
    As to Trump. He is a clipper ship. Looks real good under full sail, because he goes where the wind blows.

    A message of Hope and Change that's devoid of any actual substance or possibility of application? It seems like I've heard this before. . .where was that? Hmmmmmm. . . .
    WWJMBD?

    "Nothing is safe from stupid." - Zee
  • VarmintmistVarmintmist Senior Member Posts: 6,460 Senior Member
    At least that leopard didnt change its spots. Trumps ship has been is full sail left, progressive, commie, and now a little right. Sailed from a anti gun regulator to a darling of the sunshine conservatives.
    It's boring, and your lack of creativity knows no bounds.
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,549 Senior Member
    He's also talked about amending the Constitution to get rid of the anchor baby protection. That'll take approval of 2/3 of the House and the Senate PLUS 3/4 of the several states. Not.
    Going.
    To.
    Happen.

    It doesn't have to happen.

    Read the 14th Amendment, and read the comments of the author of it about the intent. Some pretty good legal scholars say that the liberal (politically speaking) interpretation takes the part about being born here automatically being a citizen out of context, and ignores the part that means that Congress can make laws to govern the cititizenship (or lack thereof) of a person born to illegal aliens. They compare that interpretation to the 2nd Amendment interpretation by liberals that claims it only applies to militias.

    I haven't studied it carefully, myself, but I know you will, so if you debunk what I said, I'll have to read it for myself. :jester:
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 13,046 Senior Member
    Are you referring to an article? I'd like to read it. Or are you talking about the Amendment's actual author?

    I'll agree that the 14th was most likely NOT intended to address"anchor babies" when it was written.
    Overkill is underrated.
  • bullsi1911bullsi1911 Moderator Posts: 9,660 Senior Member
    At least that leopard didnt change its spots. Trumps ship has been is full sail left, progressive, commie, and now a little right. Sailed from a anti gun regulator to a darling of the sunshine conservatives.

    Yup. Trump does not believe this stuff. This is just the new product that he is selling
    To make something simple is a thousand times more difficult than to make something complex.
    -Mikhail Kalashnikov
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 13,046 Senior Member
    At least that leopard didnt change its spots. Trumps ship has been is full sail left, progressive, commie, and now a little right. Sailed from a anti gun regulator to a darling of the sunshine conservatives.
    This is where I don't trust Trump. He's been all over the map, politically, and his shifts have been massive. I just am not sure he believes what he says, honestly.
    Overkill is underrated.
  • JermanatorJermanator Senior Member Posts: 15,045 Senior Member
    The dude already admitted that Hillary Clinton was at his wedding. He gave to her 2008 campaign. Yea, right. He is a conservative. :sarcasm:
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,549 Senior Member
    Are you referring to an article? I'd like to read it. Or are you talking about the Amendment's actual author?

    I'll agree that the 14th was most likely NOT intended to address"anchor babies" when it was written.

    No, I was listening to Mark Levin delivering his opinion on Fox News. I assumed that with your remarkable Google-Foo, you would do all the research and make an argument, yea or nay. I have already watched Geraldo Rivera give his bait and switch rebuttal of that opinion, but I would like somebody who is better qualified to give the opposing view. Levin is not a neutral party, but he is a damned knowledgeable Constitutional lawyer, whom I have yet to see proven wrong on his Constitutional interpretations.

    I'll look for some documentation when I get in the mood, if you're going to be lazy. :tooth:
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,549 Senior Member
    ...are you talking about the Amendment's actual author?

    Yes. Levin read from the actual author's statement about what the language of the amendment that he wrote did, and did not, mean.

    EDIT: Never mind all that - here's an article that explains what I was trying to say from someone entirely different.

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/08/18/constitution-doesnt-mandate-birthright-citizenship/

    It ends by saying "...But none of that changes the legality of his immigration proposal. While parts of it may face legal challenges, denying citizenship to the children of illegal aliens is fully consistent with the Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment."
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 13,046 Senior Member
    I was going in part by JerryBobCo's citing the Judge and some other articles I've read (too lazy to look up right not) citing legal scholars. Also in my looking at the Amendment itself, I don't see anything about the citizenship/immigration status of the parents.

    Edited to add: now that I've read your post about the author: I'm getting a better idea. Now I see where immigration/citizenship status comes into play.

    I'll look it up later, but my understanding is that deporting the anchor babies will take a bit of legal time.
    Overkill is underrated.
  • TeachTeach Senior Member Posts: 18,253 Senior Member
    A simpler, and much more effective approach to the problem would be a spirited program of harassment of the employers who hire illegals. If an "undocumented worker" can't earn enough money to feed his family, he's got two options- - - -head back where he came from, or become a criminal. If he's a crook, jail him and then deport him. Nothing like trying to run a business from jail, if you have a habit of hiring illegals! A Tyson chicken processing plant near Nashville got raided by immigration cops back when George W. was president, and half the town left overnight. The jobs that got abandoned were filled by legal workers within a week. The only losers were a few local grocery stores that got stuck with shelves full of Mexican food that nobody wanted to buy, and a few slumlords who couldn't rent their substandard apartments.
    Jerry
    Hide and wail in terror, Eloi- - - -We Morlocks are on the hunt!
    ASK-HOLE Someone who asks for advice and always does something opposite
  • alphasigmookiealphasigmookie Senior Member Posts: 8,570 Senior Member
    Are you referring to an article? I'd like to read it. Or are you talking about the Amendment's actual author?

    I'll agree that the 14th was most likely NOT intended to address"anchor babies" when it was written.
    When it was written we let anyone who showed up at a US port in the door. There was pretty much no such thing as illegal immigration back then.
    "Finding out that you have run out of toilet paper is a good example of lack of preparation, buying 10 years worth is silly"
    -DoctorWho
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,549 Senior Member
    I was going in part by JerryBobCo's citing the Judge and some other articles I've read (too lazy to look up right not) citing legal scholars. Also in my looking at the Amendment itself, I don't see anything about the citizenship/immigration status of the parents.

    Edited to add: now that I've read your post about the author: I'm getting a better idea. Now I see where immigration/citizenship status comes into play.

    I'll look it up later, but my understanding is that deporting the anchor babies will take a bit of legal time.

    I think this is an accurate appraisal. But it could be done, and if suits were filed, it would ultimately be decided by the courts.
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 25,715 Senior Member
    If the Federal government is smart, then they will get on the immigration overhaul NOW. A Constitutional Convention called by the States would and should be one of the worst nightmares of the Fed. Many of the States are tired of the crap from D.C. and are ripe for the citizens to force the State Legislatures to call for a Constitutional Convention. Once that mess was over, D.C. would be nothing but a picked over skeleton of its former self.
    Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.


«1
Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.