Trump's comments - NBC and Univision reaction

[TIDE-HSV]

How can 1 illegal male + 1 illegal female = 1 or more legal male/s / female/s? (Could be twins/triplets, et al).

Does this have anything to do with Common Core mathematics?

Nevertheless, it's been settled law for generations, and it would, IMO, require a Constitutional amendment to change it. A case can be made that, in the beginning, we were all illegals. Well, I do have some Native American ancestry, so...

 

[Tide1986]

Nevertheless, it's been settled law for generations, and it would, IMO, require a Constitutional amendment to change it. A case can be made that, in the beginning, we were all illegals. Well, I do have some Native American ancestry, so...

I guess I just don't understand the inclusion of "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof".

 

[TIDE-HSV]

I guess I just don't understand the inclusion of "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof".

Don't sweat it. The courts put their definition on it long ago. What we have now is everybody and his brother trying to place his own meaning on it, for his own agenda. The law of the land now for two centuries has been "judicial supremacy." This means that laws - and the constitution - mean what the courts and the Supreme Court say they mean. (I don't like a lot of what they say.) I understand you don't accept the doctrine. Fine. That means that these discourses over long-settled points of law between us are useless. Therefore, I won't be responding to any further posts along these lines. I prefer to discuss relevant points. Just my preference. In the future, I'll just answer "same answer as before."

 

[Tidewater]

How can 1 illegal male + 1 illegal female = 1 or more legal male/s / female/s? (Could be twins/triplets, et al).

Does this have anything to do with Common Core mathematics?

This case, it appears to me, is about illegal immigrant minors trying to get into the US and "get an immigration hearing," for which most don't show up. And there is no penalty for not showing up. And Judges like Miss Gee want these kids out of any detention facility. Well, I do too. How about sending them home?
The whole policy was playing on the heartstrings of Americans (one of America's greatest vulnerabilities in my view) by allowing underage kids to come and stay. Central Americans believed (falsely) that the Obama Administration's policy was that no underage illegal immigrant will be forced to go home.
I hate the idea of a children undertaking that trip.
If the parents of illegals get their illegal immigrant children (or if the children go first and the parents join them) and then use their illegal immigrant children to fight against deportation because "we want to keep out family together," then they will have post-natal "anchor baby" status.
The problem is solved if illegal immigrants don't come and those who do are not allowed to stay. Once that policy is consistently applied, they will stop trying.

As for the cost of housing and schooling this invasion of children,these two were interesting:

One, Baptist Child and Family Services (BCFS), received more than $280 million this year to house illegal immigrant children, according to government records. Time reported in August that It has deployed 1,400 employees this year alone to staff its shelters. More than 95 per cent of that group's budget in 2012 came from the federal government, according to its tax records. But even members of Congress can't get answers about the arrangement it has with HHS. After President Obama requested $3.7 billion in July to grapple with the surge in child illegal immigrant border-crossings, Iowa Republican Sen. Charles Grassley wrote to HHS Secretary Sylvia Burwell, demanding an account of how the money would be spent. ... BCFS staff prohibited a Member of Congress from entering the taxpayer-funded detention center at Fort Sill; prevented a Los Angeles Times reporter from interviewing detainees, caseworkers, and other staff; physically pushed a local TV reporter from the entrance of a facility; and attempted to block the reporter’s camera crew from recording across the street from the facility.

And then there's Texas education money:

In Plyler v. Doe, the High Court struck down a Texas state statute denying funding for education to illegal immigrant children and simultaneously struck down a municipal school district's attempt to charge illegal immigrants an annual $1,000 tuition fee for each illegal immigrant student to compensate for the lost state funding. The Court said that the Texas statute violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, because discrimination on the basis of illegal immigration status did not further a substantial state interest.

 

[Bazza]

Build the wall first - stop the hiring process - stop the illegal influx - then work on solutions on how to handle the ones who are here.

Step by step.....this problem didn't happen overnight and won't be solved overnight.

I approve of the conversation though - that is the upside.

 

[Bama Reb]

Build the wall first - stop the hiring process - stop the illegal influx - then work on solutions on how to handle the ones who are here.

Step by step.....this problem didn't happen overnight and won't be solved overnight.

I approve of the conversation though - that is the upside.

From what I've heard, the Mexican gov't is already building that wall, except it's to keep Americans and other "undesirables" out.

The whole policy was playing on the heartstrings of Americans (one of America's greatest vulnerabilities in my view) by allowing underage kids to come and stay. Central Americans believed (falsely) that the Obama Administration's policy was that no underage illegal immigrant will be forced to go home.
I hate the idea of a children undertaking that trip.

They made the trip here, right? So it's not like we're forcing them to do something they haven't done before. "You came here on your own, so you can just as easily go back on your own."

But I agree with the concept of stop the hiring of illegals. In fact, make it illegal to employ anyone who cannot show either proof of citizenship or a valid student/work Visa.
And give it teeth. Any business owner caught employing anyone who doesn't meet those standards can be convicted of a felony. Huge fine for the first offense (and each person he/she employs under the above rule is a separate charge/conviction). Second time = double that fine coupled with possible jail time and/or revocation of their business license.
Stop giving illegals free housing, free food stamps, free medical care, free schooling and every other thing that they're here for, and they will find their way back below the border by themselves.
These are desperate times for this country. And like it or not, desperate times call for desperate measures.

I also agree that this problem didn't happen overnight, and we can't solve it overnight. But we have to start somewhere. And as someone once said, "A journey of a thousand miles must start with a single step". It's time for us to quit just talking about fixing the problem, and to take that first step towards fixing it.

 

[Tide1986]

Build the wall first - stop the hiring process - stop the illegal influx - then work on solutions on how to handle the ones who are here.

Step by step.....this problem didn't happen overnight and won't be solved overnight.

I approve of the conversation though - that is the upside.

I'll add a thought to the conversation. What if the federal government made it unlawful (with stiff penalties) to issue a U.S. birth certificate to anyone who does not have at least one parent with valid proof of U.S. citizenship or a valid immigrant visa (i.e. valid evidence of legal permanent residency)?

With respect to the wall, I don't think it has to be built first. Stopping the hiring process by making it a serious crime to hire an undocumented worker would do the trick in my opinion -- it would be a virtual wall.

 

[Bama Reb]

I'll add a thought to the conversation. What if the federal government made it unlawful (with stiff penalties) to issue a U.S. birth certificate to anyone who does not have at least one parent with valid proof of U.S. citizenship or a valid immigrant visa (i.e. valid evidence of legal permanent residency)?

With respect to the wall, I don't think it has to be built first. Stopping the hiring process by making it a serious crime to hire an undocumented worker would do the trick in my opinion -- it would be a virtual wall.

I don't think that's necessary. In fact, I think it will be self-correcting if we enact the other laws that prevent illegals from gaining or maintaining employment. Babies are born every day in hospitals all across the US, many of them to impoverished families. Heck, some of them aren't born in hospitals at all. But there's no law that says we have to support them or their families after they leave their place of birth. So as far as I'm concerned, the illegals can just take their US born Latino babies back across the border with them. When that starts happening, the problem of "anchor babies" will disappear because it will no longer have any appeal to anyone outside the US.

 

[TIDE-HSV]

I'll add a thought to the conversation. What if the federal government made it unlawful (with stiff penalties) to issue a U.S. birth certificate to anyone who does not have at least one parent with valid proof of U.S. citizenship or a valid immigrant visa (i.e. valid evidence of legal permanent residency)?

With respect to the wall, I don't think it has to be built first. Stopping the hiring process by making it a serious crime to hire an undocumented worker would do the trick in my opinion -- it would be a virtual wall.

Actually, you already have your wish. A couple of Texas counties are doing just that, so this be will be heading for the Supreme Court.

LINK

 

[Bama Reb]

Actually, you already have your wish. A couple of Texas counties are doing just that, so this be will be heading for the Supreme Court.

LINK

Unfortunately, with Justice John Roberts and other Obama cronies seated in the USSC, we may already know how it's likely to turn out.

 

[tidegrandpa]

I'll add a thought to the conversation. What if the federal government made it unlawful (with stiff penalties) to issue a U.S. birth certificate to anyone who does not have at least one parent with valid proof of U.S. citizenship or a valid immigrant visa (i.e. valid evidence of legal permanent residency)?

With respect to the wall, I don't think it has to be built first. Stopping the hiring process by making it a serious crime to hire an undocumented worker would do the trick in my opinion -- it would be a virtual wall.

I remember filling out payroll paperwork for new hires back in the late 80's, when the I-9 form was first put in use. The hiring company was certifying under oath and pretty good penalties, that it had verified the presented documents by the applicant that he/she was in fact legal.
It was just not enforced. We have plenty of laws, the administration chooses what to enforce. The I-9 is still in place today.

 

[Tide1986]

Actually, you already have your wish. A couple of Texas counties are doing just that, so this be will be heading for the Supreme Court.

LINK

The argument hinges on what is deemed to be the intentions of people who are here illegally or under non-immigrant visas. Do they intend to place themselves under the jurisdiction of the United States, or like diplomats or government officials who are here temporarily are they really still under the jurisdiction of their countries of origin.

 

[Tidewater]

I'll add a thought to the conversation. What if the federal government made it unlawful (with stiff penalties) to issue a U.S. birth certificate to anyone who does not have at least one parent with valid proof of U.S. citizenship or a valid immigrant visa (i.e. valid evidence of legal permanent residency)?

With respect to the wall, I don't think it has to be built first. Stopping the hiring process by making it a serious crime to hire an undocumented worker would do the trick in my opinion -- it would be a virtual wall.

Two things would happen.
1. Libertarians would be angry about anything resembling a national ID card (or whatever would identify the job applicants as US citizens).
2. The Justice Department would "discover" a "disparate impact" on the Hispanic community (the theory being that requiring job applicants to show some ID would discourage employers from hiring legal Hispanic job applicants. "Disparate impact" is DoJ's "get out of jail free" (or more accurately "disregard all the other provisions of the Constitution") card. DoJ would take the law to a Federal court and get the Federal judiciary to declare it unconstitutional.
The Federal government has the power to render ineffective all the (procedural) defenses of the United States.
If the United Nations Secretary General could push a button and shut down all the defenses of the United States, would that make you nervous? Well, the states have been rendered largely defenseless by the Federal government. The Federal government refuses to defend the states against invasion and has the power to make it impossible for the states to defend themselves.

 

[Tidewater]

2. The Justice Department would "discover" a "disparate impact" on the Hispanic community (the theory being that requiring job applicants to show some ID would discourage employers from hiring legal Hispanic job applicants. "Disparate impact" is DoJ's "get out of jail free" (or more accurately "disregard all the other provisions of the Constitution") card. DoJ would take the law to a Federal court and get the Federal judiciary to declare it unconstitutional.

Here is an example of the "disparate impact" in action.
The Dept of Education and DoJ have discovered that some school districts discipline black students at disproportionate rates compared to the black population. this can only (so the say) be a result of racism, so the DoE & DoJ have established "guidelines" for school discipline.

“You have to make certain that your school discipline cases match those percentages. If you don’t, you’ll have the feds on your doorstep,” said Joshua Dunn, a political science professor at the University of Colorado.

 

[Go Bama]

Here's a couple of questions I hate to admit I just don't know.

With regard to proof of citizenship, I have to get an employee's SS number when hiring. Isn't that proof of citizenship?

What happens to the payroll taxes of illegals who have been hired? Are the laborers being paid in cash or paid with a check and the payroll taxes are ignored?