if you want to make the legal/constitutional argument for birthright citizenship for illegals, fine. But how is it good policy?
And in the process you are rewarding the parents who chose to violate our immigration laws. I assume you would also be against separating the parents from their child, if the parents are discovered as not having their papers. So anyone who really wants their unborn child to be a US citizen needs to just find a way to cross the border, legally or illegally. I really don't understand how that is a sensible policy.
It being good policy or not is irrelevant, that's sort of where I end up getting into it with the gun prohibitionists. Something being otherwise good policy is irrelevant if it is unconstitutional. Something unconstitutional is inherently bad policy.
You can't take away the child's citizenship, but that doesn't mean you have to let the family into the country. You can end chain migration and even send the American citizen child back with their parents out of the country or better yet, deem the parents unfit and make the children wards of the state. Perhaps don't end chain migration entirely, just put in a loophole to where anyone caught in the country illegally is forever blocked from being brought in via chain migration. There are a lot of things that can be done, but removing the birthright citizenship of the children is not one of them.
Who'd think the party of Abraham Lincoln would be so dead set on tearing apart the U.S. Constitution. Oh yea, this isn't the party of Lincoln, but the hate party of trump.
Not to just share another tweet, but this is an important note about the poltical affectiveness if pure base politics.
I'm getting a bit tired of the 'open border' propaganda. I see a lot of open-border accusations and don't hear many people actually say they want the border open. Probably, we need a different pithy handle people can use. I can't speak for anyone else, but what I want should be called pro-immigrant policy, not open border policy. What pro-immigrant policy would look like in my view (don't know if anyone at all agrees with me) is this: 1. Increase visas. Our economy has a large appetite for immigrant labor, but our public policy pretends like we don't. That's why we have millions of illegals. Make public policy suit our needs by providing legal access to immigrant labor, either with work visas, temporary visas, or whatever. However you do it, make it good enough that workers and employers both prefer the legal channel to the illegal channel. You need to continue or increase regulatory oversight on employers, (1) to make sure everyone has legal papers and deport those who don't and (2) to make sure employers adhere to minimum wage, OSHA, and other requirements. 2. Then improve border security. I really don't have a beef with securing the border. I just think it has to come after creating a legal immigration process or else it will be doomed to fail. I do oppose a wall in wild country because it is not cost-effective, ugly, and bad for wildlife and the environment. But you can do patrols, aerial surveillance, sensors, etc. Enforcement also needs to be prompt. If you pick up someone a year after they overstayed their visa, I have no problem sending them back. If you wait ten years, your enforcement is so lax as to be capricious and unjust. 3. Then normalize current illegals. We have 12 million people weaved into the fabric of American life. There's no going back, so legalize them some way. That can be work visa, residency, path to citizenship, or whatever. Again, you need to fix the inputs before tackling the current population to avoid a repeat of Reagan's amnesty. If you have a good legal process for immigration and good enforcement, then you can normalize the current population without concern that the problem will recur. I don't agree. It's a little odd to say there are crimes we should tolerate. Crimes are crimes because they are not tolerable, with the exception of unjust laws. So if an illegal commits murder, it's not tolerable, but neither would it be tolerable committed by a citizen. Being undocumented, imo, is merely an administrative state and not an aggravating factor in any crimes committed by those who are undocumented. One effect I've witnessed in the Tea Party and now the Trumpers is significant amping up the perceived offense of living and working in the US as an illegal immigrant. I see it as a crime like cheating on your taxes -- not good, should be policed, but you wouldn't say we should never tolerate a crime by a tax-cheat. Trumpers now say it is much more severe than that, and I don't agree. I agree illegal aliens convicted of crimes should be deported. I don't see that as a sanctuary city issue. I'm warier of deporting people who are merely arrested because that could encourage discriminatory policing practices. This is a good point. I don't know if any such statistical evidence of the efficacy of sanctuary policy exists. I'm trusting in the professional expertise of many city police chiefs who say it makes their communities less safe. I believe previous caravans have also been sponsored. I also think most of the current coverage is being driven, not by sponsors or by networks, but by Donald Trump. He thinks this issue is a winner for midterms, so he talks about it a lot, calls it an invasion, etc, and he forces the networks to cover it. So, yeah, I think its political, but not because of the George Soros. As for the sponsors themselves, they are all social justice warriors focused on immigrant issues; victories for Democrats are a little besides the point for them.
The child doesn't have to stay in the country because it is a citizen. If the parents are deported they can take their children with them. But when the child comes of legal age it can move back to the United States as a citizen. It can go to college here etc. The parents won't be citizens. The children will be.
Of course they did. Republicans had complete control of Congress and put a complete halt on government (sometimes even literally with Ted Cruz's famous shutdown) so Obama's only choice in his second term was to govern by executive order which they said was unconstitutional & therefore made Obama a criminal. I'm sure Obama would have preferred to simply have a House or Senate that actually tried to work with him instead of play against him for partisan gain (which worked because they won in 2016), but its the reality Obama had to work with. Just shows the value of Congress working in a BIPARTISAN fashion to make our lives better which they no longer do. The unfortunate reality will be that if the Democats want to change that this next year (if we are fortunate enough to have a Democratic House even) they'll likely help Trump by working with him to craft legislation in a bi-partisan fashion. But regardless, it might be the right thing to do...that is if Trump would even accept the help of the Democrats to craft bi-partisan legislation.
I encourage everyone to actually read the 14th amendment. Its a great piece of law, and exudes everything America stands for. The anti-European purist bullsh$t that led to world wars. Blood and Soil BS.
So you are still rewarding the expectant parents who chose to illegally cross into the US and have their baby on US soil, giving their children automatic US citizenship. Is that fair to the millions of others who would desire the same for their children but chose to respect our immigration laws? Anyway, what I am now reading is that Trump wants to remove birthright citizenship from children all non citizens (not simply illegal immigrants or people entering with a temporary visa) and do so by executive order. If true, that is crazy and not defensible.
The irony I see is that the Trumper preference, jus sanguinis, is simply codified in legislation, while it is jus solis that is actually explicitly enshrined in the Constitution. The bar to change citizenship for being born on US soil is much higher than the bar to change the rules on being born of citizen parents. It'd be far easier to disenfranchise the children of Americans born abroad than the children of foreigners born here. Some people will say that's stupid, to which my response would be the second amendment is also stupid, but good luck changing it.
