Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Trump’s immigration plan – A will, but is there a way?

Trump’s immigration plan – A will, but is there a way?

Change: Ending “birthright citizenship” and more.

Donald Trump’s immigration plan is certainly guaranteed to get him even more attention than before.

It’s a wish list for the most anti-illegal-immigrant wing of the electorate, although it also features some workable and laudable proposals that are not unique to Trump.

Reading the text of Trump’s document reminds me somewhat of Barack Obama in campaign mode. Not the content, of course—that is very different from Obama’s—but the process: I will do this, I will do that, while ignoring whether what he suggests is workable, how much it would cost, and how Trump would probably have to don the mantle of dictator to accomplish some of it:

The problem with Trump’s wall is that it is infeasible; the geography of the border simply does not allow for one unbroken wall. Nor would it be effective. Even if you could erect this barrier around, say, Florida, walls can be surmounted, tunneled under, and circumvented in other ways. Policing the border requires police; human capital that comes at taxpayer expense. Mexico will not be paying their salaries, but Trump has a plan for that, too: confiscate all remittances from illegal immigrants working in America and hike the fees on all Mexican tourism and work visas. Erecting the structures necessary to identify much less confiscate illegal wages would prove daunting. Even if it was legal and could survive court challenges, a dubious prospect, this is a policy that would require a dramatic expansion of government’s ability to intrude on the lives of American citizens – a principle to which conservatives were once constitutionally opposed…

The unknown tens of millions of illegal immigrants, some of whom have been here for decades and are part of the fabric of their communities, will be rounded up and sent to their countries of origin. Somehow. In order to do this, Trump would triple the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) forces. ICE presently has an approximately 20,000-strong force, offices in 48 nations, and a $6 billion annual budget. Now triple that, and give them a mandate to arrest and deport all non-citizens…They are to be rounded up, put on a bus, and sent over the border. But only until the “terrific” ones can be identified, amnetized, and reintroduced into the country legally.

The author of that article I just quoted, Noah Rothman at Commentary, thinks Trump’s proposals will hurt Republicans in the election.

I don’t agree; I think the jury is out on that. Of course, many Trump supporters would also consider any harm to the GOP as a positive feature rather than a bug.

If I understand Rothman correctly, he also seems to think that Trump is suggesting that birthright citizenship be rescinded retroactively, and that children of illegal immigrants who have become citizens because they were born here should be deported, too.

But I see nothing in Trump’s proposal that states that is what he is saying, although I suppose he might be. He merely writes that he wants to “end birthright citizenship” for children born here of illegal immigrants, which I take as probably meaning he wants this to happen in the future as a disincentive to the arrival of more illegal immigrants.

That’s actually a suggestion that’s been made many times and in several bills introduced by Senator David Vitter of Lousiana (an idea that I described and supported about a year ago in this post). However, I wonder whether Trump realizes the legislative and legal hurdles involved, or whether he thinks he can just do it by executive order or imperial decree.

[NOTE: Trump is hardly the only candidate making proposals for dealing with illegal immigrants. If you’re interested in comparing Trump’s suggestions to those of the other candidates, this is the best summary I’ve been able to find so far, although I don’t think it’s entirely up to date. And if you want to see two short and interesting videos of Carly Fiorina speaking on the subject, see this.]

[Neo-neocon is a writer with degrees in law and family therapy, who blogs at neo-neocon.]

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Good luck with that, Mr. Trump, as they say.

He’ll first have to contend with United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), in which the Supreme Court ruled that practically everyone born in the United States is a U.S. citizen. That decision rests on the 14th Amendment. I wouldn’t look for the current Court, or any Court the Donald might be able to fill, to change that ruling. It isn’t clear that legislation, such as what Senator Vitter once proposed, would get around that ruling.

He’ll also have to contend with the practical aspect of how we can round up 11 to 15 million people and send them back over the border. How, exactly? With what police force? And who in their right mind would give the Dept. of Justice (once recently run by Eric Holder) that kind of power and resources? It’s a great sound-bite — “round them all up and ship them home!” — but it doesn’t work in practice.

That’s the problem with Mr. Trump: great sound-bites, no ability to do what he proposes.

    The primary thing here is that I think it was intended so children of LEGAL immigrants would be guaranteed citizenship.

    What has been happening is that ILLEGAL immigrants have been invading and exploiting it to leave “anchor babies” , which they use to further exploit and game the system.

    If the language in the law was made to be absolutely clear that it only applied to LEGAL immigrants, then that just might help solve this entire illegal immigration issue overnight without a wall or any other drastic measures.

      Sammy Finkelman in reply to TB. | August 16, 2015 at 10:02 pm

      I think it was intended so children of LEGAL immigrants would be guaranteed citizenship

      When the 14th amendment was passed, there wasn’t any such thing as an illegal immigrant – and if there was * there wasn’t any such thing as deportation.

      * in the sense that they someone may have arrived as passengers after crossing the ocean without being registering. Like maybe happened with Civil War photographer Matthew Brady when he was a 1-year old, who felt a necessity to conceal his foregn birth starting from about the 1870 Census. (the New York State 1855 Census and the 1860 Census and his 1863 draft registration has the correct information)

      I think the issue might be that he might never have been naturalized.

      http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/14/nyregion/missing-historical-marker-resurrects-debate-over-photographers-birthplace.html?_r=0

        dorsaighost in reply to Sammy Finkelman. | August 17, 2015 at 1:10 am

        are you really that ignorant ? of course there where illegal immigrants when the 14th was passed …

          Estragon in reply to dorsaighost. | August 17, 2015 at 5:58 am

          What immigration laws were there in 1868? There were only restrictions and rules on naturalization, not entry.

          Seems you are the ignorant one.

          Milhouse in reply to dorsaighost. | August 18, 2015 at 10:20 am

          The only immigration laws the USA had were those against the importation of slaves. Slaves imported after 1808 were “illegal immigrants”, but their US-born children were certainly covered by the 14th amendment!

      Paul in reply to TB. | August 17, 2015 at 12:34 pm

      The original intent of the 14th Amendment was to ensure that emancipated slaves and their children were granted citizenship.

      I’m thinking all former slaves are past child-bearing age now, so let’s repeal it.

        Milhouse in reply to Paul. | August 18, 2015 at 10:15 am

        You’re welcome to try. Lotsa luck with that. Do you really imagine anybody can persuade 2/3 of each house of Congress, and majorities in both houses of 38 state legislatures, to pass such an amendment?!

      Milhouse in reply to TB. | August 18, 2015 at 9:51 am

      You don’t seem to realize that this isn’t a law that Congress can change or “clarify”. It’s the 14th amendment, and its language is very clear. If a person was born in the USA, or has been legally naturalized, and is subject to US jurisdiction, then he is a citizen, end of story, and nothing can take that away from him without his consent. Even if he joins al Qaeda and wages war against the USA, that would just make him a traitor, but would not enable anyone to revoke his citizenship.

      I’ve heard people suggest that illegal immigrants and their children are not subject to US jurisidiction. Anyone claiming that is either stupid or dishonest. If someone is not subject to US jurisdiction they can’t being arrested or brought before a court, no matter what they do. That privileged status is reserved for foreign diplomats, heads of state, perhaps some others if there’s a treaty that says so, but certainly not illegal immigrants. On the contrary, if they were not subject to our jurisdiction then we would not be able to arrest them for deportation!

    Canusee in reply to stevewhitemd. | August 16, 2015 at 10:19 pm

    Many disagree with you and the “proof” and case you offer. http://linkis.com/www.publiusforum.com/kIyd6

      Sammy Finkelman in reply to Canusee. | August 16, 2015 at 11:07 pm

      This thing you cite is just searching for an argument that isn’t there.

      “subject to the jurisdiction” means that laws apply to them – criminal laws, tax laws. If they can be prosecuted for anything, or taxed, they are subject to the jurisdiction.

      If it had anything to do with allegiance, then children of legally admitted aliens who were born in the United States would also not be automatic citizens.

      There is a reference to Indians (not taxed) in the 14th amendment, but it is in the second clause related to apportionment in Congress.

      You won’t find what you want in the United States constitution, because the 14th amendment pre-dated any such concept as illegal immigrant.

      stevewhitemd in reply to Canusee. | August 17, 2015 at 1:08 pm

      Canusee: the present circumstances not only come from the 14th Amendment and the Wong case, but also the Civil Rights Act of 1866 (not 1966, 1866), in which the Congress said that “all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed” were citizens. This was done at the time to ensure that the southern states, emerging from the Civil War, would not play gams with the citizenship of their black residents. But the law was broader than that and seems deliberately so.

      As pointed out by Sam Finkelstein, if one is subject to our laws and one is born here, one is a citizen. That can’t be changed by an act of Congress. I highly, highly doubt that a President could forced that by decree (if Obama did something like this it would be civil war 2, and I don’t think Trump would try it). I highly, highly doubt that the Supreme Court will revisit Wong and declare the CRA 1866 to be unconstitutional.

      So you’re stuck: anyone born here is a citizen. With all due respect to Senator Sessions, a good man whom I admire, I don’t think his plan will work precisely because of that point.

        stevewhitemd in reply to stevewhitemd. | August 17, 2015 at 1:09 pm

        Finkelman, not Finkelstein. Apologies.

        forksdad in reply to stevewhitemd. | August 17, 2015 at 3:20 pm

        You write as if this country were still one under the rule of law. Five guys in black decide what the law is. Not the past, not the intent, not the statutory law as written. And all nine of them can be impeached or ignored. Past presidents have done it remarkably effectively.

        Milhouse in reply to stevewhitemd. | August 18, 2015 at 10:10 am

        The fact that Civil Rights Acts included clauses excluding those “subject to any foreign power”, and “Indians not taxed”, merely highlights the fact that those clauses do not appear in the 14th amendment, and therefore it does cover such people.

      Milhouse in reply to Canusee. | August 18, 2015 at 10:06 am

      The writer of that piece seems too intelligent to believe the nonsense he is peddling. Therefore he is deliberately lying.

      Think about it: in what sense is an anchor baby subject to any foreign jurisdiction? Because his parents’ home country says so?! If that were all it took to negate the 14th amendment then many children of legal immigrants and even of US citizens, born in the USA, would also not be covered, because the laws of their parents’ or grandparents’ birth country give them citizenship. And what of the children of dual citizens? The writer seems completely unaware of dual citizenship, which doesn’t fit into the way he imagines the world works.

      For that matter, the person needn’t have any connection with the country giving him citizenship; Mexico could pass a law declaring Donald Trump a Mexican citizen, and according to this writer his 14th amendment right to US citizenship would magically disappear!

    forksdad in reply to stevewhitemd. | August 17, 2015 at 3:13 pm

    Allow the locals to enforce the laws as well. They know who are the illegals the only thing stopping them for simply being illegals are the feds.

      JackRussellTerrierist in reply to forksdad. | August 18, 2015 at 4:32 am

      I see no reason not to simply deport the illegal parents. They can take their anchor kids with them or leave them here with relatives who are citizens or give them up for adoption. If they want the kid to stay and have a way to do that, let them first pay a hefty fine and maybe then they could be issued two ‘parental’ travel visas per year, each for one week, no matter the number of kids. Let them pay their own way for a change, or let the rich libtards adopt their kids and pay for all of it, travel, expenses of raising the child, etc..

      That, along with building a meaningful wall with increased enforcement personnel and electronic surveillance, ought to curtail the anchor baby problem. Require fingerprinting for all visas prior to entry and enter the prints into AFIS (NCIC’s automated fingerprint identification system) and indicate port of entry and expiration date of visa.

      Seek out all illegals who have been convicted of any crime of moral turpitude, even if it’s just shoplifting, and deport them. Deport all other illegals discovered through ordinary means, such as traffic stops, school registration, profiling, etc.. Revise the federal judiciary to make all district courts include immigration cases and disband the deportation hearing process. Bring suspected illegals before the court within 72 hours. If they can’t prove citizenship or possess a valid visa, out they go. If they claim to have it but not with them, give them up to 30 days to sit in the clink for not having possession of it while it’s verified. If it can’t be verified, out they go. If the feds can run background checks in 3 days for gun purchases, they can check these people out in 3 days.

      Decrease legal immigration by 80% and eliminate the H1B1 work visa program. No student aid for education visas. they can pay their own way or get a private sponsor.

      No more imported labor except something akin to the old bracero program for some agricultural jobs.

      I’m tired of paying for these people who take lower wage jobs from underclass Americans whom we therefore support on welfare. I’m tired of their crime and listening to them yammer in a foreign tongue when I’m in line at the grocery store. I’m sick of them clogging up the schools, never having insurance, drunk driving, getting ‘minority’ points and extra hand-ups and hand-outs, demanding we publicly acknowledge and even celebrate their holidays and that we embrace THEIR culture instead of vice versa.

      They all need to just go and I don’t mean just Hispanics at all. I mean ALL illegals, starting with obastard’s muzzie buddies.

      And Trump isn’t going to do any of that. He’s a fraud who has bamboozled the extra-dumb wing of the conservative movement.

Sammy Finkelman | August 16, 2015 at 9:27 pm

If I understand Rothman correctly, he also seems to think that Trump is suggesting that birthright citizenship be rescinded retroactively, and that children of illegal immigrants who have become citizens because they were born here should be deported, too.

But I see nothing in Trump’s proposal that states that is what he is saying, although I suppose he might be.

He does, although not in this document.

He has proposed re-interpreting the law. (the only other way is by constitutional amendment, which not even Donald Trump, or whoever lobbied him for this, is prepared to say is likely.)

Re-interpreting the law, assuming you can get judges to do so, would of course, be retroactive (although Congress could save the U.S. from some of the consequences of that by passing a bill automaically naturalizing people who fell into certain categories.)

Trump is actually pretending to propose something, relying on most people’s legal ignorance.

    Juba Doobai! in reply to Sammy Finkelman. | August 16, 2015 at 9:38 pm

    Would you say Jeff Sessions is proposing something that depends on our ignorance? Trump has been talking to Sessions and working with him on producing this immigration document. Sessions is the immigration hero. This is not a document to fool the LIV, this is serious stuff. Writing a law to strip birthright citizenship retroactively is likely to pass if the right person is president. Cruz can do it. Rubio, Bush, Clinton, Kasich, Christie, Fiorina and the rest of the pack will not.

      Sammy Finkelman in reply to Juba Doobai!. | August 16, 2015 at 10:18 pm

      Would you say Jeff Sessions is proposing something that depends on our ignorance?

      That’s definitely a possibility, but I don’t know that Sessions actually endorses what Trump has proposed.

      This is not a document to fool the LIV, this is serious stuff

      You must be such a person yourself if you think there is the remotest possibility of Congress, with anything like its current composition, and I mean with a solid majority of Republicans, passing a law stripping birthright citizenship retroactively.

      Leaving alone its unconstitutionality, and its cruelty, there are probably not too many votes for turning the United States into a more technologically advanced version of the Ivory Coast, the Dominican Republic, or Burma.

      Milhouse in reply to Juba Doobai!. | August 18, 2015 at 10:24 am

      Such a law would be flagrantly unconstitutional, and if Cruz were to sign it he would violate his oath of office. If Sessions really supports such a law he’s also violating his oath.

You re-establish law and order in your country by penalizing employers who hire, home owners who rent to illegal aliens. They cannot come as they please, in the numbers as they see fit, so that we have to change the country and the law for them because “we can’t deport 11 million”. Hell yeah, we can. Keep firm tabs on every business that sends money to another country and seize the money that is being sent. Apply such pressure on illegals that they self-deport. No welfare. No public education. No university education. No mass demonstrations—they are not citizens and they have no rights under the Constitution. Change the Constitution if necessary to rescind birth right citizenship—if that doesn’t happen, Americans will no longer have a country that will be governed by people who share the same values.

Chinese invasion citizenship through birth tourism. Mexicans step across the border and give birth for citizenship for their kids. That is an invasion. A replacement of population by aliens who have either not entered the country legally or who are abusing the privileges granted by the visa on which they entered. A visa IS a privilege; it does not confer on you the right to have your children called American citizen just because you come here with that intent. Every one of those kids who are born of non-citizen parents will have the right to vote and affect the way this country is run—even though they were reared in Communist and socialist countries. Some of them, indoctrinated with malicious intent towards us, in a position of power can do us a great deal of harm. Just look at Barack Obama for that.

No matter how impossible it seems, the deportation of the invaders must occur. They and their children must return whence they came, as united families. You want to live in America? Fill out the paper work, join the line, do the medical test and background check, pay the filing fees, and wait like everyone else. You come here on a student or tourist visa and want to stay? Head down to ICE, fill out the forms, pay the fees, join the line, and wait like everyone else.

    Sammy Finkelman in reply to Juba Doobai!. | August 16, 2015 at 9:44 pm

    Change the Constitution if necessary to rescind birth right citizenship—

    I think you’re more likely to get a constitutional amendment granting citizenship to anyone brought to the United States before, say, the age of 7, or who spent more than 6 years in school here before the age of 16.

    This is real dystopian scenario you are proposing.

    I do think you could get 5% to 20% of the American voting population to sign up to that.

      Juba Doobai! in reply to Sammy Finkelman. | August 16, 2015 at 10:18 pm

      Not dystopian. Just asserting that America gets to decide who comes here, lives here, has kids here, goes to school here. You don’t seem to understand, Sammy, that people are fed up of illegal aliens eating the substance of this country via jobs, welfare and other social services, and injuring or killing American citizens. In the past 8 years, or so I’ve read in the news, 100% of employment has gone to aliens, legal and illegal, whilst American citizens go unemployed. There are 94 million unemployed American, Sammy. If you think Americans would not be in favor of sending invaders back, you must be reading Huffpotty.

        “There are 94 million unemployed American, Sammy.”

        Yeah but that’s a different problem.

        Deporting 11 million illegals prolly wouldn’t change that. It’s not like 11 million Americans on the dole are going to slot into the jobs that those illegals were doing, at the pay that the illegals were getting.

        Jobs and illegal immigration are both big issues that need to b solved, but the cure for unemployment is alot more complex than just “”kick out all the illegal gardeners and nannies, and these unemployed black ghetto youth and unemployed 50-y-o former union autoworkers and unemployed 20-something Woman’s Studies majors will all have jobs””

    Sammy Finkelman in reply to Juba Doobai!. | August 16, 2015 at 11:46 pm

    even though they were reared in Communist and socialist countries.

    People reared in Communist and socialist countries, especially those who voted with their feet, are not pro-Communist or Socialist, or haven’t you noticed?

    There are maybe some upbringings that make people hostile, but not those ones.

    forksdad in reply to Juba Doobai!. | August 17, 2015 at 3:24 pm

    What few people realize is that we must have a moratorium on all immigration, legal and illegal until we can digest this monster that’s forced itself down our throat.

    If we don’t we won’t have an ‘America’ except in name in thirty years. We have to assimilate those that are already here legally. Anything else is national suicide.

    Milhouse in reply to Juba Doobai!. | August 18, 2015 at 10:50 am

    What you’re proposing is a police state.

    No mass demonstrations—they are not citizens and they have no rights under the Constitution.

    WTF? Where on earth did you get that idea? The constitution protects the rights of everyone in the USA, not just those of citizens. Can you really be that ignorant, or are you really some kind of f—ing Nazi?

    Chinese invasion citizenship through birth tourism. Mexicans step across the border and give birth for citizenship for their kids. That is an invasion.

    No, it is not. Words mean things, and invasion, which is a term the constitution uses, has a specific meaning. It requires 1) an organized army, 2) entering under arms, 3) with hostile intent, such as for conquest or plunder.

    Every one of those kids who are born of non-citizen parents will have the right to vote and affect the way this country is run—even though they were reared in Communist and socialist countries. Some of them, indoctrinated with malicious intent towards us, in a position of power can do us a great deal of harm. Just look at Barack Obama for that.

    0bama was not reared in a foreign country. He only spent four years in Indonesia. The bulk of his rearing and indoctrination happened here in the United States, at the hands of his communist mother and grandparents, all of whom were US citizens. There is no reason to suppose an anchor baby reared overseas is more likely than a child born and raised in the USA, by citizens, to be indoctrinated with hostility to the USA, and nevertheless to want to come and live here and take up the rights and responsibilities of citizenship. The idea that such a person will do so merely so that he can vote for candidates whose policies will destroy the USA is ludicrous.

Sammy Finkelman | August 16, 2015 at 9:37 pm

However, I wonder whether Trump realizes the legislative and legal hurdles involved, or whether he thinks he can just do it by executive order or imperial decree.

Trump doesn’t concern himself with such details.

He probably feels that anyone raising legal objections would probably sound like he is pettifogging. And political objections? He’s the world’s best negotiator!! If he says so himself. Let them argue the case on the merits. People don’t know how to argue.

Vitter’s bill is nonsense – you can’t change the 14th amendment by legislation.

The bill, I suppose, is based on the idea that there is some discretion for defining “born in the United States” but at the same time it would not apply the new definition to anyone born before its effective date, and would ratify practice up to that point.

    dorsaighost in reply to Sammy Finkelman. | August 17, 2015 at 1:13 am

    there are always legal obstacles to any idea … so just act like nothing can ever get done is the way to go I guess … right ? moron … the glass is only half full to the weak minded …

Trump-Sessions is a game changer. Walker, to his credit, said he consulted with Sessions, but his plan is a soft echo of the new one, which is detailed and spells out exactly what America should do.

In fact, in the words of Jeff Sessions, “”This is exactly the plan America needs. Not only would the plan outlined in this paper work, but more quickly than many realize. Most importantly, this plan reestablishes the principle that American’s immigration laws should serve the interests of its own citizens. For too long, ‘immigration reform’ plans in Washington have served the special interests at the expense of working Americans.”

The naysayers are left sputtering about how Trump can’t do it. We may see about that but the frightened Amnesty sellouts sure aren’t even going to try. They offer only defeatist talk, the same talking points that said, give up, Amnesty is a done deal the last five times they tried to ram it through.

I hope Cruz, Walker, and Carson pounce on this opportunity to endorse the plan. The libs are already freaking out. And George Will is stuck with an enormous brick in his commode.

    SKinDC in reply to DaMav. | August 17, 2015 at 11:57 am

    ‘…an enormous brick in his commode.’ So that’s what we’re calling it these days?

    Have to say, it’s about time someone, who can truly capture the attention of the public put forward a proposal, in writing, with the reasoning behind each key item.

    Too often, the discussion is either abstract, or focused on the mechanics of removing people. Both of which ultimately end up derailing attempts to once again become a nation of laws and protect the citizenry and legal migrants from invasion.

    Good on Trump.

Sammy Finkelman | August 16, 2015 at 10:06 pm

The constitution does not give the power to Congress to regulate immigration – only naturalization, and this was still the understanding at the time of the adoption of the 14th amendment. (June 16, 1866-July 9, 1868)

The power to regulate immigration belongs to the individual states, according to the original understanding of the constitution.

It never was thought that the federal government had the power to regulate immigration until an 1875 law and an 1876 Supreme Court decision.

http://northamericanimmigration.org/124-henderson-v-mayor-of-new-york-1876.html

However, the Supreme Court at that point, still derived any federal power to regulate immigration from its power to regulate foreign commerce.

How many vote changes would it take for SCOTUS to find a clause in the mysterious penumbra that says illegals can’t create USA Citizens via the 14th? How many justices will the next President appoint?

It might even be zero change needed. The key contested clause: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens…” is subject to interpretation over whether illegal aliens are in fact “subject to the jurisdiction…” when they are in flagrant violation of the law.

Amazing to see some people just demanding we give up– Hey Let’s NOT Make America Great Again. Man it would be hard. Americans can’t figure out how to build a wall. What a pain in the neck having to go to court. Can’t we just give up? Why must that Trump stir up such trouble?

Good grief

    Sammy Finkelman in reply to DaMav. | August 16, 2015 at 10:27 pm

    How many vote changes would it take for SCOTUS to find a clause in the mysterious penumbra that says illegals can’t create USA Citizens via the 14th?

    Nine.

    You could probably easier get a majority for declaring all federal immigration laws, not concerned with the border, or with national security, or some other specific concern of the federal government, unconstitutional.

    There might even be a majority of the Supreme Court for doing that now, if the right case was brought. Maybe Roberts, Alito, Kennedy and Scalia would dissent. (Thomas is very much for originalism, and reversing precedents and against regulation like Wickersham, adnd the liberals tend to read whatever they want into the constitution.

    The “right” law could push the Supreme Court. It might even be 7-2, with Roberts and Kennedy trying to find some technical grounds to avoid deciding the question.)

      Sammy Finkelman in reply to Sammy Finkelman. | August 16, 2015 at 10:33 pm

      Correction. You’d only need to change five votes on the United States Supreme Court.

      But President Donald Trump and his super-majority in Congress(probably needed) could more easily accomplish this result by packing the Supreme Court and adding 10 more Justices to outvote the other ones – provided there were no defections.

    Sammy Finkelman in reply to DaMav. | August 16, 2015 at 11:24 pm

    …” is subject to interpretation over whether illegal aliens are in fact “subject to the jurisdiction…” when they are in flagrant violation of the law.

    If anybody can be put on jail for violating a law, they are “subject to the jurisdiction…”

    Diplomats, who have immunity, or people living in such a place where laws do not apply to them, are not “subject to the jurisdiction…”

    This is like these arguments that the 16th amendment does not authorize an income tax.

    Milhouse in reply to DaMav. | August 18, 2015 at 10:59 am

    subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens…” is subject to interpretation over whether illegal aliens are in fact “subject to the jurisdiction…” when they are in flagrant violation of the law.

    I’ll put you down as stupid rather than dishonest.

    1) Actual criminals, who are in flagrant violation of the law, are certainly subject to its jurisdiction! Otherwise they could do whatever they liked with impunity.

    2) Children born here have not violated any law. (For that matter, children brought here illegally, i.e. so-called “DREAMers”, have not violated any law either.)

MouseTheLuckyDog | August 16, 2015 at 11:29 pm

While controversial I think that Trump could argue that even if “birthright citizenship” has to be bestowed, it can only be bestowed on those who can prove they were conceived in the US.

It would not eliminate “birthright citzenship” but would greatly reduce the number.

    Sammy Finkelman in reply to MouseTheLuckyDog. | August 16, 2015 at 11:41 pm

    While controversial I think that Trump could argue that even if “birthright citizenship” has to be bestowed, it can only be bestowed on those who can prove they were conceived in the US.

    Not even a strong right-to-lifer woulkd argue that.

    Of course, at the time the 14th amendment was written, the question of citizenship wasn’t important until someone was 21.

    Citizenship in most countries is bestowed based upon the parents citizenship not what hospital was nearest as when mom went into labor. It isn’t radical or out of line with what other countries do with citizenship. Next there will be screaming that Trump wants to deport little American citizens. Baloney. He wants their parents to retain custody as they exit after being here illegally. They can come back when they grow up if they want to do so. Make it not so nice to live here illegally and the self deportations will start tomorrow. Only a fraction would have to be forcibly deported. Over three or four years it is very doable.

      Milhouse in reply to Elliott. | August 18, 2015 at 11:07 am

      What most countries do is irrelevant. The USA has always done it by birth, and in 1868 we entrenched that in the constitution.

    Trump can argue that the moon is made of cheese, but he can’t do so honestly, and nor can he argue that when the 14th amendment says “born” it means “conceived”.

Sammy Finkelman | August 16, 2015 at 11:35 pm

…They are to be rounded up, put on a bus, and sent over the border.

This can only happen with Mexico, because Mexico does not have to admit Central American citizens, not to mention people from further away.

People from Honduras etc have to be transported by airplane, and they are whenever the federal government has a planeful.

Of course, under current law, they can also apply for asylum, or request a a hardship deferment, and they have to be given hearings, and, as of now, the hearing date of the day past Thanksgiving 2019 (Nov. 29, 2019) IS BEING ASSIGNED TO ALL CASES AS A PLACEHOLDER because they didn’t want to go into the 2020s.

Actually, Mexico could also put up bureaucratic obstacles to accepting even its own citizens, demanding that they bring proof etc, and even could refuse to accept them (although that maybe would violate some international agreements) but they don’t do any such thing for reasons of comity and possible retaliation.

But if the United States is going to act all hostile to Mexico, and even stop money transfers, they might.

    Mexico is much more picky about who they will let in, and the circumstances under which they’ll let them stay, than we are.

    We should of never most of these people in I the FIRST PLACE, or let them stay more than the two seconds it would take to turn them around and push them back over whatever border they were illegally trying to cross.

      Elliott in reply to Murphy. | August 17, 2015 at 8:28 am

      Mexico cracked down HARD on their southern border this year. This was after they figured out that Obama and the globalists were using Central and South Americans to drive down illegal Mexican wages and use up the resources that the Mexican illegals were used to getting.

    Actually, Mexico could also put up bureaucratic obstacles to accepting even its own citizens

    They already do that with criminals being deported. They don’t want a lot of these people back. So what? They going to close down Cancun? Keep their tomatoes and contaminated cilantro? Stop Carlos Slim giving cash to the NYT? Stop the flow of illegal drugs that the US is addicted to? Go ahead and thank you Mexico.

    JackRussellTerrierist in reply to Sammy Finkelman. | August 18, 2015 at 5:18 am

    Mexico is a client state of the U.S. and, as much as I love Mexico and her people, I would not object to slapping the Mexican government like a bitch economically. The LAST thing the Mexican government wants is an uprising due to loss of the jobs that are creating a middle class they’ve never had before. If the Mexican government won’t cooperate with the U.S. on immigration while we continue to invest in manufacturing there through NAFTA, that could spell trouble.

    For starters, one problem they have is light and sweet http://www.wsj.com/articles/pemex-official-says-mexico-is-confident-of-u-s-s-approval-on-oil-swap-1430169661 The more NAFTA goods they manufacture, the more light sweet they need from us. This light sweet deal is a boon to their economy and can become a hammer easily. All that has to happen here is to stir up the environazis over the increased refining of imported crude in the U.S..

Itts not true that there were no immigration laws or concept of illegal immigration at the time the 14th amendment was ratified in 1868, it’s not like just anyone could come in and make there home just anywhere and there were no laws about it.

http://immigration.procon.org/view.timeline.php?timelineID=000023

    Milhouse in reply to Murphy. | August 18, 2015 at 11:16 am

    Yes, it was exactly like that. There were no laws, no formalities, anybody could legally get off a ship, or walk over a border, and go anywhere he liked. The only “illegal immigrants” were those brought against their will to be slaves.

Old timer here, from education systems of a different era and birthright was taught in school basically saying, If here illegally, you are not actually here. You do not exist here. Therefore a child born here is not here, either; does not exist. A non-existant person has a non-existing child, for legal existance purposes. Same was taught for providing public school to these non-existant children of non-existing workers. Also taught if recognize these illegals as existant they must be recognized as thieves or burgulars and the babies born here, not as citizens of America but tools of their invading, thieving parents’ trade and of the invaders homeland government. Old fashion and simple but looking at how Mexico benefits from these “trade tools”, these faux birthright babies are economic and idealogy weapons of a foreign government.

    Milhouse in reply to Canusee. | August 18, 2015 at 11:19 am

    You are lying. There has never been an era in the USA when the education system taught such nonsense. Lots of other nonsense yes, but not this nonsense. You are simply making it up.

Trump promises to deport ALL illegals. That alone tells you he isn’t serious.

As if the guy who only four years ago participated in a pro wrestling drama should be considered serious by anyone by wrestling fans.

Yeah, I know – he’s not fake. Heh.

    Elliott in reply to Estragon. | August 17, 2015 at 8:35 am

    I think most will self deport if things are not so easy for them as illegals. Repeating over and over it can’t be done doesn’t make it true. Easy no. Doable on a multi-track effort YES. They come for economic reasons not to become citizens usually or they would have their paperwork. Economic factors change. They go back and forth all the time which is why so many like to live in the border states. Even Mexicans with legal status often retire back to their native area and have a nice retirement. I have known several who have done that. They were here to work and make money not become citizens.

Midwest Rhino | August 17, 2015 at 8:43 am

I won’t pretend to know the details of the law, settled or not. But it seems the most famous case was only about the baby of a legal immigrant. And Coulter says the anchor baby thing hinges on a footnote by one justice.

The “subject to the jurisdiction” is also unclear to me. One could argue it just means laws here apply when they are here … illegally. That seems thin. One is a “subject” to a king, or to a country. One that comes illegally is obviously not subjecting themselves to our laws, as they break them by being here and working here, and live in a constant state of “not being subjects”. They are not subject to a military draft either. They are foreign nationals, subject to a foreign sovereign by their citizenship there.

And the intent of the 14th, afaik, was to provide for slaves brought here forcibly, and THEIR children. Coulter repeatedly points out that “we” owe the ancestors of slaves something, but we don’t owe the third world invaders a thing. There is no reason for giving minority preference to every foreigner. (and Obama or any post slavery immigrant don’t deserve those benefits based solely on race, though some endured harm from Jim Crow laws, but not Obama.)

So a case of the anchor baby maybe needs to make it to the Supreme Court, but since that court is taken over by the Wise Latina’s feelings, I guess rule of law no longer would prevail. I’m also curious about what legislative routes are available.

    Midwest Rhino in reply to Midwest Rhino. | August 17, 2015 at 8:48 am

    this is one Coulter argument on that:

    “The very author of the citizenship clause, Sen. Jacob Howard of Michigan, expressly said: “This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.” “

    http://townhall.com/columnists/anncoulter/2010/08/04/justice_brennans_footnote_gave_us_anchor_babies

      Milhouse in reply to Midwest Rhino. | August 18, 2015 at 11:26 am

      You’ve just disproved your own point. Howard said it would not apply to children who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers, i.e. who are not subject to US jurisdiction. That means it would apply to children who are subject to US jurisdiction.

    Sammy Finkelman in reply to Midwest Rhino. | August 17, 2015 at 4:40 pm

    One is a “subject” to a king, or to a country. One that comes illegally is obviously not subjecting themselves to our laws, as they break them by being here and working here

    Subject to the laws is not the same thing as obeying all laws. If they can be, and are, prosecuted for murder, they are subject to the jurisdiction.

    And the intent of the 14th, afaik, was to provide for slaves brought here forcibly, and THEIR children.

    Congress could have actually legislated the same thing, but they wanted to put it into the constitution.

    (So a case of the anchor baby maybe needs to make it to the Supreme Court,

    It did, along time ago.

    Congress forbade any Chinese or Japanese from being made a U.S. citizen, but those born here, were automatically citizens, and I think this was extended to anyone who’s father was a U.S. citizen. Thus we had the “paper sons”

    http://www.paperson.com/faqs.htm

    There were no DNA tests then, bit there was an interrogation.

    http://www.aiisf.org/stories-by-author/737-my-father-was-a-paper-son

    From 1882 until December 1943, immigration restrictions, namely the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, made it nearly impossible for Chinese to immigrate to the United States….Only merchants, diplomats and sons of citizens were allowed into the U.S. During the 1920’s 30’s and 40’s many immigrants from China arrived in the United States with purchased citizenships. Those who utilized this method to enter the U.S. were known as “paper sons.”

    …From 1910 to 1940, Chinese immigrants were detained and interrogated at the U.S. Immigration Station located on Angel Island in the bay of San Francisco. They were detained for weeks, months and sometimes even years. Those who did not pass the scrutiny of the interrogations were deported back to China. Many committed suicide rather than to be sent back to China in despair and shame.

    Paper Sons and the Road to Citizenship
    Many Chinese gained entry into the United States by purchasing fraudulent documentation identifying them as American citizens. Several historical events created these documents that would allow individuals to sell and purchase these “paper son” certificates.

    While trying to enforce the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, the courts and U.S. Immigration documented the identities of existing Chinese in America. Much of the documentation was based on oral evidence given by existing Chinese residents during court challenges. Included in these documents were details of family history and village life. This set of documentation became the first set of “paper son” certificates sold to people in China.

    Another event that created more “paper son” certificates was the earthquake of 1906 in San Francisco. The earthquake and resulting fire destroyed all records at the San Francisco Hall of Records, thus enabling any Chinese to claim “native birth” citizenship. With no written records to contradict them, many Chinese became citizens by this method.

    Being “native born” allowed many Chinese to go back to China. Upon returning to the U.S., a “native born” citizen could claim that he or she had children while in China, thus creating another source of “paper son” certificates.

    These were later sold to people in China to gain entry into the U.S.

    And then he tells the story of his father.

    An amnesty was granted in the 1960s and he was able to come clean.

    Milhouse in reply to Midwest Rhino. | August 18, 2015 at 11:46 am

    Coulter is notorious for her dishonesty. She will say anything to support her arguments, without regard for its truth.

    One that comes illegally is obviously not subjecting themselves to our laws

    It doesn’t matter whether they subject themselves to the law. There are lots of people here who claim not to be subject to the law, but the law says otherwise, and if they refuse to answer a summons the court will send a sheriff to fetch them. The same applies to an illegal alien; I’d like to see one try to claim that he’s not subject to US laws because he didn’t subject himself to them! And I’d really like to see the “sovereign citizen” kooks champion that claim!

    They are not subject to a military draft either.

    Yes, they are. When there was a draft you couldn’t get out of it by proving that you were here illegally and demanding to be deported.

    They are foreign nationals, subject to a foreign sovereign by their citizenship there.

    So are lots of US citizens. Have you never heard of dual citizenship?!

    Coulter repeatedly points out that “we” owe the ancestors of slaves something,

    Why? How were they affected by what happened to their descendants? And even if we did owe them something, they’re all dead.

    By the way, I see a lot of confusion in discussion of this topic, by people who think it important to discuss whether the parents are subject to US jurisdiction. The 14th amendment makes no mention of the parents at all. It’s the person born in the United States who is either subject to their jurisdiction, and thus a citizen, or is not so subject and therefore not a citizen. So even if you could somehow argue that illegal aliens aren’t subject to US jurisdiction that wouldn’t affect their children.

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.

citizens of other countries should be treated the way ambassadors/diplomats are regarding citizenship for children born in US.
why do illegal immigrants get a pass?
the diplomats are considered subject to jurisdiction of their country yet illegal aliens aren’t.
#DiplomatsChildrenMatterToo

    Sammy Finkelman in reply to dmacleo. | August 17, 2015 at 4:26 pm

    the diplomats are considered subject to jurisdiction of their country yet illegal aliens aren’t.
    #DiplomatsChildrenMatterToo

    If an ordinary Saudi national was involved with terrorism, he can be prosecuted. If a Saudi diplomat was, he can’t, unless his country surrenders the immunity. Some Saudis like to claim immunity almost retroactively (for things like slavery)

    If a person who could be prosecuted has a child born here, the child is a U.S. citizen.

    You can be subject to the jurisdiction of several countries. U.S. citizens can be prosecuted for some of what they do in other countries – in fact even people who have never been in the United States and are not U.S. citizens now can be – but at the same time they can be prosecuted in other countries.

    Milhouse in reply to dmacleo. | August 18, 2015 at 11:52 am

    You mean citizens of other countries should be immune from US law?! I don’t think that’s what you mean.

    And what about legal immigrants? You say all foreign citizens should be outside US jurisdiction, so that would include them. Cool.

    And what about US citizens who are also citizens of foreign countries? Should they also be outside US jurisdiction?! So I can just get a Bermudan passport and be able to rob banks in the USA?! Cooool.

    I think you’d better think it out again.

Henry Hawkins | August 17, 2015 at 11:58 am

I don’t care if the House and Senate remain Republican and Trump wins the White House. The main opposition to the Trump/Sessions plan will not come from Dems – it will come from the congressional GOP estabishment, or should I say, the US Chamber of Commerce. They will either kill it or water it down to nothing.

    Ragspierre in reply to Henry Hawkins. | August 17, 2015 at 12:16 pm

    I disagree to this extent…

    It will come dominantly from three quarters (or $.75).

    1. La Raza-type racists

    2. Collectivists who want America “fundamentally transformed”, and

    3. your CoC people who are entirely motivated by money.

    forksdad in reply to Henry Hawkins. | August 17, 2015 at 3:32 pm

    True it’s almost like they are an unfaithful partner in the relationship. Like they would pledge one thing and do the opposite with and for the benefit of an illegitimate party on the sly.

    I wish there were a word for such a despicable action.

This plan is fantastic.

All of the candidates would be wise to adopt it in a Grover Norquist pledge way. I don’t think this plan can be topped by whatever Scott Walker or Rick Santorum is proposing. And, after reading this plan, it should be pretty much impossible for slick pro amnesty Marco Rubio to pretend he’s anti amnesty.

This plan is the real deal.

And it has the right messenger in Donald Trump. Trump, who has an immigrant wife, isn’t doing this out of nativism but out of a desire to hold the country together. He’s looking very presidential and like the right man for the job right now.

Jeff Sessions thinks Trump’s plan is the bee’s knees, which I understand.

Isn’t it Jeff Session’s plan? (Which I’m good with, in most terms, except the part where you have to have a dictator to make it happen.)

That’s a serious question. What did Trump add to Session’s thinking?

1st question at the next debate: Raise your hand if you agree with and support the Trump-Sessions Plan for Comprehensive Immigration Reform. Anyone with their hands down should be boo’ed off the stage.

    Ragspierre in reply to DaMav. | August 17, 2015 at 2:31 pm

    Ewww, YEAH! Because GroupThink and ThoughtPolicing are sooooo marvy….!!! 😮

    But purges are “Stalinist”…I guess depending on who’s purging who 😉

    Why isn’t it the Ragspierre Plan, since I’ve been saying most of this for a LONNNNG time.

    JackRussellTerrierist in reply to DaMav. | August 18, 2015 at 5:52 am

    With the exception of the financial aspect boastings of Trump’s CLAMIED plan which can never come to fruition, nothing he’s saying hasn’t been suggested by hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people for the last 10 years.

    Why anybody would believe that this KING HELL RINO of all time would actually make good on his claimed plan is a complete mystery to me. He doesn’t have a conservative bone in his body. The people and issues he has supported are all left wing progressive BS. He’s always got a story to explain his evolving, then devolving, positions. If you bought that BS from him about why he suddenly changed his views on abortion, man, have I got a bridge to sell you. Cheap, too. Such a deal.

    How can you believe a man who talks about how he, the great master artist of the deal, will bring back manufacturing jobs to Americans when at the very moment he says that he has outsourced his clothing line to China and Mexico and is importing hotel service workers from Mexico?

    How can ANYBODY be so effing gullible?

    Can you not fathom another candidate with a solid, feasible solution to illegal aliens and trade deficits without being such a lying hypocrite in the same breath?

    If you think this undignified, gadfly blowhard is going to do anything he says he’s going to do, go talk to his investors – the ones who got $.01 on the dollar in his Ch. 11 filings. Oh, he says these were all big investors who knew what they were getting into. The ‘little’ investors and the vendors who didn’t get paid would disagree. Or, look at the big boys he does business with. Start with George Soros. He financed Trump’s purchase of the GM building that Trump loves to brag about ‘winning’ and how ‘everybody wanted it but I got it through hard negotiation’ or some such drivel. Actually, it was a Soros, Trump and others money laundering and bid-rigging scheme that got Trump the building and they all got sued.

    But yeah, Trump is an honest man out to make America great again for the little guy. He’s JUST like obastard – exactly like him.

    It is just stunning to me that conservatives believe in this Al Sharpton charlatan in white face.

From what I can gather, Trump’s tax policy white paper is next. Followed by a foreign policy white paper. I think in due time, people will be able to put the meat on the bones. Then the discussion will rightly shift onto whether you can agree with a Trump administration. His cards will be on the table so to speak.

It’s actually kind of incredible to see a Republican candidate use the power of celebrity to attract possible voters and, at the same time, flummox the party establishment. Meanwhile, the Dems’ best hope, Hillary, is running the world’s worst campaign. I am really enjoying all the screeching from the left right now.

    Eskyman in reply to PhillyGuy. | August 17, 2015 at 7:34 pm

    PhillyGuy, I too am enjoying the screeching from the left, but I find the screeching of the Establishment to be even more delightful; music to my ears, so to speak.

    Adding to my delight is the fact that I don’t even have to try to discern whether some people, pundits, “news” outlets, websites- even candidates!- are for or against this Establishment that I’d like to overturn. Amazingly they’re “outing” themselves! It’s kinda-sorta like cockroaches scurrying for cover, once the light gets suddenly turned on. These aren’t cockroaches, though… I’ll bet there’s a word for them out there somewhere! 😆

    JackRussellTerrierist in reply to PhillyGuy. | August 18, 2015 at 6:04 am

    White papers? Sounds like a lot of trees are going to give their all for nothing.

    he and all his bs and stupid, ignorant followers are going to lead us to a brokered convention from which we will end up with Jeb as our candidate and Trump whining about not being treated fairly so he can go start a 3rd party candidacy with a bunch of idiots supporting him, just to ensure we have another ‘rat in the White House.

    It’s like the children of Hamlin following the Pied Piper to oblivion, only you’re going to take us all down with you. I am sickened.

Haven’t we been told that all the President needs is a cell phone and a pen? My guess is that Trump has many cell phones and really nice pens, probably some gorgeous Mont Blanc. Problem solved!

Want a wall built? Hire the Israelis. They’ll also help with the sound sensing to detect tunneling. Fire in the hole!

How about something like this. A baby born in the U.S to documented immigrants will be declared a citizen if both parents can prove they were in this country legally for the 12 months prior to birth. This will not automatically entitle parents to remain here should visas or special programs expire.

http://spectator.org/articles/63806/trump%E2%80%99s-shameful-immigration-plan

That piece has some things in it I totally agree with, especially some of the economics arguments.

Some of it lacks support, and I’d argue with some of the rest.

Kaminski is more libertarian than Conservative, if I read him right. Still it is a worthwhile read and critique of the Trump “plan” (which it really isn’t).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GMkuPiIZ2k

    Rags, you didn’t ask, but my opinion, Kaminski is an ass. Some libertarians are suicidal of course, believing we should have no offense and no borders. As you correctly noted “Some of it lacks support, and I’d argue with some of the rest.”. I find almost all these people simply want open borders and cheap labor. Doesn’t matter if it is trump or someone else, the answer is always the same, “you have to be crazy to think we can fix this problem”.

    Cuz they don’t want to fix the problem.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend