Trump Puts Foot Down on Immigration: ‘We Have to Get Criminals Out of Our Country’
Trump also spoke about his economic and foreign policy agendas, not backing down from using tariffs as a negotiating tool.
President-elect Donald Trump sat down with NBC’s Kristen Welker and expanded on his planned agenda, cabinet picks, and actions he wanted to take on his first day.
(Sorry just getting to this. Very busy day today in my household!)
Immigration
I know immigration is one of the main topics on people’s lists. Well, Trump didn’t back down when Welker asked him about his plan for mass deportations.
I have to stress this part: Trump CANNOT get rid of birthright citizenship. It is in the 14th Amendment. Congress has to take action on it. The president cannot do anything about it.
(Because Lord knows if I could, I would run for president and eliminate the 16th Amendment at the inauguration.)
KRISTEN WELKER: But is it your plan to deport everyone who is here illegally over the next four years?
PRESIDENT-ELECT DONALD TRUMP: Well, I think you have to do it, and it’s a hard — it’s a very tough thing to do. It’s — but you have to have, you know, you have rules, regulations, laws. They came in illegally. You know the people that have been treated very unfairly are the people that have been on line for ten years to come into the country. And we’re going to make it very easy for people to come in in terms of they have to pass the test. They have to be able to tell you what the Statue of Liberty is. They have to tell you a little bit about our country. They have to love our country. They can’t come out of prisons. We don’t want people that are in for murder. So we had 11,000 and 13,000, different estimates. 13,099 murderers released into our country over the last three years. They’re walking down the streets. They’re walking next to you and your family. And they’re very dangerous people —
“Is it your plan to deport everyone who is here illegally over the next four years?”
President-elect Trump: “I think you have to do it. It’s a very tough thing to do. But you have rules, regulations, laws — they came in illegally. The people who have been treated very unfairly… pic.twitter.com/THUzmNkRDR
— Conservative War Machine (@WarMachineRR) December 8, 2024
Trump also reiterated that his administration will first concentrate on the criminals:
KRISTEN WELKER: I just want to make sure I’m clear, which is that you’re saying, yes, you’re going to focus on the people with criminal histories, but everyone who’s here illegally has to go, is what you’re saying.
PRESIDENT-ELECT DONALD TRUMP: I’m saying this. We have to get the criminals out of our country. We have to get people that were taken out of mental institutions and put them back into their mental institution no matter what country it is. Do you know that in Venezuela their prisons are, are at the lowest point in terms of emptiness that they’ve ever been? They’re taking their people out of those prisons by the thousands and they’re drop — and just to get back, because I know exactly what you’re getting at. Number one, we’re doing criminals and we’re going to do them really rapidly. We’re getting the worst gang probably with MS-13 and the Venezuelan gangs are the worst in the world. They’re vicious, violent people. And you’ve seen what they’ve done in Colorado and other places. They’re taking over, they’re literally taking over apartment complexes and doing it with impunity. They don’t care. They couldn’t — they just are — they’re in the real estate business, okay?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: "We have to get the criminals out of our country… Number one, we're doing criminals — and we're going to do them really rapidly… You see what they've done in Colorado and other places." pic.twitter.com/R4cBfIboFF
— Trump War Room (@TrumpWarRoom) December 8, 2024
However, Trump wants to work with Democrats to keep Dreamers in the country:
KRISTEN WELKER: What about dreamers, sir? Dreamers, who were brought to this country illegally as children. You said once back in 2017 they, quote, “Shouldn’t be very worried about being deported.” Should they be worried now?
PRESIDENT-ELECT DONALD TRUMP: The dreamers are going to come later, and we have to do something about the dreamers because these are people that have been brought here at a very young age. And many of these are middle-aged people now. They don’t even speak the language of their country. And yes, we’re going to do something about the dreamers. And —
KRISTEN WELKER: What does that mean? What are you going to do?
PRESIDENT-ELECT DONALD TRUMP: I will work with the Democrats on a plan. And if we can come up with a plan, but the Democrats have made it very, very difficult to do anything. Republicans are very open to the dreamers. The dreamers, we’re talking many years ago they were brought into this country. Many years ago. Some of them are no longer young people. And in many cases, they’ve become successful. They have great jobs. In some cases they have small businesses. Some cases they might have large businesses. And we’re going to have to do something with them. And —
KRISTEN WELKER: You want them to be able to stay, that’s what you’re saying?
PRESIDENT-ELECT DONALD TRUMP: I do. I want to be able to work something out, and it should’ve been able to be worked out over the last three or four years and it never got worked out. You know, Biden could’ve done it because he controlled, you know, Congress to a certain extent, right? He could’ve done something, but they didn’t do it. I never understood why because they always seemed to want to do it, but then when it comes down to it, they don’t. I think we can work with the Democrats and work something out.
TRUMP on "DREAMers": "The DREAMers are going to come later, and we have to do something about the DREAMers. Because these are people that have been brought here at a very young age and many of these are middle-aged people now. They don't even speak the language of their country." pic.twitter.com/tPwtspPy7H
— Jorge Bonilla (@BonillaJL) December 8, 2024
Tariffs
Gah, I hate tariffs. Negotiating tactic? Fine. But please do not use them!
At least Trump admitted he cannot promise we won’t pay more if America places tariffs on products. I appreciate the honesty:
KRISTEN WELKER: Can you guarantee American families won’t pay more?
PRESIDENT-ELECT DONALD TRUMP: I can’t guarantee anything. I can’t guarantee tomorrow. But I can say that if you look at my — just pre-Covid, we had the greatest economy in the history of our country. And I had a lot of tariffs on a lot of different countries, but in particular China. We took in hundreds of billions of dollars and we had no inflation. In fact, when I handed it over, they didn’t have inflation for a year and a half. They went almost two years just based on what I had created. And then they created inflation with energy and with spending too much. So I think we will — I’m a big believer in tariffs. I think tariffs are the most beautiful word. I think they’re beautiful. It’s going to make us rich. We’re subsidizing Canada to the tune over $100 billion a year. We’re subsidizing Mexico for almost $300 billion. We shouldn’t be — why are we subsidizing these countries? If we’re going to subsidize them, let them become a state. We’re subsidizing Mexico and we’re subsidizing Canada and we’re subsidizing many countries all over the world. And all I want to do is I want to have a level, fast, but fair playing field.
Welker: Economists of all stripes say that ultimately, consumers pay the price of tariffs.
Trump: I don't believe that.
Welker: Can you guarantee American families won't pay more?
Trump: I can't guarantee anything.. pic.twitter.com/JbEElAG6tg
— Acyn (@Acyn) December 8, 2024
As I said, using them as a negotiating tactic could work. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau called Trump right after he threatened tariffs on Canada and Mexico. Then he flew to Mar-a-Lago to visit with Trump:
KRISTEN WELKER: Well, I think — and that takes me to my next question. Are you actually going to impose these tariffs or are they a negotiating tactic?
PRESIDENT-ELECT DONALD TRUMP: Well, I’ll give you an example. With Canada, and in particular Mexico, we have millions of people pouring into our country. You agree with that. I spoke with the — both — I spoke with Justin Trudeau. In fact, he flew to Mar-a-Lago, within about 15 seconds after the call ended. It was at Mar-a-Lago, we were having dinner, talking about it. I said, “You have to close up your borders,” because they’re coming in the northern border too, a lot. Not like the southern border, but they’re coming in the Canadian border a lot. And drugs are pouring in. Almost as importantly, drugs are pouring in. Maybe more importantly. Drugs are pouring in at levels never seen before, 10 times what we had. They’re just pouring in. We can’t have open borders. And I said to the president of Mexico and to Justin Trudeau, “If it doesn’t stop, I’m going to put tariffs on your country at about 25%. That’s a very substantial tariff. And in the case of — in both cases, but in the case where it was really visible, within ten minutes after that phone call, we noticed that the people coming across the border, the southern border having to do with Mexico, there was at a trickle. Just a trickle. In fact, I called the border. See, unlike my opponent, I do call the border a lot. And I said, “How’s the border looking today?” They said, “There’s nobody here.” They couldn’t believe it. The military stopped these vast groups of people. You know, we call them caravans. But they had caravans of people, and they largely stopped them. Now, they’re going to have to continue that, but if they don’t continue — and the other thing I told them is no more drugs. And I told that to China too. I had a deal with President Xi. Had the election been different — I’m going to be very nice because we don’t have to get into an argument over 2020 — but had the election been different, the result been different, we would’ve had China giving their maximum penalty, which is the penalty of death, to people that send fentanyl into this country. But Biden didn’t, unfortunately, finish that discussion up. I had an agreement with President Xi, who I got along with very well. We’ve had communication as recently as this week. And I had communication with him where they were going to give the death penalty to anybody sending drugs into the United States.
President Trump on threatening tariffs until Mexico and Canada stem the flow of illegal immigration and deadly drugs from their countries into the U.S.:
"[Trudeau] flew to Mar-a-Lago within about 15 seconds after the call ended." pic.twitter.com/1OEgxh46AR
— Trump War Room (@TrumpWarRoom) December 8, 2024
January 6
Trump told Welker he will look into pardons for those in jail for the Capitol Hill riots:
KRISTEN WELKER: Let me ask you about January 6th in a different capacity, okay? I think you’re going to want to answer this question. You promised to pardon those who attacked the Capitol on January 6th. Are you still vowing to follow through with that promise?
PRESIDENT-ELECT DONALD TRUMP: We’re looking at it right now. Most likely, yeah.
KRISTEN WELKER: Well, you know —
PRESIDENT-ELECT DONALD TRUMP: Those people have suffered long and hard. And there may be some exceptions to it. I have to look. But, you know, if somebody was radical, crazy. There might be some people from Antifa there. I don’t know. You know, because those people seem to be in good shape. What ever happened to scaffold man? You know who scaffold man was? He stood on a scaffold telling everybody to go, and nothing happened to him. What ever happened to Ray Epps? Now, I don’t know anything about Ray Epps, but it was sort of strange the way he was talking. Where is he? What happened to him? Because the people that did very little– they arrested an old woman because she– I don’t think she did anything. They don’t even know what she did. These people have suffered. Their lives have been destroyed. And yet in Portland, where they burned down half the city, they burn it down all the time, it’s like a, you know, routine occurrence, they don’t do anything. They attacked the courthouse, federal courthouse. You know, they always say federal building. Okay. They destroyed the beautiful limestone exterior of the courthouse in Portland. They killed people in Portland. Seattle, people got killed in Seattle. Seattle, they took over a big chunk of the city. They took it over. They took the city away. Minneapolis, it looked like when they said, “This is a friendly protest,” and yet over the poor slob from CNN, his shoulder, the entire city was burning down. It looked like World War II. Nothing happened.
KRISTEN WELKER: But —
PRESIDENT-ELECT DONALD TRUMP: Wait. Nothing happened. They took over the police statement — they took over the police station in Minneapolis. They burned it down. Nothing happened to anybody.
KRISTEN WELKER: I just want to —
PRESIDENT-ELECT DONALD TRUMP: And yet, these people —
KRISTEN WELKER: Yeah.
PRESIDENT-ELECT DONALD TRUMP: – have been in jail. And I hear the jail is a hell hole. They’ve done reports. And you would say that’s true. They’ve done reports. This is the most disgusting, filthy place. These people are living in hell.
KRISTEN WELKER: Let me just —
PRESIDENT-ELECT DONALD TRUMP: And I think it’s very unfair.
KRISTEN WELKER: But let me —
PRESIDENT-ELECT DONALD TRUMP: So yeah, most likely, I’ll do it very quickly.
KRISTEN WELKER: Very quickly. Okay. But some of them, 169 of them, have pleaded guilty to assaulting police officers.
PRESIDENT-ELECT DONALD TRUMP: Because they had no choice.
KRISTEN WELKER: 900 pleaded guilty to other crimes. They’re also going to be eligible for a pardon from you?
PRESIDENT-ELECT DONALD TRUMP: Listen, it’s a very tough system. Do you know, almost nobody– I saw people that didn’t even go into the building and they were convicted. And you had the police saying, “Come on in. Come on in.” I mean, you know, the police are saying, “Come on in, everybody. Come on in.” They had people — you know, you have a lot of cameras. They don’t want to release the tapes. They don’t want to release the tapes.
KRISTEN WELKER: But you’re going to consider pardoning even those who pleaded guilty to crimes, including assaulting police officers?
PRESIDENT-ELECT DONALD TRUMP: Well, sometimes they say, “Here’s your choice.”
KRISTEN WELKER: You’re not ruling it out?
PRESIDENT-ELECT DONALD TRUMP: Look. I know the system. The system’s a very corrupt system. They say to a guy, “You’re going to go to jail for two years or for 30 years.” And these guys are looking, their whole lives have been destroyed. For two years, they’ve been destroyed. But the system is a very nasty system.
KRISTEN WELKER: Okay. Let’s move on —
PRESIDENT-ELECT DONALD TRUMP: Yeah, I’m going to look at everything. We’re going to look at individual cases —
KRISTEN WELKER: Everyone?
PRESIDENT-ELECT DONALD TRUMP: Yeah.
KRISTEN WELKER: Okay.
PRESIDENT-ELECT DONALD TRUMP: But I’m going to be acting very quickly.
KRISTEN WELKER: Within your first 100 days, first day?
PRESIDENT-ELECT DONALD TRUMP: First day.
KRISTEN WELKER: First day?
PRESIDENT-ELECT DONALD TRUMP: Yeah. I’m looking first day.
KRISTEN WELKER: You’re going to issue these pardons?
PRESIDENT-ELECT DONALD TRUMP: These people have been there, how long is it? Three, four years.
KRISTEN WELKER: Okay.
PRESIDENT-ELECT DONALD TRUMP: You know, by the way, they’ve been in there for years, and they’re in a filthy, disgusting place that shouldn’t even be allowed to be open.
President Trump says he will be "acting very quickly" on pardons for some J6 defendants: "We're going to look at individual cases … They've been in there for years!" pic.twitter.com/XeLbemtYXO
— Trump War Room (@TrumpWarRoom) December 8, 2024
Welker also asked Trump about the January 6 Committee, especially since rumors have started that President Joe Biden might issue preemptive pardons for people like Liz Cheney.
There are a few other good points in this long exchange.
Trump told Welker he would not direct the FBI or DOJ to target these people. He would take a hands-off approach, and if the agencies find any wrongdoing, they can take action. People have been acting scared that Trump would push Kash Patel, his pick to run the FBI, to punish his political opponents.
Trump condemned the J6 Committee and pointed out a few actions they took that the DOJ could possibly investigate, though:
KRISTEN WELKER: Let me ask you about some of this new reporting. NBC News is reporting that President Biden is considering giving preemptive pardons to the likes of Liz Cheney, Adam Schiff, and Anthony Fauci. If President Biden doesn’t issue those pardons, do you think they are going to wish that he had? Are they going to be —
PRESIDENT-ELECT DONALD TRUMP: I don’t know.
KRISTEN WELKER: – pursued?
PRESIDENT-ELECT DONALD TRUMP: I can tell you this about Cheney. And she’s a so-called Republican. I think she hurt the Democrats terribly. When I saw that Kamala put Cheney out on the campaign trail, I said, “That’s the end of Kamala.” I really did. I thought it was a terrible move, especially if you’re a Democrat. But Cheney did something that’s inexcusable, along with Thompson and the people on the un-select committee of political thugs and, you know, creeps. So the unselect committee went through a year and a half of testimony. Wait. They deleted and destroyed all evidence of — that they found. You know why? Because Nancy Pelosi was guilty. Nancy Pelosi turned down 10,000 troops. You wouldn’t have had a J6 because other people were guilty. The people that said that I attacked two Secret Service agents in a car, I grabbed one around the neck. I was then rebuffed and I grabbed the other one. These are two of the toughest men anywhere on the planet. And they happen to slightly younger than me. You know, just a little bit. Let me just tell you. They testified. They said it was total bullshit. And all of this stuff came out. People lied so badly. Now, listen, this was a committee, a big deal. They lied. And what did they do? They deleted and destroyed a whole year and a half worth of testimony. Do you know that I can’t get — I think those people committed a major crime.
KRISTEN WELKER: Sir?
PRESIDENT-ELECT DONALD TRUMP: And Cheney was behind it.
KRISTEN WELKER: Well —
PRESIDENT-ELECT DONALD TRUMP: And so was Bennie Thompson and everybody on that committee.
KRISTEN WELKER: We’re going to —
PRESIDENT-ELECT DONALD TRUMP: For what they did —
KRISTEN WELKER: Yeah —
PRESIDENT-ELECT DONALD TRUMP: – honestly, they should go to jail.
KRISTEN WELKER: So you think Liz Cheney should go to jail?
PRESIDENT-ELECT DONALD TRUMP: For what they did —
KRISTEN WELKER: Everyone on the committee you think —
PRESIDENT-ELECT DONALD TRUMP: I think everybody —
KRISTEN WELKER: – should go to jail?
PRESIDENT-ELECT DONALD TRUMP: – on the — anybody that voted in favor —
KRISTEN WELKER: Are you going to direct your FBI director —
PRESIDENT-ELECT DONALD TRUMP: No.
KRISTEN WELKER: – and your attorney general to send them to jail?
PRESIDENT-ELECT DONALD TRUMP: No, not at all. I think that they’ll have to look at that, but I’m not going to — I’m going to focus on drill, baby, drill.
KRISTEN WELKER: When you say that, it carries weight though. You know, you’ve tapped these people to lead the Justice Department and FBI —
PRESIDENT-ELECT DONALD TRUMP: They can do whatever they want.
KRISTEN WELKER: Okay.
PRESIDENT-ELECT DONALD TRUMP: Biden can give them a pardon if he wants to. And maybe he should. Just remember, unselect committee. A year and a half of sworn testimony, and after getting all of the testimony, they deleted it, wait, and they destroyed almost everything. There’s nothing left. It’s unprecedented.
KRISTEN WELKER: And they deny doing that —
PRESIDENT-ELECT DONALD TRUMP: If you do that in a civil case —
KRISTEN WELKER: Yeah.
PRESIDENT-ELECT DONALD TRUMP: – you go to jail.
KRISTEN WELKER: You know they deny doing that. And officials say that the order never came in for the National Guard —
PRESIDENT-ELECT DONALD TRUMP: They put out a statement —
KRISTEN WELKER: But — On January 6th. Let me ask you this about January 6th —
PRESIDENT-ELECT DONALD TRUMP: Wait. Bennie Thompson —
KRISTEN WELKER: I think you’re going to want to answer this.
PRESIDENT-ELECT DONALD TRUMP: – wrote in his statement that he has destroyed all evidence.
KRISTEN WELKER: Let me ask you this about January 6th —
PRESIDENT-ELECT DONALD TRUMP: It’s amazing. I wish you could be a — you know, you have such potential. If you could be just—just non-biased. You hurt yourself so badly. I’m telling you, they deleted and destroyed all the evidence. Everyone knows it. And you slough it off like it doesn’t mean anything.
KRISTEN WELKER: No. I’m just saying they deny it. That’s all I’m saying.
PRESIDENT-ELECT DONALD TRUMP: Kristen, if I did it, you would be standing up on that chair shouting at me. And you know what I’d do? I’d say, “You got me.”
KRISTEN WELKER: Let me ask —
PRESIDENT-ELECT DONALD TRUMP: They have done something so illegal. They have a committee sworn to, and because it was so bad — the only reason they did it is because the testimony turned out to be in favor of me, like Secret Service testified and disputed everything. It made them into a bunch of liars. Not Secret Service, it made the people. They got rid of it because it made Nancy Pelosi, the mayor of D.C., so many people look like criminals. And I will tell you, it’s illegal for them to delete and to destroy that evidence.
Trump goes scorched Earth on the 'illegal' J6 committee:
Kristen Welker: "Let me ask you about some of this new reporting. NBC News is reporting that President Biden is considering giving preemptive pardons to the likes of Liz Cheney, Adam Schiff and Anthony Fauci. If President… pic.twitter.com/xViJSZqDEg— Eric Abbenante (@EricAbbenante) December 8, 2024
NATO
Trump ramped up his rhetoric against other members of NATO for not paying their portion and relying on America for everything.
He once again threatened to pull out of NATO if the members didn’t step up. I cannot blame him, especially since all NATO does is issue strongly worded letters:
KRISTEN WELKER: NATO. Do you commit that the United States will remain a member of NATO while you’re in office?
PRESIDENT-ELECT DONALD TRUMP: Again, they have to pay their bills. If they play their bills, absolutely.
KRISTEN WELKER: But not if they don’t pay their bills?
PRESIDENT-ELECT DONALD TRUMP: But NATO’s taking advantage of us. Because we were — look, two things. Number one, they take advantage of us on trade, meaning the European nations, okay, like terrible. They don’t take our cars, they don’t take our food product, they don’t take anything. It’s a disgrace. And on top of that, we defend them. So it’s a double-whammy. So let me just tell you, I was able to get hundreds of billions of dollars put into NATO just by a tough attitude. I said to the countries, “I’m not going to protect you unless you pay,” and they started paying. And that amounted to more than $600 billion. That’s a big thing. Otherwise they wouldn’t even be fighting. They wouldn’t have any money to fight. If they’re paying their bills, and if I think they’re doing a fair — they’re treating us fairly, the answer is absolutely I’d stay with NATO.
KRISTEN WELKER: But if not, you would consider the possibility of getting out?
PRESIDENT-ELECT DONALD TRUMP: Absolutely. Yeah, absolutely.
PRESIDENT TRUMP: "If they're paying their bills and if I think they're treating us fairly, the answer is absolutely — I'd stay with NATO." pic.twitter.com/5UYhWhvQpU
— Trump War Room (@TrumpWarRoom) December 8, 2024
Israel
Trump stuck to his promise that there will be hell to pay if Hamas doesn’t release the hostages:
KRISTEN WELKER: Let’s turn to the Middle East now, sir. There are still American hostages being held in Gaza. You said this week that if the hostages aren’t released before Inauguration Day, quote, “There will be all hell to pay.”
PRESIDENT-ELECT DONALD TRUMP: Correct.
KRISTEN WELKER: What exactly did you mean, and do you still think that the hostages are alive?
PRESIDENT-ELECT DONALD TRUMP: I’m not a big believer in the fact that there are too many of them living, sadly. Because I’ve seen the way they’ve been treated. I talk about the young girl that was pulled by her hair violently and thrown into the back of a car like she was a sack of potatoes. And I said, “You know, that’s hatred.” And then I said, “How did that young girl do?” Beautiful young girl, just dragged by her hair. You remember. Blood pouring all over her body. You can imagine the parents. Thrown into the back of a car by some horrible guy. And I said, “How is she?” “She’s dead. She died, sir.” I don’t think you have as many. I mean, I hate to say it, I think you have far fewer hostages than people think.
KRISTEN WELKER: Really? Have you spoke —
PRESIDENT-ELECT DONALD TRUMP: That’s what I think. It’s only my opinion, but I’ve been right on just about everything.
KRISTEN WELKER: Are you going to pressure Prime Minister Netanyahu, with whom you have a very good relationship, to end the war in Gaza?
PRESIDENT-ELECT DONALD TRUMP: Yeah. Sure.
KRISTEN WELKER: And have you already started that process?
PRESIDENT-ELECT DONALD TRUMP: I want him to end it, but you have to have a victory. People forget about October 7th. That was as violent — and you know what’s happening? I noticed that a lot of people are saying, “Oh, it never really happened.” That’s like the Holocaust. You know, you have Holocaust deniers. Now you have October 7th deniers, and it just happened. No, October 7th happened. And I’ve seen the pictures. It is — what happened is horrible.
Trump says he’ll pressure Israeli PM Netanyahu to end the war in Gaza, but only after “victory” has been achieved.
Follow: @AFpost pic.twitter.com/ePEARajKBi
— AF Post (@AFpost) December 8, 2024
Division of the Country
What a mic drop. Welker asked Trump if he would finally concede the 2020 election to end the country’s division.
Yeah, the country is divided. But Trump isn’t president right now:
KRISTEN WELKER: Yes. And sir, I don’t have to tell you this, because you’ve talked about it. It comes at a time when the country is deeply divided, and now you’re going to be leading this country for the next four years. For the sake of unifying this country, will you concede the 2020 election and turn the page on that chapter?
PRESIDENT-ELECT DONALD TRUMP: No. No, why would I do that? But let me just tell you —
KRISTEN WELKER: You won’t ever concede —
PRESIDENT-ELECT DONALD TRUMP: – when you say the country is deeply divided, I’m not the president. Joe Biden is the president.
KRISTEN WELKER: But you’re going to be the president.
PRESIDENT-ELECT DONALD TRUMP: No, no. I’m not the president. So when you say it’s deeply divided, I agree. But Biden’s the president, I’m not. And he has been a divider. And you know where he divided it more than anything else, and it probably backfired on him. I think definitely is weaponization. When he weaponized the Justice Department and he went after his political opponent, me. He went after his political opponent violently because he knew he couldn’t beat him. And I think it really was a bad thing, and it really divided our country.
KRISTEN WELKER: Sir, Democrats have control of the White House now. They didn’t in 2020. If they are going around stealing elections, why didn’t they do it this time —
PRESIDENT-ELECT DONALD TRUMP: When you say Democrats have control now —
KRISTEN WELKER: Of the White House. So why didn’t they steal this election? Since they have more power now?
PRESIDENT-ELECT DONALD TRUMP: Because I think it was too big to rig.
KRISTEN WELKER: So you won’t —
PRESIDENT-ELECT DONALD TRUMP: It was too big to rig.
WATCH: NBC's Kristen Welker tries to get Trump to admit to being the reason for "division" – fails miserably. 🔥🔥
WELKER: The country is divided. Will you concede the 2020 election?
TRUMP: "No. Why would I do that? Let me tell you – you say the country is deeply divided? I'm… pic.twitter.com/Bi3Ee7g7ku
— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) December 8, 2024
Full Interview
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
That’s just impossible. It can’t be done in that short a time. So it won’t be done.
The first priority has to be closing the border so you don’t have millions pouring in.
Next has to be finding and deporting those with criminal convictions, those with gang affiliations, those with deportation orders already out on them, etc. That’s already what, a million? Two million? Finding and deporting them will take time.
Then you start on those whose presence is clearly detrimental to the USA, such as those who are managing somehow to live at the public expense. That’ll probably take the rest of the four years, before there’s time to worry about those who are keeping their noses clean and being productive.
It is my belief that if that is all done successfully, then long before they get to those people public sentiment will change, and there will be public support for some kind of amnesty.
I think it will come, but now is not the time to talk about it. Because when you talk about the possibility of amnesty while the border is still wide open you’re only encouraging people to come. So there should be no talk by anyone in the public eye about amnesty until after all that. Even if you’re sure it’s coming, even if you support it, don’t talk about it now, it’s damaging.
Which is exactly what he said…start at the top, get rid of the worst of the worst and work down from there while stopping people coming across the border.
Yes, but I think after some time it will stop, and those who obey the law and work hard and generally show themselves to be the sort of people we actually want here, will probably all be safe because by the time their turn comes it will be over.
That’s why, as I wrote in an earlier discussion, if I were an illegal immigrant I would support Trump, because the benefit I would get from living in a less crime-ridden and more prosperous country would outweigh the very small risk that I would be deported.
It will stop when they are all gone and the border is solid
Eisenhower had operation wetback
And he got rid of 5 million 75 years ago
Trump has the will and the Czar has the way
Amnesty just tells Democrats that Open Borders is a workable strategy because the Republicans will happily cement your gains, like they always do.
That’s why any talk of amnesty must wait until after the border is secured and the deportations are an established fact.
That is very wrong. Trump is absolutely wrong on this. Imports are a good thing, and exports are, in themselves, bad. Exports are the price we pay so we can import things we want.
It’s just like at the supermarket; giving the supermarket money is a bad thing for us; it makes us poorer. Taking goods home from the supermarket is a good thing for us; it makes us richer. But in order to import goods from the supermarket without stealing, we have to give it money. And in order to import goods without stealing we have to export. But the export itself is bad, not good. It’s the price, not the reward.
Tariffs always hurt the country using them more than they do the target against which they’re used. They’re a very bad thing. But they can be a legitimate weapon. Missiles and bombs are also bad things; they cause destruction on the enemy, but they cost us a fortune. A missile can do $10,000 worth of damage to the enemy, and it costs us $1M. But when we’re at war we spend that money and fire the missiles and drop the bombs, because the result we anticipate will make it worth the cost.
Tariffs should be seen the same way. If we can get what we need with the threat of tariffs, threaten. But if the other side knows that we’re bluffing the threat won’t work, so once in a while we need unfortunately to follow through and absorb the cost to us. Hopefully they have their effect quickly, we get what we needed, and we can get rid of the tariff.
Man…
You’re just..
Never mind.
Go read Wealth of Nations. Or read any book on economics, pretty much by anyone, but particularly by Friedman, or Hazlitt, or Bastiat, or anyone like that. But everyone should read Wealth of Nations at least once. It’s long and the language is old, but it drives its point home.
You sound like a pointed head libertarian.
He’s more of a simp for the left.
Shut up, liar.
“If we can get what we need with the threat of tariffs, threaten. But if the other side knows that we’re bluffing the threat won’t work, so once in a while we need unfortunately to follow through and absorb the cost to us.”
Then why are you complaining?
I’m not. But the bit I quoted shows that Trump actually does believe in tariffs. He thinks they’re a good thing in themselves, not a terrible thing that can be used as a weapon. And that shows a mind stuck in mercantilism. But it doesn’t matter, so long as he gets his way with threats and doesn’t have to actually do it. If he succeeds in that, more power to him.
“shows a mind stuck in mercantilism” Word salad!
Tariffs and the threat of tariffs serve multiple purposes. Go figure.
Tariffs are just a tool which has to be used properly. Trump knows what he’s doing.
Trump used tariffs in his first term to great affect
Millhouse, I agree with you up to a point on tariffs. Where I disagree with you is in industries or specific goods needed for national defense. Because we have allowed China to become so dominant in manufacturing there are now lots of things we cannot produce at home for our national defense. The same goes for pharmaceuticals. The industries and goods needed for our national defense must be repatriated to our shores, or we are going to have a big problem if hostilities occur between us and China.
They don’t need to be repatriated to our shores, they just need to be moved away from hostile countries. If we can find a reliable source for what we need in a friendly country then we have no need to make it here, and we shouldn’t try.
But relying on China or Russia, or anywhere that may fall to them in a war, is a bad thing, and if it costs us to find another source, whether here or somewhere else that’s reliable, then it’s worth paying the cost. Just let’s not forget that it is a cost and not a benefit.
The fallacy of this argument is that the posture of Nations can change. One ally or neutral Nation today can easily become tomorrow’s enemy. Another failure is the narrow focus on consumerism. That’s only one ‘hat’ that people wear. Everyone wears multiple ‘hats’, consumer, employee, business owner, financier, taxpayer are just a few.
In the abstract, with the focus on the consumer perspective and ignoring all else then sure tariffs are bad. They raise the cost of a widget. That ignores whether the consumer would be able to buy an equivalent widget produced domestically via the salary from employment, return on domestic investment and so on. The works of Smith and Ricardo are important, no disagreement. As someone who has a more libertarian philosophy I agree with them on a purely academic basis. The real world isn’t an academic exercise.
Since the ’90s we’ve had an ongoing demonstration of what some refer to as ‘free trade’ and the negative impacts on average Citizens haven’t been good. Returning domestic manufacturing means creating good paying jobs for US workers, more tax revenue from that, more $ in worker’s pockets to buy, more capital in domestic banks to lend or invest in new domestic startups or existing businesses.
The focus is on consumption because that is the entire purpose of an economy. Production is only a means for consumption. It’s a price we have to pay for consumption, and if we could somehow figure out a way to permanently consume without having to produce we would be crazy not to do so. We can’t, because perpetual motion machines are impossible, but it would be a good thing if we could.
That’s why the focus must always be on the consumer, not the producer.
Milhouse,
If this were an academic argument without other issues I would agree. It isn’t b/c tariffs and free trade are not the two choices being offered in the real world.
If we gonna wish the world of Smith to prevail in our economics then we also gotta wish for the Adam Smith era policies on labor laws, environmental laws, taxation, all of which impact our economic life, to prevail. That’s quite the rollback.
Indeed we should wish for all of that, though there were many laws in his world that were just as oppressive as the ones we deal with.
But none of that affects the question of free trade. Even with all those bad laws, free trade is still always better than protectionism. Protectionism is wrong. Economically wrong and morally wrong. It’s ignorance and tyranny.
But tariffs do have a limited role as a weapon of foreign policy, to achieve non-economic goals such as securing vital resources from enemy action, etc.
That’s why Smith supported cabotage, which effectively taxed consumers to subsidize a domestic shipping industry that was hugely larger than the UK needed, because in times of war those ships were available to be commandeered by the navy. It was bad economic policy, but good defense policy. Having a reserve of inefficient private vessels was cheaper than having the navy own and maintain that many vessels itself.
Milhouse
The fact is the current debate about the USA increasing tariff rates is NOT being made in an isolated bubble of a pure free trade environment where the adoption of the tariffs would somehow by themselves pollute an otherwise pristine free trade environment.
In a world without any economic or military conflict among Nations where everyone across the globe would somehow still have purchasing power to cover all needs and a few wants then …sure a free trade regime could potentially work.
That’s what the globalist are pushing for; an end to Nation State competition in all aspects, economically, militarily, socially. It’s why the international leftists/Marxists back globalism as well, they want to destroy the role and power of Nation States and instead have global gov’t under Marxist principles. Its the fake libertarians like the Koch family among others going along with it who will eventually be shocked to discover the leftists are serious about their goal which isn’t nice polite Marxism but totalitarian Stalinism.
I know full well it’s a cost, but so is national defense. The reason I would want the industries repatriated is that in wartime the need to transport goods makes them vulnerable to destruction when in transit.
Some of the things are not as bad as they seem also. My stepfather back in the 80s was a civilian employee of the navy. Manufacturing Engineer. He was on a commission with 3 other civilians and 4 Navy Engineers to see if they Navy could fix some of their supply issues but building their own Cold Steel press. The plant and press would cost around $500 million but supposedly would relieve the 6 to 8 month backlog in parts for planes and ships that were made that way. Well what they found was that the 4 existing civilian plants all had plans for what they called wartime production. In case of any war or national emergency the military parts move to the top of the list at once and the production time for them drops to between 5 days and 2 weeks. So they determined that it was not worth spending the money. Higher up Navy brass were not happy but 10 yrs later the first Gulf war came along and proved them right. Point is a lot of the manufacturing done somewhere else could be done here as well if we absolutely had to. We still have lots of ammo plants even though most of the military ammo is made overseas. They could switch pretty quick from producing your hunting rifle ammo to .223
Jackin is right you are wrong… todays friends can quickly become tomorrows enemies… or in the very least so beholden to our enemies that they will do whatever they ask….critical industries MUST. Return to our shores.
Have you ever played poker? You know, sitting at the table with some friends and other opponents. And one of your friends starts betting heavily and ends up against two other opponents on either side of him.
You know your friend and you know in this situation he is undoubtedly bluffing. His opponents don’t know him as well and it sure seems like he’s willing to risk a lot to win this pot.
Do you go running your mouth and calling your friend out for exaggerating or saying untrue things to make his bluff more likely to succeed?
In poker we have a saying. Don’t tap the glass. We want him to win. So just quietly look on and hope he can run it through. We don’t have much to lose compared to what we can win. I like the pot odds.
I’m not at the table. I’m watching the game on TV, and nothing I do or say can have any impact on it. So I can react as I truly think.
See my earlier comments about amnesty for illegal aliens. I support an amnesty, eventually, after the border is sealed shut and the undesirable illegals have all been deported, but I think actual participants in the game, even if they agree with me, must keep their mouths shut. If I were a participant I would save such talk for internal discussions with my allies and never in public.
This is pretty stupid even for you, Justice Milhouse 🤣
If someone wants access to the American market then it MUST be a two way street, which is what Trump is saying. You want to sell your luxury European cars in America, then you MUST accept the same level of return trade with American cars in to Europe…if you dont…we will whack up taxes on your luxury European cars and keep doing that until you play ball and allow American manufacturers access to your market.
Keep in mind that Europe created this trade imbalance and have made themselves vulnerable to pressure from tariffs by having a big trade imbalance to begin with. If that imbalance didnt exist there wouldn’t be a need to apply tariff pressure to FORCE Europe to open markets for American car manufacturers.
And we are already seeing the benefit of just the threat of tariffs with Mexico playing ball like a toothless Chihuahua and Justine from Canada flying to kiss Trumps ring finger a couple weeks ago.
That is indeed what he’s saying, and it’s exactly wrong. It shows a deep ignorance of economics.
No, it does not need to be a two-way street. If Europe is stupid enough to hurt itself by preventing its people from buying American cars, we should not copy its stupidity by doing the same thing to our people. That whole mentality is based on the idea that exports are good and imports are bad, that our goal is exports and allowing imports is merely the price we pay in order to achieve exports. That if we could have our druthers we would export everywhere and import nothing. And that is the exact opposite of the truth. If you don’t understand that go read The Wealth of Nations. It should be mandatory reading for anyone who wants to discuss this. And for anyone who calls himself a conservative.
A trade imbalance is not a bad thing. In itself it’s a good thing, if only it could be sustained. The only problem with it is that in the long term it’s not sustainable. Nobody is willing to just keep sending us stuff and accepting dollars in return, and never try to spend those dollars with us. If they were willing to do that it would be wonderful. We could stop making anything and just print dollars, and these fools in other countries would send us everything we want. But they won’t do that; eventually they’re going to want to spend those dollars, and buy things from us, because there’s nothing else they can do with them. And when they come with their dollars and we aren’t making anything they want, they’ll stop selling us stuff.
That is the key insight that you and Trump don’t understand.
Mate, you and Reality ™ should take the time to meet each other one day 🤣
said beautifully
Also, stop upvoting your own comment! 🤣
Once again you lie about me.
Clearly, you haven’t read The Art of the Deal.
Why he would even give NBC and Kristen Welker an interview is beyond me. They are lying propagandists and obvious DNC tools. Boycott them as illegitimate
Because unlike Democrats Trump doesnt hide from the media…even if that media only has an audience of 5 or 6 people 🤣🤣
Trump has always been willing to walk into the lion’s den. Sometimes he gets into trouble, but a lot of time he ends up beating the crap out of the lions.
It’s part of a larger, long term strategy…clearly
“Trump CANNOT get rid of birthright citizenship. It is in the 14th Amendment. Congress has to take action on it. The president cannot do anything about it.”
Trump can help drive Congress to address this. Birthright citizenships has been gamed for too long.
Actual Constitutional scholars disagree
No, they don’t.
Re: I think you have far fewer hostages than people think.
Agree. Recent ones were apparently killed on 10/7 and bodies taken to Gaza. If you have plenty of live ones why would you take dead bodies.
Because Israel honors their dead
We use to also
Now Biden could care less that Americans were tortured, murdered and some maybe alive
Disgusting
Milhouse thinks he knowes it all, he doesn’t
fuzzy use to stand up for him and his intelligence
She disappeared
Interesting
Wait. Did we lose Fuzzy? What happened to her? She’d been here over a decade!
She just disappeared
Maybe she’s on “special assignment “
According to the Wayback Machine, she was last listed as a contributor on September 15th and her last posting was about a week before that. Given the lack of any farewell messages, it seems likely that the parting wasn’t amicable. LI has added several new contributors, so perhaps they no longer needed a weekend editor.
I find it interesting that Milhouse appeared about the same time that Ragspierre went silent
More lies. Seriously, how can you say things to people that they know are false, because they were here and saw with their own eyes that they’re false, and expect to be taken seriously?
No, Justice Milhouse has been here a very long time…longer than Ragespear! Also very different writing styles.
Probably still in recover from her preferred person losing the election G.
Yes, my thoughts, she couldn’t bare to write about President Trumps victory
Yeah, she sure did have a very serious case of TDS.
Watched an hour so far. Masterful, to be honest. The guy is an open book, unless by design he’s not. But he’ll tell you why.
For those early in the primary that were concerned, would anyone else been able to vanquish the corrupt juggernaut the Democrats built? This is why he was supported so strongly. It’s amazing what’s been accomplished, moreso after the election.
Many Democrats will be throwing monkey wrenches. That’s putting it mildly. But some are coming along. Let’s see what Trump can do to put the Obamist globalism in the rear view mirror and promote the individual spirit among persons and states.
My education is in economics, and no question, from a strictly economic point of view tariffs are detrimental. But as I believe another economist, Dr. Thomas Sowell, has pointed out, there are no solutions, only trade offs. Trump uses tariffs as a negotiating tool, well and good. But he’s going to have to impose them on some country to demonstrate that he means business. Yes, this will cost us, but illegal immigration, crime and drugs cost us dearly. Not to mention that we need to look at what we need and who we buy from for national security purposes. So there is the trade off. We pay more for some imported goods and accept that there will be some suboptimal distortions in the market due to tariffs, with the expectation of other benefits. Our economy is still the 800 lb gorilla, we can leverage this to address problems we face.
Yes, exactly.
For the record, I agree entirely with Milhouse’s explanation of the downside of tariffs. The cost of tariffs are always paid by your own country’s citizens, that’s unarguable.
The question is, what are you buying that’s worth that extra price? You’re buying things like national security and military readiness. If you’re weren’t paying the tariff then you’d be taxed for those things anyway, if you wanted them at the same level the tariff provides for you.You pay now or you pay later, but you pay anyway.
Tariffs are just like insurance — you pay somebody to get basically nothing in return, until/unless the day comes when you have a disaster, then somebody makes you almost whole for it.
We have many domestic industries that fell apart because things are made cheaper overseas, and some of those industries are vital to national security. You don’t use a tariff to keep the Lowell, MA shoemakers in business to compete with Nike China, but maybe you use a tariff to keep more than a few domestic plants running that make ammunition, explosives, energy, and so on.
Look how Old Slow Joe shot himself (and us) in the foot — carpet bombed our petroleum industry, then to get the piss off.
ariffs are the insurance you pay to prevent some sheik from having a death grip on your nuts.
Ugh, that got mashed…
“Look how Old Slow Joe shot himself (and us) in the foot — carpet bombed our petroleum industry, then to get the oil he needed, had to go hat-in-hand to some sheik, who told him to piss off.”
Or worse, to India who are merely rebadging Russian oil as Indian oil and selling it in to the world market like its something new.
And once again, all I can say is “Yes, exactly”.
Tariffs are a fine strategy to achieve well-defined goals via tough negotiation. President Trump’s tariffs are not an end in themselves.
I am not an economist (in fact, as an undergraduate I avoided any courses in a department that began with ECO), but my reasoning: if you place a tariff on a product (not a resource), doesn’t that induce you to make that product in country producing more jobs?
There are absolutely trade offs to everything and retaliatory tariffs also promote more sale of us goods within the borders.
Yes. You are taxing your own citizens to make up some or all of the difference between the price they could pay for a cheaper foreign good and the price they would pay for an equivalent domestic good. In that sense, it’s not good for the consumer’s wallet, but at one or two removes, it’s good for the consumer if if prevents our country from becoming a vassal state because we suddenly can’t get some crucial good anymore and have no domestic sources. Now everything becomes policy-driven as to what is essential and what isn’t. Shoes and sushi, probably not. Semiconductors and steel, absolutely. This is where politics enters, to warp and otherwise abuse the justifications.
Yes, and that is a bad thing, not a good thing. That is the error of mercantilism, and it’s why I urge everyone to read The Wealth of Nations to beat that error out of your head. Also read something more contemporary, for which my best recommendations are Hazlitt or Friedman.
The only valid reason to do this is not “to produce jobs”; it’s so that a hostile country can’t cut us off from vital supplies. Relying on Mexico is just fine, because if push ever comes to shove we can just go there and get what we need. Relying on China for stuff we can’t live without is a very bad idea and it’s worth damaging our economy a little in order to avoid that.
As a tangent: I’ve always felt that the US intervenes far too much in the eastern hemisphere and far too little in the western hemisphere. Ever since Hugo Chavez, it’s felt like the US really needs a Monroe Doctrine 2.0 instead of just hoping that socialists and gangsters south of the border will do the right thing.
However, Trump tariffed China and got a good agricultural deal and prices to US consumers didn’t increase
I think Trump is using Tariff’s to try and bring some of the manufacturing home.
Yes, and that’s a bad thing. But securing our supply of resources we can’t do without is a necessary thing, and if it costs it costs.
A lot of legal scholars don’t believe people born to non citizens automatically become citizens because of this part of the 14th amendment: “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”.
It would take the Supreme Court to reverse themselves on this, which while not impossible, is unlikely in the near future.
Seems unlikely ever. The question I have is if it could be done with ordinary legislation.
No, it can’t. It would require a constitutional amendment.
. Wong was prior to the US enforcing immigration. His parents were in the country legally and the question pertaining to children born from illegal aliens was never raised.
Wong Kim Ark settled that, however, in 1898 the country had open immigration which we no longer have. Further, the 14th Amendment allows Congress to “enforce by appropriate legislation ..” so supposedly, Congress can define what “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means and circumvent Wong Kim Ark.
No, it can’t redefine terms in the constitution. That is interpreting it, and the Supreme Court has been very very clear that Congress has no authority to interpret any law, let alone the constitution.
People who make that claim are not legal scholars, they’re cranks.
The meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction” is crystal clear: it means you have to obey that country’s laws and you can be sued or prosecuted in its courts. The only people born in the USA who are not automatically citizens are those who can’t be arrested if they break US law, can’t be sued in US courts, can’t be forced to appear in a US court to testify, are exempt from US taxes, etc. And that means diplomats and their families.
That’s not entirely clear. Is there any directly on point SCOTUS decision that adopts your view as it’s ruling? I don’t know of one. The case most often cited by folks opposed to Trump’s view of the 14th amendment is Wong, but it doesn’t work to support your b/c Wong’s Parents were in the USA legally when he was born so he was assuredly a US Citizen meeting the duel criteria of in the USA and ‘subject to’ provisions.
There’s no need for a court ruling on the meaning of “jurisdiction”. It’s a word in common use, and in no other context does anyone even imagine it means anything else.
Courts in particular use the word all the time. Almost every case starts with considering whether the court has jurisdiction over it; if it doesn’t then the case stops right there.
Can you imagine what the court’s reaction would have been at Laken Riley’s murderer’s trial, had his lawyer argued that he is not subject to the USA’s jurisdiction, and so the court must dismiss the case? The lawyer would have been held in contempt for making such an absurd argument.
The exact legal status of Wong’s parents at the time of his birth were not relevant to the case, so the court’s mentioning it is just an aside, and thus dicta. The outcome would have been exactly the same had they been here illegally.
The question of Wong being/not being a US Citizen was determined by the fact his Parents were in the USA lawfully at time of birth thus making Wong a US Citizen who couldn’t be barred from entry or deported as an alien. That’s what’s the case was about whether he could be denied entry or not based on his Citizenship status.
The majority opinion by Justice Gray repeatedly makes use of the terms ‘allegiance’ and ‘owing allegiance’ to explain the majority view about what constitutes ‘subject to the jurisdiction’. The majority took great pains to emphasize the point that mere presence in the USA at birth didn’t in and of itself make one a Citizen. That instead the Parents must also ‘owe allegiance’ to the USA and not be a ‘hostile occupier’. Similarly they infer that one must submit to, become willingly subordinate to the ‘jurisdiction’ for that phrase to hold any meaning. Those who enter unlawfully and then hide/secret themselves away to remain apart from/undetected by the ‘jurisdiction’ are not acting in a lawful manner nor a manner which is respectful or non hostile to the ‘jurisdiction’.
IMO those born in the USA to Parents lawfully present in the USA are unquestionably US Citizens from the moment of birth just like those born to Parents who themselves are US Citizens. The remaining and yet undecided question for SCOTUS is going to be about those born to Parents here unlawfully at time of birth.
Im going to disagree with you CommoChief…those born in the US to non-US parents SHOULD be citizens of the country the parents are from. They shouldn’t be US citizens merely by coincidence of being here on arrival day.
Shut that loophole off and you cut another enticement for illegal aliens to come to America.
Mailman,
The key factor is the Parents must be here LAWFULLY. There won’t be a magnet effect enticing folks to come and stay to birth a child so that child gets Citizenship if we require the Parents to be here LAWFULLY. No illegal crossing, no birth tourism, no visa over stay would qualify as ‘lawful’ presence.
The 14th amendment would preclude trying to eliminate Citizenship for those born here to Parents who were lawfully present. See Wong. It would almost certainly require amending the Constitution to change this.
CommoChief, anyone who is present in the USA, legally or illegally, “owes allegiance” in the sense used in that decision. All it means is they are subject to the law.
The only people who can be present in the USA without being subject to its jurisdiction are those with diplomatic immunity, “Indians not taxed” (which is a category that no longer exists), and uniformed members of hostile invading armies, who are subject to the laws of war rather than domestic US law.
The mention that Wong’s parents were here legally is dicta. It doesn’t affect the basis for the decision.
Mailman:
That’s up to that country. It’s none of our business. In most cases they are citizens of that country, because that’s what it laws say. But they don’t have to say that; we have no say over other countries’ citizenship laws. But regardless of any of that, they are also US citizens, because that is what our laws say.
If that’s your opinion then ask your congressman to propose a constitutional amendment, and try to persuade 290 representatives, 67 senators, and both houses of 38 state legislatures to agree. (If Nebraska is one of your 38 states your job is a little easier, because they only have one house.)
Milhouse,
Earlier you demanded ‘common use’ definition of jurisdiction. Applying that same logic then an ‘invader’ is one who enters without permission. Or take the common definition of a home invasion which is either trespass or burglary. There’s no requirement to be a ‘uniformed member of Nation State military’ to be deemed either hostile or an invader.
Using your definition Poncho Villa didn’t ‘invade’ the USA. You would exclude all non Nation State actors. You would argue that Rome wasn’t invaded by Germanic tribes b/c they didn’t have a unified Nation. You’d exclude Pirates or brigands. Today you seek to exclude transnational terrorist groups and international gangs using coyote to sneak into the USA bringing people, drugs, weapons.
IMO, Congress or the Executive in the silence of Congress is free to set a definition of ‘subordinate to jurisdiction’, ‘hostile’ and ‘invade’ for 14A purposes which may conflict with our views. of Let’s have a case that’s directly on point to see what SCOTUS decides.
Justice Milhouse,
With any luck Congress will do exactly that, propose laws restriction citizenship to only those born to American parents.
Common sense has some hope yet!
Chief, SCOTUS has been very clear that Congress cannot interpret laws. Congress makes the laws, the courts say what they mean. That means it can’t define terms in the constitution. That’s interpretation, and it’s outside Congress’s powers.
No, Pancho Villa was not an invader, he was a criminal. Had he been captured he would not have been held as a prisoner of war, he would have been tried, convicted, and sentenced by a civilian court. Had he been acting as a uniformed member of the Mexican army, engaged in a lawful act of war against the USA, he would have been immune from our laws, so all we could have done with him was hold him prisoner until we deemed it safe to let him go.
Mailman, Congress can’t do that. It has no power to do it. The constitution rules, and the constitution says anyone born in the USA and not immune from its laws is a citizen. End of story. Nobody can do anything about it without passing an amendment.
Milhouse,
Congress can absolutely define terms used in immigration laws. The Courts can then rule on whether those definitions are proper or are Constitutionally deficient. See the 2A rights of US Citizens in NY State as opposed to those in Alabama. Doesn’t seem the 14A equal protection is being applied and definitely not spirit of the Bruen decision.
There has been no SCOTUS decision on the simple question of; does a child of two non US Citizens, present unlawfully in the USA at birth, automatically become a US Citizen. Until there is the question remains open.
Chief, Congress can define terms only within a specific statute, saying that when this statute uses this term, this is what it means. It can’t even retroactively define terms in another statute; all it can do is amend the statute by adding a definition to apply from then on. And it can’t define terms in the constitution at all, because that requires an amendment.
“Subject to the jurisdiction” is a term in the constitution. So Congress can’t express an opinion about what it means.
SCOTUS has been very clear about that. See City of Boerne v Flores.
What???
A husband and wife, citizens of, say, France, are on vacation in Hawaii. The woman is pregnant and gives birth in a Hawaiian hospital. Is the child a U.S. citizen? No, because the couple is under the jurisdiction of France — not the United States. Their passports attest to that.
In the United States, they must obey the laws and can be arrested, prosecuted or indicted if they do not. But that fact does not define them as being under the jurisdiction of the United States. It means they must obey the laws of the places they visit, which is universal.
Yes, the child is absolutely a US citizen.
As you yourself admit, “In the United States, they must obey the laws and can be arrested, prosecuted or indicted if they do not.” That is what “subject to the jurisdiction means. There is no possible dispute about it.
” It means they must obey the laws of the places they visit, which is universal.”
No, it is not universal. There are people who are not subject to the USA’s jurisdiction, and can flout the laws with impunity. They can’t be prosecuted in a US court, they can’t be sued in a US court, they can’t be made to testify in a US court, they don’t have to pay US taxes. And those are the people excluded by the 14th amendment. If a baby is born here, but the US has no jurisdiction over him, then he is not a citizen. (Obviously a baby can’t be tried or sued or testify anyway, but this baby is exempt even if he were older. That’s why he’s not a citizen. It’s as if he’s not really in the USA at all.)
Well they don’t legally pay income taxes, so that part of your argument doesn’t work.
They are required to pay income taxes. Some of them do, but even those who don’t are required to, which makes their nonpayment no different from that of US citizens who also don’t pay. They can be prosecuted for nonpayment, if caught. Someone not subject to US jurisdiction is not required to pay any taxes and makes no attempt to hide his nonpayment.
YOU ARE WRONG, poindexter
No, you are wrong, ignoramus. There is not one expert in the law who agrees with you. Not one. Only cranks and charlatans.
Tariffs are not a simple issue. What if to gain market share or for other reasons a country in question is financially subsidizing a low export price, or using slave labor in manufacturing products for low prices or stealing IP?Also, the money collected from tariffs could be used to support developing domestic capabilities instead of just added to general revenues.
It is a simple issue. If a country is financially subsidizing a low export price, that is none of our business. We should do absolutely nothing about it. Eventually they’ll either stop doing it or run out of money, but so long as they’re doing it they’re helping us and we should take full advantage, just as we all do when a retailer has a sale.
If you object on moral grounds to other countries engaging in slavery, you can certainly ban the importation of goods made using such labor. Not impose tariffs on them, ban them completely. Ban their possession, even. A tariff immediately shows that your objection is merely financial, and so for a good enough price you’ll allow it.
If they’re breaching US IP laws, that’s none of our business. They’re not subject to our laws. If they’re violating a treaty to apply our IP (which they are) then the treaty provides remedies. Or you could legislate to allow the US patent-holder or copyright-holder to sue importers for royalties.
Any revenue from tariffs should be added to general revenues. A low, universal tariff used purely as a means of revenue collection is legitimate, just like any tax. But it should not be used to subsidize industry, just as general taxpayers’ money should not be used for such a purpose.
It sure sounds like he’s backing down.
Illegally entering this country make a criminal.
Deport them all.
The dreamers? Thank your parents for putting you in your dire situation.
I can see a crack of sunlight for them but everyone else, GTHO.
#47 was measured and poised. He was rational.
That said, I agree with the essayist at the Federalist, whose name escapes me, who had recently written that President Trump shouldn’t grant any more interviews to the leftist, Dhimmi-crat media puppets/shills/lapdogs/trained seals/stenographers, because they’re always going to attempt to paint him and his policies in the most dishonest and negative light, possible.
Granting interviews to the Dhimmi-crat media puppets is a form of deference, even if unintentional. It grants them undeserved and unfounded legitimacy.
And, if the last presidential election proved anything, it’s that the corporate Dhimmi-crat media organs possess ever-diminishing influence and clout. #47 should speed their demise by ignoring them, entirely, and, by courting and talking to non-traditional media outlets.