Posted on 08/19/2015 6:41:19 PM PDT by GilGil
There's nothing minor about the anchor baby problem. One anchor baby can be the ANCHOR for an entire family to come to the US, or remain in the US. Plus it opens the US treasury for all sorts of benefits, or "entitlements" for the anchor baby's family.
The problem of the southern border is and has been for years a problem of deliberate negligence by US presidents. The border could be largely secured next week if we had a president who intended to secure it. A fence or wall is a solution to reduce the manpower needed to secure it, and that is needed. But border security can be greatly improved the day a US president decides to do it.
The real first priority is to elect a president who will enforce the law rather then deliberately not enforcing it.
>> We can surely do both. Build a wall and pass legislation repealing birthright citizenship including a notation in the law of Jurisdiction Stripping denying the courts the ability to review the law <<
Maybe we can eventually do both, but I think the political and judicial climates probably don’t bode well for trying to do so much at the same time.
Therefore, let’s not allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good. Build the fence first, then we can look at the other issues.
Clearly you’ve never run a business.
In order to get anything accomplished you have to have fire in the belly and you have to know how to be realistic.
I doubt you have ever lead anyone into anything except off a cliff.
4 Million Illegal Immigrant Anchor Babies In U.S.
As things are now, anchor babies are probably the biggest problem that prevents the US from enforcing its laws and deporting the illegals who've been accumulating here since the amnesty in 1986.
>> There’s nothing minor about the anchor baby problem <<
Give me some hard numbers on the matter, and then we can discuss. Otherwise, your speculation is no better than mine.
>> The real first priority is to elect a president who will enforce the law rather then deliberately not enforcing it <<
Of course. No way we can disagree about that.
But on the other hand, I sincerely believe that if the GOP and other conservatives keep tilting at windmills about birthright citizenship and going on unicorn hunts about mass deportations, the existing immigrant voting community will be so thoroughly alienated from the GOP that chances of electing anybody other than another Dhimmi will be zero for the next two or three generations.
>> Clearly you’ve never run a business . . . I doubt you have ever lead anyone into anything except off a cliff <<
What’s with the ad hominem attack?
You know nothing of my business experience, and I won’t dignify your comments by discussing same.
Above all, when you indulge in such cheap personal insults, it tells me that you have lost the argument.
>> As things are now, anchor babies are probably the biggest problem that prevents the US from enforcing its laws <<
Sorry, but I don’t accept the logic. We’ve got millions of illegals flooding across the southern border, among whom may be any number of jihadi terrorists. Fix that problem first. Then we can focus on other solutions, whether or not Judicial Watch’s figure of 340K anchor babies per year is accurate.
Walk and chew at the same time.
Doubt it. I can conclude you have zero business experience. Your attitude of the sky is falling confirms that. Pllleeeaaassseee!!!!
Business people are always go getters. You are anything but!
You lose!!!!
For sure.
A series ogf laws starting with a law to build a wall first.
Followed by several other bills.
The only problem I have with that, is that it is dependent on what the Mexican government does. In theory, they could pass a law stating that such people are no longer subject to their jurisdiction. Would that automatically put them under our jurisdiction?
The only problem I have with that, is that it is dependent on what the Mexican government does. In theory, they could pass a law stating that such people are no longer subject to their jurisdiction. Would that automatically put them under our jurisdiction?
++++
I don’t believe so. Only US citizens and, I assume, those legally within the immigration system would be under our jurisdiction.
But I’m no lawyer, I just get to pretend I might be here on FR.
>> Walk and chew at the same time <<
Very funny.
But in any case, we have the extremely serious problem of a totally porous southern border. No telling how many jihadis and Iranian agents are coming thru. Therefore, whatever distracts attention away from solving the border problem is, in my opinion, counterproductive. It’s certainly not a joking matter.
As I've said, a president with the intent of enforcing the southern border could dramatically reduce the illegal crossings within days, with no additional funds or personnel other than maybe some National Guard.
Then begin building a wall or double fencing.
It is absurd to say we can only address one immigration problem at a time. Some can work on the border, others on internal enforcement, and attorneys work on birthright citizenship. All at the same time.
In the absence of direction from congress, SCOTUS ruled.
The constitution delegates citizenship rules to congress.
Therefore, if congress creates a law, SCOTUS is overruled.
At least that is the way it SHOULD be.
Yes, I see your point. I guess the main point is that jurisdiction refers to our legal system. I refers to not just our right to deal with them, but their rights to the privleges and rights granted to our citizens. For example, terrorists coming into the country and committing acts of terror are not entitled to be dealt with through our legal system, but are to be dealt with as enemy combatants. Same here, I guess.
We certainly have the right to deal with enemy combatants on our soil, but we’re under no obligation to play by the rules reserved for our citizens. We as a nation have a right to decide who is entitled to be participants in our legal system, and who is entitled to be treated as a foreign invader.
>> It is absurd to say we can only address one immigration problem at a time. Some can work on the border, others on internal enforcement, and attorneys work on birthright citizenship. All at the same time <<
Sounds to me like “comprehensive immigration reform.” No thanks.
Yeah, it would be: comprehensive immigration law enforcement.
You're posting nonsense, and have been throughout this thread.
Illegal aliens aren't subject to our jurisdiction. I'd like to hear from anyone who thinks that's a good idea.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.