Discussion for article #226497
So begins the foundation laying for President Obama to “Go Big” on his executive action on immigration…which seems pretty clear he has decided to do.
Thank you, Senator Durbin. Once upon a time, this was our immigration SOP.
1 Like
But of COURSE these people have committed a serious crime, Senator! To wit:
- They’re not white
- They might vote Democrat
“Pre-Emptive Voter Intimidation”, from the same people who brought you “Pre-emptive War!”
1 Like
Durbin will not be popular among republicans for this.
For people who do not follow history, this is like just before last election. Obama WILL do his executive order just like he’s been saying he will. Durbin is just providing one more clue to the clueless. You’ll see. Read about it and weep teasquats.
and, 3)They believe they are better that other immigrant applicants.
4)They believe they are more deserving that ordinary work/a/day Americans.
In general I support the President, but in matters of immigration he is about to make a terrible misstep.
NO MORE ANCHOR BABIES.
I agree. I support the president in most everything he does, but not this. The biggest favor this country could do for itself is to stop the policy of birthright citizenship. Birthright citizenship and the chain immigration it creates are two of the biggest causes of illegal immigration.
Ending birthright citizenship won’t help our current situation, but it definitely will reduce illegal immigration in the future.
I can tell you right now that most Democrats I know are not in favor of allowing people who came here illegally to stay. For one thing, it’s a slap in the face for people who came legally and became citizens.
In my view, we can’t send them all home but we sure can limit the number of people who can stay.
The only people who should get to stay are those who have shown an interest in becoming citizens and should be limited to only two categories.
Those who have been paying taxes with a TIN for at least 5 consecutive elections.
Those who have served honorably in our military for a min. of two years.
They, their spouses and any minor children would be able to stay as long as they apply to become citizens and followed through.
All the rest should be deported even those with birthright citizenship children who are minors. The birthright citizens should get a “Right of Return” at age 21. That would eliminate the problem of separating families.
I’m sure most of you won’t agree, but I have a real problem with people who arrived illegally and somehow think they should have a right to be here. If they wanted the right to be here they should have applied to come period. It’s too late to claim any right to be here now.
Instead what I’ve heard is Obama plans to allow 5 million to stay here and that is probably only counting the adults.
Whoops. I meant 5 consecutive tax years.
This would be a dreadful error, and would piss off a huge number of independents and Democrats. NOT a majority, but a sizable minority. I am a loyal Democrat, since 1968. I will NOT support this, and will not vote rather than vote to support any who favor this, or will vote for Nader (who is anti-illegal). If the Dems lose a large minority, they are in trouble.
How exactly would you end “birthright citizenship”? The Supreme Court, dating back to the Wong Kim Ark decision in 1896 and re-affirmed multiple times since then, has found it to be inherent in the Constitution that ALL those born in the United States are citizens. They would have to overturn well over a century’s legal precedent and on what basis, since the 14th Amendment says "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? Does that not mean what it says?
As for “chain immigration”, suppose 2 undocumented people have a baby in the US. That baby grants no rights to the parents whatsoever. Nor can that baby sponsor someone to come here, because a sponsor must be able to financially support the people they sponsor. So, that baby would have to reach adulthood and have a decent paying job before they could even file the papers. You are talking 25 years minimum,
1 Like
It is interesting that you believe they are better and more deserving. Whether they come here through the legal process or outside the legal process they come here for one reason, to get a better life. They think that they can have a better life, not that they are better than anybody else. As for the ones that are called illegal, the only thing illegal is the so called job creators who hire them illegally to under cut the wages of everyone else. Even those who come here legally through the process have to work for less than the ordinary work/a/day Americans just to stay here. My nephew came here legally and went back because for him it was not a better life.
The biggest cause of illegal immigration are the so called job creators hiring so called illegals to work at a cheaper wage so that they can put more money into the job creators’ own pockets. If you really want to reduce the illegal immigration you have to go after the people making all of the money off of the people here without papers. That is not going to happen as the same people who are backing the anti-illegal movement are the same people who are making the money off of them. It is better for the money makers to say that the immigrants are illegal than the so called job creators who hire them illegally.
To come here legally is a lottery. Some people will play the lottery and some will not. Neither the people playing the immigration lottery or those who don’t are slapping the others in the face. If you do not like the results caused by the immigration laws then change the laws so that you get a result that you do like. If your agenda is really something other than immigration, so be it.
There are two ways to end birthright citizenship; through a Constitutional amendment or by using the plenary power doctrine. An amendment is a high hurdle, but could be done. The plenary power doctrine holds that the legislative and executive, rather than the judicial - have sole power to regulate immigration as a basic attribute of sovereignty. Both parties over the past twenty years have, at various times, put forth legislation to end birthright citizenship.
A child born to illegal immigrants can initiate a chain of immigration at age 18 and at age 21. At 18 they can sponsor their foreign spouse and minor children. At 21 they can sponsor their parents and any siblings. In fact, family-sponsored immigration accounts for most of the nation’s growth in immigration levels. That is why I believe that a child with birthright citizenship should have a “Right of Return,” but without the benefit of using chain immigration. Chain immigration has a compounding effect.
Birthright citizenship comes about both because of illegal immigration and from people here in a temporary legal status such as visa holders, birth tourist, and foreign diplomats.
I see it more as a common sense approach. The reason nothing gets done now is because Republicans want them all to leave and Democrats want them all to stay. That is why we have a stalemate and end up with nothing done.
The approach I am suggesting would seem to me to have at least some chance of changing things because it would allow some to stay and perhaps the Republicans would find it more acceptable than what the Senate version is proposing.
My assessment has always been that business wants them here so both parties agree with that because business provides a lot of campaign contributions. Further, the Republicans want them here to drive down wages (oversupply of workers automatically drives down wages). The Democrats want them here because they believe Hispanics will automatically vote for Democrats from now into the distant future.
Not all people who come illegally are Hispanics. The Asians (mostly Chinese & So. Koreans) and Indians comprise the other large groups.
I don’t believe that either party will put a stop to the employers who hire people here illegally, which is the other major reason people come without permission.
The two largest reasons for illegal immigration are birthright citizenship and employment. I believe there is a better chance of doing something about birthright citizenship than there is doing something about employers who hire them (see statement about employers above).
Any member of Congress can propose any legislation they like, but you can’t amend the Constitution by legislation, The 14th Amendment is crystal clear that if you are born in the US you are a citizen-with the sole exception of the children of diplomats with immunity and any children of an invading army (hence the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”). This isn’t my say-so, but the Supreme Court’s from the 1890s up to the present.
As for allowing citizens to sponsor relatives,Congress can legislate on that if they wish, including eliminating it entirely. But they have to do so uniformly, on the basis that all citizens are treated equally, or else they would run afoul of the 14th.
I think you exaggerate the ability of an 18 year old or 21 year old to sponsor relatives. The sponsor must be able to support the persons they are sponsoring so that they don’t end up a burden on the public. My family has dealt with this and it is not simple even for a well-established middle aged person, let alone a kid working at Mickey Ds.