Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The fact that the DACAs have 200 000 kids which were born in US complicates the issue, because the kids are Citizens and cannot be deported. Trump might have to go with amnesty with this thing.
How is it "complicated"? If the DACAs get deported (which really needs to happen) no one is preventing them from taking their children with them. In fact, that's what any decent parent would do.
Canada does not allow or encourage "open boarders"
Try getting into Canada illegally and see what happens?
The persons will be deported.
If the person is under duress and it is an emergency situation they can do what Canada calls, an irregular boarder crossing (between legal points of entry) and turn themselves over to the first authority they see, then proceed from there. The u.s. use to be the same, but not any more.
"The Refugee Protection Division (RPD) of the IRB hears and decides claims for refugee protection made in Canada. Refugee protection can be conferred in Canada if the RPD determines that the claimant meets the United Nations definition of a Convention refugee, which has been incorporated into Canadian law, or that the claimant is a person in need of protection."
They offer protection, not a jail cell. The u.s. on the other hand, throws them into the poky and tells 'em, tell your story walking.
you linked an article saying a 0.2% negative effect from ending DACA was "staggering".
I merely pointed it out.
Now, you want to provide another partisan link that only tells us about "all the good" the illegals do, if only we won't consider all the law-breaking.
Nope, just showing what to expect of the projected out come as the u.s. proceeds.
"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."
How do you get around the Constitutional issue that those born or naturalized in the US are citizens?
I can see by your response that you are under-educated.
Again... Here's an excerpt from the rather lengthy historical and legal history of the 14th Amendment:
1) The 14th Amendment (ratified in 1868) and it's original intent:
Senator Trumbull: "The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof? Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means."
Children born in the U.S. to a foreign citizen parent whose country has jus sanguinis (right of blood) citizenship law were never supposed to be born U.S. citizens. They may choose to naturalize as a U.S. citizen at some point, but they were never intended to be U.S. citizens at birth. Only those ignorant of historical fact and the Congressional Record misinterpret the 14th Amendment to mean anything else.
2) Article XXV Section 1992 of the 1877 Revised Statutes, enacted 9 years after the 14th Amendment was ratified, which clarified exactly who are U.S. citizens at birth per the Constitution:
"All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States".
3) U.S. Secretaries of State determinations as to exactly who has birthright citizenship, after ratification of the 14th Amendment:
Secretary of State Frederick Frelinghuysen (1881-1885) determined Ludwig Hausding, though born in the U.S., was not born a U.S. citizen because he was subject to a foreign power at birth having been born to a Saxon subject alien father.
Similarly, Secretary of State Thomas Bayard (1885-1889) determined Richard Greisser, though born in Ohio, was not born a U.S. citizen because Greisser's father, too, was an alien, a German subject at the time of Greisser's birth. Bayard specifically stated that Greisser was at birth 'subject to a foreign power,' therefore not "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.
4) In regards to illegal aliens' anchor babies... Their parents were NOT in the U.S. legally and therefore did NOT have a permanent domicile and residence in the U.S. as did Wong Kim Ark's, a fact on which SCOTUS based their determination that WKA was born a U.S. citizen:
Wong Kim Ark ruling:
"The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, buthave a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative."
The parents must have a permanent domicile and residence in the U.S. WKA's parents were living in the U.S. legally. Illegal immigrants don't have a permanent domicile in the U.S. because they are in the country illegally. They aren't even supposed to be here at all. Furthermore, it is a federal offense to harbor an illegal alien in the U.S., or aid or abet in their harboring in the U.S. Illegal aliens' permanent domicile is in their home country; the country which would issue their passports were they to have one.
5) The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 which had to be enacted because even when Native Americans were born in the U.S., they were not U.S. citizens. Why? Because they were subject to a foreign power (their respective sovereign US Indian Nations). Note that the 1924 date of this Act is significantly later than both the 14th Amendment and the Wong Kim Ark ruling.
And, finally...
6) Read current US Nationality Law, specifically subsections (a) and (b). If everyone born in the US were actually automatically US citizens, subsection (b) would be redundant and would be neither included nor necessary:
I realize that's a lot of historical and current legal information to digest. But sadly, our public education system is such a joke that very few people are aware of the history surrounding the 14th Amendment and how subsequent births to parents of various nationalities were treated in the U.S. up until "political policy" (neither the Constitution nor federal nationality law) very recently changed.
So there are no American citizens to take up those jobs?
And why is that?
Is it because of the free and easy welfare checks they get that is causing that?
No, for the most part it's because illegal aliens work for less and therefore have taken those jobs from Americans. As for agricultural jobs there are unlimited visas for legal, foreign workers as it's not a career job for most Americans and is only seasonal work. I seriously doubt that many DACAs are doing those jobs anyway.
If the person is under duress and it is an emergency situation they can do what Canada calls, an irregular boarder crossing (between legal points of entry) and turn themselves over to the first authority they see, then proceed from there. The u.s. use to be the same, but not any more.
"The Refugee Protection Division (RPD) of the IRB hears and decides claims for refugee protection made in Canada. Refugee protection can be conferred in Canada if the RPD determines that the claimant meets the United Nations definition of a Convention refugee, which has been incorporated into Canadian law, or that the claimant is a person in need of protection."
They offer protection, not a jail cell. The u.s. on the other hand, throws them into the poky and tells 'em, tell your story walking.
You are now shifting the goal post as Liberal always do.
The illegal act of the parents of these DACA recipients did not come to the US and applied for asylum when they initially came.
You points are all weak excuses to justify illegals breaking the US immigration laws.
"There are many compelling reasons why having a large undocumented population is a problem for society. It undermines law and order, permits a shadow economy that is harder to regulate, and is simply unfair to the millions of immigrants who have come here legally. Yet, while the undocumented population frequently comes under fierce criticism, the data shows that a large number of the nearly 11 million undocumented immigrants here are working, paying taxes, and even starting their own businesses. They also play an integral role in our economy, often filling jobs in agriculture, construction, and hospitality that would otherwise remain vacant."
_______________
Funding for SS retirement, with the low birth rate in the u.s. and how that system is funded by the children of their parents, where do you think some of the funding came from that has helped to keep that social program viable?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beautiful DC
So there are no American citizens to take up those jobs?
And why is that?
Is it because of the free and easy welfare checks they get that is causing that?
What welfare check. They are paying into a system the can not collect from, all the while SS recipients rep the benefits. Do you not understand how the SS is funded?
Quote:
So there are no American citizens to take up those jobs?
1.76 birth rate in the u.s.; the children weren't birth, to get a job and pay into the system that will see to their parent's retirement. The DACA's, they paid, the undocumented creating businesses, they paid, those working in agriculture, construction and hospitality, they paid --- they don't get to collect, you do.
What welfare check. They are paying into a system the can not collect from, all the while SS recipients rep the benefits. Do you not understand how the SS is funded?
1.76 birth rate in the u.s.; the children weren't birth, to get a job and pay into the system that will see to their parent's retirement. The DACA's, they paid, the undocumented creating businesses, they paid, those working in agriculture, construction and hospitality, they paid --- they don't get to collect, you do.
That's not true.
The DACA recipients who born US citizen kids get welfare checks and in disguise the parents benefit from it.
DACA will end believe that and then they'll become illegal immigrants again.
Having US born kids should not be an incentive to keep DACA.
Yes, just like DAPA was shot down. Obama tried to give a stay of deportation to millions of illegal aliens in our country with U.S. born kids and it didn't fly with the courts. The sooner the SC rightly clarifies birthright citizenship as it was written in the 14th Amendment the sooner we will end a lot of this mess.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
