So let's read the text:
BLITZER: Back in the '80s... you voted for legislation that had a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants... Some called it amnesty then; they still call it amnesty now. What would you do if you were President of the United States, with these millions of illegal immigrants, many of whom have been in this country for a long time?
GINGRICH: Let me start and just say I think that we ought to have an H-1 visa that goes with every graduate degree in math, science and engineering so that people stay here. You know, about five blocks down the street, you'll see a statue of Einstein. Einstein came here as an immigrant. So let's be clear how much the United States has drawn upon the world to be richer, better and more inclusive.
I did vote for the Simpson-Mazzoli Act. Ronald Reagan, in his diary, says he signed it -- and we were supposed to have 300,000 people get amnesty. There were 3 million. But he signed it because we were going to get two things in return. We were going to get control of the border and we were going to get a guest worker program with employer enforcement.
We got neither. So I think you've got to deal with this as a comprehensive approach that starts with controlling the border.... I believe ultimately you have to find some system -- once you've put every piece in place, which includes the guest worker program, you need something like a World War II Selective Service Board that, frankly, reviews the people who are here.
If you're here -- if you've come here recently, you have no ties to this country, you ought to go home. period. If you've been here 25 years and you got three kids and two grandkids, you've been paying taxes and obeying the law, you belong to a local church, I don't think we're going to separate you from your family, uproot you forcefully and kick you out.
The Creeble Foundation is a very good red card program that says you get to be legal, but you don't get a pass to citizenship. And so there's a way to ultimately end up with a country where there's no more illegality, but you haven't automatically given amnesty to anyone.
Bachmann is called upon to respond. (Blitzer did a great job last night of creating mini-one-on-one debates within the debate.) She said it was amnesty and she worried about the vast numbers of people who would be able to take advantage of the program. Gingrich then got the floor again:
GINGRICH: Well, I mean, two things, first of all, in the DREAM Act, the one part that I like is the one which allows people who came here with their parents to join the U.S. military, which they could have done if they were back home, and if they serve on it with the U.S. military to acquire citizenship, which is something any foreigner can do.
And I don't see any reason to punish somebody who came here at three years of age, but who wants to serve the United States of America. I specifically did not say we'd make the 11 million people legal.
I do suggest if you go back to your district, and you find people who have been here 25 years and have two generations of family and have been paying taxes and are in a local church, as somebody who believes strongly in family, you'll have a hard time explaining why that particular subset is being broken up and forced to leave, given the fact that they've been law-abiding citizens for 25 years.
Blitzer then called on Bachmann, who, despite what Gingrich just said he "specifically did not say," says "I think the speaker just said that that would make 11 people -- 11 million people who are here illegally now legal." That one-on-one really highlighted Gingrich's superior intelligence and sophistication. Clearly, Gingrich has the ability to reach out to many Americans who feel empathy toward the people who are in the county illegally and to take a middle position that balances a large set of interests. I like that, but obviously the red-meat fans have something to complain about. He put some vegetables on their dish.
পোস্টগুলি
২৭৬টি মন্তব্য:
276 এর 1 – থেকে 200 আরও নতুন» সবচেয়ে নতুন»See Nate Silver at fivethirtyeight.com. This won't hurt Gingrich, and shouldn't.
And who thinks that the next election will be decided on the immigration issue?
I like that, but obviously the red-meat fans have something to complain about. He put some vegetables on their dish.
Nicely said.
The Mexicans and Central Americans who are here frighten the English Speaking people.
Require them to be fluent in English and see if that helps.
We do need the birth rate help from Catholics who procreate and are no threat except their Spanish Language.
I was intrigued that Newt talked mercy and equity at risk to himself, while the Mormon talked law enforcement to the last pound of flesh to get what he wants.
First we need to agree that the word "illegal" means illegal; then we can start discussing what should be done about the people who came here during the time we thought it meant something else.
It seems to me that Blitzer did Gingrich a great service by allowing him to debate with an idiot.
Is there an alternative theory as to what the big story was?
What if there was a debate and there wasn't a big story to come out of it. Would that be the big story?
Gingrich is a has been who should have stayed home and made money off his books and speeches.
Most of the people who consider illegal immigration a top issue have settled on border control as the first, most important policy, and there's a reason: "middle positions" like that which Gingrich advocates create a slippery slope. Romney was correct when he pointed out that Gingrich's proposed remedy makes America even more of a magnet for illegal immigrants.
There are so many entangled issues: the "jobs Americans won't do" fallacy (would they do them if we didn't have a ready source of under-the-table, cheap labor?), erosion of the rule of law (is it reasonable to extend benefits to people who are here illegally?), etc. Gingrich's point about people not here by their own choice or actions is fine, but it's like pointing to your grandmother who might not get a potentially life-saving medical treatment because insurance won't cover it. It's a sob story that yanks attention from a vast, complex problem.
I do suggest if you go back to your district, and you find people who have been here 25 years and have two generations of family and have been paying taxes and are in a local church, as somebody who believes strongly in family...
...who basket weaves, but only left-handed and underwater, who parks on the left side of the residential street on opposing Tuesdays and Thursdays, but on the commercial side every other Saturday, who...
The key point is that the 1986 act that gave amnesties was passed because we were promised real border control and real employer enforcement. We got neither, and now, predictably, because we rewarded 3 million illegal aliens with citizenship for breaking our border and customs laws, we have 20 or 30 million here looking for the next handout.
NO MORE AMNESTIES. PERIOD. The only acceptable next step is real border control, real employer enforcement - which we were promised before - and send all the illegals that came since 1986 back where they came from.
No need to split the families up; all of them can go back home. If some choose to stay and thus divide the family, that's their choice.
We don't reward hostage-takers by paying ransom. And we shouldn't reward border-jumpers for breaking the laws.
If we reward them again, we will get 100 million next time.
Anyone who favors rewarding border-jumpers with amnesty, I would like to answer this question: since real border control and real employer enforcement is apparently unattainable, how many tens or hundreds of millions - even billions - of third world immigrants are you willing to allow to shove their way in here before we stop it? Can you answer that question honestly?
It's a sob story that yanks attention from a vast, complex problem.
This is not a complex problem. You either build a Great Wall, or you don't. If you do, you stem illegal immigration dramatically, and then you deal with the people already here. If you don't, you have a steady flow of illegal immigrants.
It's not a difficult issue.
I detest illegal immigration - yet there is no way we are ever going to round up 11+ million illegal aliens and bus them over the border (and not all of them are Mexican nationals).
We absolutely have to find and enact in law policies to rationalize this national failure in a way that is just to all - native born, those who have immigrated under the law, and those who have abused our failure to enforce the law - and end it once and for all.
Gingrich and those who advocate rationalizing the illegals are absolutely correct to address this with a "comprehensive approach that starts with controlling the border...." - for if the border is never secured, the problem can never be corrected - and amnesty programs that kick in every 25 - 30 years do nothing to foster civil respect for the law, but do everything to foster rightful contempt and cynicism for the law and governing institutions.
As for Bachmann and those who reflexively shout "amnesty," yes, at some point this would be exactly that - but as there is no way we are rounding up 11+ million illegal aliens (we just aren't, and anyone who thinks we will, or even try, is an utter fool) - aren't helping to fix this. Yes, we get the border needs to be secured - and that's where we who oppose illegal immigration need to focus on first and foremost. Once the border is secured, we can then resolve to address those who remain, in a manner just for all.
I thought Gingrich did an admirable job of characterizing the major considerations of the illegal immigration debate and offering a few reasonable sounding solutions. I suspect Romney may have similar views, despite what he said last night.
"Clearly, Gingrich has the ability to reach out to many Americans who feel empathy toward the people who are in the county illegally and to take a middle position that balances a large set of interests."
There is a difference between articulating a point of view and being able to sell it to others who may be unconvinced. Gingrinch has his strengths, but convincing people outside his core group is just not one of them. In politics the messenger sometimes gets in the way of the message. Frequently that happens when the messenger is convinced of his brilliance, when he lacks any sense of how he's coming across to those whose initial view of him is neutral or skeptical.
Unfortunately, that has been a problem for Gingrinch for a long time. He has, and no doubt will continue to, articulate positions that find broad acceptance with the public. But he also has a talent for turning people off, particularly the independents (like Ann) whose default position is usually with the Dem candidate.
Despite her post today, I cannot imagine voters like Ann ever casting a ballot for Gingrinch. Today's post is just the vortex once again. Therein lies his problem.
I don't like Gingrich and never have. I also think he has a tendency to jump from idea to idea without seeing many through, but from the reports I heard from last night's debate, he's the only one who made a lick of sense.
and send all the illegals that came since 1986 back where they came from
This ridiculous, goofy nonsense is exactly the kind of thing I have been harping on for a long time. It's stupid.
How are you going to do that, Mark? With what people? Do you understand that such action would cost billions of dollars? Do you understand that even so it would be practically impossible? Do you understand that illegal aliens also have a host of constitutional rights?
Do you understand that such action would cost billions of dollars?
So what? We're the people that put a man on the moon. We're loaded.
It seems to me that the idea that we could possibly round up, try in immigration courts and then deport some FOURTEEN MILLION Ilegal immigrants is absurd on its face.
And while there is certainly room to debate "how long" "a family" and all, Newt WAS VERY CLEAR that he was talking about Guest Worker Visas,NOT CITIZENSHIP.
Than Michelle Bachman deliberately misquoted him is just as telling as the religious Mormon Romney's approach.
It may hurt Newt in trying to get the Nomination, but I applaud him for not ducking the issue or "flip-flopping" on it either.
"We don't reward hostage-takers by paying ransom. And we shouldn't reward border-jumpers for breaking the laws." Pardon me, but that's heartless. Dennis Prager pointed it out first: Said that if he lived in Mexico, he would also cross the border illegally to come and live here. And so would you. Don't get so self-righteous.
Doesn't mean that we have to reward them, but it does mean that we shouldn't treat them like regular criminals, or think of them that way.
Indeed, Scott. We'll just print the money. Done!
I'm liking Gingrich more. Brains, experience and audacity are not a bad mix for a President, and he is appearing to be set on communicating his own ideas more than simply ripping on the competition. I like that.
I am all for giving tenured and responsible Mexicans (and other) illegal immigrants an avenue for citizenship. As Newt described, that attitude is not at odds with the desire for a secure border nor is it at odds with the lack of desire for a blanket amnesty.
He spelled out very clearly what I've been thinking for a while.
How is failing to get a visa any different than failing to get a marriage license? Or, if you are a true kook, a birth certificate?
superior intelligence
I thought we weren't supposed to care about that for a President.
I'm somewhere between MikeR and MnMark. Perry comes closer to my views than anyone else.
The point was made somewhere that, if Newt is serious about border control and makes it work, then some sort of accomodation might fly.
As Michael Barone has noted, his position on who should be allowed to stay is based on an idea of the Roosevelt Administration in WWII regarding the draft. Not sure I'm crazy about it, but the real issue is how the armored fence crowd will take it.
traditionalguy said...
We do need the birth rate help from Catholics who procreate and are no threat except their Spanish Language.
As they once opined in the Jalisco Lancers while they waited to receive the charge of the Mississippi Rifles, Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?
Newt has the kind of nuanced complex positions that law professors like, and which result in millions of people who broke our laws getting amnesty, while there is no border enforcement and no employer enforcement.
While maybe not as nuanced, complex or empathetic, here's a different view.
We have 300+ million Americans and/or people living here now. 20% are unemployed or underemployed. 50% of young black males are unemployed. What we don't need is any more people, legal or illegal. We certainly don't need millions of unskilled, uneducated illegal immigrants competing with our unskilled and uneducated unemployed.
A more intelligent immigration policy would be to stop allowing one million legal immigrants per year, seal the border, work on getting illegals to leave, and have a very limited legal immigration spigot for highly skilled immigrants we do need.
Like every other policy that would actually benefit this country, there is no chance of this happening.
I thought we weren't supposed to care about that for a President.
The most important thing is Hope. And Change. How is that working out for you?
If we are not willing to accept that "illegal" means illegal, then any border fence to keep people out is not going to work any better than Mr. Khrushchev's to keep people in, and eventually will fall as ignominiously.
In the meantime, the best defence we have against another mass migration from Mexico, is that the Mexican economy may be recovering from the disastrous policies imposed on that poor country by its politicians in past decades.
And of course, the effects that the policies of our present politicians are likely to have on our economy.
Said that if he lived in Mexico, he would also cross the border illegally to come and live here. And so would you. Don't get so self-righteous.
You're forgetting the rest of that alternate reality. If you, in fact, were in that position and did as you say, with all the righteousness implied, would you fully expect the country you're trespassing in to roll over and it take it, take you and your offspring, with no consequences to yourself?
any border fence to keep people out is not going to work any better than Mr. Khrushchev's to keep people in
Are you really suggesting that the Berlin Wall did not work to keep people in? Really?
You should reconstruct your argument from the beginning. One of your premises must be wrong.
What we don't need is any more people, legal or illegal. We certainly don't need millions of unskilled, uneducated illegal immigrants competing with our unskilled and uneducated unemployed.
And yet, when Georgia banished the illegals, and farm jobs were up for the taking, they weren't taken. You seem to be arguing (in the part I didn't quote) that illegals are the reason we have high unemployment. Doubt it.
Do you understand that such action would cost billions of dollars?
That's nothing to a government that spends 1,400 billion a year more than it takes in in revenue!
Every knows this is the sensible way to deal with it-
Libs are trying to make hay with a position they support.
I say Karl Rove of Fox earlier characterize what Newt said as a "path to citizenship"....even thought Newt said specifically it was not.
Every conservative I have ever talked to--going back to the Reagan amnesty agrees-
secure the border...then we'll talk about families that are entrenched in American society.
The problem with having a discussion with the left is they never--ever--have an honest debate-
It's always bogus, extreme positions.
would you fully expect the country you're trespassing in to roll over and it take it, take you and your offspring, with no consequences to yourself?
So what? What if that country doesn't? What's the worst that can happen to me? I'll be right back in this shit hole, poor, with no hope. But at least I'll have had a better life for awhile. It's a can't-lose proposition.
Any moral argument concerning immigration will always lead you to a pro-immigration position. It has to by the logic of the Golden Rule.
Was down in San Anton the other day. Almost bought a great tee shirt for my next door neighbor to describes herself as "Mexican" just to excite people.
it said:
Relax Gringo, I'm Legal
she FWIW, is a USAF LTC, born in Boseman Montana.
Seven, presumably you are aware of the failure of the Berlin Wall. It worked for individuals, but it was the most dramatic geographic feature in the collapse of the Warsaw Pact. The Wall stayed up for 28 years before a notably docile people tore it down in a fit of righteous anger.
You should reconstruct your argument from the beginning. One of your premises must be wrong.
"You're forgetting the rest of that alternate reality. If you, in fact, were in that position and did as you say, with all the righteousness implied, would you fully expect the country you're trespassing in to roll over and it take it, take you and your offspring, with no consequences to yourself?" No, ScottM, I wouldn't. There might well be consequences. On the other hand, those of us in power in the other country might think about what it means that someone did something that we would have done ourselves in the same circumstances, and not be so darned angry at them.
It's okay to be angry at the political opportunists here who have turned this into an incredible mess with no enforcement and more than ten million people in limbo, just to get more Democratic votes.
Madman
Of course, you would have to make other changes [that won't happen] like not paying people not to work for years, and continuing such a policy long enough to kill off the entitlement mentality.
"Gingrich is a has been who should have stayed home and made money off his books and speeches."
I remember the has been who ran for President in 1968... and won.
Bob -- Are you aware of the Great Wall of China? Do you think it was built for tourism?
History is a cruel mistress.
I remember the has been who ran for President in 1968... and won.
Another Nixon! Just what we need in times of trouble!
Any moral argument concerning immigration will always lead you to a pro-immigration position. It has to by the logic of the Golden Rule.
By those standards, any argument against welfare reform would lead the full establishment of a welfare state, and any argument against universal health care would lead to a pro-one payer system.
"superior intelligence... I thought we weren't supposed to care about that for a President."
Perhaps if you were a little more intelligent, you'd know exactly what I've said and not said on that point.
Seven, I think you were talking about the Berlin Wall. Did I misread this: "Are you really suggesting that the Berlin Wall did not work to keep people in? Really?"
...?
If you want to talk about the Great Wall of China, sure! It's big and beautiful, and it kept out the hordes. I don't really disagree with your general points, but your dissembling does not improve your arguments.
There have been 7 amnesties in the last 30 years and Gingrich wants us to believe that any of those 7 were okay? Look at the demographic of California for christs sake. I'm sick of these northeastern establishment pricks dictating with clear ignorance on what is going on here down in places like San Diego, LA, Phoenix (kidnapping capital), Laredo, etc. because of illegals. They bring their culture, but do not assimilate. Don't believe me? Go to detroit and tell me how the arab immigrants there legal and illegal are assimilating. The Christian Arabs (Chaldeans) don't seem to have an issue, but the muslim ones aren't interested.
Go look at Minneapolis, at Lindbergh airport alone. It's little Somalia with roots to Al Qaeda and we just sit back and say welcome. It's bullshit.
Make being an illegal alien an offense punishable by death. That should help. How about a bounty? Deer season is only nine days long in Wisconsin. It would give unemployed people a way to earn extra cash.
"Is there an alternative theory as to what the big story was? What if there was a debate and there wasn't a big story to come out of it. Would that be the big story?"
The big story at Meadhouse was the Woody Allen documentary and a fat, juicy steak with a glass of wine on a day when I got up at 3:30 a.m..
After that, I put the debate on....
This morning, here's the transcript. I haven't read it all. So I wrote about the part people are talking about.
It would be a good exercise to comb through the transcript as if one were the reporter who had to isolate the story to make into THE story and see what you'd pick if it weren't for that Gingrimmigation thing.
any argument against welfare reform would lead the full establishment of a welfare state
You forgot an important word before argument, Scott: moral. That said, there are moral arguments against the welfare state, because free money makes the recipients worse off in the long run. It is therefore an unethical practice because it ruins people's lives.
Anyway, there are plenty of practical, logistical, statecraft-related, and other arguments against illegal immigration. But the moral one -- that we should not allow illegal immigrants because it is somehow wrong, sinful, evil, whatever -- is simply a nonstarter.
If military service were a path to citizenship, would that put pressure on the military to accept people who were unsuited for service?
Seven Machos said...
"Are you really suggesting that the Berlin Wall did not work to keep people in? Really?"
Are you saying that we could build and man a wall like Berlin's along out entire southern border?
Did the Great Wall stop the Mongols?
That one-on-one really highlighted Gingrich's superior intelligence and sophistication.
Newt may have a lot of negatives, but I love that he actually sounds like he knows what he's talking about and is giving real answers, not just political BS, ala Bachmann (why is she still in this thing, btw?).
I have always thought Newt had no prayer at a nomination, but who knows?
Go look at Minneapolis, at Lindbergh airport alone. It's little Somalia with roots to Al Qaeda and we just sit back and say welcome. It's bullshit.
Meth -- How many of those Somalians are illegal immigrants?
Or... I should go back to that debate from last weekend that nobody seems to be talking about.
On the other hand, those of us in power in the other country might think about what it means that someone did something that we would have done ourselves in the same circumstances, and not be so darned angry at them.
Who's angry at individuals? Not me and not anyone I'm aware of here. Angry at the flaunting of the law? Yes. Angry at our political class' completely inept handling of this issue for the past three decades, you betcha.
Do I think it's a rational possibility that 11+ million are going to be rounded up and hurled south, no. But I also believe that any debate over how to deal with the situation going forward is a non-starter unless the border is secured.
But then, you're talking to a guy that believes a great deal of our overseas permanent deployments should be ended and redeployed. I can think of no better job for them than manning the southern border against further incursion. Who needs a physical wall when you've got 50,000 full-time, air-mobile border guards?
Did the Great Wall stop the Mongols?
I don't know, actually. I suppose from your question that it did not. Certainly, the Maginot Line wasn't very effective, either.
However, we aren't talking about war here. We are talking about immigration. I don't think a wall would stop illegal immigration. That's silly. But it would stem it dramatically.
They can stay but never vote nor have full citizenship was my recommendation also. Newt must be reading my mind.
You forgot an important word before argument, Scott: moral.
Correct, it was left out by mistake. "A better life" is relative. If you have a flatscreen TV, but live under an assumed name with a fake social security number and knowing that ICE can bust down your door at any moment and deport you, well, that's probably up the individual, but I wouldn't consider it better.
Seven, the point that I think Methadras was trying to make was that the Somalians in Mpls. don't seem to be assimilating. It's what I'm observing 60 miles away.
but I wouldn't consider it better
I have a nanny. She is a legal immigrant, at least now. Her father was a wealthy landowner in El Salvador. All his land was taken from him when the government was socialist. He died poor.
Think about all that from your comfy chair in your beautiful home before suggesting that a life with a flat-screen and the fear of deportation might not be an improvement.
Seven Machos said...
"However, we aren't talking about war here. We are talking about immigration. I don't think a wall would stop illegal immigration. That's silly. But it would stem it dramatically."
Seven - don't you think we would have better results if we went after demand instead of supply? If we had more robust enforcement in preventing companies and industries from hiring illegals?
Ann Althouse said...
"Gingrich is a has been who should have stayed home and made money off his books and speeches."
I remember the has been who ran for President in 1968... and won.
Excellent point, Madame, and one that needs to be considered as various pundits, newsies, and others are writing off candidates before the first vote has been cast.
Mary Beth said...
If military service were a path to citizenship, would that put pressure on the military to accept people who were unsuited for service?
No, but we do have the Lodge-Philbin Act for people who have entered the country legally.
Another BS meme is that we can't bus 14 million back to wherever they came from (they're not all from Mexico). While we would never get all of them to leave, we could make a huge dent if we actually tried. After all, the Germans managed to move six million Jews in a few years [no I'm not advocating ovens, just noting what is possible].
Just look at what happened when Arizona and Alabama passed laws to simply enforce the current law. Illegals ran away. Unfortunately, they had other states to run to. If it were clear that the US was enforcing it's laws, in the same way that Mexico and virtually all other countries do, many illegals would just leave. But the opposite is true. The message from this White House is, as it always has been, a wink and a nod.
No, if we tried, we could reduce the numbers of illegals here. We largely don't try.
Assimilation! Now we are talking. It's a must. We do a terrible job, and it is the left's fault with its goofy ideas about multiculturalism. Fuck multiculturalism.
The good news is that the children of those Somalis will in all likelihood assimilite just fine.
Incidentally, I have noticed the same thing at the Minneapolis airport.
Newt is still a Beltway insider- that, to me is his Achilles heel. It is a shame we don't have an outsider with his balls and brains and experience.
After all, the Germans managed to move six million Jews in a few years [no I'm not advocating ovens, just noting what is possible].
Fuck you, douchebag. We have a Constitution and we abide by it.
We're also broke.
Think about all that from your comfy chair in your beautiful home before suggesting that a life with a flat-screen and the fear of deportation might not be an improvement.
You're making a lot of assumptions about my life you have zero basis for.
Seven - don't you think we would have better results if we went after demand instead of supply?
No. Because the assumption there is that all these illegals work at big meatpacking corporations. They don't. They are the single detail guy at a car wash in a bad neighborhood.
Do you have any idea how many businesses there are in the United States? We have a hard enough time keeping our restaurants and elevators up to standards. And you think we are going to be able to send people around searching for illegal workers? It's not economically feasible or practical.
WIthout calling me names, what part of the Constitution prohibits shipping people who broke into the country back from where they came from?
You are right about us being broke.
Seven, I receive the New Richmond News once a week. There are countless tickets given out to people who have an Hispanic name for driving without a license. I'll bet that they don't have insurance either. You'd better hope they don't run over one of your kids or grandkids. Our laws are a joke to these people. Go ahead, make them citizens, it won't matter, they are gaming the system, and they will not change this behavior.
I've been at WalMart and they have these debt cards from the state. They leave with a full cart of food. Laughing as they leave. Do you think that they pay the hospital bill when they have a child born here? They are costing this country far more than they are paying in.
Prof. Althouse -with all due respect, I think its extremely unfair for you to come out here and correct posters who don't quote you -directly or by inference- accurately!
You destroy whatever point they are trying to make!
Seriously, I'm very glad that you chose Newt and his comments on immigration for a post today. Just excellent fodder for debate!
Seven Machos said...
"And you think we are going to be able to send people around searching for illegal workers? It's not economically feasible or practical."
And I contend it will be as expensive or more to build and man a wall all along the nearly 2,000 miles of our southern border. Where is that manpower going to come from? As you stated up tread, we're broke.
The Great Wall worked like the Berlin Wall.
The Mongols and their relatives have been running China since the 13th century.
And I contend it will be as expensive or more to build and man a wall all along the nearly 2,000 miles of our southern border. Where is that manpower going to come from?
A wall is unnecessary. Redeploy American military units from Europe to AZ, NM, and TX. Done. Cheaper in the long run, too.
Seven Machos said...
Assimilation! Now we are talking. It's a must. We do a terrible job, and it is the left's fault with its goofy ideas about multiculturalism. Fuck multiculturalism.
The good news is that the children of those Somalis will in all likelihood assimilite just fine.
That's the theory. It worked before, when we believed in it. before the ESL crowd and the salad bowl folks.
From where many of us sit, both the Moslems and the Hispanics look more like colonizers than immigrants.
I note in AllenS' defense that those second generation Somali-americans are off fighting Jihad in the homeland. so don't count on assimilation when the immigrant group resists it.
Scott M said...
"A wall is unnecessary. Redeploy American military units from Europe to AZ, NM, and TX. Done. Cheaper in the long run, too."
If it was only that easy. The DMZ between North and South Korea is some of the most highly militarized land in the world. And yet the North Koreans have built tunnels under the DMZ large enough to move divisions through in hours.
The Drill SGT - Well I sit in the southern most part of N.C. we have a LOT of Mexicans here and most of them, IMO, do in fact try to assimilate.
But most of them are first generation and still trying to learn English and naturally tend to "hang" with their own kind. But I've never met one who wasn't thrilled to be in the U.S. and able to work to make a living.
They are indeed family oriented folks (and all y'all will kindly overlook my generalizations, please.)
Scott M said...
And I contend it will be as expensive or more to build and man a wall all along the nearly 2,000 miles of our southern border. Where is that manpower going to come from?
A wall is unnecessary. Redeploy American military units from Europe to AZ, NM, and TX. Done. Cheaper in the long run, too.
Rumsfeld did that pretty much. Both Seventh and Eighth have just about come home.
Raise another 8 - 10 light divisions (nothing gaudy, no air assault or Strykers or MRAPS) in the Regulars - no ARNG - and put them on the border. Iraq and A-stan showed we need a Regular Army at Cold War levels anyway and these guys would be doing something even tg would approve, as they would be CONUS-only until we got the border under control.
If it was only that easy. The DMZ between North and South Korea is some of the most highly militarized land in the world. And yet the North Koreans have built tunnels under the DMZ large enough to move divisions through in hours.
Not an apt comparison. First of all, the coyotes are not the North Koreans. For that matter, neither is the Mexican army. Secondly, Mexico is neither nuclear-capable nor actively belligerent (ie, tens of thousands of artillery tubes pointed at US citizens). Third, AZ, NM, and TX are home territory for those redeployed units. There are no State Department entanglements for the myriad ways we would prevent NK-like tactics, which I doubt we would see anyway.
(nothing gaudy, no air assault or Strykers or MRAPS)
Their mission would require air-mobility. Something along the lines of the 101st.
The fact is, in order to "shut down" the border, a few "invaders" are going to have to be shot.
How do you like them apples?
Let the leftard over-reaction begin...
36 -- Have you driven on an American interstate recently? Ever notice those walls on either side?
MadisonMan,
And yet, when Georgia banished the illegals, and farm jobs were up for the taking, they weren't taken. You seem to be arguing (in the part I didn't quote) that illegals are the reason we have high unemployment. Doubt it.
If farm jobs were paid commensurate with what Americans expect for nasty, hot, and back-bending labor, Americans would take them. The wages are as they are because illegal immigrants don't demand like pay, and employers are really keen on minimizing expenses.
I'd pay more for my Brussels sprouts if it meant that the workers growing and harvesting were paid a wage high enough to attract actual Americans.
Did you know that Puebla, Mexico has deposits of fine pottery clay and began as a colony of Chinese refugees making imitation Ming pottery for salein the European markets?
And that the People's Republic of China now has artisan factories making imitation Mexican imitation Ming pottery, also for sale in Europe?
And Angela Merkel, the latest rightwing menace to pan-European mediocrity, was born and raised in the People's Republic of Germany?
what part of the Constitution prohibits shipping people who broke into the country back from where they came from?
Well, dude, they have to be arrested. They have to have court proceedings and have due process. They have to be housed and fed. They have to be treated equitably and equally.
So, dude, without calling you names like know-nothing and moron, pretty much the whole entire fucking Constitution.
I'd pay more for my Brussels sprouts if it meant that the workers growing and harvesting were paid a wage high enough to attract actual Americans.
No. You wouldn't. You'd bitch and moan about the high price of brussels sprouts. And you would buy something else. And if all produce was expensive, you'd demand that Congress Do Something.
Scott M said...
"Not an apt comparison. First of all, the coyotes are not the North Koreans. For that matter, neither is the Mexican army. Secondly, Mexico is neither nuclear-capable nor actively belligerent (ie, tens of thousands of artillery tubes pointed at US citizens). Third, AZ, NM, and TX are home territory for those redeployed units. There are no State Department entanglements for the myriad ways we would prevent NK-like tactics, which I doubt we would see anyway."
Scott, the Mexicans are not coyotes. Here's an article about tunnels they've built so far:
http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=3331105#.Ts0iZlZ9ZAM
It has nothing to do with each sides weapons, it has to do with the peoples desire to come here for a better life.
As far as AZ, NM, and TX being home territory for those units in Europe, actually not. Their home stations are in Europe. New facilities would have to be built for those units to return to. I actually do think that is better than keeping them overseas. Better to spend that money on communities here in the U.S. than overseas.
When the water pipes have broken and the ground floor to your home is flooded, the first thing one does NOT do is begin a long discussion of what color replacement carpet one is going to buy or which alternative floor covering--tile or finished wood, and if clay or ceramic, and what color and design, same for wood, etc. NO! Rather the FIRST order of business is to shut off the water main. Then the SECOND order of business is to clean up the mess. The THIRD is to repair the pipes, THEN--and ONLY THEN--can one afford to concentrate on the surface repairs.
Need I say more about immigration "reform" priorities?
And those here who argue for removal of those aspects of our job market and welfare/social services regime which act as a magnet for illegal aliens are very much on target. Removal of health and education benefits, etc., for illegals as well as stricter employment checks would cause them to leave in droves voluntarily at no cost to the tax-payer. And a re-definition of the Constitution re citizenship by birth (that's all it has been--an "interpretation") would remove the citizen "anchor baby" problem. And for all those who say that such reforms are "immoral" MnMark asks the right question: Where DOES one draw the line? The inevitable logic of the current system/practices is a formula for the uncritical acceptance of the population of THE ENTIRE WORLD. I've yet to see anyone answer that question.
Finally, following on from MnMark, for all those who think those "tough" on immigration heartless bastards let me ask: If someone and his pregnant wife ILLEGALLY broke into YOUR home late at night and she managed to give birth on the kitchen table before you, the homeowner could awake and evict them, and the law was such that, even though the break-in was illegal, since neither the police nor you prevented it, by virtue of the kitchen birth within the four walls of your home, the new baby was now officially by law part of your own family and it was henceforth YOUR responsibility to house, feed and educate it and pay for all its medical expenses as well as allow it when grown to A) inherit part of your estate, and B) petition for its parents to come live with you, how would YOU like that little scenario? And how is my little imaginary scenario any different from present-day practices in the treatment of illegal aliens and their US-born children?
Seven Machos said...
"36 -- Have you driven on an American interstate recently? Ever notice those walls on either side?"
Yes. And you don't think they could not be tunneled under?
Has there been a cost analysis done between building and manning a wall and increasing enforcement agency manning and associated infrastructure to crack down on the hiring of illegals?
Seven Machos said...
Have you driven on an American interstate recently? Ever notice those walls on either side?
I own a 40 foot extension ladder. I don't think that I'd have too much trouble getting my 65 year old ass over it either.
Yes. And you don't think they could not be tunneled under?
So what. It would stem the flow of illegal immigrants dramatically. Stemming is better than ending. Tunnels are easier to find than random people.
Has there been a cost analysis done between building and manning a wall and increasing enforcement agency manning and associated infrastructure to crack down on the hiring of illegals?
You just aren't thinking this through. States don't even run restaurant inspectors. Cities do. It's expensive. The number of businesses in this country is impossible to wrap your head around. And you want the federal government to try to keep track of them? It's not the cost that's the issue, though that is an issue. It's the fact that policing businesses won't work.
I own a 40 foot extension ladder.
How many poor Hispanics do also?
The "anchor baby" problem is part of the current immigration statutes and "policy;" it is not in the Constitution.
The Constitutional part just applies to the babies themselves; it says nothing about bringing in the relatives.
Scott, the Mexicans are not coyotes.
I didn't say they were. I said the coyotes are not NK and all of the anger, ideology, fear of authority, and motivation all of that combines to create. Coyotes are profit-driven, not ideological. Once there is little profit to be made (because your average illegal will no longer be able to afford the exorbitant cost of getting through a motivated US military), their contribution to the problem, currently huge, will diminish substantially.
t has nothing to do with each sides weapons, it has to do with the peoples desire to come here for a better life.
Comparisons between the Korean DMZ and the Mexican-United States borders must include comparisons of the weaponry involved. The DMZ is tip-toe land. We're based in someone else's country, within range of a shitload of heavy ordinance, and there's very little we can do except sit on our asses and let them harry each other. Further, they (the NK's anyway) HATE each other, along with all of that heavy weaponry. If you're suggesting that weaponry isn't party of the equation, I would submit that you would be correct and go back to my initial assertion that it's an inapt comparison.
As far as AZ, NM, and TX being home territory for those units in Europe, actually not. Their home stations are in Europe. New facilities would have to be built for those units to return to.
Correct. There would be a substantial one-time cost of redeployment and the restructuring of command, control, and communications (and all the logistics involved therein).
I was struck by the fact that the after-debate moderators/reporters/talkers immediately started that meme as the take-away for the whole two-hour affair. I thought it was interesting when it came up, but not very earth shaking. His is a thoughtful, practical suggestion (he did NOT even imply that they should ever be given citizenship)among a number of other thoughtful ideas on the subject from a number of conservatives. I saw Bachman's insistence on aid to Pakistan, Huntsman's continual insistence on shorting defense and international affairs to spend more money in this country (not saving the money or reducing the debt) ands Cain's vague bumper sticker responses to every question to be much more problematic.
Just really struck by how the MSM immediately set up todays story---and how it has worked if one judges by this comment string
Hagar -- Please do read the 14th Amendment:
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.
Note the word born. See it? Born. You are clearly wrong.
@Seven
You lost me.
Hagar said
The Constitutional part just applies to the babies themselves; it says nothing about bringing in the relatives.
Then you said
Note the word born. See it? Born. You are clearly wrong.
Seven Machos said...
"You just aren't thinking this through. States don't even run restaurant inspectors. Cities do. It's expensive. The number of businesses in this country is impossible to wrap your head around. And you want the federal government to try to keep track of them? It's not the cost that's the issue, though that is an issue. It's the fact that policing businesses won't work."
Seven - here in PA the state runs the health inspections of kitchens and cooking facilities for restaurants. The state Liquor Control Board handles the licensing of taverns and bars.
Will it cost more money and manpower to check for illegals? Yes. But again, what is the cost to build, maintain and fully man 25/7 a nearly 2,000 mile wall along our southern boarder?
I don't know, I'm asking.
Scott -- I am wrong. I misread Hagar's post. I apologize, Hagar.
36 -- I am obviously arguing that it will cost more. Think of it this way: there are far, far, far more businesses in this country than illegal aliens. And it's easier to hide things in business than it is a human being.
Seven Machos said...
what part of the Constitution prohibits shipping people who broke into the country back from where they came from?
Well, dude, they have to be arrested. They have to have court proceedings and have due process. They have to be housed and fed. They have to be treated equitably and equally.
So, dude, without calling you names like know-nothing and moron, pretty much the whole entire fucking Constitution.
Well dude, all you're saying is that a certain degree of process is required. If we were serious about it, we could devise an expedited procedure and do it. The problem is not that it can't be done, but that we lack the will to do it.
The Constitution is not an impediment. You are an impediment. And note that I did not even call you a know-nothing or a moron.
If we were serious about it, we could devise an expedited procedure and do it. The problem is not that it can't be done, but that we lack the will to do it.
An expedited process implies limiting the rights of these people. That's not constitutional. Why should immigrants have an expedited process when serial killers don't? Do you argue that the immigration problem is worse than the serial killer problem>
Further, we do not lack the will. We lack the money, the resources, and the fascism. You can't, under our inviolable rules, herd millions of people from one place to another.
You are living in an unconstitutional fantasy land with play money and endless resources, dude. It's sad.
Scott M said...
“I didn't say they were. I said the coyotes are not NK and all of the anger, ideology, fear of authority, and motivation all of that combines to create. Coyotes are profit-driven, not ideological. Once there is little profit to be made (because your average illegal will no longer be able to afford the exorbitant cost of getting through a motivated US military), their contribution to the problem, currently huge, will diminish substantially.”
My example in using the DMZ was to highlight what could be done even in a heavily fortified border area. Unless, we build a complete wall along the entire border, fully man it 24/7 and provide the necessary support infrastructure it will not be successful. What will that cost in manpower and funding to build and support?
“Comparisons between the Korean DMZ and the Mexican-United States borders must include comparisons of the weaponry involved. The DMZ is tip-toe land. We're based in someone else's country, within range of a shitload of heavy ordinance, and there's very little we can do except sit on our asses and let them harry each other. Further, they (the NK's anyway) HATE each other, along with all of that heavy weaponry. If you're suggesting that weaponry isn't party of the equation, I would submit that you would be correct and go back to my initial assertion that it's an inapt comparison.
Yes, and again are we prepared to spend that kind of money to make a supposedly impenetrable wall? I believe it was Patton who once said, if oceans and mountain ranges can be overcome, anything built by man can be overcome.
Seven Machos said...
"36 -- I am obviously arguing that it will cost more. Think of it this way: there are far, far, far more businesses in this country than illegal aliens. And it's easier to hide things in business than it is a human being."
OK, I agree with the number of businesses and hiding things. It would be interesting to see a cost analysis between the two options or a combination of the two.
There are no rules in this country that are not being violated every day.
It would help if our government agencies did not lead the way and indeed insist on the immigration rules being violated.
And it is not complicated; people either have documentation that they belong here or they do not.
And if you do belong here, it is very difficult for you not to be on record as belonging here.
BTW, in my post about Puebla above, the main market for fake pottery is probably in the U.S.
My point, 36fsfiend, is that the situations between Korea's DMZ and the Mexican border are completely different and not comparable.
We have a statute of limitations for nearly every felony, yet somehow we are still talking about sending Inspector Javert out after folks who entered illegally decades ago and have created a life here.
Simply amazing.
It is also amazing that Bachman would still punish people who have served their adopted country because their parents brought them here illegally as children.
I was for Newt before this, but an ever so much more for him now.
It would help if our government agencies did not lead the way and indeed insist on the immigration rules being violated.
This is simply. inarguably wrong. No one in government is insisting that the law be violated. People are breaking law. The government is simply unable to enforce the law.
Does the government violate the law when someone murders someone else because it did not prevent the murder?
Scott M said...
"My point, 36fsfiend, is that the situations between Korea's DMZ and the Mexican border are completely different and not comparable."
Scott, OK. Again, that was an example to show what can be done in terms of tunneling even in a heavily fortified area with minefields, a continuously patrolled fence line manned with armed military personnel, sensors to detect movement and tunneling and various recce platforms watching the North's force dispositions.
The government is simply unable to enforce the law.
Notable sanctuary citizens go out of their way not only to not enforce the law, but to overtly welcome law-breakers.
citizens = cities
(damnable Swipe and autocorrect...)
Notable sanctuary citizens
Are those people the government?
Notable serial killer citizens go out of their way to torture and kill people. Other people park illegally. Is that all the government's fault?
sanctuary cities
Okay, fine. I have no problem with that at all. If some places want to have illegal immigrants, let them. If others don't, let them.
Like almost everything else, this issue is best handled locally. The federal government should do what it is or could be good at: securing the border itself.
The federal government should do what it is or could be good at: securing the border itself.
Seven would declare a ten yard zone on our side of the border. If you can sprint through quickly enough to avoid getting tagged, you're now a local problem. The feds only get you if they can reach out and grab you as you run by them.
Scott -- Isn't it funny how conservatives so love big government when it suits their pet issues? And isn't it funny how they continue to love big government even when it is obvious and demonstrated that big government cannot achieve the fantasy goals they hope to achieve?
I think it's hilarious. Your rallying cry here is: get big government out of our lives except to snoop around every single business and person all the time perpetually to check for citizenship papers.
Geography is destiny. Look at a map. The history of the world is the history of migration. It would be nice to manage it better than we are, but we are not able (or willing) to deport millions of people, and over time we are not able to stop the movement of desperate people looking for a better life. Perry and Gingrich know which way the wind is blowing.
I think it is one of the charges in the DoJ's suit against Alabama's law that explicitly states that the DoJ objects to Alabama wanting to enforce a US statute that the DoJ does not widh to enforce.
aargh! ...wish...
Bachmann tells it like it is but Gingrich has "the superior intelligence," just like all the obfuscaters who appeal to sophisticates like Althouse.
Wrong. All I would ask for is due diligence on the part of employers to make sure the person they are hiring has legal ID. There are simple, cheap (relative to everything else we're talking about here) ways to do this. Not complying and hiring illegals should be met with harsh penalties.
The above does not exist in a vacuum. It would be implemented after the borders are secured as much as possible and alongside however else we decide to deal with those already here.
There's an appropriate role for government. Making sure our borders are secure, which you seem to agree with, is one of them. Dealing with the failings of that policy is no less the fed's job.
Not complying and hiring illegals should be met with harsh penalties.
Tremendously awesome use of the passive voice. Kudos!
Now, try the active voice. Who is going to do this? How? Who will pay for it? Who will ensure due process and civil rights for the illegals and the businesses?
You are not thinking practically. At all.
Gingrich does sound somewhat intelligent at times, or at least clever--but it's like Moe compared to the Larrys and Curlys, or in Michele Bachman's case, Patty Krenwinkle (maybe a cross in her forehead? Yeah).
Newt is getting real on this issue.
Good for Newt.
traditionalguy said...
"The Mexicans and Central Americans who are here frighten the English Speaking people."
Ridiculous. First of all, a large percentage of the Centro Americanos do speak English. They try to learn. They know they need to learn.
If they are frightening, it's because they work harder than the Northamericanos. That does scare the shit out of some people.
You are not thinking practically. At all.
Your original point was to secure the border, was it not?
Scott -- Building a wall will cost what about a year of some gargantuan check of all the businesses in the country will cost. Manning it thereafter will be much cheaper, more practical, and not a gross and continuous administrative and judicial problem.
Furthermore, we already have the systems you seek in place. They don't work. We're already spending lots of money. It's wasted. We're already hassling businesses and violating rights. Only a fool would double, or triple, of septuple these efforts.
Again, if localities want to attempt more draconian solutions, let them. I don't have a problem with that. They can fund it. They can hire the people. They can deal with the inevitable constitutional challenges.
Seven Machos said...
“I think it's hilarious. Your rallying cry here is: get big government out of our lives except to snoop around every single business and person all the time perpetually to check for citizenship papers.”
Seven, we would have to depend on businesses to comply with the laws as well. I mean do our police forces around the country have the manning to stop every driver who speeds? No. Part of the equation in successfully enforcing the laws is counting on citizens to follow the laws, yes?
Scott -- Building a wall will cost what about a year of some gargantuan check of all the businesses in the country will cost. Manning it thereafter will be much cheaper, more practical, and not a gross and continuous administrative and judicial problem.
Okay...so in Seven's solution a wall is built and maintained. How far do you let people that make it over, under, or through run before you stop chasing them?
First we need to agree that the word "illegal" means illegal …
Sure. Jaywalking is illegal. Running a stop sign is illegal. Turning without signaling is illegal. I have a difficult time assigning much significance solely to the word, “illegal.”
There are so many entangled issues: the "jobs Americans won't do" fallacy (would they do them if we didn't have a ready source of under-the-table, cheap labor?)
Ask Georgia about that “fallacy.”
http://tinyurl.com/5t6z9zc
… erosion of the rule of law (is it reasonable to extend benefits to people who are here illegally?), etc.
See above: Jaywallking, running stop signs, turning with no signal, etc.
Gingrich's point about people not here by their own choice or actions is fine, but it's like pointing to your grandmother who might not get a potentially life-saving medical treatment because insurance won't cover it.
Good example of a tortured analogy.
You either build a Great Wall, or you don't. If you do, you stem illegal immigration dramatically, and then you deal with the people already here. If you don't, you have a steady flow of illegal immigrants.
In my opinion a wall would be both expensive and fruitless. They would simply climb over the wall. But securing the border is an idea I heartily support. I would do it by sending the US military to the border and have the military more or less take over efforts to stop the crossings. Border security is a national security problem and should be treated as such.
I detest illegal immigration - yet there is no way we are ever going to round up 11+ million illegal aliens and bus them over the border (and not all of them are Mexican nationals).
A major problem concisely defined.
Gingrinch has his strengths, but convincing people outside his core group is just not one of them.
Yet that “core group” grew over a 100% over a short period of time. Hmm.
Despite her post today, I cannot imagine voters like Ann ever casting a ballot for Gingrinch.
Ann Althouse is an independent voter who has voted for Republicans as well as Democrats. As such I can easily imagine her voting for Newt.
… send all the illegals that came since 1986 back where they came from …
Just what the GOP needs. Millions of folks herded into boxcars and sent south by the GOP. The optics must have the Progressives drooling. But I’m not worried. It’s only a talking point and will never happen.
Are you really suggesting that the Berlin Wall did not work to keep people in? Really?
I’m not the “you” the commentor was referring to but yes, really. The real factor keeping the East Germans in East Germany was the massive East German border guard force. The wall was little more than a symbol.
Are you aware of the Great Wall of China? Do you think it was built for tourism?
The Great Wall’s value was primarily as an elevated enemy observation point, troop movement highway(on the top of the wall) and as quarters for the extensive army housed in the wall. Think of it as a castle/fort linearly extended over a great distance.
I don't think a wall would stop illegal immigration. That's silly. But it would stem it dramatically.
Not without a lot of troops stationed along the wall, it wouldn’t. But if you have the troops you don’t need the wall.
If it were clear that the US was enforcing it's laws, in the same way that Mexico and virtually all other countries do, many illegals would just leave.
True. We need an administration that will enforce federal immigration law. And that would cure some of the problem. But just some. We really need a military force along the border.
And yet the North Koreans have built tunnels under the DMZ large enough to move divisions through in hours.
The US has secret technology that detects tunnels and technology that can make those tunnels into death traps. We knew they were building them. We let the North Koreans go ahead and waste resources and energy building them before we rendered them useless. It must be frustrating to the North Koreans. Southwest Research Institute, in San Antonio, TX, has been developing and improving this technology for over 30 years.
Part of the equation in successfully enforcing the laws is counting on citizens to follow the laws, yes?
36 -- I think you hit upon something profound here, much more profound than I can meaningfully discuss in a blog thread.
Basically, the issue is natural law or, if you like, common law. Common law simply means what a reasonable person would do. The assumption is that most are reasonable and act reasonably most of the time. If people aren't following the law, then it's the law that isn't reasonable. If the policy isn't working, it's the policy that is the problem, not ordinary people living their lives the best way they can.
A good law is a law that most people would either do anyway (don't murder or rape) or that people see as socially acceptable (don't park in front of this fire hydrant). Good policy enforces good law fairly and reasonably.
So you've got to ask yourself: why are millions of people flouting immigration law and policy?
Scott -- Let the states and localities chase illegal aliens if they choose to do so. It's a simple proposition. Consider the words carefully and let me know the ones you don't understand.
Scott -- Let the states and localities chase illegal aliens if they choose to do so.
And you don't see the states suing a wall-enforced federal government that completely washes its hands of all immigration violation on the American side of the construct?
You didn't answer my question. How far does the border unit follow a "waller" before they stop pursuit and assume it's a local state problem? A yard? Ten? A mile?
Tim said...
I detest illegal immigration - yet there is no way we are ever going to round up 11+ million illegal aliens and bus them over the border (and not all of them are Mexican nationals).
=============
That is a false liberal Democrat narrative that many conservatives now accept as common wisdom...just like many moderates swallow the excuse the environmentalists have claimed to shut down oil drilling for 40 years in open areas of Alaska and off the Coasts - it is impossible and won't help because it will take 7-10 years to get the oil to market.
11 million British manage to leave Britain every year as tourists and expat workers - so physical travel on that scale is not "impossible". In America, you don't HAVE to have "heroes of law enforcement" round up the illegals. All you need to do is pass a national ID law and a law saying any employer who knowingly hires any worker without secure identification pays a non-appealable 50,000 dollar fine for each violation.
And like old Newt himself said, there are times in great crisis when like Lincoln and Jackson - you must say no to courts and lawyers trying to block laws for years.
Pass it, and illegals will find no employers and have to self-deport. Reject any court meddling and it can start very soon, vs. 5-10 years of court challenges.
Seven Machos said...
"A good law is a law that most people would either do anyway (don't murder or rape) or that people see as socially acceptable (don't park in front of this fire hydrant). Good policy enforces good law fairly and reasonably."
I agree.
"So you've got to ask yourself: why are millions of people flouting immigration law and policy?"
I guess economics, i.e., the cheaper labor force provided by illegal immigrants and no fear of the consequences or no fear that they will be caught because of the difficulty in physically checking all businesses in an attempt to enforce the law.
And you don't see the states suing a wall-enforced federal government
I don't care. The federal government has sovereign immunity and if that doesn't apply then there will be a lawsuit. There are lots of lawsuits.
How far does the border unit follow a "waller" before they stop pursuit and assume it's a local state problem? A yard? Ten? A mile?
It's a pointless question. People either get in or they don't. If the federal government wishes to continue its current level of sorry efforts and also build a wall, that's fine. Those efforts will continue to be sorry because they don't work and cannot work. But to increase efforts that do not work is dumb.
It's a pointless question. People either get in or they don't.
Bullshit. Your incredible wall combined with that policy would be an immigrant magnet.
"Come on in, the water's fine! You just have to get past that wall we can only build on land and only so high and so deep! If you can get past it though, you're an American citizen by default!"
You usually have better sense than this.
That is not what "common law" means.
And the basic problem here is that the Democratic Party pro's and activists have convinced themselves that the illegal immigrants - especially if they are Spanish speakers - are just naturally going to become Democrat voters as they become "assimilated," i.e. gain citizenship or otherwise are allowed to vote, and therefore willfully ignoring the immigration laws is a good thing and acceptable as it is for a "good cause."
Hagar -- What do you think common law means, dude?
This is going to be awesome.
Scott -- There is no way to enforce illegal immigration laws within the United States. This has been what I have been arguing throughout this thread.
We are not a police state. We do not have the money. It is not practical to go business to business looking for illegal immigrants. Your plan, such as it is, is not going to work logistically in a free society.
Your plan, such as it is, is not going to work logistically in a free society.
Neither is yours, so I suppose we're even.
I suppose so, Scott.
Restraunts are continuously inspected where I live, and I would imagine that it's the same everywhere. If you're going to check the temperature of the cooked food, uncooked food, etc... you could just as easily ask for ID if the inspector thinks that the person working there is illegal.
Seven said..
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.
Note the word born. See it? Born. You are clearly wrong.
Note the word AND....nestled in there nicely adjoining the second part of the qualification.
you could just as easily ask for ID if the inspector thinks that the person working there is illegal
Allen, please. Do you think that illegal aliens don't have fraudulent but authentic-looking identification? Are you that naive?
Browndog -- Which and? Please elaborate. I look forward to this clever twisting of plain language.
For those who think it's impossible to get the illegals to leave, here's how:
(1) A $10,000 per day, per illegal fine for anyone hiring an illegal alien.
(2) Whoever reports someone who is employing an illegal alien gets half of the fine money collected, and they can report it with their identity protected so that the reportee does not know who turned them in. To make it even more effective, allow illegal aliens to report their own employers and collect the reward money. An illegal who planned to go home anyway could make some quick money that way. And it means no one could know if the illegal they were hiring would turn them in for the reward.
(3) The enforcement agency gets the other half of the fine money for catching the employers in the act. Further, the officers who catch the employer in the act of employing illegals get an extra bonus for each illegal caught in the act of working.
Simple as that. You don't have to hunt down every illegal. You just put the right financial incentives in place and they will deport themselves.
The incentives mentioned above make it impossible for anyone to hire an illegal...the risk is too high. Someone would surely report them, and the enforcement agency would be johnny-on-the-spot to get their half of the fine money.
See? No need to find illegals. There will simply be no one in America who will risk hiring an illegal, on or off the books.
The next phase, if necessary, is a similar financial incentive scheme for reporting illegals who don't leave even though they can't work. It would use financial incentives again: whoever reports an illegal gets half of that illegal's property - bank accounts, cars, homes, clothes in the closet, etc. The enforcement agency gets the other half. The illegals came here with nothing but the clothes on their back, and they can leave with that.
So this idea that it's impossible to get the illegals to leave is ridiculous. It's put forward by people who don't WANT to find a way to get them to leave.
To
Mark wants to create a police state where people spy on their neighbors. Brilliant!
That's what our boys fought for, dude. That's freedom!
Good comment on last night's debate by Michael Barone in the DC Examiner:
"What infuriates me is that this is a debate over water that has already fallen over the dam. Romney mimicked immigration restrictionists’ arguments that in-state tuition and Selective-Service-type amnesty would be 'magnets' for further illegal immigration, There’s a theoretical basis for this claim. But empirically illegal immigration has been dropping toward zero and reverse migration of illegals seems to be taking place: the Census Bureau estimates that the illegal population has declined from 12 million to 11 million, and it probably has declined more since."
"Common law" means that the courts are bound by stare decisis unless overruled by a (Constitutional) legislative statute.
There is nothing "natural" or "God-given" about it.
And the fearsome enforcement apparatus you are frightening the children with, is not necessary.
Just a general agreement that "illegal" means illegal/unlawful, so we will not engage in such activity will do.
And all that Arizona asks, is that when its officials find and apprehend persons illegally present in Arizona, they can take such persons to the appropriate Federal agency and demand that it enforce existing Federal law.
From what I hear on TV and read in the papers, just the threat of that happening seems to have had quite an effect already.
We don't need a border wall. We just need to take away the reason that they come here, and we won't need a wall anymore than we did for the last 150 years.
They come here to make money.
Make it impossible for them to make money.
Do that by making it impossible for any employer to make money by hiring them. With a big fine and rewards for turning them in and for the enforcement agents.
We don't have to find them. We don't need a wall. They will go home if they can't make any money here.
The alternative to this is going to be that alien peoples like the Mexicans will continue to colonize larger and larger parts of the country, gaining more political power as their anchor baby children grow up to vote, and then throwing the border wider and wider open to let more of their kind in to take even more political power.
The end result will be that the corruption and poverty of the Third World will move here until such point as our living standards are as bad as every other Third World country, and the financial incentive for moving here will be gone.
Hagar -- Common law is indeed law that is not in a statute. Good, That's a good start. However, you have no idea what you are talking about. You sound like an eighth grader. It is laughable.
The issue is how common law is created. It is not made by judicial fiat. The rationale for common law is always what a reasonable person would be expected to do in the circumstance.
I have no idea why you are going off on a tangent on Arizona law. I have stated many times that I support the idea of states and localities dealing with illegal immigration.
It's not a police state to offer a reward for information leading to the arrest and conviction of someone committing a crime. It's done all the time.
The idea of financial rewards really scares you doesn't it? Because it's so simple and you can see that it would work. Gotta attack it as immoral then, right? We just gotta be made to lie down and accept being overrun...anything else is immoral. Basically, our survival as we are is immoral to people like you. We need to be destroyed so that no one is any better off than anyone else, and no one thinks they're any better.
Mark -- We are not a police state where neighbors inform on people because they may have the wrong paperwork. Sorry, dude. It's not going to work. It's un-American to the extreme.
Furthermore, your system suggests a level of resources we don't have. Do you really see the federal government getting right on some tip from a senior citizen about an illegal alien? Really?
Also, again, I love how these people who I can only presume are conservatives want to create a massive and intrusive bureaucracy. It's too funny.
Mark -- I am strongly libertarian and conservative.
It will cost the system essentially nothing. The costs will come out of the fines we collect. As I said, half of the fines collected go as a reward to the person who called in the violation, and the other half go to the enforcement agency. If you're an enforcement agent and you know you're getting an extra $100 in the paycheck for every illegal you catch in the act of working here illegally, you can bet you'd hustle out there to catch them.
Well you can call it "neighbors informing on neighbors" if you want. I suppose that's what a drug dealer would like me to think too so that I don't call and report that he's cooking meth next door.
It's called being a good citizen and reporting lawbreaking. See, SevenMachos, it's just that YOU don't want to see such a law enforced - so that it makes cooperating with it "snitching" or a "police state". I call it being a responsible citizen who reports lawbreaking to the authorities so it can be stopped.
Again - yep, the federal government will act with amazing swiftness when it means bonus money for the agency and agents involvedc.
I'm astounded that someone who calls himself "strongly conservative" would think that offering a reward for reporting someone breaking the law is a "police state".
Haven't you seen all the announcements over the years that say " $10,000 (or whatever) REWARD FOR INFORMATION LEADING TO THE ARREST AND CONVICTION" etc ?
The truth is that very little of the enforcement would be needed, because the law would be so obviously effective that the illegals would start streaming for the border once the date that it went into effect was posted.
It will cost the system essentially nothing. The costs will come out of the fines we collect
You have to pay someone to take the calls, to investigate the tips, to serve warrants, to prosecute the case, to judge the case, etc., etc. Then you have to pay someone to collect the money. You have to deal with the bankruptcies. Your idea is a hilarious nonstarter. You are in fantasy land.
Moreover, illegal immigration is a minor crime. There are philosophical reasons for this. There are reasons why we treat different illegal activities differently. We don't make the fine for parking violations $5000, for example. You should ask yourself why.
If you want to ease the ridiculous, worthless laws against illegal drugs, I am with you.
I'm astounded that someone who calls himself "strongly conservative" would think that offering a reward for reporting someone breaking the law is a "police state".
Sounds market-based to me.
Haven't you seen all the announcements over the years that say " $10,000 (or whatever) REWARD FOR INFORMATION LEADING TO THE ARREST AND CONVICTION" etc ?
Those people are murderers and rapist, you fool. Illegal immigration is not remotely in the same category as murder and rape. It is simply a shame that you cannot understand the difference.
Let's just kill all the illegal immigrants without a trial. That would solve the problem.
Is that too much?
Illegal immigration is not remotely in the same category as murder and rape. It is simply a shame that you cannot understand the difference.
He didn't suggest the crimes are equivalent at all. You're making that assumption. He was point that out to show you that we're not a police state for offering cash rewards for citizens providing information on other citizens.
He was point that out to show you that we're not a police state for offering cash rewards for citizens providing information on other citizens.
I have shown here that it would be a police state. The people required and legal-judicial edifice necessary to effect the policy would make it so.
How do you define a police state, Scott? Is it just a big intrusive government that doesn't enforce rights that you happen not to like?
The people required and legal-judicial edifice necessary to effect the policy would make it so.
You've shown nothing of the sort. I'm waiting for your correction that the equated rapers and murderers with illegal immigrants.
Scott -- Again, you are living in fantasy land. You can't just make a law fining people $10,000 for something without enforcement mechanisms. That includes all the roles I have suggested -- investigators, judges, etc. -- and much more. I won't even go into the humanitarian emergency it would instantly create, as, for example, many illegal immigrants could not be hired and could not feed their children.
As far as the apology, no dice, dude. If you offer $10,000 rewards for rapists and $10,000 rewards for illegal immigrants, you are quite obviously equating illegal immigrants with rapists in your penal system. You should apologize to me for not understanding logic.
As far as the apology, no dice, dude. If you offer $10,000 rewards for rapists and $10,000 rewards for illegal immigrants, you are quite obviously equating illegal immigrants with rapists in your penal system. You should apologize to me for not understanding logic.
No dice, dude. It's not my fault that you're imposing your own take on something that was clearly said.
One more comment: what makes you people think it's right, equitable, or constitutional to seize all the property of someone because they don't have the right visa?
Should we do the same for people who don't have a marriage license?
These questions are not rhetorical. I am quite curious.
A decent "guest worker" program would go a long way to handle the immigrant seasonal farm worker problem. The 1950s "bracero" was a fairly successful/workable program. Fashioning something like it today is NOT beyond the ken of man--save for PC pressures. It would help both those seeking work as well as ensure Ag employers a consistent, dependable source of workers AS WELL AS help control competition with American workers by those Agri "seasonals" who currently stick around past the harvest season and compete with Americans for other kinds of jobs.
Seven,
You rightly argue the merits of a fence despite the absurd argument that building a fence would be a mistake because it did not completely stop any and all illegal immigration.
Surely, we can never make a fence that's so high that no one could ever get over it or so low you can't get under it. But that doesn't mean that having a fence wouldnt stem greatly the influx of those trying to enter the country.
But you're making an equally absurd leap when it comes to deporting all 11 million illegals. Frankly, don't see why if you can't literally get every illegal in one go that therefore you should give up deporting any, which seems to be what you're suggesting.
We can deport those we find, do a better job of enforcing our immigration laws and also incentivize comapnies to not hire illegals so they deport themselves.
I'm all for a guest worker program that doesn't lead to a pathway to citizenship necessarily, as it would at least let us register those working here who are illegal. But could we at least deport those who didn't abide by such a program even if they've been here 25 years, or even if itt. Ends up being millions of people?
Seven Machos said...
Allen, please. Do you think that illegal aliens don't have fraudulent but authentic-looking identification? Are you that naive?
Well, if it's that easy, why aren't they driving with easily obtained drivers licenses?
jr565 said...
"I'm all for a guest worker program that doesn't lead to a pathway to citizenship necessarily, as it would at least let us register those working here who are illegal. But could we at least deport those who didn't abide by such a program even if they've been here 25 years, or even if itt. Ends up being millions of people?"
What do we do with the children of those family members we deport?
And seven, you seem so hung hottest we could never ever ever deport a single illegal immigrant, it makes me wonder? Why do you want to build a wall at all?
As someone else suggested, if someone is able to get past the wall is that where our enforcement would end?
Similarly, if we are going to question the ability to enforce deportations, why not similarly question the ability to enforce the wall itself? Who is going to man it? Who is going to build it, and at what cost? And to what purpose? Since, if anyone were to get past the wall we should just make them citizens.
Why then go through all the expense of building a wall?
How about the people who come in while we're building the wall? Are all of them and their families exempt from any deportations since we don't have the manpower?
Further seven, your argument would seem to speak against deporting anyone. Whatsoever, even people we clearly catch in the act of trying to scale your wall. Because wont we need to house them, aren't they given constitutional protections that would mean we couldn't expedite their deportations? Ah, but they have no papers and clearly are trying to scale the wall? Well, the people here for 25 years have no papers either, and that seems to be a stumbling block to you for ever enforcing any deportations at any time.
Why couldn't an illegal immigrant simply say he is a legal immigrant or that he was born here, since it wouldn't matter either way in your mind. We'd still have to go through the process of booking him, and trying him and e
We don't have the man power. Blah blah blah.
Seriously, why are even wasting time arguing FOR. A fence?
Seven machos wrote:
One more comment: what makes you people think it's right, equitable, or constitutional to seize all the property of someone because they don't have the right visa?
Why do you think it's right to arrest someone or fine them 10000 dollars for climbing over your wall who similarly doesn't have a visa,?
I dunno, maybe Seven Machos real name is Seven Tacos.
"And if all produce was expensive, you'd demand that Congress Do Something. "
Good Ghu, Seven, I realize you have your point of view and like to advocate strongly for it... but how about a tiny serving of "know your audience" at the same time? This comment would make sense posted over at Kos, maybe, but certainly not here.
Speaking for myself and quite a few of the regulars here, I'm quite sure, I frankly long for a federal government that has not one damn thing to say about the price of vegetables.
Mary Beth,
Military service is a path to citizenship...
What do we do with the children of those family members we deport?
WE don't do anything with them.
They go back home with their parents.
I think we should revoke every birthright citizenship obtained by the child of parents who snuck in here illegally.
But even if we don't do that, it's not our problem if their parents put themselves in this position. The children go back to Mexico with the parents. Then (assuming we haven't revoked their citizenships as I suggest) they can come back on their own, using their ill-gotten citizenship.
Tradguy,
You've got it completely exactly backwards. The Spanish language per se is not a threat in any way, shape, or form. (Not having a common language is an issue, but that's true pretty much anywhere and everywhere, and fairly independent of which languages are involved.)
What is a threat, however, is the non-Anglosphere culture and the international equivalent of the California Paradox (CA residents getting fed up and leaving, only to vote just like they did back there and thus help turn wherever-it-is they landed into CA Lite.)
This latter threat is very real, which is why I'm all for immigration (of the capable, at least) but need to pay strict attention to the rate, so that assimilation can work and so that we don't make it too easy to have large enclaves of host-culture (note, not host-language) communities.
Seven Machos wrote:
Scott -- There is no way to enforce illegal immigration laws within the United States. This has been what I have been arguing throughout this thread.
is there any way then to enforce legal immigration? Why then make people jump through hoops to become citizens? And seriously, if you are seriously going to argue that we can never enforce immigration laws then the sole idea of a wall is frankly stupid.
Because there are a lot of ways into the countr? How about booking a flight from any country, thereby bypassing your wall. Once in, what would stop anyone from staying despite only having a temporary visa? Further, what would stop people from simply driving through a border crossing saying you are here to visit, and then not leave, if you are saying that we can't enforce immigration laws.
Hence you don't need a border wall, nor a ladder, nor a tunnel. You simply need enough to get past the border and then be secure in the knowledge that there will be no enforcement in trying to get you out of the country.
A whole different issue is how insane it is to populate our military with illegal aliens.
Excuse me, but how in the hell do you even get through the sign-up process without someone saying "Are you a citizen of the United States? Do you have a birth certificate or other proof?" And if they say "I am undocumented" our military recruiters should be saying "then wait right here a moment while I call Immigration."
I am no expert on history, but wasn't the fall of ancient Rome helped along quite a bit because they started bringing the barbarians (non-Romans) into the military?
And the historical record shows 7M to be plainly wrong about the then commonly understood interpretation of the application of the 14th Amendment. There are copious citations in the historical record that demonstrate that the then commonly accepted understanding by the courts and the "government" alike of the phrase "...and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.." plainly was interpreted to mean in the common AND legal vernacular of the day to refer to all those persons residing and/or otherwise present within our borders by LEGAL means only. "Illegal aliens" were plainly OUTSIDE THE LAW and thus not considered formally "within the jurisdiction" in a manner that those present within our borders on a legal basis were considered to so be in those times.
The historical record and etymological history both reveal that present-day interpretation of the meaning of the cited phrase is so glaringly at odds with the widely understood interpretation of the phrase when originally formulated, as to be a total perversion of both the original Congressional intent and the common usage/understanding of the phrase/term at the time of its promogulation--as understood by both lawyers and lay people of the time alike.
Given how the illegals in Alabama panicked and began leaving the state when a very modest immigration enforcement law was passed there, there is every reason to believe that if the U.S. got at all serious about immigration enforcement there would be a massive exodus of illegals. The illegals know our laws are a joke as they stand now. They do the calculus of risk and reward and they deduce that there are virtually no risks and plenty of rewards. We need to change that financial calculus and they will deport themselves.
I don't understand people who think illegal immigration is practically a victimless crime. We have very strict laws at our airports and ports regarding customs. I think it's safe to say that if you flew to a US airport from a foreign country and then somehow snuck through Customs that you would be guilty of a serious felony.
Why is it treated like no big deal to sneak across the border but it's literally a federal crime to sneak past Customs?
These people are felons.
MnMark said...
“WE don't do anything with them. They go back home with their parents.”
The children are at home. They are American citizens.
“I think we should revoke every birthright citizenship obtained by the child of parents who snuck in here illegally.”
You don’t believe in the Constitution regarding citizenship?
“But even if we don't do that, it's not our problem if their parents put themselves in this position. The children go back to Mexico with the parents. Then (assuming we haven't revoked their citizenships as I suggest) they can come back on their own, using their ill-gotten citizenship.”
The children didn’t do anything illegal. They were born in America like me and, I’m assuming, like you.
36fsfiend:
The children didn’t do anything illegal. They were born in America like me and, I’m assuming, like you.
the constitution says nothing about making the parents of people born here automatic citizens. Nor their brothers and sisters not born here.
Wouldnt any breakup of the family then be with those trying to latch onto the birth of their child as a means to gain citizenship?
Let's say a million babies are born here a year from illegal parents. If we can't break up families and if most families have at least a mom and dad, then we'd have to allow in 2-3 people for every child born. And that's assuming they don't have extended families.
"What do we do with the children of those family members we deport? "
Why would we need to do anything with them? Presumably, if these are minor children they'll be going with the parents, as they would with any other move their parents made.
jr565 said...
“the constitution says nothing about making the parents of people born here automatic citizens. Nor their brothers and sisters not born here.
“Wouldnt any breakup of the family then be with those trying to latch onto the birth of their child as a means to gain citizenship?
“Let's say a million babies are born here a year from illegal parents. If we can't break up families and if most families have at least a mom and dad, then we'd have to allow in 2-3 people for every child born. And that's assuming they don't have extended families.”
Yes, I know the Constitution does not make the parents or siblings not born in America citizens. My point is the children are American citizens. You support deporting Americans. It’s just something that I believe needs to be considered with those illegal immigrants in that situation.
Kirk Parker said...
"Why would we need to do anything with them? Presumably, if these are minor children they'll be going with the parents, as they would with any other move their parents made."
Because they are Americans. The United States is their lawful home.
Checking in...
2 things:
1) Newt has sparked a debate. A rational debate. A debate worth having. A debate our elected officials can't seem to manage.
2) This is why Althouse blog is successful- it's a (predominately) intelligent debate.
@7 Machos-
Clearly you are passionate about the subject, and tip my hat to you for stating your position, and backing it up.
These people are felons.
Against whom did they commit a crime?
You understand nothing of law or philosophy of law. There is a gulf of difference between committing a crime where someone is hurt or could be hurt and committing a crime where no one is hurt. Our justice system and our penal system generally reflect this obvious truth.
Furthermore, you people who think that babies born in the United States for whatever reasons are not Americans under the Constitution are simply wrong. The document says you are wrong as plain as day. And, obviously, we are not going to deport Americans.
Perhaps you should argue to change the Constitution. It's really your only chance. But building a wall is much easier and it has the additional benefit of actually stemming immigration in an ethical way.
JR -- Punishment must fit the crime. It must be a fair measure of retribution for the offense.
I don't think it would be right, for example, to execute someone no matter how illegally they have parked.
7 decries absolutists as he espouses an absolutist position.
consider that you may be wrong.
What is absolutist about my position, Dog?
I also await word about the Constitution.
36,
"Because they are Americans. The United States is their lawful home. "
So? Being minor dependents of their parents certainly trumps that.
My kids are all American citizens by birth, too, but you can be sure that if we had decided to emigrate to, e.g., Australia or NZ when they were minors, the federal government would not have cared in the slightest that we were taking four US citizens away from their country.
Deporting people is not executing them. I'd imagine that if you found someone trying to go over the wall you say you support that you'd have no problem sending them back to their country.
So what's different?
And what's your response to people who are going through the legal process of becoming citizens. They too require the proper paperwork. They too can be deported if they don't cross all their t's and dot all their i's. They must be the biggest chumps in the world.
Kirk -- Can the federal government kick you out of the country or not allow you to return?
Think hard.
The federal government cannot deport any American.
Kirk Parker said...
“So? Being minor dependents of their parents certainly trumps that.”
My kids are all American citizens by birth, too, but you can be sure that if we had decided to emigrate to, e.g., Australia or NZ when they were minors, the federal government would not have cared in the slightest that we were taking four US citizens away from their country.”
Voluntary immigration and being deported are two different situations.
I’m not a lawyer so I’m not all that sure about the rules of deportation and child custody but are we not violating the rights of an American citizen if they are deported without breaking any laws?
are we not violating the rights of an American citizen if they are deported without breaking any laws?
We obviously would be violating inviolable rights. It's not even a question. This just goes to show you how poorly conceived and constructed the arguments of most anti-immigration people are.
Kirk's analogy is like saying that since I can buy a house the government should be able to take my house. Just because.
Seven machos wrote:
Well, dude, they have to be arrested. They have to have court proceedings and have due process. They have to be housed and fed. They have to be treated equitably and equally.
So, dude, without calling you names like know-nothing and moron, pretty much the whole entire fucking Constitution.
said in n regards to deporting millions. apply this to people you catch as they try to go over the wall you say you endorse.
Do we not have to arrest them and have court proceedings and have due process, and they have to be treated equitably etc. or do you propose we should simply toss them back over the wall sans any proceedings. And for what? A misdemeanor? Why are you going through all the expense of constructing a massive wall for people you think it's too much trouble to even arrest.
Just argue completely open borders. At least be consistent.
Seven Machos said...
"Kirk's analogy is like saying that since I can buy a house the government should be able to take my house. Just because."
That makes sense.
JR -- The wall prevents people from coming in the first place. Get it?
There is no inconsistency. If the wall is a failure, then it's a failure. I am arguing for prevention of illegal immigration at the border. I don't think that's hard to understand. Even for you.
Further, merely putting the wall up is an important symbol.
Seven machos wrote:
Furthermore, you people who think that babies born in the United States for whatever reasons are not Americans under the Constitution are simply wrong. The document says you are wrong as plain as day. And, obviously, we are not going to deport Americans.
so how many family members should we allow to ecome citizens because one baby is born in the US. If we didn't allow their brothers and sisters and dad, and potentially even their grand parents to become citizens why that would be heartless because it would break up families, no?
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন