Thin orange line

[Offthemat]

14 minutes ago, headshuck said:

At least we’re at the stage of acknowledging there’s a problem. Now we move into the phase where it’s someone else’s fault.

And it only took two and a half years. 

[jross]

Stop letting illegals in.  (take a lesson from Poland)

Deport existing illegal alien tresspassers. (yes, by the millions!)

Sunset birthright citizenship.

Streamline the legal immigration process.

Increase work visa opportunities (stop the visa lottery nonsense).

----------

Next, focus on being a good caretaker for actual citizens.  

[Plasmodium]

6 minutes ago, jross said:

Stop letting illegals in.  (take a lesson from Poland)

Deport existing illegal alien tresspassers. (yes, by the millions!)

Sunset birthright citizenship.

Streamline the legal immigration process.

Increase work visa opportunities (stop the visa lottery nonsense).

----------

Next, focus on being a good caretaker for actual citizens.  

You can't "sunset" a constitutional right.

[mspart]

6 minutes ago, Plasmodium said:

You can't "sunset" a constitutional right.

This is a sticky problem for sure.   So you have no problem with the rest of the list?

mspart

[jross]

Amend the 14th for clarity and ratify it.

The Republicans passed the 14th amendment with 94% of the vote (to 0% of Democrats) to address the citizenship of former slaves and their descendants.  Illegal aliens are not slaves, and their children do not deserve the 'right' to citizenship.

[Plasmodium]

1 hour ago, mspart said:

This is a sticky problem for sure.   So you have no problem with the rest of the list?

mspart

It is not practical as the economy would grind to a halt.

[Plasmodium]

40 minutes ago, jross said:

Amend the 14th for clarity and ratify it.

The Republicans passed the 14th amendment with 94% of the vote (to 0% of Democrats) to address the citizenship of former slaves and their descendants.  Illegal aliens are not slaves, and their children do not deserve the 'right' to citizenship.

Amend the constitution?  With this political climate? 

Also, the "Republicans" of the mid 1800s didn't run the Confederate flag through the Capitol, but MAGA Republicans damn sure did .

Edited October 2, 2023 by Plasmodium

[Offthemat]

1 hour ago, Plasmodium said:

but MAGA Republicans damn sure did .

Likely a plant. 

[Plasmodium]

11 minutes ago, Offthemat said:

Likely a plant. 

From the deep state?

[Le duke]

Amend the constitution?  With this political climate? 
Also, the "Republicans" of the mid 1800s didn't run the Confederate flag through the Capitol, but MAGA Republicans damn sure did .

Make burning down any building with a confederate flag in front of it great again.

-W.T. Sherman, maybe.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ban Basketball]

29 minutes ago, Offthemat said:

Likely a plant. 

Ah, yes,  the ol' " plant" claim comes back. 

Who's been saying this to make you parrot it?

[Lipdrag]

Birthright citizenship is not applicable to illegal aliens.  The children of diplomats who are born when their parents are assigned to duty in the USA are not American citizens.  Location of birth is only one of the criteria for birthright citizenship.  Lawful legal citizenship of the parent(s) is another.  It is stated thusly,

"The 14th Amendment . . . says that “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” are citizens."

Illegal aliens are not subject to the jurisdiction thereof and, hence, neither are their children thus they are not citizens.  

"Amend the constitution?  With this political climate? " stated above in a post.

No need to amend it.  Just read it.

Edited October 3, 2023 by Lipdrag

[Plasmodium]

34 minutes ago, Lipdrag said:

Birthright citizenship is not applicable to illegal aliens.  The children of diplomats who are born when their parents are assigned to duty in the USA are not American citizens.  Location of birth is only one of the criteria for birthright citizenship.  Lawful legal citizenship of the parent(s) is another.  It is stated thusly,

"The 14th Amendment . . . says that “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” are citizens."

Illegal aliens are not subject to the jurisdiction thereof and, hence, neither are their children thus they are not citizens.  

"Amend the constitution?  With this political climate? " stated above in a post.

No need to amend it.  Just read it.

If these so-called "illegal aliens" are not subject to jurisdiction by the United States, there is nothing we can do about them or their presence here.  Under those circumstances, I suggest chilling in a hammock and firing up a fattie for those bothered by them.

[Le duke]

Birthright citizenship is not applicable to illegal aliens.  The children of diplomats who are born when their parents are assigned to duty in the USA are not American citizens.  Location of birth is only one of the criteria for birthright citizenship.  Lawful legal citizenship of the parent(s) is another.  It is stated thusly,
"The 14th Amendment . . . says that “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” are citizens."
Illegal aliens are not subject to the jurisdiction thereof and, hence, neither are their children thus they are not citizens.  
"Amend the constitution?  With this political climate? " stated above in a post.
No need to amend it.  Just read it.

Huh? Illegal aliens are not subject to the law of the land? Did you just say that?

So, if they aren’t subject to the laws of the United States, how can they be deported? Your argument is illogical.

Also, diplomats have diplomatic immunity. Unless you’re arguing that being an illegal alien is somehow akin to diplomatic immunity (hint: it’s not), that’s a nonsensical statement.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Plasmodium]

PSA:

There is no such thing as an "illegal alien".  That is because it is a civil offence rather than a criminal offence to be present in the United States without authorization.

From now on, let's be accurate and use proper nomenclature.  Acceptable term is "undocumented noncitizen"

[ionel]

36 minutes ago, Plasmodium said:

PSA:

There is no such thing as an "illegal alien".  That is because it is a civil offence rather than a criminal offence to be present in the United States without authorization.

From now on, let's be accurate and use proper nomenclature.  Acceptable term is "undocumented noncitizen"

Isn't that kind of a double negative?  How about just "border jumper?"  

[Bigbrog]

So doing something that is a civil offence isn't "illegal"??  What the?!?

[Ban Basketball]

Man,  the time that 30 percenters spend on absolute non-issues, all as a means to shroud their prejudices,  never ceases to amaze me. 

We have a multi-time convicted criminal with 91 charges running for President,  folks.  Thought you may be interested,  given your "endorsement" of law and order. 

Edited October 3, 2023 by Ban Basketball

[jross]

10 hours ago, Plasmodium said:

That is because it is a civil offence rather than a criminal offence to be present in the United States without authorization.

While it is a civil offense to be present (e.g. overstay a work visa, passport), it is a crime punishable by prison for...

8 U.S. Code § 1325 - Improper entry by alien

• Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.

8 U.S. Code § 1326 - Reentry of removed aliens

• In general, any alien who has been denied admission, excluded, deported, or removed or has departed the United States while an order of exclusion, deportation, or removal is outstanding, and thereafter enters, attempts to enter, or is at any time found in, the United States... shall be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.  Whereas if the alien has a criminal record... the consequence of reentry can be 10 years, etc.

8 U.S. Code § 1327 - Aiding or assisting certain aliens to enter

• Any person who knowingly aids or assists any alien inadmissible... to enter the United States, or who connives or conspires with any person or persons to allow, procure, or permit any such alien to enter the United States, shall be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.

 

Edited October 3, 2023 by jross

[jross]

10 hours ago, Plasmodium said:

PSA:

There is no such thing as an "illegal alien"...  Acceptable term is "undocumented noncitizen"

Nah, ***duck duck goose** Joe Biden and his (likely temporary) terminology updates.  (link)

I'll keep my big boy pants on and refer to the long-standing language in the US Code on this one.

The term “alien” means any person not a citizen or national of the United States.

[Offthemat]

And Biden taunts it while admitting it’s intentional.  
 

“Joe Biden Tells Democrats to Treat Future White Minority ‘with Respect’

https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.breitbart.com%2F2024-election%2F2023%2F10%2F02%2Fjoe-biden-tells-democrats-treat-future-white-minority-respect%2F

[ionel]

58 minutes ago, jross said:

 

8 U.S. Code § 1327 - Aiding or assisting certain aliens to enter

• Any person who knowingly aids or assists any alien inadmissible... to enter the United States, or who connives or conspires with any person or persons to allow, procure, or permit any such alien to enter the United States, shall be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.

 

By stopping the wall and/or dismantling the Texas river barrier is Biden considered to be "aiding" or "assisting?" 

[Lipdrag]

12 hours ago, Le duke said:

Huh? Illegal aliens are not subject to the law of the land? Did you just say that?

So, if they aren’t subject to the laws of the United States, how can they be deported? Your argument is illogical.

Your understanding of "under the jurisdiction of" is inaccurate.  Let's try your logic:  So when Germany invaded France and had female nurses supporting their troops in Paris if said nurse happened to birth a baby then that baby is French?  Furthermore, those other Germans, being not French, were not  subject to laws of France so by YOUR logic the French had no legal ability to deport them?  

Wait for it . . . here it comes . . . "But that's different!!"  

The 14th Amendment was written to cover people who had no other country who claimed them as citizens.  Remember, the Africans who enslaved others and then sold them certainly did not recognize them as citizens or subjects or give them any status whatsoever.  The point of "under the jurisdiction" is a way of saying you have legal status in some country.  It certainly does not mean if I go to Canada I can rage about with immunity and no where do I imply that.  It is obtuse to infer it.  If you are already a citizen of a country and have a baby somewhere else then the baby is a citizen of the original country and the citizens of the location in which you happen to be when labor occurs incur no obligation just because the mother is wandering about at that time.

[Ban Basketball]

12 minutes ago, Lipdrag said:

Your understanding of "under the jurisdiction of" is inaccurate.  Let's try your logic:  So when Germany invaded France and had female nurses supporting their troops in Paris if said nurse happened to birth a baby then that baby is French?  Furthermore, those other Germans, being not French, were not  subject to laws of France so by YOUR logic the French had no legal ability to deport them?  

Wait for it . . . here it comes . . . "But that's different!!"  

The 14th Amendment was written to cover people who had no other country who claimed them as citizens.  Remember, the Africans who enslaved others and then sold them certainly did not recognize them as citizens or subjects or give them any status whatsoever.  The point of "under the jurisdiction" is a way of saying you have legal status in some country.  It certainly does not mean if I go to Canada I can rage about with immunity and no where do I imply that.  It is obtuse to infer it.  If you are already a citizen of a country and have a baby somewhere else then the baby is a citizen of the original country and the citizens of the location in which you happen to be when labor occurs incur no obligation just because the mother is wandering about at that time.

Why do the courts disagree with you?

[Plasmodium]

36 minutes ago, Lipdrag said:

Your understanding of "under the jurisdiction of" is inaccurate.  Let's try your logic:  So when Germany invaded France and had female nurses supporting their troops in Paris if said nurse happened to birth a baby then that baby is French?  Furthermore, those other Germans, being not French, were not  subject to laws of France so by YOUR logic the French had no legal ability to deport them?  

Wait for it . . . here it comes . . . "But that's different!!"  

The 14th Amendment was written to cover people who had no other country who claimed them as citizens.  Remember, the Africans who enslaved others and then sold them certainly did not recognize them as citizens or subjects or give them any status whatsoever.  The point of "under the jurisdiction" is a way of saying you have legal status in some country.  It certainly does not mean if I go to Canada I can rage about with immunity and no where do I imply that.  It is obtuse to infer it.  If you are already a citizen of a country and have a baby somewhere else then the baby is a citizen of the original country and the citizens of the location in which you happen to be when labor occurs incur no obligation just because the mother is wandering about at that time.

Nonsense.  All.