Immigration

[Irish YJ]

"Orange man bad."

you racist

 

[Irish YJ]

 

[NorthDakota]

 

[EddytoNow]

You clearly did not read or understand my post.

The AND that I am referring to is

"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.

From a sentence structure perspective, i would think the condition "and subject to the jurisdiction" applies to both 1) born, and 2) naturalized. If not, it would have read "born, or naturalized and under the jurisdiction".

So here's a question, which I'm sure you will avoid. If you are naturalized, under what situation would you not be "under the jurisdiction" ? If you can be naturalized, and not be under the jurisdiction, why is so far fetched to be born here, and not be under the jurisdiction?

The history around the 14th amendment talks about native Americans (who were born here obviously), and the debate about them being under jurisdiction. What's your hot take on that?

The use of the word "or" between born or naturalized clearly states that either is viable as the first condition for claiming citizenship. The second condition, "under the jurisdiction", can be applied to either naturalized citizens or birthright citizens.

Those born in the United States can claim citizenship based upon being born here. Older immigrants, who were not born in the United States, can claim citizenship once they have been naturalized. The difference is that the newborn has no previous allegiance to a foreign nation, whereas the older immigrant has a previous allegiance to a foreign nation that must be given up before being naturalized. "Under the jurisdiction" applies to both newborns and those who were born elsewhere.

Native American tribes were independent nations capable of signing treaties with the United States. Most of those tribes maintain their independent status to this day. The difference is clear. American Indians had no intention (and still don't) of giving up their status as independent nations. The fact that the United States continues to violate those treaties, does not negate the Native Americans' claim to independence.

The discussion over the 14th amendment, that took place before its adoption, was tainted with racist attitudes toward the American Indians resulting from ongoing conflicts in the American West, particularly with the Lakota and Cheyenne nations. The exception clause for Native Americans reflected the animosity of both sides in the conflict. The Native Americans had no desire to be American citizens, and the US government had no desire to grant them any rights, especially the equality implied by citizenship.

The failure of the US government to honor its treaties created an atmosphere of mistrust that continues to this day.

 

[NorthDakota]

The use of the word "or" between born or naturalized clearly states that either is viable as the first condition for claiming citizenship. The second condition, "under the jurisdiction", can be applied to either naturalized citizens or birthright citizens.

Those born in the United States can claim citizenship based upon being born here. Older immigrants, who were not born in the United States, can claim citizenship once they have been naturalized. The difference is that the newborn has no previous allegiance to a foreign nation, whereas the older immigrant has a previous allegiance to a foreign nation that must be given up before being naturalized.

Native American tribes were independent nations capable of signing treaties with the United States. Most of those tribes maintain their independent status to this day. The difference is clear. American Indians had no intention (and still don't) of giving up their status as independent nations. The fact that the United States continues to violate those treaties, does not negate the Native Americans' claim to independence.

The discussion over the 14th amendment, that took place before its adoption, was tainted with racist attitudes toward the American Indians resulting from ongoing conflicts in the American West, particularly with the Lakota and Cheyenne nations. The exception clause for Native Americans reflected the animosity of both sides in the conflict. They had no desire to be American citizens, and the US government had no desire to grant them any rights.

The failure of the US government to honor its treaties created an atmosphere of mistrust that continues to this day.

Tribes aren't independent. They are very much so, dependent.

 

[EddytoNow]

Tribes aren't independent. They are very much so, dependent.

Read the treaties. The US government promised to provide for them in perpetuity in exchange for vast amounts of land and natural resources. In addition to the land, the US government has taken billions of dollars worth of gold, uranium, etc. from land that was never ceded to the US.

 

[Irish YJ]

The use of the word "or" between born or naturalized clearly states that either is viable as the first condition for claiming citizenship. The second condition, "under the jurisdiction", can be applied to either naturalized citizens or birthright citizens.

Those born in the United States can claim citizenship based upon being born here. Older immigrants, who were not born in the United States, can claim citizenship once they have been naturalized. The difference is that the newborn has no previous allegiance to a foreign nation, whereas the older immigrant has a previous allegiance to a foreign nation that must be given up before being naturalized. "Under the jurisdiction" applies to both newborns and those who were born elsewhere.
.

Eddy - one question.... if you and your wife go to Canada (who has birthright citizenship), and your wife happens to have a baby while there, is that baby no longer a citizen of the US, AND not under the jurisdiction of the US?

the answer is no. your baby is still a US citizen. he may also be a CA citizen by CA's rules, but he is still under the jurisdiction of the US. A baby born to two MX citizens while in the US here illegally, are still MX citizens, and Mexico still considers their baby a Mexican citizen. And if a citizen of another nation, is that baby under US jurisdiction while subject to another nation?

in the US, if you are a citizen, you are under US jurisdiction unless you renounce your citizenship.

another question... all those people carrying foreign flags heading toward our border. how many do you think have renounced their citizenship?

 

[Irish YJ]

Read the treaties. The US government promised to provide for them in perpetuity in exchange for vast amounts of land and natural resources. In addition to the land, the US government has taken billions of dollars worth of gold, uranium, etc. from land that was never ceded to the US.

Question. So hypothetically, if we had a treaty with the Comanches, and owed them something, shouldn't we really be paying the Apaches, since the Comanches stole their land and horses, and almost exterminated them?

 

[NorthDakota]

Read the treaties. The US government promised to provide for them in perpetuity in exchange for vast amounts of land and natural resources. In addition to the land, the US government has taken billions of dollars worth of gold, uranium, etc. from land that was never ceded to the US.

The Supreme Court literally ruled that they aren't independent nations lol.

Keep trying bro. Man you make it easy.

Check out Cherokee Nation vs. Georgia.

In Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, Chief Justice John Marshall finds that the Cherokee Nation is not a foreign nation as originally defined under the U.S. Constitution's Commerce Clause but is instead a “domestic dependent nation,” under the protection of the federal government.

 

[EddytoNow]

Eddy - one question.... if you and your wife go to Canada (who has birthright citizenship), and your wife happens to have a baby while there, is that baby no longer a citizen of the US, AND not under the jurisdiction of the US?

the answer is no. your baby is still a US citizen. he may also be a CA citizen by CA's rules, but he is still under the jurisdiction of the US. A baby born to two MX citizens while in the US here illegally, are still MX citizens, and Mexico still considers their baby a Mexican citizen. And if a citizen of another nation, is that baby under US jurisdiction while subject to another nation?

in the US, if you are a citizen, you are under US jurisdiction unless you renounce your citizenship.

another question... all those people carrying foreign flags heading toward our border. how many do you think have renounced their citizenship?

My own ancestors were French Canadians by birth. They followed their ship-building trade up the St. Lawrence and into the Great Lakes eventually settling in Detroit and Toledo. They were naturalized in the 1890s and early 1900s, several years after the 14th amendment was adopted. However, their children, who were born in the United States, had no need to be naturalized. They were citizens by birth. The only difference between them and today's Latino immigrants was they spoke French and not Spanish.
Incidentally, they made periodic visits to Montreal and Quebec City to visit relatives who had remained in Canada.

I can't speak for Canadian law regarding citizenship, but the 14th amendment clearly states that babies born in the US are US citizens. It does not state that their parents need to be US citizens at the time of their birth. My ancestors are examples of how that process worked. Their US-born children weren't denied US citizenship because their parents were immigrants from Canada.

I suspect if you check out your own family tree you will find many examples where parents were foreign-born, but their US-born children were US citizens by birth. Using your argument none of the descendants of foreign-born immigrants would be granted citizenship in the US without being naturalized and denouncing their allegiance to their native land. As a result, any of their children born before the parents were granted citizenship would not be US citizens either. Which, illogical as it seems, means you are not a US citizen, nor is Donald Trump for that matter.

 

[Legacy]

Tribes aren't independent. They are very much so, dependent.

The laws, constitutional limitations and rights, and relationship to other entities are detailed in the link below. Initially, I thought of comparing tribal sovereignty as "domestic dependent entities" to corporations, which also have their own membership, governance, commerce, etc., to the feds. But the analogy falls short because corporations can have outside investors, pay taxes and have no independent judicial systems based on their laws.
Tribal sovereignty in the United States


Anyway, Public law 280 is important in that it was the centerpiece of California vs Cabezon Band of Mission Indians opened the way for Indian gaming, which now has an annual revenue for 240 tribes totaling $27 billion. That forced Congress to enact the Indian Gaming Revenue Act, which recognized Native American sovereignty and authority. Native American gaming

Also,
U.S. government formally agrees to pay Navajos $554 million (2014)
- the check was deposited in a Navajo-owned bank

The Navajo Nation has recently approved a $100 million investment
for water, electricity, and capital project improvements

“Since this Council took office in 2015, we have developed and approved a $180 million
investment in bulk water projects, and $150 million investment into economic development,
community development, and water projects,” stated Speaker Bates. “Now with the approval of
this latest $100 million investment, this Council has invested nearly half a billion dollars to address
the basic needs of our people.”

The Navajo Nation Trust Funds total investments are $3.3 billion and earn $65 million a year in interest alone.
Looking for a way to invest, A Surprising Bid for Remington, and an Unsurprising Rejection

The Navajo Nation — which controls a $3.3 billion investment trust — sent a letter to Remington in May offering to buy the company for $475 million to $525 million, according to a draft of the letter reviewed by The New York Times. The tribe planned to pay for the purchase in cash.

 

[Irish YJ]

My own ancestors were French Canadians by birth. They followed their ship-building trade up the St. Lawrence and into the Great Lakes eventually settling in Detroit and Toledo. They were naturalized in the 1890s and early 1900s, several years after the 14th amendment was adopted. However, their children, who were born in the United States, had no need to be naturalized. They were citizens by birth. The only difference between them and today's Latino immigrants was they spoke French and not Spanish.
Incidentally, they made periodic visits to Montreal and Quebec City to visit relatives who had remained in Canada.

I can't speak for Canadian law regarding citizenship, but the 14th amendment clearly states that babies born in the US are US citizens. It does not state that their parents need to be US citizens at the time of their birth. My ancestors are examples of how that process worked. Their US-born children weren't denied US citizenship because their parents were immigrants from Canada.

I suspect if you check out your own family tree you will find many examples where parents were foreign-born, but their US-born children were US citizens by birth. Using your argument none of the descendants of foreign-born immigrants would be granted citizenship in the US without being naturalized and denouncing their allegiance to their native land. As a result, any of their children born before the parents were granted citizenship would not be US citizens either. Which, illogical as it seems, means you are not a US citizen, nor is Donald Trump for that matter.

lol... French Canadian explains a lot...

You're example above assumes my lineage came after 1776, were not American Indians, or came after national laws on illegal immigration were enacted, or that my lineage did not comply with past or existing laws on immigration and/or naturalization law (1875, 1882, 1906, 1917, 1924), or did not marry someone already a US citizen. Believe it or not, immigration law has changed many times. Not every immigrant from 1492 to 1924 snuck in and broke laws. What we do know is that laws are clear that people that sneak in today without going through the process, are illegal. By the way, multiple lines of my tree, 10+ generations ago, traced back to early NE late 1600s and 1700s. I also have a little American Indian blood (not much, but more than Warren lol). Doesn't mean much as anyone going back 10 generations has 2000+ direct greatX parrents. But anyway,,,, you're wrong again.

And.. You're totally dismissing any points based on your interpretation of the ORs and ANDs, and subject to jurisdiction.

 

[Bluto]

"Because your leaders have set up a system where everything you do is in some way touched by an illegal immigrant you therefore have no moral standing to advocate for immigration reform without being a hypocrite. Heh, checkmate nazis. Orange man bad."

I did not realize hotel stays, someone else mowing your lawn, iceberg lettuce, fresh tamatoes and dining out were necessary for one to function in the modern world.

I see you have moved on from the “living in people’s head” thing to other generic insults cooked up by someone else. If you’re going to attempt to be an over the top asshole/contrarian the least you could do is be somewhat original in your attempts. It would make for better entertainment. Just a thought.

 

[Bluto]

Don't be a hypocrite! If you see illegal labor being exploited, call ICE.

And stop dining out and eating fresh vegetables. Why not? Honestly if one wanted to dissassociate themselves from the economy that is fueld by “illegal” immigrants it would not be that hard but I get it, minor inconvenience trumps all. No pun intended.

 

[ACamp1900]

Seriously, who dafaq eats iceberg lettuce.... Spring Mix or GTFO (of my country)......

 

[NorthDakota]

The laws, constitutional limitations and rights, and relationship to other entities are detailed in the link below. Initially, I thought of comparing tribal sovereignty as "domestic dependent entities" to corporations, which also have their own membership, governance, commerce, etc., to the feds. But the analogy falls short because corporations can have outside investors, pay taxes and have no independent judicial systems based on their laws.
Tribal sovereignty in the United States


Anyway, Public law 280 is important in that it was the centerpiece of California vs Cabezon Band of Mission Indians opened the way for Indian gaming, which now has an annual revenue for 240 tribes totaling $27 billion. That forced Congress to enact the Indian Gaming Revenue Act, which recognized Native American sovereignty and authority. Native American gaming

Also,
U.S. government formally agrees to pay Navajos $554 million (2014)
- the check was deposited in a Navajo-owned bank

The Navajo Nation has recently approved a $100 million investment
for water, electricity, and capital project improvements



The Navajo Nation Trust Funds total investments are $3.3 billion and earn $65 million a year in interest alone.
Looking for a way to invest, A Surprising Bid for Remington, and an Unsurprising Rejection

So....not independent.. like I said.

 

[Wild Bill]

And stop dining out and eating fresh vegetables. Why not? Honestly if one wanted to dissassociate themselves from the economy that is fueld by “illegal” immigrants it would not be that hard but I get it, minor inconvenience trumps all. No pun intended.

Are we to believe that the same illegals who flee their own nations due to economic despair are somehow the "fuel" of our own economy? If so, then I'm curious why these migrants, their ancestors and their native countrymen haven't fueled the economies of their native nations? It strikes me as odd that industrious people who you believe to be the "fuel" of the world's economic superpower are completely incapable of building and maintaining an economy that serves their own interests, and instead have built economies that are so dysfunctional they are compelled to migrate in droves to an economy built by lazy Americans. We must have magic soil.

I have no ill will towards the individual illegals who are here working. They're just a symptom of a bigger problem, and are simply taking advantage of a system our own government has created at the request of their plutocrat donors who reap record profits by "fueling" the economy any way they see fit, even at the expense of Americans who are inclined to earn a living with their hands. I believe many Americans have awakened to the symptoms but haven't fully accepted that the disease lies within. My ill will is targeted at the disease, not the symptoms.

I prepare 99% of the food I eat, and really have no way of knowing whether or not the produce I purchase is from the hand of an illegal. If so, I would thank him and wish no harm upon him.

 

[EddytoNow]

lol... French Canadian explains a lot...

You're example above assumes my lineage came after 1776, were not American Indians, or came after national laws on illegal immigration were enacted, or that my lineage did not comply with past or existing laws on immigration and/or naturalization law (1875, 1882, 1906, 1917, 1924), or did not marry someone already a US citizen. Believe it or not, immigration law has changed many times. Not every immigrant from 1492 to 1924 snuck in and broke laws. What we do know is that laws are clear that people that sneak in today without going through the process, are illegal. By the way, multiple lines of my tree, 10+ generations ago, traced back to early NE late 1600s and 1700s. I also have a little American Indian blood (not much, but more than Warren lol). Doesn't mean much as anyone going back 10 generations has 2000+ direct greatX parrents. But anyway,,,, you're wrong again.

And.. You're totally dismissing any points based on your interpretation of the ORs and ANDs, and subject to jurisdiction.

The bolded may be true by present law, but an unborn child is incapable of sneaking into the country. An unborn child is also incapable of declaring allegiance to any country. That is precisely why the 14th amendment has provided the option of either being born in the US or naturalized. If the newborn child had to be naturalized before becoming a citizen, there would be no reason to state that a child born in the US was a citizen of the US.

To clarify my position on the use of "or".

Let's say I tell my child, you must walk or ride the bus home from school today. Isn't that clearly an option of coming home one way or the other? They aren't being told to both walk home and ride the bus home. They have been given an optional way of coming home.

Or let's say a coach tells his athletes, you need to work out in the weight room or run five miles after practice tonight. Do they have to do both. No, they have the option of choosing one or the other.

The 14th amendment reads that they have to be "born in the US or naturalized" to become US citizens. Both choices lead to the second requirement of being "under the jurisdiction". Do they have to be both born in the United States and naturalized to become US citizens? No. One path to citizenship is to be born in the US. The other path is to be naturalized as a US citizen.

There is clearly no mention in the 14th amendment that a child must be the off-spring of a US citizen to take the "birthright" path to citizenship.

We could carry on this discussion forever without reaching consensus. However, Trump only threw it out there as a distraction and as red meat for his base. Since the amendments to the constitution are part of the constitution, Trump has no authority to unilaterally declare one of them null and void. If the president had that type of authority, a president could declare the 2nd amendment null and void and declare a total ban on guns. The president has the authority to do neither. There is a process for adding amendments to the constitution and a process for removing amendments from the constitution. Prohibition is the obvious example of an amendment that was added and then removed.

 

[ulukinatme]

Seriously, who dafaq eats iceberg lettuce.... Spring Mix or GTFO (of my country)......

Come at me, bro! I love iceberg lettuce.

 

[Irish#1]

Seriously, who dafaq eats iceberg lettuce.... Spring Mix or GTFO (of my country)......

You Nancy boy.

 

[ACamp1900]

You Nancy boy.

 

[Irish YJ]

The whole point, is that the Constitution is not always clear. Many issues are debated. Many components, sentences, and words have and will be debated and interpreted.

Your fixation on the OR does not logically or grammatically hold (wish the grammar hammer would chime in)..... If you say for instance that your dog, in order to win a prize, "must be white or blonde, and taller than 18 inches".... he can't be white and 12 inches. If so, you would say, "he must be white, or blonde and taller than 18 inches" from a sentence structure perspective.

And "subject to jurisdiction" is something that's very debatable given the history of the 14th, and by the very comments by the creators.

Even the SCOTUS ruling of US vs WKA put very specific verbiage around children born to immigrants (the parents had to have permanent domicile and be conducting business in the US). Permanent domicile could be interpreted as legally owning a house. Doing business could be interpreted as legally doing business. Illegal immigrants for the most parts, can't legally conduct business.... in short, this is something that can and should be interpreted by SCOTUS. Trump pushing this, will in turn drive liberal courts like Cali to bring suit, which in turn will be pushed to SCOTUS. It's a much shrewder move than trying to get a super majority.

The bolded may be true by present law, but an unborn child is incapable of sneaking into the country. An unborn child is also incapable of declaring allegiance to any country. That is precisely why the 14th amendment has provided the option of either being born in the US or naturalized. If the newborn child had to be naturalized before becoming a citizen, there would be no reason to state that a child born in the US was a citizen of the US.

To clarify my position on the use of "or".

Let's say I tell my child, you must walk or ride the bus home from school today. Isn't that clearly an option of coming home one way or the other? They aren't being told to both walk home and ride the bus home. They have been given an optional way of coming home.

Or let's say a coach tells his athletes, you need to work out in the weight room or run five miles after practice tonight. Do they have to do both. No, they have the option of choosing one or the other.

The 14th amendment reads that they have to be "born in the US or naturalized" to become US citizens. Both choices lead to the second requirement of being "under the jurisdiction". Do they have to be both born in the United States and naturalized to become US citizens? No. One path to citizenship is to be born in the US. The other path is to be naturalized as a US citizen.

There is clearly no mention in the 14th amendment that a child must be the off-spring of a US citizen to take the "birthright" path to citizenship.

We could carry on this discussion forever without reaching consensus. However, Trump only threw it out there as a distraction and as red meat for his base. Since the amendments to the constitution are part of the constitution, Trump has no authority to unilaterally declare one of them null and void. If the president had that type of authority, a president could declare the 2nd amendment null and void and declare a total ban on guns. The president has the authority to do neither. There is a process for adding amendments to the constitution and a process for removing amendments from the constitution. Prohibition is the obvious example of an amendment that was added and then removed.

 

[NorthDakota]

One would expect an educator to understand grammar but...

 

[Irish YJ]

One would expect an educator to understand grammar but...

you expect too much from our educators.
just remember, "OR"ange man bad.

 

[NorthDakota]

you expect too much from our educators.
just remember, "OR"ange man bad.

 

[EddytoNow]

The whole point, is that the Constitution is not always clear. Many issues are debated. Many components, sentences, and words have and will be debated and interpreted.

Your fixation on the OR does not logically or grammatically hold (wish the grammar hammer would chime in)..... If you say for instance that your dog, in order to win a prize, "must be white or blonde, and taller than 18 inches".... he can't be white and 12 inches. If so, you would say, "he must be white, or blonde and taller than 18 inches" from a sentence structure perspective.

And "subject to jurisdiction" is something that's very debatable given the history of the 14th, and by the very comments by the creators.

Even the SCOTUS ruling of US vs WKA put very specific verbiage around children born to immigrants (the parents had to have permanent domicile and be conducting business in the US). Permanent domicile could be interpreted as legally owning a house. Doing business could be interpreted as legally doing business. Illegal immigrants for the most parts, can't legally conduct business.... in short, this is something that can and should be interpreted by SCOTUS. Trump pushing this, will in turn drive liberal courts like Cali to bring suit, which in turn will be pushed to SCOTUS. It's a much shrewder move than trying to get a super majority.

Actually, I think were arguing over the jurisdiction clause, not whether or not the baby was born in the US or naturalized at a later date.

Using your example, the dog must be white and over 18 inches tall or white and over 18 inches tall. The dog does not need to be both white and blond. That's my reasoning for stating the child born in the US already meets the first qualification. They do not have to be both US born and naturalized. They simply need to meet one of those criteria, plus be under the jurisdiction of the US.

 

[Irish YJ]

Actually, I think were arguing over the jurisdiction clause, not whether or not the baby was born in the US or naturalized at a later date.

Using your example, the dog must be white and over 18 inches tall or white and over 18 inches tall. The dog does not need to be both white and blond. That's my reasoning for stating the child born in the US already meets the first qualification. They do not have to be both US born and naturalized. They simply need to meet one of those criteria, plus be under the jurisdiction of the US.

You started the OR conversation, when I clearly was talking about the AND (jurisdiction applying to both OR choices) from the start. Go back and read your previous posts. Now you are disagreeing with yourself above (bolded).

Like I said many many posts before, this will come down to the interpretation of the jurisdiction component. And that component is simply not defined in the 14th, and is wide open to interpretation...... Just being born here is not enough. US vs WKA speaks to that. Suggest reading up on that case.

 

[Legacy]

Immigration policy costs to taxpayers

Immigration policy costs to taxpayers

Worth considering:

'Tent cities' for migrant children reportedly cost much more than detaining families together (CNBC)

-It reportedly costs $775 per person per night to keep the newly separated children of families who cross the U.S. border illegally in "tent cities."
-The per-person cost at certain detention centers that would keep families together is $298 per night, according to an agency estimate from 2014, NBC reported.
-The Trump administration plans to spend almost a billion dollars to detain and house children in the 2018 fiscal year, according to Health and Human Services data reviewed by Bloomberg.

The official told NBC that HHS is "aggressively looking for potential sites" to build more tent cities, which have been built specifically to house migrant children along the U.S.' southern border. HHS did not immediately respond to CNBC's request for comment or confirmation.

Why not expand existing facilities with companies now contracted with new contracts?
Texas Companies Turned Down Lucrative No-Bid Contracts to Expand Child Immigrant Camp (Texas Monthly)

Before abandoning its family separation policy last Wednesday, June 20, the Trump administration made a failed effort to vastly expand the size of a tent city for immigrant children, multiple sources told Texas Monthly. The initiative by the Trump administration included a no-bid, yearlong contract said to be worth up to $1 billion for a company willing to implement the plan. That contract was rejected by two Texas companies that were considered the only qualified candidates for the work.

The initiative would have transformed the current 400-bed tent city near Tornillo, in West Texas, into a massive 4,000-bed operation.

A day after the final refusal by the two companies—APTIM and BCFS Health and Human Services Emergency Management—to take on the lucrative contract, the Trump administration announced it would end the separation of families at the border. It remains unclear whether the administration’s decision to end family separation had anything to do with its inability to expand the capacity for holding these kids.

Backlog leads to surge in border asylum wait times, mass release of migrant families
(AzCentral)

"But right now, we're receiving people that, maybe even, were in detention for up to 10 days," she added. "Or waiting at the port to be processed for 10 to 15 days and then in detention for a couple of days, and then released locally to us if there's not space available in the immigration detention facilities."

Over the weekend, federal immigration officials released hundreds of those migrant families that had been waiting in processing facilities in Arizona for days, because of the lack of space to house them.

Trump wants to "put tents up all over the place" for migrants. How much might that cost? (Vox)

"We're going to build tent cities. We're going to put tents up all over the place. We're not going to build structures and spend all of this, you know, hundreds of millions of dollars — we're going to have tents," Mr. Trump said.

But tent cities are not a cheap solution. Hundreds of millions of dollars is how much the one tent city currently operated by the federal government is costing this quarter alone. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) said in a Sep. 18 announcement in the Federal Register that it expected to spend $367 million on the government's tent city at the Tornillo Port of Entry in Texas in just the final three months of the year.

That facility currently houses about 1,500 unaccompanied migrant minors, but was recently expanded to make room for up to 3,800 beds.

 

[Irish YJ]

let's not spend to put them in tents... let's spend much more by just letting them in... (now is when you tell me how they will all pay taxes, not take any social benefits, and have a huge positive impact to the economy - save your fingers/breath)...

how about we just don't let them in and spend nothing.

 

[Legacy]

Tell me you are not under the misapprehension that was intended for you. However, I do always expect some comment from you that draws attention to yourself. Enough said about the ongoing cost to us taxpayers.

Moving on - for others...

U.S. courts abruptly tossed 9,000 deportation cases. Here's why (Reuters)

This is happening all over the U.S. For other cities, readers can Google. An example,
Immigration attorneys blame glitch for long lines in Chicago court (Chicago Tribune)

ICE is giving people court dates without any checking with the courts as far as their schedules.