Immigration

[Irish#1]

 

[drayer54]

 

[calvegas04]

I don't think that is common but not super rare either. Remember watching the boarder patrol show on Discovery and some of the agents mentioning it happens

 

[NDVirginia19]

Crazy how these LA countries are so hell bent on not having their citizens return to their countries. I thought they were great hardworking people that are amazing for the economy? Why don't they want them back?

 

[calvegas04]

Crazy how these LA countries are so hell bent on not having their citizens return to their countries. I thought they were great hardworking people that are amazing for the economy? Why don't they want them back?

Just throwing a theory out there... the ones we are sending back know from what I can understand are criminals and left their country because of their crimes. I assume they don't want to deal with their shit.

Guess I have to mention I don't want any immigrants legal or not in the US that has done crime.

 

[NDVirginia19]

Right, and that's sort of the point that I can't fathom why Liberals are cheering around the defiance from Mexico and Colombia's presidents on this. Also - if we had criminal fugitives on the lamb in Canada and they offered to fly them back here so they could face justice, we would gladly accept them.

 

[calvegas04]

Right, and that's sort of the point that I can't fathom why Liberals are cheering around the defiance from Mexico and Colombia's presidents on this. Also - if we had criminal fugitives on the lamb in Canada and they offered to fly them back here so they could face justice, we would gladly accept them.

As would most western nations, different cultures I guess.

From what I read the first flight from Columbia was rejected as they didn't know who was on the flight and being sent over? Seems like it only got spicy when the threats started being thrown around publicly.

I'm probably in the minority here but Columbia is an ally to the US and strong trade partner. I would think we could have back channeled the communication and solved this.

 

[NDVirginia19]

The public posturing was not sloppiness by Trump, it was pretty much the entire point of the act.

We make up 25% of Columbia's export market. They make up about 1% of ours. A trade war would devastate their economy, and it would have a negligible effect on ours. It was intended to put Latin America on notice. That being said, it needs to be balanced with countering PRC influence in the Western Hemisphere, and you do have a point with not alienating our allies in the region.

 

[Blazers46]

The public posturing was not sloppiness by Trump, it was pretty much the entire point of the act.

We make up 25% of Columbia's export market. They make up about 1% of ours. A trade war would devastate their economy, and it would have a negligible effect on ours. It was intended to put Latin America on notice. That being said, it needs to be balanced with countering PRC influence in the Western Hemisphere, and you do have a point with not alienating our allies in the region.

But my morning coffee…

 

[Irish#1]

As would most western nations, different cultures I guess.

From what I read the first flight from Columbia was rejected as they didn't know who was on the flight and being sent over? Seems like it only got spicy when the threats started being thrown around publicly.

I'm probably in the minority here but Columbia is an ally to the US and strong trade partner. I would think we could have back channeled the communication and solved this.

Could be. I read they were ready to accept them then mid flight their Prez said he wouldn’t accept them because they were in handcuffs.

 

[Irish#1]

But my morning coffee…

Whenever the son and DIL go there, they bring us back several bags of the good stuff.

 

[calvegas04]

Could be. I read they were ready to accept them then mid flight their Prez said he wouldn’t accept them because they were in handcuffs.

Also read that was part of the issue as well. It's hard to know what is true and not on Twitter with all the fake accounts now.

 

[CousinEddy]

But my morning COCAINE…

Fixed it for ya

 

[drayer54]

Selena Gomez is tearing up over this one

 

[NDVirginia19]

Makes you wonder what sort of sick fucks these DAs are for releasing someone like that out on parole.

 

[Irish#1]

Not making excuses, but given the numbers I'm guessing their jails are full. If you decide to be a sanctuary city, you should have the infrastructure in place to handle the increase in the population.

 

[Bishop2b5]

Not making excuses, but given the numbers I'm guessing their jails are full. If you decide to be a sanctuary city, you should have the infrastructure in place to handle the increase in the population.

Wait a minute. You mean that waves of illegal immigrants add to the strain on infrastructure and the use of other resources??? How can that be? Some of our leftist friends on IE have assured us that the only cost to their being here was a small amount of welfare which was more than offset by the taxes they pay. Surely you're not suggesting they increase the cost and wear & tear on such things as medical resources, the school system, police, fire, and other emergency services, the court system, social services, infrastructure, housing, and so on. Say it ain't so!

 

[TorontoGold]

I, too, love to ramble off platitudes without actually sourcing anything.

 

[ulukinatme]

I'd be interested to see what the numbers are here. Liberal media uses the word "refugee" a bit too loosely now.

 

[Jiggafini19Deux]

Guess I have to mention I don't want any immigrants legal or not in the US that has done crime.

This goes without saying. That being said, I don't think Stephen Miller is limiting this to just criminals. You won't find many criminals in elementary schools, but ICE is moving on them.

Then there is the ending of birthright citizenship, which is in the Constitution. So the reach and the optics don't line up with "they're just rounding up criminals."

Also read that was part of the issue as well. It's hard to know what is true and not on Twitter with all the fake accounts now.

Deactivated months ago. I trimmed everything down to just sports and people I actually knew but the amount of porn bots and right wing bro shit in my feed was too much. It fucking sucked.

 

[Sea Turtle]

This goes without saying. That being said, I don't think Stephen Miller is limiting this to just criminals. You won't find many criminals in elementary schools, but ICE is moving on them.

Then there is the ending of birthright citizenship, which is in the Constitution. So the reach and the optics don't line up with "they're just rounding up criminals."


Deactivated months ago. I trimmed everything down to just sports and people I actually knew but the amount of porn bots and right wing bro shit in my feed was too much. It fucking sucked.

The Birthright is in regard to babies born in this country to parents who don't owe allegiance to another country. Citizens of another country.

If a couple from Europe is visiting the US and she has complications with her pregnancy and must be bedridden, does that mean her baby is an American citizen? Of course not. They travel back to their country with baby in hand.

John McEnroe was born in Germany. That doesn't make him a German citizen.

 

[Armyirish47]

The Birthright is in regard to babies born in this country to parents who don't owe allegiance to another country. Citizens of another country.

If a couple from Europe is visiting the US and she has complications with her pregnancy and must be bedridden, does that mean her baby is an American citizen? Of course not. They travel back to their country with baby in hand.

John McEnroe was born in Germany. That doesn't make him a German citizen.

Do you think being born a citizen means you are forced to stay? And that all countries have the same constitution?

 

[Sea Turtle]

Do you think being born a citizen means you are forced to stay? And that all countries have the same constitution?

Of course not. The point is that you are only 'born' a citizen if your parents are citizens.

This notion that a couple who are citizens of another country can just cross our border in time for their child to be born and demand that child be an American citizen is incorrect. For them to be declared citizens is also incorrect.

Not only is it not the spirit of the constitution but it isn't the letter either.


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.

 

[Armyirish47]

Of course not. The point is that you are only 'born' a citizen if your parents are citizens.

This notion that a couple who are citizens of another country can just cross our border in time for their child to be born and demand that child be an American citizen is incorrect. For them to be declared citizens is also incorrect.

Not only is it not the spirit of the constitution but it isn't the letter either.


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.

It is in the letter of the constitution. And has been ruled as such repeatedly. Anyone who enters the US is subject to its jurisdiction.

 

[Sea Turtle]

It is in the letter of the constitution. And has been ruled as such repeatedly. Anyone who enters the US is subject to its jurisdiction.

I understand the court rulings. I think the Supreme Court needs to examine it closely.

Mark Levin explains why there isn't constitutional basis for universal birthright citizenship | Fox News Video

Fox News host Mark Levin traces the history behind birthright citizenship on ‘Life, Liberty & Levin’ after President Donald Trump signed an executive order to ban the practice.

www.foxnews.com

 

[Armyirish47]

I understand the court rulings. I think the Supreme Court needs to examine it closely.

Mark Levin explains why there isn't constitutional basis for universal birthright citizenship | Fox News Video

Fox News host Mark Levin traces the history behind birthright citizenship on ‘Life, Liberty & Levin’ after President Donald Trump signed an executive order to ban the practice.

www.foxnews.com

They don’t, and I hope they spend less than the 17 minutes I did watching that…interesting…video on it.

 

[Sea Turtle]

Pretty good CNN article as well.

Wait a minute. You mean that waves of illegal immigrants add to the strain on infrastructure and the use of other resources??? How can that be? Some of our leftist friends on IE have assured us that the only cost to their being here was a small amount of welfare which was more than offset by the taxes they pay. Surely you're not suggesting they increase the cost and wear & tear on such things as medical resources, the school system, police, fire, and other emergency services, the court system, social services, infrastructure, housing, and so on. Say it ain't so!

Looks like this will probably go to SCOTUS.

Here is a pretty good article from CNN on it.

https://www.cnn.com/2025/01/23/politics/supreme-court-birthright-citizenship-14th-amendment-wong-kim-ark/index.html

 

[Wild Bill]

It is in the letter of the constitution. And has been ruled as such repeatedly. Anyone who enters the US is subject to its jurisdiction.

Subject to the jurisdiction thereof in the 14th Amendment means more than just being physically present in the United States.

The two most significant SCOTUS cases related to the interpretation of subject to the jurisdiction thereof are elk v wilkins and us vs wong.

Elk held that a Native American born in the U.S. was NOT a U.S. citizen under the 14th Amendment because he owed allegiance to a tribal government, not the United States. Physical presence alone was not enough to confer citizenship.

Wong held that a child born in the United States to non-citizen parents who were lawful permanent residents is a U.S. citizen under the 14th Amendment. The court did not address whether the holding would change if teh parents were illegally in the US.

Birthright citizenship as we understand it today could be rejected without explicitly overruling Supreme Court precedent.

The constitutional debates are just bullshit. The real question is practical: Who should determine a nation’s citizens - the people of that nation or those who enter illegally, have a child, and gain legal status or citizenship by default? If we set political biases aside, the answer is self-evident.

 

[Irish#1]

Subject to the jurisdiction thereof in the 14th Amendment means more than just being physically present in the United States.

The two most significant SCOTUS cases related to the interpretation of subject to the jurisdiction thereof are elk v wilkins and us vs wong.

Elk held that a Native American born in the U.S. was NOT a U.S. citizen under the 14th Amendment because he owed allegiance to a tribal government, not the United States. Physical presence alone was not enough to confer citizenship.

Wong held that a child born in the United States to non-citizen parents who were lawful permanent residents is a U.S. citizen under the 14th Amendment. The court did not address whether the holding would change if teh parents were illegally in the US.

Birthright citizenship as we understand it today could be rejected without explicitly overruling Supreme Court precedent.

The constitutional debates are just bullshit. The real question is practical: Who should determine a nation’s citizens - the people of that nation or those who enter illegally, have a child, and gain legal status or citizenship by default? If we set political biases aside, the answer is self-evident.

Seems to me if someone was here illegally, the child wouldn't be a US citizen. Weird that you can be a non-citizen, but also be a permanent resident. I would think if you are a permanent resident, there's some stipulation that you have to become a citizen after so long. Makes sense that any child is automatically a citizen of the country their parents are a citizen of.

 

[Armyirish47]

Subject to the jurisdiction thereof in the 14th Amendment means more than just being physically present in the United States.

The two most significant SCOTUS cases related to the interpretation of subject to the jurisdiction thereof are elk v wilkins and us vs wong.

Elk held that a Native American born in the U.S. was NOT a U.S. citizen under the 14th Amendment because he owed allegiance to a tribal government, not the United States. Physical presence alone was not enough to confer citizenship.

Wong held that a child born in the United States to non-citizen parents who were lawful permanent residents is a U.S. citizen under the 14th Amendment. The court did not address whether the holding would change if teh parents were illegally in the US.

Birthright citizenship as we understand it today could be rejected without explicitly overruling Supreme Court precedent.

The constitutional debates are just bullshit. The real question is practical: Who should determine a nation’s citizens - the people of that nation or those who enter illegally, have a child, and gain legal status or citizenship by default? If we set political biases aside, the answer is self-evident.

As we understand it today? Sounds an awful lot like judicial activism.

The people of the nation did decide when they added an amendment to the Constitution that said if you are born here you are a citizen.