After reading Trump's immigration plan, I can't help but wonder what he will do with the American born children of the illegals. So you send mom and dad, but what about the children??? The ones with citizenship.

There is going to be some serious lawsuits if he even thinks of deporting American citizens into Mexico. People who are basically going to be illegals in Mexico.

(08-17-2015 11:35 AM)MidWest Wrote:  After reading Trump's immigration plan, I can't help but wonder what he will do with the American born children of the illegals. So you send mom and dad, but what about the children??? The ones with citizenship.

There is going to be some serious lawsuits if he even thinks of deporting American citizens into Mexico. People who are basically going to be illegals in Mexico.

But that's just it.
Why should they have citizenship?
Their parents are illegal, and the state then rewards them by making their kids American citizens?!
It might sounds harsh on the kids who've done nothing wrong, but this rule is a farce, it really is, it has to be changed so that lawbreakers are not rewarded.
This is exactly why Europe is now in the mess it's in with the migrants arriving in hordes, because they know the EU leaders will look after them rather than look after the interests of Europeans.

The 14th amendment should have been repealed decades ago.

It was created for the recently freed slaves. In no way was it envisioned to be used as it is today.

The U.S. and Canada are the only developed nations that grant birthright citizenship. No Western European country grants birthright citizenship. If you're a tourist, and you have a baby in the U.S., the baby has citizenship. How can that possibly make any sense?

If the 14th Amendment is supposed to allow for this, then why do we have 8 U.S.C. 1401?

Relevant portions of this section that allow for citizenship include:

(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;

The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" appears to encompass far less than people suppose, otherwise why would you have a section such as section f)?

Haven't bothered to look up the legislative history of this, but I'm sure it's pretty interesting.

(08-17-2015 11:41 AM)amity Wrote:  

(08-17-2015 11:35 AM)MidWest Wrote:  After reading Trump's immigration plan, I can't help but wonder what he will do with the American born children of the illegals. So you send mom and dad, but what about the children??? The ones with citizenship.

There is going to be some serious lawsuits if he even thinks of deporting American citizens into Mexico. People who are basically going to be illegals in Mexico.

But that's just it.
Why should they have citizenship?
Their parents are illegal, and the state then rewards them by making their kids American citizens?!
It might sounds harsh on the kids who've done nothing wrong, but this rule is a farce, it really is, it has to be changed so that lawbreakers are not rewarded.
This is exactly why Europe is now in the mess it's in with the migrants arriving in hordes, because they know the EU leaders will look after them rather than look after the interests of Europeans.

Under current law, US citizens can apply to have their parents legally come to the US at age 21 so its not like a current option doesn't exist. So, if mami and papi who have violated us law want to keep their family intact they can take junior back with them to Bolivia until he turns 21, he can go back to the US and then apply to bring them back in.

Trump is not going to deport US citizens, he is going to deport illegal aliens. If mami and papi want to leave their US citizen child with a legal aunt in California when they go, they can do that. If they want to take junior with them back to bolivia they can do that to. The deportation orders will be issued to the parents, not the child.

Here's a counter example. If I was a canadian citizen and got an american bitch pregnant and she had the child and lived in america, and then one day the bitch died. Should I automatically be granted US citizenship to move to the US and take care of my daughter? Fuck no. My option is to remove my daughter from the US and have her live with me in Canada.

Same with Pedro and Lupe. Their CHILD has the right to live in America as a US citizen, not them. If they want the child to be with them, the child can be with them in Mexico, if not, they had better adopt him out to a US citizen relative or couple because they are going back to where they came from until they can enter the country legally.

If someone wants to change that they can change the law to lower the age of parental sponsorship or they can change the right that anyone born on US soil is a citizen.

Note: this is something that drives me crazy. I am a legal US immigrant and it is a fucking pain in the ass that cost me thousands of dollars and being separated for a year from my family to do it the right way. Fuck these people doing it illegally that think they deserve any rights or sympathy.

Delete.... ^^^^ Dr. Howard got to it first.

(08-17-2015 11:35 AM)MidWest Wrote:  After reading Trump's immigration plan, I can't help but wonder what he will do with the American born children of the illegals. So you send mom and dad, but what about the children??? The ones with citizenship.

There is going to be some serious lawsuits if he even thinks of deporting American citizens into Mexico. People who are basically going to be illegals in Mexico.

Trump addressed this





"We're gonna keep the families together, but they have to go."

What does this mean, deporting U.S. citizens? No you don't "deport" a citizen.

But if a child's parents aren't citizens, sending his parents back to Mexico and the kid too is not a "deportation" for the kid. The kid would remain a citizen and could come back any time he wants, but that doesn't mean we can't ensure that a child is kept together with his parents.

Now obviously a lot of people involved in illegal immigration are awful parents. Some people send their children alone to the U.S. border. I can't imagine doing this to a child of mine, but apparently many people find this OK. Would some people prefer to leave their anchor baby here rather than raise him as a family in their own country? If so I'd consider those people pretty shitty parents, but we have foster care and such to deal with these situations.

Parents are certainly better than foster parents, but if the parents literally disown their kid because they don't get to live illegally in the U.S., that's their choice.

This would be nice to stop all the Chinese doing 'birth tourism' and coming to the US just to have a kid. I'm sure it's popular with others as well.

(08-15-2015 03:53 AM)TheWastelander Wrote:  Have you guys seen this?

Politico: The 199 Most Trump Things Donald Trump Has Ever Said

Absolutely hilarious and there's a lot of good red pill information mixed in there.

36. Women: “You have to treat ’em like shit.” (New York magazine, Nov. 9, 1992)

Lol

Dispensing red pill wisdom before the Internet.

Why don't people like Bernie Sanders?

(08-17-2015 01:17 PM)elcidcampeador Wrote:  This would be nice to stop all the Chinese doing 'birth tourism' and coming to the US just to have a kid. I'm sure it's popular with others as well.

I know a guy that has a whole business plan set up around this.

I admit, that I have become fascinated by the man. I was always intrigued by him when I was a kid, kind of the same way with Brian Bozworth actually.

I have watched a lot of his interviews from when he was younger, the guy is flat out consistent and remarkable.

(08-17-2015 01:56 PM)Fisto Wrote:  

(08-17-2015 01:17 PM)elcidcampeador Wrote:  This would be nice to stop all the Chinese doing 'birth tourism' and coming to the US just to have a kid. I'm sure it's popular with others as well.

I know a guy that has a whole business plan set up around this.

I find that weird. Since anchor babies could easily ruin the United States given time, so I have a hard time seeing the utility in the Chinese wanting US citizenship.

Which is what I would have said before I remembered who is in charge of China. Makes sense to hedge bets.

Some of the more "mainstream" republicans are finally catching on to Trump's incoming victory:

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/trump...oters.html

Quote:In spite of what you may think, American politics are usually very predictable. There are certain universal rules: Incumbents almost always win, candidates without name identification or money hardly ever succeed and districts with lopsided voter registration very rarely opt for a candidate in the minority party. When you’re talking about the presidency, viability is typically determined by a candidate’s political resume and popularity with party operatives.

Once you know these truths, it’s pretty easy to predict how most elections will turn out.

But sometimes you have elections or candidates that turn conventional wisdom upside-down.

Enter Donald Trump, stage right.

Under the old rules, the billionaire businessman and TV personality wouldn’t have a chance in hell. He’s never held elected office, has given money to politicians of all ideological persuasions in both parties and has a lengthy history of saying spicy, politically incorrect things.

Yet Trump is not only viable, he’s the frontrunner for the GOP nomination.

According to the latest Rasmussen Reports national survey of likely Republican voters, Trump was leading, with 17 percent support. Sen. Marco Rubio and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush are in second place with 10 percent apiece, and businesswoman Carly Fiorina and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker are right behind them at 9 percent each.

CBS News has Trump on top nationally by 11 points, as does the Bloomberg Politics National Poll.

When you look at early voting states, Trump is killing it there, too.

A Public Policy Polling survey of likely Iowa Republican caucus-goers found Trump in the lead by 7 points. A Boston Herald/Franklin Pierce University poll of likely New Hampshire Republican primary voters has Trump on top by 5 points. And even in the Sunshine State, the home field of Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio, Trump was ahead by 1 point among likely Florida Republican primary voters.

These numbers aren’t flukes or outliers, they’re real and robust and, if anything, understate Trump’s actual support.

Consider this: 24 million people tuned in for the first GOP candidates’ debate, making it the highest-rated nonsports cable telecast of all time.

Let’s be honest: Nobody was tuning in for Mike Huckabee’s Southern aphorisms. Trump was the draw.

This means that nontraditional news consumers and nontraditional voters made a point to tune in and see what Trump had to say, yet many of these Trump supporters won’t be considered in the polls.

Take the PPP poll, for example. It reflects only the opinion of “likely” Republican primary voters. They define “likely” voters as those who are self-described “regular” primary voters. Therefore, any new person brought into the process by Trump wouldn’t be counted, underestimating his actual support.

This has happened before with nontraditional candidates.

Right before the 2003 recall election of California Gov. Gray Davis, two polls had Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante defeating actor Arnold Schwarzenegger 30 percent to 25 percent. On Election Day, Schwarzenegger crushed Bustamante 49 percent to 32 percent.

In the 1998 election for Minnesota governor, an Oct. 20 poll conducted by the Star Tribune had Democrat Hubert Humphrey III in the lead with 35 percent, Republican Norm Coleman just behind him with 34 percent and wrestler Jesse Ventura in third. On Election Day, Ventura won with 37 percent of the vote.

As the ultimate nontraditional candidate, Trump has many similarities with Schwarzenegger and Ventura. Having polls weighted against him is clearly one of them. Trump is still on top – and probably by more than we know.

(08-17-2015 01:58 PM)Eskhander Wrote:  

(08-17-2015 01:56 PM)Fisto Wrote:  

(08-17-2015 01:17 PM)elcidcampeador Wrote:  This would be nice to stop all the Chinese doing 'birth tourism' and coming to the US just to have a kid. I'm sure it's popular with others as well.

I know a guy that has a whole business plan set up around this.

I find that weird. Since anchor babies could easily ruin the United States given time, so I have a hard time seeing the utility in the Chinese wanting US citizenship.

Which is what I would have said before I remembered who is in charge of China. Makes sense to hedge bets.

They're shitting all over So-Cal with this birth tourism shit. It's the rich that are doing it, you aren't going to see a farmer doing this.

It's all business from the flight over, to the birth, to leaving right after.

(08-15-2015 07:23 AM)Hotwheels Wrote:  

(08-15-2015 07:17 AM)dreambig Wrote:  

(08-15-2015 07:11 AM)Hotwheels Wrote:  

(08-15-2015 07:05 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  I see what you mean, but surely it is not healthy either to consume such a massive amount of artificial sweeteners? Do you even lift consume water? I'm just flabbergasted at the sheet amount of liquid, let alone the fact that it's all Coke.

I'm sure it's not healthy at all. Just not a fan of water. Have tried. Actually drink even more of that, when attempting to replace the diet coke, and piss like a race horse.

I have zero proof, but I do feel it's better than drinking Monster or Red Bull all day...

Did someone hack your account? Dude you are killing yourself with that regime. Drinking a 12 pack of beer daily might actually be healthier.

Hotwheels is not, and never has been, a health nut.

If I'm not drinking diet Coke I probably have a vodka in my hand. 15 doubles is not an unusual evening on the weekends.

And a pack to pack and half a day of Camel Menthols.

Hotwheels is just straight out of Wisconsin

Fixed it for you. People under estimate the sheer consumptive willpower of your non-Madison wisconsinite. My father in law is about 75, drinks soda and booze instead of water and I think only eats ham, salami, milk, cheese and ice cream.

Back on the Donald.

Trump gets Jury duty? http://time.com/4000525/donald-trump-sna...jury-duty/

I mean really, what are the odds. This seems so statistically impossible that its got to be a low blow to try to take him out of the race for at least a while.

plus, what is with these iphone/smartphone wearing chumps just doing their own thing? What are you doing you stupid fucks! I'd be asking him all sort of presidential and business questions until he told me to shut up.

(08-17-2015 12:01 PM)Menace Wrote:  The U.S. and Canada are the only developed nations that grant birthright citizenship. No Western European country grants birthright citizenship. If you're a tourist, and you have a baby in the U.S., the baby has citizenship. How can that possibly make any sense?

If the 14th Amendment is supposed to allow for this, then why do we have 8 U.S.C. 1401?

Relevant portions of this section that allow for citizenship include:

(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;

The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" appears to encompass far less than people suppose, otherwise why would you have a section such as section f)?

Haven't bothered to look up the legislative history of this, but I'm sure it's pretty interesting.

Jus Solis had its use when nations that relied in inmigrations to increase their populations have to put some order. The USA, Argentina and other "melting pots" need it to "create" their populations. You can see it in this map:



Deep blue is for unconditional Jus Solis, teal is for restricted Jus Solis.

But now that "tool" is beign abused for poor inmigrants looking for greener pastures in detriment of the now "local" populations. You in the US are luckier as your Consitution can be more easily modified than in Argentina, for example. More and more people is beggining to ask for a change from Jus Solis to Jus Sanguinis in response to the abuse that derive from it.

(08-17-2015 02:35 PM)Samseau Wrote:  Some of the more "mainstream" republicans are finally catching on to Trump's incoming victory:

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/trump...oters.html

Quote:In spite of what you may think, American politics are usually very predictable. There are certain universal rules: Incumbents almost always win, candidates without name identification or money hardly ever succeed and districts with lopsided voter registration very rarely opt for a candidate in the minority party. When you’re talking about the presidency, viability is typically determined by a candidate’s political resume and popularity with party operatives.

Once you know these truths, it’s pretty easy to predict how most elections will turn out.

But sometimes you have elections or candidates that turn conventional wisdom upside-down.

Enter Donald Trump, stage right.

Under the old rules, the billionaire businessman and TV personality wouldn’t have a chance in hell. He’s never held elected office, has given money to politicians of all ideological persuasions in both parties and has a lengthy history of saying spicy, politically incorrect things.

Yet Trump is not only viable, he’s the frontrunner for the GOP nomination.

According to the latest Rasmussen Reports national survey of likely Republican voters, Trump was leading, with 17 percent support. Sen. Marco Rubio and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush are in second place with 10 percent apiece, and businesswoman Carly Fiorina and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker are right behind them at 9 percent each.

CBS News has Trump on top nationally by 11 points, as does the Bloomberg Politics National Poll.

When you look at early voting states, Trump is killing it there, too.

A Public Policy Polling survey of likely Iowa Republican caucus-goers found Trump in the lead by 7 points. A Boston Herald/Franklin Pierce University poll of likely New Hampshire Republican primary voters has Trump on top by 5 points. And even in the Sunshine State, the home field of Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio, Trump was ahead by 1 point among likely Florida Republican primary voters.

These numbers aren’t flukes or outliers, they’re real and robust and, if anything, understate Trump’s actual support.

Consider this: 24 million people tuned in for the first GOP candidates’ debate, making it the highest-rated nonsports cable telecast of all time.

Let’s be honest: Nobody was tuning in for Mike Huckabee’s Southern aphorisms. Trump was the draw.

This means that nontraditional news consumers and nontraditional voters made a point to tune in and see what Trump had to say, yet many of these Trump supporters won’t be considered in the polls.

Take the PPP poll, for example. It reflects only the opinion of “likely” Republican primary voters. They define “likely” voters as those who are self-described “regular” primary voters. Therefore, any new person brought into the process by Trump wouldn’t be counted, underestimating his actual support.

This has happened before with nontraditional candidates.

Right before the 2003 recall election of California Gov. Gray Davis, two polls had Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante defeating actor Arnold Schwarzenegger 30 percent to 25 percent. On Election Day, Schwarzenegger crushed Bustamante 49 percent to 32 percent.

In the 1998 election for Minnesota governor, an Oct. 20 poll conducted by the Star Tribune had Democrat Hubert Humphrey III in the lead with 35 percent, Republican Norm Coleman just behind him with 34 percent and wrestler Jesse Ventura in third. On Election Day, Ventura won with 37 percent of the vote.

As the ultimate nontraditional candidate, Trump has many similarities with Schwarzenegger and Ventura. Having polls weighted against him is clearly one of them. Trump is still on top – and probably by more than we know.

I just switched my voters registration to republican so I can vote for him in the primaries

I'm still not even sure that birthright citizenship is as absolute as the talking heads say it is. Usually this is an area of expertise for me, but I can't quote anything now - but I'm pretty damn sure that there's been no Supreme Court case clarifying the clause in the 14th Amendment, which has "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" when describing birthright citizenship.

Why this hasn't been taken to court is mindboggling. Tourism babies and illegals are clearly not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. In other words, you may not necessarily need a constitutional amendment.

The Trump Justice Department could take this matter to court, and I'm fairly confident the Roberts court would be happy to oblige. The only one I'm not sure of is Kennedy, but he was for overturning Obamacare completely.

More mainstream Republicans are boarding the Trump train:

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/08/1...omination/

Quote:Bloomberg Politics Managing Editor Mark Halperin stated that Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has “reached a turning point” where the “establishment candidates” think he can win Iowa, “most” believe he can win the nomination, and “a significant number think he could win the White House” on Monday’s broadcast of MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.”

Halperin was asked his writing that “Most importantly, we’ve reached a turning point with Trump, the major establishment campaigns of both parties now think Trump could win Iowa, and most of them think he could win the nomination, and a significant number think he could win the White House.” And that the campaigns were in “full freak out mode.”

If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

If Trump is going to stand a chance, he better not pull a Mccain and select a shit VP. VP choice will make or break him when he battles Hillary.

If Trump continues to dominate like this he might steamroll the entire election like we have never seen in our lifetimes. I don't think Hillary stands a chance but Bernie might be able to put up a fight due to him seeming like a genuinely good guy.

I do feel fairly certain that they will find some dirt on Trump though.

Prediction time: In the increasingly likely event that he does obtain the nomination, there will be a big push from the establishment of the GOP that they be allowed to bring their big money machines in to defray some of his national campaign costs (and I don't mean by paying a couple of bucks to buy a "Make America Great" button, but the hardcore "Koch" money).

That is going to be his most tempting moment. It will probably take close to $1 billion dollars to take on Hillary. Although Trump technically has that and more, he doesn't likely have it just lying around in a liquid state that is easily accessed and moreover, that wouldn't be missed. $1 billion is a lot of money to everyone who isn't a leftist-statist government with access to its own money printing press. So the real question will then be whether he accepts the money (or some of it) or not. If he does, however, he becomes part of the same establishment of bought-and-paid-for candidates that he (mostly rightfully) rails against. The establishment guys know this is their ace in the hole too, as it is hard to turn down that kind of ability to raise badly needed money to run against a very well-funded candidate.

That would be an outright existential crisis. I do wonder if he would choose to take the financial hit himself so he doesn't lose a key part of his "independence".

An interesting dilemma, albeit one for the future.

(08-17-2015 04:09 PM)DannyAlberta Wrote:  Prediction time: In the increasingly likely event that he does obtain the nomination, there will be a big push from the establishment of the GOP that they be allowed to bring their big money machines in to defray some of his national campaign costs (and I don't mean by paying a couple of bucks to buy a "Make America Great" button, but the hardcore "Koch" money).

That is going to be his most tempting moment. It will probably take close to $1 billion dollars to take on Hillary. Although Trump technically has that and more, he doesn't likely have it just lying around in a liquid state that is easily accessed and moreover, that wouldn't be missed. $1 billion is a lot of money to everyone who isn't a leftist-statist government with access to its own money printing press. So the real question will then be whether he accepts the money (or some of it) or not. If he does, however, he becomes part of the same establishment of bought-and-paid-for candidates that he (mostly rightfully) rails against. The establishment guys know this is their ace in the hole too, as it is hard to turn down that kind of ability to raise badly needed money to run against a very well-funded candidate.

That would be an outright existential crisis. I do wonder if he would choose to take the financial hit himself so he doesn't lose a key part of his "independence".

An interesting dilemma, albeit one for the future.

Trump spoke about that at the Iowa State Fair, when he said he turned down a $5 million campaign contribution because then he would want to help out people that helped him out, and that is what he is running against.

(08-17-2015 03:06 PM)Mekorig Wrote:  

(08-17-2015 12:01 PM)Menace Wrote:  The U.S. and Canada are the only developed nations that grant birthright citizenship. No Western European country grants birthright citizenship. If you're a tourist, and you have a baby in the U.S., the baby has citizenship. How can that possibly make any sense?

If the 14th Amendment is supposed to allow for this, then why do we have 8 U.S.C. 1401?

Relevant portions of this section that allow for citizenship include:

(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;

The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" appears to encompass far less than people suppose, otherwise why would you have a section such as section f)?

Haven't bothered to look up the legislative history of this, but I'm sure it's pretty interesting.

Jus Solis had its use when nations that relied in inmigrations to increase their populations have to put some order. The USA, Argentina and other "melting pots" need it to "create" their populations. You can see it in this map:



Deep blue is for unconditional Jus Solis, teal is for restricted Jus Solis.

But now that "tool" is beign abused for poor inmigrants looking for greener pastures in detriment of the now "local" populations. You in the US are luckier as your Consitution can be more easily modified than in Argentina, for example. More and more people is beggining to ask for a change from Jus Solis to Jus Sanguinis in response to the abuse that derive from it.

The U.S. constitution cannot be modified to please one group over another. The founding fathers made sure of that and purposely made it hard to override or modify amendments. Someone can't get rid of an amendment just because they don't like Mexicans. Regardless if people think its bad policy, that is the law of the land. People who wan't to end birthright citizenship (which is the law by the way) are acting no different than the people who come here illegally. Just because Trump makes it seem like its easy does not make it so. Constitutional amendments are almost never adopted or erased so ending birthright citizenship is deeply unrealistic. They will have to ratify a whole new amendment which can take years with the majority of congress agreeing with it.

I can see maybe a wall being built, even some illegal immigrants being deported. But ending birthright citizenship is a pipe-dream and not realistic.