• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trumps Official "Immigration Reform" Plan!

WSUwarrior said:
So you agree that YOUR (ridiculous) interpretation of the 14th Amendment makes "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" MEANINGLESS?
Click to expand...
Its okay. Sometimes you are just wrong.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
So Trump can pass constitutional amendments because "He has a pen and a phone just like Obama does.", but when asked how many Obama passed your answer is, "Obama passed 0.0 laws"...... Soooooooo.... Trump can do it just because he has Obama magic pen which passed 0 laws? So how can Trump do it, but Obama somehow passed amendments using it? But then again he has the super magical power of advocation which changes 0 to "as many as he wants". I asked, "So then if your counting"'advocacy" how many did he pass?'", you answered with"As many as he advocated for.". SO he didnt pass laws but passed as many as he wanted to? Me so confused.
Click to expand...

Not really sure where your primary malfunction is but I never said Trump would pass anything. The rest of you statement falls apart from there.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
So you think part of the constitution is unconstitutional?
Click to expand...
Of course not, Demsoc_

But it is quite obvious that the 14th Amendment has been misapplied to create a loophole for the legalization of undocumented democrats/cheap foreign labor!
 
Empirica said:
IMMIGRATION REFORM THAT WILL MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
The three core principles of Donald J. Trump's immigration plan

"When politicians talk about “immigration reform” they mean: amnesty, cheap labor and open borders. The Schumer-Rubio immigration bill was nothing more than a giveaway to the corporate patrons who run both parties."

You can read the entire plan here at Trumps official campaign website:
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/immigration-reform

I for one am quite impressed! :thumbs: Have a lovely day~ Empi
Click to expand...

Totally unrealistic. He can't run the country by himself, and getting Mexico to pay for a wall? Preposterous!
 
TheDemSocialist said:
See post #21 http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-pa...immigration-reform-plan-3.html#post1064946781
Click to expand...
"§ 515.330" states: § 515.330 Person within the United States.
(a) The term person within the United States, includes:
(1) Any person, wheresoever located, who is a resident of the United States;
(2) Any person actually within the United States"

This would be true IF 'We The People' actually believed that a criminal who breaks into our home must then be accepted as a "resident"!

The 14th Amendment has been tweaked to accommodate illegal aliens and therefore can be un-tweaked!
 
Empirica said:
"§ 515.330" states: § 515.330 Person within the United States.
(a) The term person within the United States, includes:
(1) Any person, wheresoever located, who is a resident of the United States;
(2) Any person actually within the United States"




This would be true IF 'We The People' actually believed that a criminal who breaks into our home must then be accepted as a "resident"!



The 14th Amendment has been tweaked to accommodate illegal aliens and therefore can be un-tweaked!
Click to expand...

1.)It hasnt been "tweaked"..... Can you name the "tweaking"? Who did this "tweaking"? Or is it just a idea that you cant reinforce with any actual evidence to back up your claims?
2.)I dont think you realize what you just quoted
Any person actually within the United States"
 
If we build a fence that has a similar cost-per-mile to Israel's fence (extremely effective by the way...Hamas had to scam the United States for concrete to build tunnels under it, lets see the cartels build that kind of tunnel while under drove surveillance) it would cost about $6-7 billion dollars.

That is PEANUTS. Build the damn thing.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
1.)It hasnt been "tweaked"..... Can you name the "tweaking"? Who did this "tweaking"? Or is it just a idea that you cant reinforce with any actual evidence to back up your claims?
2.)I dont think you realize what you just quoted
Any person actually within the United States"
Click to expand...
"This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States"

It's quite obvious to anyone aware of the original intent of the 14th Amendment that it has been tweaked!
(or misapplied if you prefer)

House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Immigration,
Border Security, and Claims,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
Legal experts disagree as to whether a constitutional amendment or a Federal statute is needed to eliminate birth citizenship. However, there are three reasons why Congress can and should act. Number one, no Supreme Court case has dealt directly with the offspring of illegal immigrants who have given birth in the United States. Two, the Constitution expressly gives Congress the power to decide national immigration policies. And three, during the debate on the 14th amendment in 1866 the Senator who was the author said it would, ''not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners.''
Dual Citizenship, Birthright Citizenship, and the Meaning of Sovereignty

Fortunately, we have the highest possible authority on record to answer this question of how the term "jurisdiction" was to be interpreted and applied, the author of the citizenship clause, Sen. Jacob M. Howard (MI) to tell us exactly what it means and its intended scope as he introduced it to the United States Senate in 1866:

Congressional Globe, 39th Congress (1866) pg. 2890
This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. "This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons." It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.
http://www.14thamendment.us/articles/jacob_howard_on_14th_amendment_1866.gif
The UnConstitutionality of Citizenship by Birth to Non-Americans - The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution - Fourteenth Amendment - anchor babies and birthright citizenship - interpretations and misinterpretations - US Constitution

You people are so desperately in the dark! :giggle1:
 
Empirica said:
"This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States"

It's quite obvious to anyone aware of the original intent of the 14th Amendment that it has been tweaked!
(or misapplied if you prefer)

House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Immigration,
Border Security, and Claims,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
Legal experts disagree as to whether a constitutional amendment or a Federal statute is needed to eliminate birth citizenship. However, there are three reasons why Congress can and should act. Number one, no Supreme Court case has dealt directly with the offspring of illegal immigrants who have given birth in the United States. Two, the Constitution expressly gives Congress the power to decide national immigration policies. And three, during the debate on the 14th amendment in 1866 the Senator who was the author said it would, ''not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners.''
Dual Citizenship, Birthright Citizenship, and the Meaning of Sovereignty

Fortunately, we have the highest possible authority on record to answer this question of how the term "jurisdiction" was to be interpreted and applied, the author of the citizenship clause, Sen. Jacob M. Howard (MI) to tell us exactly what it means and its intended scope as he introduced it to the United States Senate in 1866:

Congressional Globe, 39th Congress (1866) pg. 2890
This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. "This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons." It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.
http://www.14thamendment.us/articles/jacob_howard_on_14th_amendment_1866.gif
The UnConstitutionality of Citizenship by Birth to Non-Americans - The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution - Fourteenth Amendment - anchor babies and birthright citizenship - interpretations and misinterpretations - US Constitution

You people are so desperately in the dark! :giggle1:
Click to expand...

That nice and all. A couple opinion pieces. Now lets go back to the ACTUAL LAWS ON THE BOOKS
§ 515.330" states: § 515.330 Person within the United States.
(a) The term person within the United States, includes:
(1) Any person, wheresoever located, who is a resident of the United States;
(2) Any person actually within the United States"
 
TheDemSocialist said:
That nice and all. A couple opinion pieces.
Click to expand...
Yes; "opinions" of the 14th Amendment's authors which include Senators Jacob Howard and Lyman Trumbull!

And Congress ratified the 14th Amendment according to those "opinions"; making very clear their intent!

And that "opinion" was published in the official Congressional Record, May 30, 1866 which I linked to twice!
http://www.14thamendment.us/articles/jacob_howard_on_14th_amendment_1866.gif

"This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States"
~Senator Jacob Howard; Congressional Record, May 30, 1866

Now lets go back to the ACTUAL LAWS ON THE BOOKS
§ 515.330" states: § 515.330 Person within the United States.
(a) The term person within the United States, includes:
(1) Any person, wheresoever located, who is a resident of the United States;
(2) Any person actually within the United States"
Click to expand...

Unlike fanatical leftist ideologues; true Constitutional Scholars ignore semantics and focus on intent!

Unfortunate for you; the obvious intent of H.R.127's writers/ratifiers in no way supports your position!
 
Empirica said:
Yes; "opinions" of the 14th Amendment's authors which include Senators Jacob Howard and Lyman Trumbull!
Click to expand...
The issue of birthright citizenship was settled, lock stock and barrel, in 1898. Wong Kim Ark.

Birthright citizenship was also part and parcel of English Common Law, and US law until Dred Scott. Wong was explicitly designed to reverse some of those negative impacts.

No one has successfully challenged or overturned Wong. The only way to terminate birthright citizenship is via a new Constitutional amendment. And I'm pretty sure that would not pass.
 
Visbek said:
The issue of birthright citizenship was settled, lock stock and barrel, in 1898. Wong Kim Ark.

Birthright citizenship was also part and parcel of English Common Law, and US law until Dred Scott. Wong was explicitly designed to reverse some of those negative impacts.

No one has successfully challenged or overturned Wong. The only way to terminate birthright citizenship is via a new Constitutional amendment. And I'm pretty sure that would not pass.
Click to expand...
I actually acknowledge your talking points and agree to a need for a Constitutional Amendment_

But; the element of "intent" absolutely exists anytime the Constitution comes under scrutiny_

This is because no matter how efficient the wording may be; language is subject to interpretation_

And sometimes the best solution to a language dispute is figuring out the intent of the author_

And the true intent of the authors of the 14th Amendment birthright criteria is indisputable!
 
Empirica said:
I actually acknowledge your talking points and agree to a need for a Constitutional Amendment_

But; the element of "intent" absolutely exists anytime the Constitution comes under scrutiny
Click to expand...
It already did. Feel free to read Wong one of these years.


And the true intent of the authors of the 14th Amendment birthright criteria is indisputable!
Click to expand...
Yes, it is. It sought to reverse Dred Scott, probably one of the worst SCOTUS decisions in US history. Part of that was restoring birthright citizenship.
 
Empirica said:
Yes; "opinions" of the 14th Amendment's authors which include Senators Jacob Howard and Lyman Trumbull!

And Congress ratified the 14th Amendment according to those "opinions"; making very clear their intent!

And that "opinion" was published in the official Congressional Record, May 30, 1866 which I linked to twice!
http://www.14thamendment.us/articles/jacob_howard_on_14th_amendment_1866.gif

"This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States"
~Senator Jacob Howard; Congressional Record, May 30, 1866



Unlike fanatical leftist ideologues; true Constitutional Scholars ignore semantics and focus on intent!

Unfortunate for you; the obvious intent of H.R.127's writers/ratifiers in no way supports your position!
Click to expand...

Wong Kim Ark.
 
WSUwarrior said:
That case had NOTHING to do with birthright citizenship. His parents were in the US legally so that send NO precedent for birthright citizenship.

You libs can stop posting that caselaw now.
Click to expand...
We're a nation of laws.


And by the way, I think its pretty sickening that libs think that a pregnant illegal alien has more authority over citizenship than Congress. All she has to do is give birth within our borders...and libs are making the (wrong) assertion that Congress would have to amend the Constitution? Give me a break.

The authors of the 14th Amendment specifically stated that children born to illegal aliens (people who are NOT under the jurisdiction of the United States) are NOT CITIZENS.
Click to expand...
No, it doesn't.

Amendment XIV

Section 1.

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. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.​
 
Empirica said:
Which must be the "tweak" you were inquiring about_
Click to expand...

You do know how the supreme court works right? Just because the interpretation does not fall in line with yours does not mean its unconstitutional....
 
The solution for the immigration problems exist in law as we speak but regressives don't want to do it, Simply go after the businesses that hire them. I'll quantity 100% that it will work. Generally most republicans are capitalist first and Americans second. Business is holding hands with the regressives, they work for each other. I love the Walker conversation when he thought he was talking to one of their Gods the Kochs. This is how I see all regressives crawling at the feet of business as walker so humorously did.
 
jbander said:
The solution for the immigration problems exist in law as we speak but regressives don't want to do it, Simply go after the businesses that hire them. I'll quantity 100% that it will work. Generally most republicans are capitalist first and Americans second. Business is holding hands with the regressives, they work for each other. I love the Walker conversation when he thought he was talking to one of their Gods the Kochs. This is how I see all regressives crawling at the feet of business as walker so humorously did.
Click to expand...
You believe Obama is a "regressive" ??? :blink:
 
Empirica said:
You believe Obama is a "regressive" ??? :blink:
Click to expand...
What does he have to do with it. You people can stretch any point to the ridiculous. The law is there and has been forever. Do you actually think that the democrats would be against this. the regressive party exist for big business and the wealthy, the reason that my suggesting isn't working or isn't used is because of the wacky right. Not Obama.
 
jbander said:
The solution for the immigration problems exist in law as we speak but regressives don't want to do it, Simply go after the businesses that hire them. I'll quantity 100% that it will work. Generally most republicans are capitalist first and Americans second. Business is holding hands with the regressives, they work for each other. I love the Walker conversation when he thought he was talking to one of their Gods the Kochs. This is how I see all regressives crawling at the feet of business as walker so humorously did.
Click to expand...
Empirica said:
You believe Obama is a "regressive" ??? :blink:
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

jbander said:
What does he have to do with it. You people can stretch any point to the ridiculous. The law is there and has been forever.
Click to expand...
You seem to believe that "regressives"(I assume you're referring to republicans) are the only ones against using "the law that's been there forever" to solve the illegal employment problem_

I simply pointed out that Obama must also be a "regressive" because he has forbidden enforcement of any law that might prevent employers from hiring illegal aliens_

Do you actually think that the democrats would be against this.
Click to expand...
Obviously!

the regressive party exist for big business and the wealthy, the reason that my suggesting isn't working or isn't used is because of the wacky right. Not Obama.
Click to expand...
I can't entirely disagree your opinion of republicans but I'm absolutely amazed at your blind faith in Obama and the democrats!

These progressives are only interested in flooding the US with third world immigrants as a means of shifting the voting balance in their political favor_

ie; The motivations of the democrats are at best, equally corrupt as those of the republicans_

You probably deny this along with the existence of a left-wing media and are likely convinced Fox News lies_

Congratulations Bandy; your political indoctrination has obviously been quite thorough!
 
Empirica said:
You seem to believe that "regressives"(I assume you're referring to republicans) are the only ones against using "the law that's been there forever" to solve the illegal employment problem_

I simply pointed out that Obama must also be a "regressive" because he has forbidden enforcement of any law that might prevent employers from hiring illegal aliens_

Obviously!

I can't entirely disagree your opinion of republicans but I'm absolutely amazed at your blind faith in Obama and the democrats!

These progressives are only interested in flooding the US with third world immigrants as a means of shifting the voting balance in their political favor_

ie; The motivations of the democrats are at best, equally corrupt as those of the republicans_

You probably deny this along with the existence of a left-wing media and are likely convinced Fox News lies_

Congratulations Bandy; your political indoctrination

May I quote you " because he has forbidden enforcement of any law that might prevent employers from hiring illegal aliens_ " pray tell how he has done this, this simply is not true.. So democrats keep aliens here because they will get their vote. Now when Reagan did this was it because he wanted votes, Your point is ridiculous obviously because it has been bipartisan in the past but You just don't like our black president so you will live in make believe land. Everything you and the regressive think about the immigration problem is a joke, a hate filled joke.. Ok my facts are all true since their was only one, that to solve the problem bust the companies. Your facts aren't true . so I have to ask about your last comment and who of us are indoctrinated. the regressive party is taking away the voting rights of democrats across this country .from voter registration, to making the lines longer in democratic areas , also not allowing out of state student in their state schools, stop them from being able to vote in the sate they are going to school in. Then of course regressives in the past believed that felons once they where done with all aspects of their imprisonment and parole should have their vote back until just a few years ago when they found out they voted for democrats so litter-ally all regressive states have implemented these laws.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom