Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Trump: Anchor babies born in America are not American citizens (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 7 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7   
Author Topic: Trump: Anchor babies born in America are not American citizens
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/donald-trump-bill-oreilly-interview-121515.html

"Donald Trump clashed with Bill O’Reilly on Tuesday night over the part of his immigration plan that would take away citizenship from the children who were born in the United States but whose parents came to the country illegally.

Under the 14th Amendment, O’Reilly told Trump on “The O’Reilly Factor,” mass deportations of so-called birthright citizens cannot happen.

Trump disagreed, and said that “many lawyers are saying that’s not the way it is in terms of this.”

“What happens is, they’re in Mexico, they’re going to have a baby, they move over here for a couple of days, they have the baby,” Trump said, telling O’Reilly that the lawyers said, “It’s not going to hold up in court, it’s going to have to be tested.

“Regardless, when people are illegally in the country, they have to go. Now, the good ones — there are plenty of good ones — will work, so it’s expedited, we can expedite it where they come back in, but they come back legally,” Trump clarified.
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump talks to the media after arriving by helicopter at a nearby ballpark before Trump attended the Iowa State Fair Saturday, Aug. 15, 2015, in Des Moines. (AP Photo/Charlie Riedel)

O’Reilly then asked Trump if he envisions “federal police kicking in the doors in barrios around the country dragging families out and putting them on a bus” as a means to deport everyone he intends to deport.

“I don’t think they have American citizenship, and if you speak to some very, very good lawyers — some would disagree. But many of them agree with me — you’re going to find they do not have American citizenship. We have to start a process where we take back our country. Our country is going to hell. We have to start a process, Bill, where we take back our country,” Trump said.

There is a way to do it, O’Reilly said, in amending the Constitution.

Trump also said that he would not pursue an amendment to the Constitution to remedy the situation.

“It’s a long process, and I think it would take too long. I’d much rather find out whether or not anchor babies are citizens because a lot of people don’t think they are,” he said. “We’re going to test it out. That’s going to happen, Bill.”


--------------------------------------

I agree with Trump. The 14th Amendment doesn't say that just because you are born in America you are an American citizen. That's a clear misinterpretation, and it needs to be clarified by the Supreme Court.

If a communist Chinese lady, nice and kind and sweet as she may be, flies to California to have her baby then flies back a couple of weeks later to raise her baby in China for the next 18 years then that child is an American citizen?

Yes, according to the most ridiculous interpretation of the 14th Amendment possible.

All children born to people in the U.S. illegally, or even legally if they are just tourists, should be citizens of the country of their parents only, not American citizens. If they were successful at "stealing" American citizenship that ill gotten gain should be taken away and if they are still here illegally then they all need to be deported.

A border wall won't be successful if the magnets that draw illegals here aren't removed and one of the most powerful draws is American citizenship for their children. We will see our country overrun and destroyed from within the way many European countries are suffering right now if we don't fix the situation and so far Trump is the only one running who seems to grasp the severity of the problem and the extreme, though common sense, measures necessary to solve it.

I was reluctant to post this because I know the backlash that I am facing but then I realized that no open borders pro-amnesty liberals can hate me for pointing out reality. And you can't judge me either. Why? Because I was born this way.

Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Original intent or a literal reading of the Constitution might suggest that the founders did not want to create a mandatory minimum duration for visits to the US to qualify for citizenship, or they would have done so. But maybe that just explains why original intent or literal readings are not helpful.

Do you believe that everyone who gained citizenship this way should have their citizenship revoked? Should everyone who earned citizenship through their descent from a visiting foreigner or illegal immigrant have their ctizizenship revoked?

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Everyone who was incorrectly and illegally and unConstitutionally given American citizenship this way should have it revoked, yes. All of these children who don't have at least one American parent are citizens of the countries of their parents.

If it's gone on for more than two generations that does get a bit more cloudy. I'd say if it's one generation than the citizenship should be revoked, but two? By that I mean the child was born in America to illegals then grew up and had another child whose other parent was also an illegal or another child born to illegals. That's got to be a small number of people though. Tougher call but still yes. Their American upbringing and the education they stole will serve them well in their home countries.

And if the Supreme Court sides with you in saying that they are American citizens and should benefit from the illegal activity of their parents, I would support a new Constitutional Amendment that says otherwise. That probably wouldn't stand a chance of passing but I'm just stating my opinion on how important this issue is and how nonsensical it is to reward illegal activity this way and spit in the faces of the millions of people trying to come here legally.

One compromise I'd be willing to make is that if this is done or serious inroads are made at reducing the illegal population I would be all for taking everyone who has put in paperwork to come to America legally (and if you know how many people that is I'd be curious to find out) and giving every single one of them, millions of people around the world at least, instant green cards and a chance to start living and working in America immediately with all their paperwork to be finished while they are here. It makes no sense to me to reward everyone who came here illegally while we simultaneously punish the millions who are trying to obey our laws and respect our national sovereignty. So this isn't about immigrants, this is about law breakers.

Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Their American upbringing and the education they stole will serve them well in their home countries.
I doubt that, life in the US is crap for preparing someone to live in a country where they don't speak the language. What if the "home country" doesn't consider them citizens because they were born in the US to US parents?

People who were born in the US broke no laws. But I suppose collective punishment is now a virtue to American conservatives.

Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If the issue is people incentivized to come to America to have their baby then the fix would be to stop awarding citizenship to children whose parents are visiting or in transit. A retroactive revoking of citizenship is besides the point and doesn't address this concern. However the issue of stopping this process in the first place is an interesting one, and wouldn't require the extensive bureaucratic process that locating and revoking citizenships would (not to mention its highly punitive and life-ruining result). A friend of mine was a doctor working in a Manhattan hospital and he told me it was absolutely common practice for people to fly into NYC to have their baby at his hospital so it could have citizenship, and especially so for wealthy families. This certainly does seem like a bizarre behavior to reward.
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
There's a difference between children of illegal immigrants or even children of people intending to become residents or citizens and purely temporary visitors. Children of would-be residents are a commitment to the US. The commitment only getting stronger as the kids grow up.

The tourist (especially wealthy one) scheming to get their kid American citizenship is just gaming the system. I think this "issue" is easier to fix and should be considered separately from the children of people intending to stay in the US.

Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
The tourist (especially wealthy one) scheming to get their kid American citizenship is just gaming the system. I think this "issue" is easier to fix and should be considered separately from the children of people intending to stay in the US.

Are these two matters not both part of the same scenario? In both cases the behavior of the parent is guided by the knowledge that whatever happens to them the kid will be American and will be ok. In the case of the tourist there is less risk to the parent, of course, and so the game is win-neutral for success or failure. In the case of illegal immigrants it's win-lose depending on the outcome, but either way the parent knows there is a definite win scenario in which the child gains citizenship.
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'd be happy with just stopping the process now. It wouldn't bother me to revoke the illegal and mistakenly granted citizenship of children whose parents stole it and who are themselves citizens of other countries, but it's not a deal breaker to me either not to worry about it and just stop it going forward. It's something that might be put on the table and then negotiated off as a bargaining chip. It's a shame to "play" with peoples' lives like that, but that's what happens when parents use their children like this and try to hide behind them. When parents go to prison for robbing people do the children get to keep the money? Nobody likes my analogies so I'll just leave it at that.
Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
As for the tourists versus the illegals one funny thing about denying the citizenship to the tourists and letting the children of illegals keep theirs is that it is rewarding people who broke the law and punishing people who were in full compliance with it. It's amusing to me how doing that makes perfect sense to so many people.
Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm sorry, what law are infants breaking? Should children go to prison because their parents broke the law?
quote:
Are these two matters not both part of the same scenario? In both cases the behavior of the parent is guided by the knowledge that whatever happens to them the kid will be American and will be ok. In the case of the tourist there is less risk to the parent, of course, and so the game is win-neutral for success or failure. In the case of illegal immigrants it's win-lose depending on the outcome, but either way the parent knows there is a definite win scenario in which the child gains citizenship.
The key distinction is that the tourist is seeking citizenship of convenience whereas the immigrant is seeking to be an American with citizenship. There's also elements of intentionality. The tourist either plans to be in the US when giving birth or decides to leave afterwards (babies not being especially known for their adherence to schedules).

The resident (legal or otherwise) doesn't have that same necessary intention. It could be an "anchor baby" or it could just be a baby that was had while the parents where in the US. That seems to be me to be an essential difference meriting different treament (quiet, Pete [Razz] ).

Lastly, the win-neutral and win-lose construction is important. Removing citizenship from the children of tourists is unlikely to have a major effect on the life of the child. Removing citizenship from the child of a resident is almost certainly going to have a major negative effect. That suggests the two cases should be considered separately.

Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What law is a child breaking if a parent robs a bank and gives them the money? None.

But when they are caught the money will still be taken away. Obviously the child doesn't go to prison, but things have to be set back the way the should have been if the parent hadn't stolen something so as not to encourage more law breaking.

So of course a child in this circumstance shouldn't be charged with any crime. What if a mother brings an infant in today and they are both deported? Was the child convicted of a crime? No. Things are just set right. That's all. It's just unfortunate that the longer we wait the more disruption there will be. Best just to get this over and done with then.

Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Bringing the kid is different from having the kid. Different situation which requires a different solution. Even if you deport them as an adult, at least they're aware they weren't a citizen.
Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It's technically different but what is the real difference in upbringing if the child was one month old when they were brought to America or the mother had them one month after she arrived in America illegally? You could even stretch that timeline out two or three years in either direction. The disruption to their lives is going to be the same if they are deported as teens or adults. I'm glad you brought that up though because that is a good point to consider.
Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidTokyo
Member
Member # 6601

 - posted      Profile for KidTokyo   Email KidTokyo       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
As I mentioned in another thread, I oppose these kinds of strict "border control measures" when they are not also imposed upon international businesses. We have seen increased immigration because of coercive and manifestly unfair economic agreements which drove small farmers in Mexico out of business.

But the trend towards strict border control is not only not also applied to business, the flow of capital continues to be eased. Efforts are underway at this moment, on a massive scale. It's the ultimate hypocrisy.

Posts: 2336 | Registered: Sep 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
It's technically different but what is the real difference in upbringing if the child was one month old when they were brought to America or the mother had them one month after she arrived in America illegally? You could even stretch that timeline out two or three years in either direction. The disruption to their lives is going to be the same if they are deported as teens or adults. I'm glad you brought that up though because that is a good point to consider.
One fosters an exclusionary idea of American citizenship and the other doesn't. I think it's incredibly important, for both the US and Canada, to preserve the idea that anyone can become a part of the nation. The problems Europe has with immigrants, or residents of long standing like Turks in Germany, is that they are allowed to be in the nation but not part of it.

I think telling people that they were born here but are not from here is going to end badly. Even if you deport everyone, they'll keep coming back because the push factors are stronger than any reasonable barriers.

Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Everyone who was incorrectly and illegally and unConstitutionally given American citizenship this way should have it revoked, yes. All of these children who don't have at least one American parent are citizens of the countries of their parents.

If it's gone on for more than two generations that does get a bit more cloudy. I'd say if it's one generation than the citizenship should be revoked, but two? By that I mean the child was born in America to illegals then grew up and had another child whose other parent was also an illegal or another child born to illegals. That's got to be a small number of people though. Tougher call but still yes. Their American upbringing and the education they stole will serve them well in their home countries.

I think you have the right idea here, cherry, but you're not taking it far enough. If we are going to punish these criminals, we should go all the way.

I say we should go back 20 generations, and immediately deport anyone without an ancestor with legal citizenship from the original government from that time. No exceptions. That'll teach those scum-sucking criminals who're trying to steal from true Americans! [Mad]

I mean, what's the difference from some criminal from 20 or 40 years ago verses one from 400 years ago, right? A crime's a crime, and no one should profit from a crime. [Razz]

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I agree that the Native Americans should have passed and enforced immigration laws. If we don't then there is really no reason why what happened to them can't happen to us, and I doubt we'll be "lucky" enough to be provided a reservation and a casino either. Some people have this notion that we deserve to be raped and killed and infected with communicable diseases since the ancestors of many of us did the same thing to others. While I agree with karma to some extent I'm not quite willing to go that far with it.
Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"NobleHunter

... the push factors are stronger than any reasonable barriers."

They are certainly likely to try and I completely agree with you about the push factors. We often hear that the best long term solution is to help improve living conditions in poor countries.

That would be nice and that would certainly help but the sad reality is that's probably never going to happen. We can try and we should try and never give up but we shouldn't really count on it. So taking into account how extreme these push factors are, that gives us a good idea of how extreme we are going to have to be to get a handle on the situation.

When you put it like that denying birthright citizenship doesn't seem so absurd. That's actually probably going to be the least of it. Along with it is denying all benefits to all illegals, confiscating all assets from all companies that knowingly hire them which of course bankrupts the company just like such companies bankrupted others a long time ago that tried to compete with legal labor, and denying federal funds for sanctuary cities which I believe is still too lenient and which should actually include prison time for those mayors. And that's just the beginning.

Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Sounds tough and it probably won't happen.

But here is a good place to reiterate that I am not anti-immigrant.

I wouldn't mind streamlining the process and letting anyone who can pass a criminal background check, health check, and has a high school education from coming to America legally with the requirement that they have minimal access to welfare so have to support themselves. Open that up to double the number of illegals who can be deported and kept out so we can have twice as many immigrants as are here now but they will just be here legally. Let them come from Mexico too for all I care. I've got nothing against Mexicans or other Latinos. I'm sure no matter how many legals we deport we will have no trouble finding someone willing to take their place legally.

Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
And come to think of it I wouldn't even precondition that on deporting illegals, though that might be my preference. If the amnesty goes through and illegals are allowed to stay and travel a path to citizenship, then every person who is waiting right now to come here legally should be immediately allowed in and given priority over illegals so that the illegals are no longer ahead of them in line.
Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Forget the 14th amendment. You can change the law so that kids born to illegals in the USA from today onward aren't citizens, but you CANNOT change the law RETROACTIVElY to take citizenship away from people who are already citizens under existing law. That's an EX POST FACTO law prohibited by the original founders.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
While I agree with karma to some extent I'm not quite willing to go that far with it.
What? What do you mean you're "not quite willing to go that far with it." It's either a crime or it isn't. And we can't allow people to benefit from a crime, no matter how small or how long ago it occurred. This is a matter of principle. If we have no laws, and if they are not strictly enforced at all times, there will be anarchy. People running wild in the streets, taking whatever they want, stealing from those who create jobs and own everything. Killings, rapes, murders, jaywalking, speeding, dogs and cats living together, for God's sake! [Eek!]

These people, who call themselves "Americans" just because they've lived and worked here all their lives, only have what they have because their parents, grandparents, great-grandparents, etc. etc. have stolen what they have from the rightful owners. And you're excusing these crimes as karma?

No, if we are going to enforce the law, we must doing in the strictest and harshest way possible, to teach these low-life scum of humanity that they can't get away with breaking laws. They must be punished. Or else we will go the way of the Native American--put into tiny reservations, our children taken away from us and schooled in their foreign ways, or just butchered like animals--this must be prevented by any means possible. I mean, there are somewhere around 12 million illegal aliens in this country right now. With only around 300 million "citizens" (although I suspect the number is much, much less!), who is going to stop them?? [Eek!]

So what if the 14 Amendment states, "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." We must enforce our understanding of that line, especially if the rest of the nation got it wrong in the past!

You're either for full enforcement of the law, cherry, or you're against it. Which side are you really on, cherry? And don't give me any of this "karma" stuff. Are you an American or aren't you??

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidTokyo
Member
Member # 6601

 - posted      Profile for KidTokyo   Email KidTokyo       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It is interesting that my comments regarding NAFTA on this and the Sanders thread are ignored.

Without NAFTA, this issue would be only a fraction of its current scope. We probably would not be having this conversation.

Why must we debate the particularities of an effect while ignoring the cause?

We're letting Trump and the class of capitalists he represents manipulate us. It's an old strategy that amazingly still works.

Posts: 2336 | Registered: Sep 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by cherrypoptart:
I agree that the Native Americans should have passed and enforced immigration laws. If we don't then there is really no reason why what happened to them can't happen to us, and I doubt we'll be "lucky" enough to be provided a reservation and a casino either.

?

It's hard to address this seriously, but I will note that if the issue here is American jobs and the displacement of the American worker by illegal immigrants then the main objective is to assess the American job situation. This may be one aspect of unemployment, and indeed from my years in New York City it became quite clear that not only is the service industry in NYC robustly filled with illegal workers, but further if they were removed the city would probably cease to function altogether as the infrastructure of the restaurant and labor sectors are utterly reliant on them. But that is perhaps a short-term objection, and instead of focusing on that I'd like to bring up the trade treaties and import regulations that have allowed American labor to be exported wholesale and that are far more responsible for unemployment than illegal immigration will ever be by orders of magnitude.

For anyone who's concerned about good employment for American workers, I think a good litmus test of clear thinking would be to observe whether such objections to illegal immigration walk hand-in-hand with objections to the ability to outsource production and service jobs to countries with lower employee salaries. And for those concerned with illegals using up taxpayer money for services I would hope that they likewise are concerned with major corporations evading paying their taxes and eating up orders of magnitude more tax money than illegals ever could.

Unfortunately those who object to illegal immigration tend to be pro-corporate tax breaks/loopholes, and those who are against Americans losing their jobs tend to be for corporations using offshore facilities to do their business.

[ August 19, 2015, 01:01 PM: Message edited by: Fenring ]

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
That would be nice and that would certainly help but the sad reality is that's probably never going to happen. We can try and we should try and never give up but we shouldn't really count on it. So taking into account how extreme these push factors are, that gives us a good idea of how extreme we are going to have to be to get a handle on the situation.
Since the problem can't be solved in the US, they should double-down and try really, really hard to solve the problem in the US? Irregardless of the human misery involved? (Yes, that sentence really need that 'ir'.) When you run into a problem without a solution, the only way to solve is to change the problem. Or at least come at it from a different angle.

Denying benefits to illegal immigrants will do nothing but breed the crime and disease you're trying to avoid. Life on the down low in the US will always be better than in a country shooting itself to pieces or whatever they're running away from. Going after the businesses that create the majority of the pull factors makes sense but would be filled with unintended consequences.

KidTokyo, are you trying to say that Free Trade is not the panacea to all economic ills? That it might not actually be in a nation's interest to eliminate barriers to economic imperialism? Apostate!

Would you suggest increasing the freedom of labor to move or re-imposing restrictions on business? Those seem like the only two options.

Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidTokyo
Member
Member # 6601

 - posted      Profile for KidTokyo   Email KidTokyo       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
KidTokyo, are you trying to say that Free Trade is not the panacea to all economic ills? That it might not actually be in a nation's interest to eliminate barriers to economic imperialism? Apostate!
Happy to be a heretic, as always. [Big Grin]

Actually, my point at the moment is that free trade agreements have nothing to do with free trade. The terms are perfectly Orwellian. NAFTA ended subsidies for Mexican farmers, kept subsidies for American farmers, and ended the Mexican tariffs which had served as an equalizer to protect Mexicans from the unfair advantage provided by American subsidies. Free trade implies a free market -- instead NAFTA enshrined a brutal form of American economic dominance via corporate socialism. With labor held captive by strict border enforcement, the subsidized American agri-business has the advantage even more unfairly tilted in their direction.

And all of us are paying for it with our taxes and wage stagnation.

quote:
Would you suggest increasing the freedom of labor to move or re-imposing restrictions on business? Those seem like the only two options.
I would increase freedom of labor and end subsidies for American farmers. Business needs very little regulation when it is not getting huge subsidies from the federal government. Then you have a free and fair marketplace. If any further remedies are still needed at that point for illegal immigrants, that can be discussed, but the likelihood is that the there would no longer be an issue once the other measures are taken.
Posts: 2336 | Registered: Sep 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
NAFTA has not endeared me to the trans-Pacific and trans-Atlantic deals being made.

I think the main argument for farmer subsidies is that food is a critical strategic good. That and we want to keep food isolated from the price swings common to the international market. Though why the same doesn't hold true for Mexico is beyond explanation.

Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
NAFTA has not endeared me to the trans-Pacific and trans-Atlantic deals being made.

The difference being that while NAFTA may have served to promote American interests, the TPP will do the opposite and begin the trend of effectively eliminating national borders in favor of legalizing the control large corporations and lobbies already have on world affairs.
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Since I'm not American, it makes sense I don't like it then. [Razz]

The border is really annoying when I'm trying to work with our American sites though. It seems so permeable otherwise that its sudden resurgence is frustrating.

Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidTokyo
Member
Member # 6601

 - posted      Profile for KidTokyo   Email KidTokyo       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I think the main argument for farmer subsidies is that food is a critical strategic good. That and we want to keep food isolated from the price swings common to the international market. Though why the same doesn't hold true for Mexico is beyond explanation.
The American agros have no interest in protecting Mexican producers from price swings. It is better for them if Mexican producers are ****ed, so that they buy American exports instead.

Why did Mexico agree to this? Coercion, plus the fact that the Mexican govt does not exactly represent the will of its people.

TPP is a nightmare. Time to throw bricks if that happens. Can I say that? Pleased to meet you, DHS search algorithm, sir.

Posts: 2336 | Registered: Sep 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by KidTokyo:
Why did Mexico agree to this? Coercion, plus the fact that the Mexican govt does not exactly represent the will of its people.

Also don't forget that by the time NAFTA came around Mexico was already being converted into a cartel-run drug-running country as a result of the War on Drugs. It's not much of a stretch to imagine that people in the government were cut in on this and were making big bucks at the expense of the safety and well-being of the citizens there. Since private coffers were no doubt being lined with drug money it's easy to see how anyone involved would be entirely beholden to the U.S. to do anything at all so long as the cash rolled in.

[ August 19, 2015, 02:15 PM: Message edited by: Fenring ]

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidTokyo
Member
Member # 6601

 - posted      Profile for KidTokyo   Email KidTokyo       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
It's not much of a stretch to imagine that people in the government were cut in on this and were making big bucks at the expense of the safety and well-being of the citizens there. Since private coffers were no doubt being lined with drug money it's easy to see how anyone involved would be entirely beholden to the U.S. to do anything at all so long as the cash rolled in.

Yes, mos def.

I've studied the intricacies of the agreement pertaining to labor in some detail, and it truly is as far away from "free market" and "small government" as you can get. It created, for instance, labor grievance procedures for Mexican workers citing violations in American-run factories that are so bureaucratic and ineffectual that years could pass before you see any result. And likely, you won't.

It is understandable that with no chance of surviving as a farmer, merciless factory conditions in the city, and a government run by a drug cartel that likes to disappear journalists and student protesters by the truckload, that you would risk your life to get into the United States.

Posts: 2336 | Registered: Sep 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It's worth noting that a significant portion (majority?) of illegal immigrants crossing the southern border are from the rest of Central America.
Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidTokyo
Member
Member # 6601

 - posted      Profile for KidTokyo   Email KidTokyo       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
t's worth noting that a significant portion (majority?) of illegal immigrants crossing the southern border are from the rest of Central America.
CAFTA was ratified in 2005.
Posts: 2336 | Registered: Sep 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete, isn't ex-post facto applicable to a new law?

If a law is found to have been interpreted and applied incorrectly, illegally, and indeed unConstitutionally then is it unConstitutional to apply it correctly?

Perhaps. I'll bow to your greater expertise, though Trump apparently says that there are plenty of lawyers who think otherwise.

Of course there is another solution. Pass a new Constitutional Amendment that nullifies ex-post facto for this purpose. Most certainly will never happen though.

-------------------------------------

As for the illegals and their contribution to the economy and various industries, so is the solution to give them amnesty? Wouldn't that just let them move up the economic ladder and force those industries to hire new illegals to take their place? How does that help anything?

Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"That's not going to happen because the 14th Amendment says if you're born here, you're an American," O'Reilly said. "And you can't kick Americans out. The courts would block you at every turn. You must know all that."

-----------------------------------

14th Amendment

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.

---------------------------------------------

So it all depends on what "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means.

I guess the good thing about the Supreme Court decisions made lately such as for gay marriage, Obamacare, and a number of other issues is that the Constitution means whatever they hell they feel like it means so if Trump gets to appoint one or more Supreme Court justices then they could feel like it means that these people are subject to the jurisdiction of their native countries for purposes of the citizenship of their children.

That's really not so far-fetched. When diplomats come here and have children are their children automatically U.S. citizens?

http://www.cis.org/krikorian/children-of-diplomats

Apparently they weren't until Obama came into office and unilaterally changed the rules so that now they can be. The Constitution doesn't mention it.

Another good thing is that Obama has set the precedent for the President to do basically whatever the hell he wants and the Constitution and all the laws of the country be damned so according to that Obama precedent Trump could change the rules for diplomats back to the pre-Obama version and apply them to all children of illegals as well.

Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That seems a touch over-dramatic...
Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Cherry, why does this completely unimportant issue frighten you so much?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'd find the link more credible if I could find the government document referenced online.
Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Wouldn't that just let them move up the economic ladder and force those industries to hire new illegals to take their place?
Only if we keep making illegal immigrants though overly restrictive immigration policy. Give everyone who applies a work permit unless there is an explicit security or epidemiological reason not to provide it, and there is no more problem, while everyone benefits across the board.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 7 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1