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 5)

 - 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 
Permanent populations of illegals can be solved by simply enforcing the laws on the books and the solution, having them return to their own countries, can be expedited by passing a few new laws like getting rid of birthright citizenship. It doesn't take billions to change America for the worse. In the case of Obamacare it only took a hundred thousand. That didn't have anything to do with birthright citizenship but I'll jump around a bit because it's all related. But that's an example of the corruption I'm talking about and it goes all the way to the top.
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 
Illegals?! *Pearl clutch* Heaven's no! I'm talking about permanent residents who are either not citizens or are citizens but regarded as outsiders and excluded from mainstream society and politics. Since they aren't descended from citizens they are forever considered not-citizens.

A note about the voting of immigrants: in Canada, immigrant communities used to vote consistently for the Liberal Party. Then the Conservatives started to listen to them and cultivated their support. If the GOP wants immigrants to stop voting reflexively for the Democratic Party, they may want to consult with the Conservative Party.

Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  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, if you don't believe that racism plays a role, please read this article on Somalis in Minnesota with an eye on some of its unstated assumptions:
http://toprightnews.com/minnesota-muslims-demand-pork-free-halal-food-welfare-food-pantry/

It's pretty staggeringly racist.

(In related news: you realize refugees are not citizens and cannot vote, yes?)

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  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:
Originally posted by LetterRip:
Pyr,

there are a lot of construction and day labor jobs that those jobs would be taken by Americans, if illegal labor weren't undercutting them. The illegal labor doesn't create new jobs, it just improves the profit margins of the corporation using the illegal labor to substitute for domestically available labor.

I highlighted the critical phrase for you. The only way to prevent that is to make the labor legal so that it can't undercut other legal labor. Otherwise there will always be a supply of illegal labor undercutting legal labor, same as in any other similar prohibition type situation. People fighting for their own survival will not stop coming, regardless of what legal penalties you threaten them with. The only way to remove competition from illegal labor is to make it legal for people desperate for income to look for work.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 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:
No doubt it's spent 'somewhere' but when Americans are looking at their own economy it's not helpful to point out that someone in Mexico will have a nicer time because that money left the country.
They will have a nicer time, because they will be sending the money back to the country in order to import goods with it. Ultimately the only places that you can do business with the US dollar as currency is the US. It may serve as a trade good temporarily while it's out there, but only because there is someone who wants to use it for buying something from the US.


quote:
The remaining unemployed Americans will now draw money from welfare, unemployment, food stamps and so forth. This money they draw is taken out of the economy through taxes (and maybe to an extent through bond swaps with the Fed).
Such benefits _add_ money to the economy, and are one of the important pathways to ensure enough money is flowing into the economy to keep it solvent.

Taxes do take money out of the economy, but they have nothing to do with the money created by benefit programs. The notion that taxes are need to pay for spending is purely political nonsense used to create false excuses to cut programs where no actual evidence exists to support those cuts.

quote:
Let's also not forget that illegals frequently won't be paying income tax at all since they don't have their papers.
Just the opposite- they'll tend to have false papers so they can work and be paying the most in taxes so as to avoid attracting the attention of auditors.

quote:
They are spending some of their money while expatriating some of it, whereas an American in their position would be spending some of it and paying taxes with the rest.
In other words they're not saving much and circulating the rest. It's irrelevant that some of it makes a detour out of the country for a few exchanges, because it all eventually has to come back. Even money that get put into an "offshore account" comes back in the from of reserves, treasury bills, and securities that the bank that supplies those accounts uses the money to purchase, because the only way for those offshore banks to actually put the money anywhere is by passing it through to their accounts with banks in the US Federal Reserve system.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 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:
yes, that was my point, Genius. illegal immigration is itself an effect of exploitatiom. if we enforece good working conditions and safeguards against those who employ illegals, americans will be able to compete with them for low end jobs, and illegal immigration will reduce. are you simply not reading what i said or do you have an objection to my proposal to treat illegals with basic human dignity?
I Object to the notion that anything shore of allowing those looking for work to so legally will be a policy choice that we can make to improve their situation. Any doubling down on making it illegal for them to work here, will increase the degree to which they're exploited to offset the risks of doing so, but have no actual effect on the supply, because people desperate to survive will endure just about any degree of exploitation so long as the alternative exists.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 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:
You interpretation that we need to grant citizenship to a baby whose mother stepped across the border just to give birth doesn't make much sense. If we are going to give away American citizenship so casually then why do we have millions of people around the world waiting for years and years and years just to get into America and then waiting for more years and years and years before they are eligible for American citizenship? How is that logical at all?
BEcause it forces people to come illegally so they can be exploited.

It is not logical. There is no good reason to force people to wait more than an hour or two at most to verify that they pass a criminal and medical test. Wo only do it because businesses want to have undocumented immigrants to exploit and because they have learned how to play to racism to support such restrictions out of our current self-reinforcing state of white supremacy.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 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:
Patrick Henry voted against the 1989 constitution. By your logic we should go read patrick henry's predictions of the horrors the constitution would create, as definitive interpretations of what the feds are allowed to do under the constitution.
No, Pete, what I saying is that if someone for a piece of legislation says it is going to do a certain thing, and someone against that piece of legislation says it's going to do the same thing, then you can't really argue with a straight face that the legislation was obviously never intended to do that thing. [Smile]

quote:
That doesn't mean everyone at the time had the same interpretation, which could very well explain why they voted for it.
That could well be true, but with the advocates saying it would provide jus soli, and the opponents saying it would provide jus soli, and the Supreme Court deciding a few years later that it would provide jus soli, then you'd better come up with some quotes of people arguing at the time that it does not provide jus soli if you want to say that it was intended not to provide jus soli.

Because all I hear are those legislators at the time it was written and passed arguing that it does.

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pyr,

quote:
I highlighted the critical phrase for you. The only way to prevent that is to make the labor legal so that it can't undercut other legal labor. Otherwise there will always be a supply of illegal labor undercutting legal labor,
No. There is an easy solution, make the cost of hiring illegal labor extreme - if a company is caught hiring illegals - a fine of 100 or 1000 times the value of the labor would readily discourage any thoughts of hiring illegals.
Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pyr,

also you are wrong that the only use for US dollars is in the US economy.

Any economy can use US dollars for trade without it coming back to the US economy. The claim that it has to be spent in the US is silly.

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  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 thought I had already posted this but I'll try again:

"In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by writing:
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.cairco.org/issues/anchor-babies

And there is also this from wiki:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_M._Howard

Howard is credited with working closely with Abraham Lincoln in drafting and passing the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which abolished slavery. In the Senate, he also served on the Joint Committee on Reconstruction, which drafted the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

During debate over the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, he argued for including the phrase and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Howard said:

"[The 14th amendment] 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 person."

From: http://www.14thamendment.us/birthright_citizenship/original_intent.html

This understanding was reaffirmed by Senator Edward Cowan, who stated:

"[A foreigner in the United States] has a right to the protection of the laws; but he is not a citizen in the ordinary acceptance of the word..."

From wiki again:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Children born to citizens of other countries

The Fourteenth Amendment provides that children born in the United States become American citizens regardless of the citizenship of their parents. At the time of the amendment's passage, three Senators, including Trumbull, the author of the Civil Rights Act, as well as President Andrew Johnson, asserted that both the Civil Rights Act and the Fourteenth Amendment would confer citizenship on such children at birth; however, Senator Edgar Cowan of Pennsylvania had a definitively contrary opinion. These congressional remarks applied to non-citizens lawfully present in the United States, as the problem of unauthorized immigration did not exist in 1866, and some scholars dispute whether the Citizenship Clause applies to unauthorized immigrants, although the law of the land continues to be based on the standard interpretation. Congress during the 21st century has occasionally discussed revising the clause to reduce the practice of "birth tourism", in which a pregnant foreign national gives birth in the United States for purposes of the child's citizenship.

The clause's meaning with regard to a child of legal immigrants was tested in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898). The Supreme Court held that under the Fourteenth Amendment, a man born within the United States to Chinese citizens who have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States and are carrying on business in the United States—and whose parents were not employed in a diplomatic or other official capacity by a foreign power—was a citizen of the United States. Subsequent decisions have applied the principle to the children of foreign nationals of non-Chinese descent.

[ August 25, 2015, 04:55 PM: Message edited by: cherrypoptart ]

Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  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 
Let's parse that sentence, cherry, because it does not say what you seem to think it says:

"...will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners ... who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers ... but will include every other class of person."

In other words, foreigners born here who do not belong to the families of ambassadors and/or ministers are explicitly included.

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 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 
That's certainly one possible valid interpretation. I'll grant you that. Apparently they didn't have a concept for illegal immigration back then and had no laws against it so it may be time to look at their intent through the prism of more recent events and start using the Constitution as the "living, breathing document" we are often told it is. But you have a point there. Certainly anti-birth citizenship web pages should provide better evidence than this to make their position.

In any case, many people are reading it differently. For example, just some random guy:

Original intent of the 14th Amendment

In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by stating:

"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."

This understanding was reaffirmed by Senator Edward Cowan, who stated:

"[A foreigner in the United States] has a right to the protection of the laws; but he is not a citizen in the ordinary acceptance of the word..."

So under the original intent of the 14th Amendment, foreigners cannot sneak into the nation, pop out a baby, and have that baby be a citizen. Trump does not need to change the Constitution, he just needs to enforce it!

Read more: whatreallyhappened.com http://whatreallyhappened.com/content/original-intent-14th-amendment#ixzz3jrYUep9m


Original intent of the 14th Amendment

In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by stating:

"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."

This understanding was reaffirmed by Senator Edward Cowan, who stated:

"[A foreigner in the United States] has a right to the protection of the laws; but he is not a citizen in the ordinary acceptance of the word..."

"So under the original intent of the 14th Amendment, foreigners cannot sneak into the nation, pop out a baby, and have that baby be a citizen. Trump does not need to change the Constitution, he just needs to enforce it!"

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

I can see it maybe going either way. Some of these things are like the Bible. It means whatever you want it to mean, whatever suits your convenience at the time. And our Supreme Court has proven that time and time again.

I've been talking a lot about original intent but even if the birth citizenship advocates are granted that, it still doesn't mean that the Constitution can't be interpreted differently today. Just like with gay marriage. I doubt there is any serious reason to believe that was ever part of the original intent of the 14th Amendment, but in the end the Constitution only means what 5 out of 9 Supreme Court justices whimsically decide based on their personal views of the moment whatever they decide they want it to mean. If liberals can use that to their advantage why can't we?

Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  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:
Originally posted by LetterRip:
Any economy can use US dollars for trade without it coming back to the US economy. The claim that it has to be spent in the US is silly.

It's a good thing that I didn't make that claim, then. In fact, just the opposite, I said that they could be traded as goods in other economies, but ultimately their value in trade stems directly from the fact that someone down the line needs dollars to do business with the US. That downstream demand for dollars is what gives them trade value in cases when they're being bartered in lieu of the actual local accounting units.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 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:
Originally posted by LetterRip:
Pyr,

quote:
I highlighted the critical phrase for you. The only way to prevent that is to make the labor legal so that it can't undercut other legal labor. Otherwise there will always be a supply of illegal labor undercutting legal labor,
No. There is an easy solution, make the cost of hiring illegal labor extreme - if a company is caught hiring illegals - a fine of 100 or 1000 times the value of the labor would readily discourage any thoughts of hiring illegals.
Discouragement fails consistently. It just makes people more clever about not getting caught. That high price would simply increase the exploitative pressure to balance the risk.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 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 
It is bizarre to see such an unequivocal provision of the Constitution debated in this manner.
Posts: 2336 | Registered: Sep 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pyr,

quote:
Discouragement fails consistently. It just makes people more clever about not getting caught. That high price would simply increase the exploitative pressure to balance the risk.
No it really doesn't. Labor is substitutible, if the marginal risk goes up it quickly drives adoption of legal labor - either legal immigrants; natives; or robotics. The gap between legal and illegal labor is fairly modest, and thus any increase in risk will result in adopting legal labor. There just aren't adequate incentives to maintain usage of illegal labor. It is only cost effective because there is essentially no risk to the employer.
Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  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 
Now the New York Times is getting in on some of this action.

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/08/24/should-birthright-citizenship-be-abolished/birthright-citizenship-is-not-actually-in-the-constitution

Birthright Citizenship Is Not Actually in the Constitution
John C. Eastman

John Eastman is the Henry Salvatori Professor of Law and Community Service, and former Dean, at Chapman University’s Fowler School of Law. He is also the founding director of the Claremont Institute’s Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence.

Updated August 24, 2015, 3:32 AM

The question of whether birthright citizenship should be abolished is based on the faulty premise that our Constitution actually mandates it. In fact, the text of the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause reads: “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.”

That text has two requirements for citizenship — that an individual is born on U.S. soil; and that an individual is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States when born.

“Subject to the jurisdiction” means more than simply being present in the United States. When the 14th Amendment was being debated in the Senate, Senator Lyman Trumbull, a key figure in its drafting and adoption, stated that “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States meant not “owing allegiance to anybody else.”

The drafters of the clause modeled it off of the 1866 Civil Rights Act which grants citizenship to “all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power.”

And Senator Jacob Howard, who introduced the language of the clause on the floor of the Senate, contended that it should be interpreted in the same way as the requirement of the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which afforded citizenship to “all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power.”

The Supreme Court has never held otherwise. Some advocates for illegal immigrants point to the 1898 case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, but that case merely held that a child born on U.S. soil to parents who were lawful, permanent (legally, "domiciled") residents was a citizen.

The broader language in the case suggesting that birth on U.S. soil is alone sufficient (thereby rendering the “subject to the jurisdiction" clause meaningless) is only dicta — not binding. The court did not specifically consider whether those born to parents who were in the United States unlawfully were automatically citizens.

The misunderstood policy of birthright citizenship provides a powerful magnet for people to violate our immigration laws and undermines the plenary power over naturalization that the Constitution explicitly gives to Congress. It is long past time to clarify that the 14th Amendment does not grant U.S. citizenship to the children of anyone just because they can manage to give birth on U.S. soil.

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

Short and sweet. That about sums it up.

Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  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:
Originally posted by LetterRip:
Pyr,

quote:
Discouragement fails consistently. It just makes people more clever about not getting caught. That high price would simply increase the exploitative pressure to balance the risk.
No it really doesn't. Labor is substitutible, if the marginal risk goes up it quickly drives adoption of legal labor - either legal immigrants; natives; or robotics. The gap between legal and illegal labor is fairly modest, and thus any increase in risk will result in adopting legal labor. There just aren't adequate incentives to maintain usage of illegal labor. It is only cost effective because there is essentially no risk to the employer.
And it's essentially no risk (or seems that way) because, short of outright police state tactics, there's pretty much no way to enforced rules against it, And even then psychology always favors the attitude of the individual believing that they're clever enough to outsmart the system or are otherwise the exceptional case. And again, such penalties miss the fact that the only "benefit" to creating a supply of illegal labor in the first place is to a class of cheap exploitable labor. Investing in enforcement is just a waste of resources when legalizing the labor would actually eliminate the problem without making people waste time and effort on a sisyphean task.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 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 
Also, the issue of birth tourism didn't really exist prior to the passage of racist immigration caps and creation of the foundation of current pathological state of affairs in the 1920s. Prior to that legal immigration was something that was actually just a matter of waiting in line once you got here to be processed, instead of the current system that makes it effectively impossible to enter legally unless you can effectively buy your way in.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 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 cherrypoptart:
That text has two requirements for citizenship — that an individual is born on U.S. soil; and that an individual is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States when born.

“Subject to the jurisdiction” means more than simply being present in the United States. When the 14th Amendment was being debated in the Senate, Senator Lyman Trumbull, a key figure in its drafting and adoption, stated that “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States meant not “owing allegiance to anybody else.”

This precise point is the one I brought up just before with Donald, who sadly hasn't had a chance yet to address my questions. It doesn't seem logical to me to interpret "subject to the jurisdiction of" as "being physically present," since if that was the real intent there would be no reason at all for that sort of wording. Legalese can be tiresome, but if all they meant was "if your feet are touching American soil" then they could have phrased it to say exactly that. Using nothing more than the law of restricted choice (a very important law in probability study) it puts the odds in favor of them not having meant this since they failed to write it this way.

But here is another interesting way to look at the problem which might help set aside partisan allegiance temporarily: Let's pretend you are making a country and can decide to make whatever immigration laws you like. Which would you choose to include in your law books? What results would you hope to achieve by drafting immigration laws? A few potential options include:

1) No immigration laws; anyone can come, be a citizen, with no checks or conditions.
2) Security measures only: Anyone can come and be a citizen with no conditions other than a background check for criminality.
3) Limited open immigration: Anyone can come and be a citizen with no conditions other than a background check, and the number of immigrants per year will be capped at some number TBD.
4) More restriction, etc etc.

For anyone choosing #1 or #2 your official position is roughly equivalent to "everyone anywhere who wants to be a citizen can just decide to be one and that's it, except in the case of #2 they can't be a criminal." I submit to you that this policy would invite inevitable chaos and instability. If people want to come to your country because the quality of life and resource levels are higher, equilibrium force dictates that an amount of people will enter on a regular basis until the equilibrium is settled and there is no longer any advantage to come to America.

Once we get into #3, though, it suddenly has to be determined how many people to let in each year, from where they should come (if that matters, perhaps for the sake of fairness to each country), and under what conditions citizenship will be granted. And once we are at least partially restricting citizenship conditions, we certainly wouldn't want to accidentally restrict people who really should be citizens and have them trampled by laws meant to affect others. In the case of legal immigrants who are not yet citizens (but are on the potential road to citizenship) it would be very disruptive to their lives if they eventually gained citizenship but their children didn't and applications had to separately be made for them. It would complicate the lives of the babies, and further, since citizenship is meant to reflect allegiance to the U.S. it makes very little common sense to claim the baby of someone who plans to legally reside in the U.S. for life has allegiance to any other place.

Based on this same thought-process a claim could certainly be made that the same applies to a refugee or someone fleeing their country; it certainly doesn't stand to reason to suggest they still hold some kind of allegiance to the place from which they fled. But in the case of a tourist it's very clear they have no allegiance to the U.S. nor do they have the intention of switching their nationality in order to make a short trip to the U.S. The reason a specific clause regarding diplomats would have to be made here is because they are one of the few classes of people who will potentially live in the U.S. over a very long period of time, legally, and yet have no intention of switching their national allegiance. In fact, by definition of being a representative of another country they are necessarily allied to that other nation and cannot possibly under those circumstances have allegiance to the U.S. (if they did they'd be traitors). It seems to me that the above clause that Tom quoted is merely a banal recitation of this fact; necessary to state formally in the law, perhaps, but "duh" obvious to anyone who thinks about it. The whole reason to even mention diplomats, though, is because the conditions of both intending to be in the U.S. for a long time legally, as well as having formal allegiance to the U.S., are both necessary for citizenship to be conferred on the children.

I'm not saying for sure that cherry is right, but I don't think it's as clear cut as others are making it out to be. And no matter who's right neither interpretation of the 14th addresses which way the law should read if one had to option to redraft it any way one wished in modern times.

[ August 25, 2015, 11:30 PM: Message edited by: Fenring ]

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 
That all seems perfectly logical and I agree completely, even with the part about me maybe being wrong.

Going back to criminal background checks, I think it was Pyr who said this should only take a few hours. My wife is from Japan and when we did her criminal background check it took two months. And that's from an organized first world country that is very peaceful.

The criminal background check itself, which along with a communicable disease check, is the bare minimum we should have for legal immigrants. I would add a few others such as ability to be self supporting, which my wife had to document as well, but not even having those first two is just a dereliction of the duty of government.

Now how are we going to get accurate criminal background checks of people from Mexico, Central and South America, and other countries that aren't nearly as organized? I think that's what Trump meant by Mexico sending us their rapists and criminals. It's not precisely that Mexico is taking a newly paroled rapist or child molester and giving them a bus ride to the border, but they certainly aren't doing anything to get in their way either. That way the next time they commit their crimes it's going to be America's problem. And commit them they do. Our prisons are filled with large numbers of illegals who have done exactly that. So what happened to those background checks? Well how can you have a background check if you don't even have a border?

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 
quote:
“subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States meant not “owing allegiance to anybody else.”
You can owe allegiance to somebody else and still be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States -- as is pretty much any foreign visitor to the US. Only diplomats or someone else with a special dispensation is not subject to US jurisdiction when in the US.
Posts: 2336 | Registered: Sep 2010  |  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 
quote:
If people want to come to your country because the quality of life and resource levels are higher, equilibrium force dictates that an amount of people will enter on a regular basis until the equilibrium is settled and there is no longer any advantage to come to America.
Question: why does this not happen with American states? No state bars entry to any resident of another state, and yet the states do not demonstrate equivalent standards of living.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  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 
For background checks, it's pretty simple, really- if you're not on a FBI or CIA watchlist, and you have no open warrants against you, then you pass. If you've committed past crimes, but served the sentence for them, then they should be irrelevant, because the relevant debt is paid, and ongoing extra-legal restrictions should effectively be considered cruel and unusual. That shouldn't take more than a few hours to complete, especially in the post 9/11 work where DHS should be actively tracking all of that information anyway.

Looks like a TB test takes about two days to come back. That's also plenty of time for a query to other governments to report whether they want you for any notable crimes that DHS missed the boat on to come back. (And, to be clear, the search should be on the order of organized crime or terrorism related activities. Not parking tickets and other minor offenses)

So long as there's no immediate threat, there's no reason to keep them out through artificial caps or quotas, especially if we want to claim liberty and self-determination as primary values.

Fenring- I'd take option 2 on your list, with the qualification that it should be for Legal Residency/work permit status, not citizenship.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  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 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
If people want to come to your country because the quality of life and resource levels are higher, equilibrium force dictates that an amount of people will enter on a regular basis until the equilibrium is settled and there is no longer any advantage to come to America.
Question: why does this not happen with American states? No state bars entry to any resident of another state, and yet the states do not demonstrate equivalent standards of living.
Are you claiming that citizens don't move from one state to another in search of jobs?

Detroit loses 25% of its population over a decade.

States don't protect themselves from mass immigration because they are forbidden to do so by the 14th Amendment's privileges and immunities clause.

Like Pyr said, it seems kind of screwed up to argue about explicit constitutional language this way. The 14th Amendment is nearly as explicit and loophole free in its protection of anchor babies as the 2nd Amendment is on the right to bear arms. But Trump is correct that legislators have the power to force the issue to court, and heaven knows how the court will rule, since recent rulings show that you can get a 5:4 ruling that white is black, that war is peace, that slavery is freedom.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  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 
quote:
Originally posted by cherrypoptart:
Maybe some people voted against it because that was their interpretation of it, one that many people agree with today. He certainly saw the writing on the wall.

That doesn't mean everyone at the time had the same interpretation, which could very well explain why they voted for it.

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

You understood exactly what I was thinking with the ISIS birth tourists.

RE Patrick Henry, my point exactly.

I thought I understood what you were thinking, but I don't play obtuse, so if my reply was off point, then either I misunderstood you or you misunderstood me.

Re Jeb Bush's offensive but perfectly accurate statement about organized schemes to create immigration loopholes, here is one case I was involved in (I was hired to write a motion to dismiss by some of the defendants' attorneys in the original trial, US vs. Xu). Xu vs US

The US essentially hosted a Chinese show trial, with America acting as proxy for the People's Republic of China's attempts to pin a whole decade of nationwide embezzlement through the national PRC bank, on the managers of one tiny backwoods branch. The fig leaf that the US government used to justify its involvement was, through the ever flexible RICO statute, the arguably phony marriages entered into by defendants. Husbands and wives of the alleged conspiring parties divorced each other, married US Citizens to whom they allegedly paid money, and then moved to America.

From the link:

quote:
Defendants Wanfang and Yingyi similarly engaged in
activities that show their intent to conspire with Chaofan and
Guojun to bring fraudulently obtained funds into the United
States. According to Zhendong, Wanfang and Yingyi entered
into false marriages to acquire residency status in the United
States in order to flee there in the event their husbands’ bank
fraud was discovered. These false marriages were facilitated by a Kaiping government clerk who testified that he had
altered marriage records to remove evidence of Chaofan’s
marriage to Wanfang and Guojun’s marriage to Yingyi.
Wanfang’s and Yingyi’s false marriages with American
citizens were set up by intermediaries. Neither Wanfang nor
Yingyi ever lived with their respective sham spouses as
husband and wife. Wanfang was naturalized as an American
citizen on June 22, 2000, and she divorced her fake spouse on
July 28, 2000. Yingyi was naturalized on November 10,
1999, and she divorced her fake spouse on April 17, 2001. At
the time of their arrests in September 2004, Guojun and
Yingyi had been reunited and were living in Kansas. By the
time they were arrested in Oklahoma in October 2004,
Chaofan and Wanfang had also been reunited.

Cherry, do you actually question Bush's assertion that this sort of ORGANIZED seeking of US loopholes, is more common to Asian immigrants than to Mexicans?

Illegal Mexican immigrants typically don't fly pregnant into the US and give birth at a hospital and then turn around and fly home. The whole scheme simply doesn't work with the way that most Mexican illegals enter the country. That's not an issue of race. That's an issue of geography.

Yes, Tom was being foolish when he attributed all resistance to immigration to racism. (He will never admit fault, but he is backpedaling on that statement, now calling it "a factor.") But don't answer one stupidity with another. Trump was being a race baiting twerp when he tried to blow Jeb's comment into a race war.

But I just love the way that Trump gets up there and takes credit for immigration being discussed at all in the election. Like we've ever had an election in anyone's memory where illegal immigration wasn't an issue. [Roll Eyes] He might as well take credit for mosquitoes and flatulence.

[ August 26, 2015, 12:06 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  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:
quote:
“subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States meant not “owing allegiance to anybody else.”
You can owe allegiance to somebody else and still be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States -- as is pretty much any foreign visitor to the US. Only diplomats or someone else with a special dispensation is not subject to US jurisdiction when in the US.
Well this is the real question, isn't it? I think the entire matter boils down to the meaning of this phrase. Donald quoted this passage before-
quote:
The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called "ligealty," "obedience," "faith," or "power" of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King's allegiance and subject to his protection.
-which seems to suggest that "jurisdiction" is a kind of modern rendering of "born within the king's allegiance". If this is so and is a matter of English common law then allegiance is certainly relevant to whether someone is under a nation's jurisdiction. Don't forget: Jurisdiction is not merely a term used to refer to a physical area covered by a state or federal area (i.e. 'under their jurisdiction'); it also refers to the state of the person in question and whether they are subject to the laws of the land within those local or federal jurisdictions. A tourist to the U.S., for example, is certainly within the legal jurisdiction for the purposes of the criminal court system, but they are definitely not subject to certain local laws meant to apply to residents.

quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
If people want to come to your country because the quality of life and resource levels are higher, equilibrium force dictates that an amount of people will enter on a regular basis until the equilibrium is settled and there is no longer any advantage to come to America.
Question: why does this not happen with American states? No state bars entry to any resident of another state, and yet the states do not demonstrate equivalent standards of living.
This does happen, I'm sure, but although there are differences in resources and geography between the states, overall they enjoy a relatively similar way of life compared to, for example, Mexico. You might move from Vermont to Texas in search of job opportunities, sure, but then again if Vermont is your home and the culture you identify with then the economic possibilities would have to be relatively high to overcome your natural desire to remain in what has always been your home. If you look at various countries such as Mexico, Haiti, and so forth, the disparity in lifestyle compared to even Vermont is so ridiculous that people would flood in if given the chance. For a better comparison you can think of Vermont as it is now compared with a Texas that had gold bricks lying around on the ground for passers by to take. People would be flooding in from Vermont for that, too.

To answer Pyr's choosing my option #2 (and Tom it seems from what you've said so far this is your choice as well), I will put it to you that if the law was simply "anyone in the world who is not a criminal can simply come to the U.S. and live and work here, perhaps eventually to become a citizen" then within one year you'd have 50 million or more people from every third world country under the sun showing up. And that's just for starters. We are not merely talking about people who believe the U.S. has better prospects than their own country by some good margin (which already would be a vast amount of people), but also those who are desperate and believe that purchasing a plane ticket will solve all of their problems, whether or not they're right. And then we could get into actual refugees, where America would be the ultimate destination for any people persecuted who can at least get themselves onto a boat for America. And perhaps I should bring up the fact that, knowing this, foreign powers would now have at their disposal the power to banish people to America for any or no crime; even African warlords could herd people into boats with impunity and send them off to America.

If you think the American infrastructure could handle even a part of this then perhaps you've become too accustomed to a very stable way of life with almost no perturbations in the social order? The American economy is already in dire trouble, but as long as foreign people think it's the land of promise they'd flood in anyhow.

I find it hard to believe, actually, that anyone could seriously think that unrestricted (unlimited?) immigration could be a sustainable and even healthy adventure to undertake. Weird, man.

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  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:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
If people want to come to your country because the quality of life and resource levels are higher, equilibrium force dictates that an amount of people will enter on a regular basis until the equilibrium is settled and there is no longer any advantage to come to America.
Question: why does this not happen with American states? No state bars entry to any resident of another state, and yet the states do not demonstrate equivalent standards of living.
They do, to some degree, but public support helps mitigate the kind of migration that we saw as recently as 100 years ago.

Fully moving costs a lot, and the degree of desperation on has to sink to to just walk away with what they can carry and hope that they find something where ever they end up is significantly reduced by income support for people that might otherwise be able to do that but we keep from hitting that level of desperation. Unfortunately we only give them just enough to tread water, not enough to actually productively invest in progress.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 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:
Jurisdiction is not merely a term used to refer to a physical area covered by a state or federal area (i.e. 'under their jurisdiction'); it also refers to the state of the person in question and whether they are subject to the laws of the land within those local or federal jurisdictions.
Jurisdiction unequivocally means "subject to the laws of the land." Or more specifically, subject to the courts of the land.

Again, this really is not a debatable issue only because some people have chosen to debate it. Anyone is subject to the laws and courts of the land they are in unless they have some special immunity, which much be granted and recognized in the law of the same land where the protection of immunity applies. This is just common sense if you think about it.

An illegal immigrant is still rather obviously subject to the laws and courts of the land they are in, and it would be absurd to suggest otherwise (i.e., that an illegal immigrant enjoys the immunity of a diplomat).

I reiterate, there is nothing to debate here. It is settled Constitutional law.

Posts: 2336 | Registered: Sep 2010  |  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 
quote:
Tom was being foolish when he attributed all resistance to immigration to racism. (He will never admit fault, but he is backpedaling on that statement, now calling it "a factor.")
I will point out that I never said anything of the kind, and corrected people repeatedly when they suggested as much. Rather, I said that the modern opposition to birthright citizenship was rooted in racism.

-----------

quote:
If you look at various countries such as Mexico, Haiti, and so forth, the disparity in lifestyle compared to even Vermont is so ridiculous that people would flood in if given the chance.
You don't think that there are people who would consider the difference in culture between Mexico and Vermont to be as significant as the difference in prosperity? As you note, cultural differences prevent people from Vermont from moving to Texas; would that not apply to at least some of our potential immigrants?

[ August 26, 2015, 12:46 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  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 TomDavidson:
quote:
If you look at various countries such as Mexico, Haiti, and so forth, the disparity in lifestyle compared to even Vermont is so ridiculous that people would flood in if given the chance.
You don't think that there are people who would consider the difference in culture between Mexico and Vermont to be as significant as the difference in prosperity? As you note, cultural differences prevent people from Vermont from moving to Texas; would that not apply to at least some of our potential immigrants?
As I said it depends on how much disparity there is. Between Texas and Vermont there is a disparity in income tax levels, and possibly in job opportunities. But they enjoy the same constitutional freedoms, the same general lifestyle and culture (actually quite applicable since I happen to have picked two freedom-loving states), the same type of selection of stores, etc etc. There are differences, but they aren't major compared to discussing any U.S. state in comparison with a war-torn country or one subject to decades of debt slavery and ruin.

Sticking with one's own culture is no doubt important to many people, who would likely stay at home unless conditions there were very dire indeed. When the safety of one's family is at stake this is even more so, and Eastern Europe in the late 1930's is good evidence that people will up and go when it looks like things are getting really bad. For all those whose liking of staying home isn't quite as strong the economic factor will sway them. And of course there's always the option of doing what many present illegals do and emigrating to America while the family stays home and supporting them from abroad.

I'm just touching upon "duh" criteria of why someone would make a decision one way or the other, but it should be trivially obvious (even tautological) that when the possible opportunity is above a certain level anyone who wants a chance at that will just go after it. A brief inspection of the American lifestyle compared to that of some other countries should leave little doubt as to whether the comparison is equivalent of comparing Vermont to Texas.

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  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 
Sincere question: how do you feel about the way many countries, including China, handle this -- namely, via indentured servitude?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  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:
I will put it to you that if the law was simply "anyone in the world who is not a criminal can simply come to the U.S. and live and work here, perhaps eventually to become a citizen" then within one year you'd have 50 million or more people from every third world country under the sun showing up.
Based on what evidence?

That's the kind of racist thinking that got us into this mess in the first place, despite any lack of real evidence to support it. I'm sure we'd see an initial bump as the current backlog of requests is cleared, but unless you're claiming that we're sitting on 50 million requests at the moment, there aren't that many people who have so little regard for their own homes, families, etc... as well as the freedom and ability to afford to travel, we're not going to see any kind of huge shift in rate of applications, just rate of approval, while at the same time we'd free up many more resources for actual security needs and more productive investments.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  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 
I think the idea that America is irresistibly popular and would be overrun by the desperate if we allowed it is a particularly interesting form of exceptionalism. I'm actually curious whether there's significant overlap between people who hold that opinion and Objectivists, although it's a bit far afield to explain why.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 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 
Objectivists would be likely to believe that, I think.
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 
What's population movement within the EU look like? My understanding there aren't any formal obstacles between the UK and Poland, say. Has Western Europe been overrun by migrants from Eastern Europe?
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 TomDavidson:
Sincere question: how do you feel about the way many countries, including China, handle this -- namely, via indentured servitude?

If I could just make up any rule I liked I think a good idea would be to remedy the immigration problem and the bankruptcy-state of cities and states at once. Bring in foreign applicants not as random immigrants, but as workers specifically employed to come in to do public works projects such as building a bridge or doing grand projects that used to be done but now cannot be afforded. There is massive infrastructure to repair and upgrade as well that cannot be handled at present. Let them come is as workers for such projects and when the project is completed give them a green card; or something to that extent. There is enough physical work to be done that there would be no worry of these workers increasing the glut of low-wage laborers in the market already. It should follow naturally that such projects could also employ actual Americans as well, and funny enough House of Cards (on a somewhat smaller scale) came up with the same idea in America Works. The way to deal with paying all the new foreign workers could be to do it as indentured servitude, like you say, to have them pay their way to a green card through work. Presumably they'd have to be fed and housed, but the expense would lie in the materials used and professionals needed to oversee the jobs. Or if this is distasteful another way to do it could be to pay them normally and to help finance their pay through things like tolls, contributions from municipal and state levels, and maybe some other ways. It's not easy to figure out how to finance such a venture, except to say that one solution to having too much manpower - is to find a way to use it.

But when you stack up legal indentured servitude with a rainbow at the end against basically the equivalent conditions for illegal workers who have no hope of ever being citizens, at least the former has good prospects in store for them in addition to their legality. But if you have a better idea I'd surely like to hear it.

I'm fairly convinced that simply letting in anyone in the world who wanted to come with no particular aim in mind would glut the workforce and further increase unemployment. I won't get into the 'culture' issues (they won't know our ways, they will break the law, etc etc) here and am satisfied to restrict the discussion to economic factors. To answer Pyr's question, I of course have no proof behind the number I guessed (50 million) since I can't really know what will happen because it's never happened before, so this is my opinion. But merely looking at extant applications is not helpful since people apply or fail to do so based on America's current immigration policies. At present many won't bother applying if they think they'll never get in anyhow, or if it will be a 10-20 year hassle and not worth the trouble.

Also presumably "refugee status" would become a thing of the past under unrestricted conditions and anyone fleeing anywhere would know that if they could get to America they'd be welcomed and safe. This sounds romantic, but what would be the practical result?

[ August 26, 2015, 03:06 PM: Message edited by: Fenring ]

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  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:
What's population movement within the EU look like? My understanding there aren't any formal obstacles between the UK and Poland, say. Has Western Europe been overrun by migrants from Eastern Europe?

Here's some 2010 census data on migrations within Europe:

http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/briefings/eu-migrants-other-eu-countries-analysis-bilateral-migrant-stocks

It looks like millions of people migrated towards the west over the years since the EU became a thing.

You should also consider that open borders also involve refugees, and not merely migration:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-08-21/france-britain-to-set-up-crisis-centre-as-migrant-pressure-rises/6713394

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-08-20/germany-expects-record-800000-asylum-seekers-this-year/6710938

Germany expects to have 800,000 refugee applicants... in just one year. And this is with Germany not having a totally open border on a worldwide basis. According to the census data from 2010 Germany already had almost 4 million migrants from other European countries, and if they allowed in almost a million refugees each year...well, you can do the math.

And yes, I am claiming that the great USA would attract more people from around the world than Germany does if it was willing to accept them. There is the geographical restriction of an ocean in the way, mind you, but I think people would find a way to cross it if they knew they were guaranteed a home when they got here.

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 
It doesn't sound like they're being overrun by legal migrants. My understanding is that most refugees cross the border illegally, so are part of a different question.

So the question about a practical result is a good one. Infrastructure is already in bad shape, apparently. And if Calgary is a good example of the continent, we're not particularly good at expanding to meet the needs of a whole bunch of new arrivals. One thing's for sure, an open border policy would need to be crafted a lot more intelligent than democracies seem used to.

Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 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