B-Man Posted December 15 Posted December 15 DAVID MASTIO: Deporting one million undocumented immigrants a year is much easier than you think. The Trump administration has powerful winds at its back that might allow it to launch roundups and deportations at an even faster pace. Computer technology and surveillance have both advanced markedly since 2009. There are more police than there were 15 years ago and crime is much lower — allowing more boots on the ground to enforce immigration laws if local police cooperate as they do in much of the country, and which Trump says he will encourage. The economy is much more digitized, making it harder to live a life where your identity is off the grid. And there are powerful tools to make the United States much less welcoming to undocumented immigrants that the U.S. has never wielded. For instance, undocumented migrants paid federal, state and local governments nearly $100 billion in taxes in 2024, billions of which is returned to them in refunds fueled by tax breaks targeted at low-income earners. The U.S. could require proof of legal presence to pay refunds and hold the money until the immigrants agree to return to their home countries. Companies could be required to provide proof of legal presence for each employee whose salary they claim as an expense on their taxes. Such a move would hit farmers and hotels where undocumented workers frequently work, as each is dependent on undocumented migrants for workers, and the salaries of which are deducted on their taxes. Donald Trump’s plans for dealing with undocumented immigration are big, and they could be undone by the competence problems that were rife in his last administration. But they are not as unrealistic as his critics proclaim. Read the whole thing. https://archive.is/eoRjM 1
dgrochester55 Posted December 15 Posted December 15 (edited) 2 hours ago, Tiberius said: More: Those at risk include people from war-torn countries such as Afghanistan and Ukraine as well as people brought to the U.S. illegally as children, often called Dreamers. Many immigrants with temporary status, known as TPS, enjoy deportation protections—and work authorization—because the government has determined their home countries are too dangerous. Many more entered the country through a program set up by the Biden administration that rewarded them with work permits for coming legally rather than attempting to cross the southern border. Immigrants whose legal work status is at risk work in sectors that range from healthcare and hospitality to manufacturing and education, for small businesses and for large employers such as Eli Lilly, Amazon and Microsoft. Some are recent arrivals; others have been in the workforce for a decade. Their removal from the workforce—which, because of the intricacies of federal immigration law, would take months or more to play out—would create fresh challenges for employers already struggling to fill open positions. It would also plunge millions of families into instability, opening them up to possible deportation with few legal options to challenge the decision. “It will have an enormous impact across the U.S. in a wide range of industries, regardless of whether those people get deported or wind up leaving the U.S.,” said Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, a senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, a nonpartisan advocacy group. Chris Thomas, an immigration attorney in Denver, is working with one social-media company that has more than 1,000 employees whose legal work status could vanish, in roles that range from marketing to computer analyst. “A lot of other companies are expressing the same concern,” Thomas said Trump won't do anything. He will see that hurting the workforce hurts the economy. He will just do some cruel thing at the border, the media will freak out, Trump will say, "See I'm going after the parasites!" and nothing really will change. Fine, but will you really care if Trump does very little about immigrantion? You may not realize it but the economy relies on these workers and Trump knows that. He won't shoot himself in the foot. You are MAGA won't give two craps if he just does very little on this issue. Seriously, would you mind if he just signed the bi-partisan agree reached in Congress? That would work, right? If Trump blesses it, MAGA will say its great 1) Not everyone who doesn't have TDS flowing out of their veins is MAGA. Get that out of your bitter, narrow minded, head now. You lost in the election because you couldn't do this. The second that you call everyone MAGA, you are a red flag for TDS and lose all credibility. Grow up. 2) Nothing that you say about labor needs is an excuse for letting undocumented people come in unchecked. I don't care how many times you repeat that point, they are apples and oranges. Why should all of those workers not be documented? Tell me outside of not paying taxes or hiding from the law is being undocumented a benefit to non citizens or US citizens? 3) Is every undocumented person from war torn countries? Nope, so drop that argument too. I know that the left thrive in finding one or two extreme circumstance sob stories and having the media make it look like the norm, but lets address the more common cases instead. Lets focus on those who are undocumented and not refugees. 4) You seem very angry. Seriously consider therapy Edited December 15 by dgrochester55 1
B-Man Posted Tuesday at 04:28 PM Posted Tuesday at 04:28 PM The Constitution Does Not Grant Birthright Citizenship to the Children of Illegal Immigrants by James D. Agresti Dozens of media outlets are reporting in unison that Donald Trump cannot stop the U.S. government from awarding birthright citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants. They claim this is the case because the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution requires it. In reality, the legislative history of the 14th Amendment is clear that it only grants birthright citizenship to the children of people who are legally and permanently living in the United States. This does not apply to the children of illegal immigrants, temporary residents, visitors, or tourists. The legislative history of the 14th Amendment reveals that the birthright citizenship clause was enacted primarily to protect the civil rights of African Americans. Contrary to shallow claims from the media and certain scholars, it doesn’t grant citizenship to the children of anyone who is not legally and permanently living in the United States. https://www.justfactsdaily.com/the-constitution-does-not-grant-birthright-citizenship-to-the-children-of-illegal-immigrants#comments .
The Frankish Reich Posted Tuesday at 05:10 PM Posted Tuesday at 05:10 PM 35 minutes ago, B-Man said: The legislative history of the 14th Amendment reveals that the birthright citizenship clause was enacted primarily to protect the civil rights of African Americans. Contrary to shallow claims from the media and certain scholars, it doesn’t grant citizenship to the children of anyone who is not legally and permanently living in the United States. What about Indian tribes? I'll be fair here: liberal constitutional scholars have always said we should examine the context in which an amendment to the constitution was adopted. So they say the 2nd Amendment was adopted in a particular time under particular circumstances, and a fair reading of it is that it wasn't about a wholly "private" right to bear arms, unlinked to the well-regulated militia language. The people who want to read the 14th Amendment as not granting birthright citizenship are following in this liberal tradition. Meanwhile, conservative constitutional scholars have been textualists. The plain words of the amendment are what control. Applying those principles, the answer is easy: the 14th Amendment citizenship clause applies to every baby born in the United States except members of Indian tribes (not considered "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States at the time; that's why we say, for example, "Navajo Nation") and children of diplomats (which is why diplomatic immunity is a thing). So be consistent. Is that too much to ask?
Recommended Posts