(10-30-2018, 03:58 PM)Kane Wrote: (10-30-2018, 03:43 PM)TJBender Wrote: I'd agree with you. But if we're going to hold that anyone in the US is subject to its laws, and the Constitution is the "Supreme Law of the Land", then children born in the US are also subject to the Constitution, which makes them citizens at birth.
We should probably just stop them from having anchor babies.
When they come in for their baby check up with no medical insurance we should ship em all back before the anchor baby is born.
Ta Hell with trying to convince half of our population what words actually mean as opposed to what you want them to mean....
just nip the problem in the bud.
Stop all immigration until a better plan is in place for legal immigration.
All people here illegally should be deported immediately regardless of country of origin, age, religion, pregnancy status....
But I'm sure you all would much rather argue over who is racist and what some dude meant 100+ years ago when trying to write law.
I agree with probably more than you think. If it's safe to do so, I'm not opposed to sending expectant mothers here illegally outside of our borders before any child is born. Cutting off immigration entirely would be a disaster. It wouldn't stop illegal immigration, but it would thrash our economy. I don't support blanket deportation, but I don't support blanket amnesty either. I think a true plan to fix illegal immigration (as much as it can be fixed) will have to involve an economic wall rather than a boondoggle that effectively cedes large chunks of land to Mexico and doesn't stop a damn person.
Nathaniel Hackett's playcalling would do a better job of stopping immigration than a fence in the desert, and while Nathaniel Hackett's offense does tend to lose yards, it doesn't cede miles upon miles of US land to Mexico because the fence can't be built directly through a mountain range in Arizona, the footers can't extend into Mexican soil and it can't be built in a way that would interfere with the natural flow of the Rio Grande. It would cut off wildlife migration routes (or are deer and rabbits illegal immigrants too?) and, as it already has with rivers crossing the border in California and Mexico, interrupt the natural ecosystem. All for what? To stop people from crossing into the US in places where they don't cross into the US anyway? I'm not saying knock down the walls we have. Most of them are doing their job, but that's because most of them are in high-traffic areas near major roads and border towns where someone could easily disappear. They're not there to stop, they're there to slow down so the Border Patrol can get there. The uninhabited desert doesn't need fences to stop traffic that, for the most part, isn't there. Expand and beef up fencing around major cities, towns, highways that approach the border (I-10 and I-8, in particular), anyplace else that someone could easily get in and get lose, sure. But don't waste billions of dollars that should be going to infrastructure, education, better equipment and better Border Patrol agents,
real tax cuts that don't turn into a pumpkin in 2024, etc.
My objection to a wall is really not about the people coming across. It's about there being a right way and a wrong way to do things--economically and practically. A $25 billion wall (that's 250 years of Aaron Rodgers at QB...we should be so lucky) that is going to be more of a symbol to make the far right feel good about themselves than an actual measure to prevent immigration is just ridiculous.
