Thread: It's time to 'reimagine' birthright citizenship

Originally Posted by Beezer

He sure has said a lot about "having a heart" for DACA...illegal aliens that need to be booted off our soil along with their illegal DAPA parents who ARE still here.

Yes, he has!

Originally Posted by Beezer

He sure has said a lot about "having a heart" for DACA...illegal aliens that need to be booted off our soil along with their illegal DAPA parents who ARE still here.

END ANCHOR BABY SCAM!

ISSUE AN ORDER THAT NO U.S. BIRTH CERTIFICATES WILL BE HANDED OVER TO NON-CITIZENS GIVING BIRTH ON OUR SOIL!

Trump can't tell a state not to issue a birth certificate. What he can do is refuse to issue Passports to children of illegal aliens and try to convince Social Security Administration not to issue them Social Security Numbers. But there would be lawsuits and without a law, the Supreme Court will probably follow that Wong Kim Ark Case.

Originally Posted by Judy

Trump can't tell a state not to issue a birth certificate. What he can do is refuse to issue Passports to children of illegal aliens and try to convince Social Security Administration not to issue them Social Security Numbers. But there would be lawsuits and without a law, the Supreme Court will probably follow that Kim Van Ark Case.

Kim Van Ark Case?

JWK

Originally Posted by johnwk

Kim Van Ark Case?

JWK

Oh sorry, it's Wong Kim Ark Case. My Chinese Memory isn't as good as it needs to be.

Originally Posted by Judy

Oh sorry, it's Wong Kim Ark Case. My Chinese Memory isn't as good as it needs to be.

That's what I thought you meant. How would Wong Kim Ark apply?

JWK

Originally Posted by johnwk

That's what I thought you meant. How would Wong Kim Ark apply?

JWK

Absent a law, I think the US Supreme Court will use the Wong Kim Ark case as long-standing precedent on the subject of children born in the US to non-citizens until the Congress would pass a law to refine or restrict it. I don't think that is the right decision, I don't think the Wong Kim Ark decision was the right decision to begin with, but that has been the standing law since 1898.

The President can issue the order to stop issuing Passports and Social Security numbers to anchor babies. But it will be challenged in the courts without a law to back him up.

Most Americans don't even know about this absurdity. I didn't know about it until I got involved in the fight against illegal immigration 15 years ago. The passage of time works against US for a significant change by the courts of this type of practice. Federal legislation is different, legislation is supposed to be the will of the people, something the courts look at very seriously and are reluctant to overturn.

Just my speculation of what the US Supreme Court would do to Trump if he tried this on his own without a law to back him up. Then we would have another US Supreme Court Ruling on a refinement that could over-ride legislation, and you're stuck.

Originally Posted by Judy

Absent a law, I think the US Supreme Court will use the Wong Kim Ark case as long-standing precedent on the subject of children born in the US to non-citizens until the Congress would pass a law to refine or restrict it. .

What "long-standing precedent' are you referring to? What did the court declare in its majority opinion which is considered a "precedent"?


JWK

Originally Posted by Judy

Just my speculation of what the US Supreme Court would do to Trump if he tried this on his own without a law to back him up. Then we would have another US Supreme Court Ruling on a refinement that could over-ride legislation, and you're stuck.

I see it as buying time. If citizenship is granted, it is just about impossible to take away. But if, by EO, President Trump orders it stopped, SCOTUS will either hold it up or retroactively grant citizenship to those who they feel qualify.

The problem with our movement is that we have focused too much for too long on soft cures to this problem, passing a law, changing a procedure, adding a mandate, searching for some white collar desk jockey solution to illegal immigration when there isn't one. There is only 1 cure to illegal aliens occupying our country and that is the hard cure of massive, constant, rapid deportations and we need the support and engagement of state and local police officers to achieve it. That gets the ones here out and reduces the lure of more to come in. We also should cut off all cash and financial benefits, that's very easy to do, but never gets done. And to stop the flow while we're busy deporting I like my Plan B, which is something the President has full authority to do:

Plan B:

Tell all these countries, if your citizens do not stop entering our country illegally, then your country will have no aid from or trade with the United States. Period.

We can also pass the FairTax and eliminate the evil income tax that strips the liberty of our own people while handing out boatloads of our cash to illegal aliens through earned income and child care tax credits.

There was an article posted today that said ICE had removed 227,000 illegal aliens from the United States in 2017, up 10% from 2016. We have 30 million illegal aliens in the United States plus their anchor babies. How many years will it take ICE to remove 30 million illegal aliens at that rate? If we stopped the flow today, 100%, it would take our present number of ICE agents 120 years to deport all the illegal aliens already in the United States.

But tragically, more illegal aliens entered the US in 2017 than ICE deported. So with present resources, unless the 800,000 member state and local law enforcement agencies are authorized to enforce US immigration law, we are doomed. Even if Trump could get the additional 15,000 ICE agents for a total of 20,000 ICE agents, it would still take ICE 30 years to deport 30 million illegal aliens.

If we authorize all state and local law enforcement agencies to enforce US immigration law, not force them to do so, but authorize them to do so if they choose to do do, then we can solve this problem in most states in less than 2 years which would allow ICE to focus their resources on California and New York.

To truly tackle this problem, everyone has to face the stark reality that there is no white collar solution to illegal immigration, it's boots on the ground, with vests on the chests packing heat on both hips, with long guns on both shoulders, what police officers do every day in every town in the USA. It's time to use those resources we use against ourselves against the enemy of illegal immigration.

Judy,

I'm still curious about the "long-standing precedent' you are referring to found in Wong Kim Ark. What did the court declare in its majority opinion which is considered a "precedent"?


JWK