Trumps deportation plan would cost $100-$200 BILLION

[bendog]

Well you can stamp your tiny feet all you want, but fed courts have consistently construed Wong Kim Ark to mean anyone born here is a citizen. However, Wong Kim Ark actually involved parents legally here ... from china. I think congress could pass a law in an attempt to change birth citizenship, because to my knowledge the scotus has not explicitly said children born to illegals here are citizens. Of course the scotus could overturn that law. If the scoutus has ruled illegal immigrant births resulting in citizens, the congress can't do jack shite about it. The supreme court could hold otherwise, or there could be a constitutional amend. Absent that, neither you nor the Donald get a vote.

I get it, your cool with the courts ignoring original intent and just doing what ever the hell they want.

the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch."

-- Thomas Jefferson

I'm for the rule of law. Original intent is a fallacy, because on abortion guns the 14th, you name it, original intent can be argued either way.

The quotes I provided form the guy that wrote the language of the 14th is in no way ambiguous, Feel free to argue otherwise, but you would be wrong.

I maybe could have been better clear (-: Possibly, it might be constitutional to not give anyone a visa unless the promised, and posted a bond, to depart when legally required to do so. But, if the deportee claimed he actually had a legal right to be here even though his visa expired, then there has to be court hearing. The legal right to be here claim could be a simple as "they said my visa got extended" to "I deserve refugee status."

Any more straws you want to grasp at?

roflmao at u. Priceless retort idiot

 

[SassyIrishLass]

NOt including the fence, that Mexico does not have the money to pay for, and would not pay for, even if they did, especially since a large % of illegals are from other countries.

"Back in 2011, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) deputy director Kumar Kibble said it costs $12,500 to deport an individual undocumented immigrant.

So when you multiply that cost for the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants living in the U.S., that comes to $137.5 billion."


Donald Trump s Deportation Plan Would Cost 100-200 Billion - NBC News

How much would the libtard amnesty plan cost?

30 million illegals with benefits...how fucked up is that?

Illegals cost California taxpayers $25 billion a year...that's just California. Trump is a genius!!!!!! 200 billion will be made up in a few years

 

[charwin95]

PolitiFart isn't a credible source. Even Loony left-wingers know that..

In continuing war on its own credibility PolitiFact calls accurate Obama jobs statement half true

And you are a reliable source? A lying, POS like you?

OK, smartass... tell me something.

In your opinion, are the illegals taking jobs that our own citizens could hold(driving up the poverty rate for Americans), or are they surviving on welfare that WE are paying for?

And BTW, thanks for calling another Liberal source a lying POS. That was damn near funny.

No, idiot, you are the lying POS. And, no, they are not taking jobs Americans would take. That is kind of the point; there is a demand from them because these jobs go unfilled.

You need to talk to American Construction workers.

I tried my very best to find some of them to rebuild my house after Katrina. There were none available. I ended up hiring contractors whose crew spoke only Spanish. Even then, it took 5 months for the job to be completed.

Actually one of our service technician live in that area where his house was also damaged. He showed us a video in his streets where the damages are. Then showing another video during rebuilt. His guess estimate was 85% to 90% Hispanic from P. Rico or Mexico. He is white born and raised in that area.
He was angry because the area is heavily populated with blacks and unemployment was high. And yet he only saw few blacks working. I saw that on the video.
He was not complaining about illegals.

 

[paddymurphy]

But, I think the supreme court could rule that the 14th does not provide children of people here illegally are citizens without amending the 14th.

 

[paddymurphy]

Was it Ok with you when Harry said it?
“no sane country” would give automatic citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants.

I do not care what a Senator said. The Constitution states otherwise.

You might want to read what the writers of the 14th Amendment had to say on the subject.

Before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, citizens of the states were automatically considered citizens of the United States. In 1857, the Dred Scott v. Sanford decision had held that no black of African descent (even a freed black) could be a citizen of the United States. The Fourteenth Amendment was thus necessary to overturn Dred Scott and to settle the question of the citizenship of the newly freed slaves. The Fourteenth Amendment made United States citizenship primary and state citizenship derivative. The primacy of federal citizenship made it impossible for states to prevent former slaves from becoming United States citizens by withholding state citizenship. States could no longer prevent any black from United States citizenship or from state citizenship either.

The Civil Rights Act of 1866 had previously asserted that "All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States." The immediate impetus for the Fourteenth Amendment was to constitutionalize and validate the Civil Rights Act because some had questioned whether the Thirteenth Amendment was a sufficient basis for its constitutionality. A constitutional amendment would also have the advantage of preventing a later unfriendly Congress from repealing it.

One conspicuous departure from the language of the Civil Rights Act was the elimination of the phrase "Indians not taxed." Senator Jacob Howard of Ohio, the author of the Citizenship Clause, defended the new language against the charge that it would make Indians citizens of the United States. Howard assured skeptics that "Indians born within the limits of the United States, and who maintain their tribal relations, are not, in the sense of this amendment, born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States." Senator Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, supported Howard, contending that "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" meant "not owing allegiance to anybody else...subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States." Indians, he concluded, were not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States because they owed allegiance—even if only partial allegiance—to their tribes. Thus, two requirements were set for United States citizenship: born or naturalized in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction.

By itself, birth within the territorial limits of the United States, as the case of the Indians indicated, did not make one automatically "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. And "jurisdiction" did not mean simply subject to the laws of the United States or subject to the jurisdiction of its courts. Rather, "jurisdiction" meant exclusive "allegiance" to the United States. Not all who were subject to the laws owed allegiance to the United States. As Senator Howard remarked, the requirement of "jurisdiction," understood in the sense of "allegiance," "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."

Guide to the Constitution

Since the Supreme Court has ruled against you, more than 100 years ago, now what?

You clearly have a trouble with comprehension. The only persons born in the US who would not be considered citizens, by virtue of their birth would be. "foreigners, alien, WHO BELONG TO THE FAMILIES OF AMBASSADORS OR FOREIGN MINISTERS..." Only foreigners who are the children of ambassadors or foreign ministers here on official duty would not be considered to be natural born citizens.

Evidently you don't understand english composition, when terms are separated by a comma they stand alone. What is it you didn't understand when he said: And "jurisdiction" did not mean simply subject to the laws of the United States or subject to the jurisdiction of its courts. Rather, "jurisdiction" meant exclusive "allegiance" to the United States."

I understand better than you. So do the numerous judges who have held that those born here are citizens.

 

[paddymurphy]

But, I think the supreme court could rule that the 14th does not provide children of people here illegally are citizens without amending the 14th.

Wrong, Article 1 gives congress the exclusive right to establish uniform rules of naturalization and as I have posted above the writers of the 14th and no intention of conferring birth right citizenship on foreigners.

Well you can stamp your tiny feet all you want, but fed courts have consistently construed Wong Kim Ark to mean anyone born here is a citizen. However, Wong Kim Ark actually involved parents legally here ... from china. I think congress could pass a law in an attempt to change birth citizenship, because to my knowledge the scotus has not explicitly said children born to illegals here are citizens. Of course the scotus could overturn that law. If the scoutus has ruled illegal immigrant births resulting in citizens, the congress can't do jack shite about it. The supreme court could hold otherwise, or there could be a constitutional amend. Absent that, neither you nor the Donald get a vote.

I get it, your cool with the courts ignoring original intent and just doing what ever the hell they want.

the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch."

-- Thomas Jefferson

And Thomas Jefferson had what role in writing the Constitution? You quote those who opposed certain parts. Their views were rejected when it was ratified. More importantly, they wanted future generations to interpret and apply it consistent with their values and in light of the challenges they faced.

 

[Vigilante]

I do not care what a Senator said. The Constitution states otherwise.

You might want to read what the writers of the 14th Amendment had to say on the subject.

Before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, citizens of the states were automatically considered citizens of the United States. In 1857, the Dred Scott v. Sanford decision had held that no black of African descent (even a freed black) could be a citizen of the United States. The Fourteenth Amendment was thus necessary to overturn Dred Scott and to settle the question of the citizenship of the newly freed slaves. The Fourteenth Amendment made United States citizenship primary and state citizenship derivative. The primacy of federal citizenship made it impossible for states to prevent former slaves from becoming United States citizens by withholding state citizenship. States could no longer prevent any black from United States citizenship or from state citizenship either.

The Civil Rights Act of 1866 had previously asserted that "All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States." The immediate impetus for the Fourteenth Amendment was to constitutionalize and validate the Civil Rights Act because some had questioned whether the Thirteenth Amendment was a sufficient basis for its constitutionality. A constitutional amendment would also have the advantage of preventing a later unfriendly Congress from repealing it.

One conspicuous departure from the language of the Civil Rights Act was the elimination of the phrase "Indians not taxed." Senator Jacob Howard of Ohio, the author of the Citizenship Clause, defended the new language against the charge that it would make Indians citizens of the United States. Howard assured skeptics that "Indians born within the limits of the United States, and who maintain their tribal relations, are not, in the sense of this amendment, born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States." Senator Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, supported Howard, contending that "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" meant "not owing allegiance to anybody else...subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States." Indians, he concluded, were not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States because they owed allegiance—even if only partial allegiance—to their tribes. Thus, two requirements were set for United States citizenship: born or naturalized in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction.

By itself, birth within the territorial limits of the United States, as the case of the Indians indicated, did not make one automatically "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. And "jurisdiction" did not mean simply subject to the laws of the United States or subject to the jurisdiction of its courts. Rather, "jurisdiction" meant exclusive "allegiance" to the United States. Not all who were subject to the laws owed allegiance to the United States. As Senator Howard remarked, the requirement of "jurisdiction," understood in the sense of "allegiance," "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."

Guide to the Constitution

Since the Supreme Court has ruled against you, more than 100 years ago, now what?

You clearly have a trouble with comprehension. The only persons born in the US who would not be considered citizens, by virtue of their birth would be. "foreigners, alien, WHO BELONG TO THE FAMILIES OF AMBASSADORS OR FOREIGN MINISTERS..." Only foreigners who are the children of ambassadors or foreign ministers here on official duty would not be considered to be natural born citizens.

Evidently you don't understand english composition, when terms are separated by a comma they stand alone. What is it you didn't understand when he said: And "jurisdiction" did not mean simply subject to the laws of the United States or subject to the jurisdiction of its courts. Rather, "jurisdiction" meant exclusive "allegiance" to the United States."

I understand better than you. So do the numerous judges who have held that those born here are citizens.

All can't read the Constitution, yet alone understand what plain English was when the 14th amendment was written!

"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."

The first observation we have to make on this clause is that it puts at rest both the questions which we stated to have been the subject of differences of opinion. It declares that persons may be citizens of the United States without regard to their citizenship of a particular State, and it overturns the Dred Scott decision by making all persons born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction citizens of the United States. That its main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the negro can admit of no doubt. The phrase, "subject to its jurisdiction" was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and CITIZENS OR SUBJECTS OF FOREIGN STATES born within the United States.

 

[Vigilante]

Beyond me that SCOTUS would disregard the MEANING of the amendment, and specifically what it was meant for..... Not for PERVERSION of our culture both sexually and by invading hoards. THIS is the reason a PRESIDENT DISREGARDS a SCOTUS decision....as I've stated previously, who has the POWER to stop him?...We shall see the Manchurian muslim PUSH THIS THEORY to the limit, within the next 17 months!...MARK MY WORDS!

 

[paddymurphy]

Beyond me that SCOTUS would disregard the MEANING of the amendment, and specifically what it was meant for..... Not for PERVERSION of our culture both sexually and by invading hoards. THIS is the reason a PRESIDENT DISREGARDS a SCOTUS decision....as I've stated previously, who has the POWER to stop him?...We shall see the Manchurian muslim PUSH THIS THEORY to the limit, within the next 17 months!...MARK MY WORDS!

I suspect much is beyond you. Compassion, empathy, justice, understanding, human decency. Constitutional law is way beyond your understanding. You start with your bigotry and whatever tortured construction you come up with that supports that is your construction.

 

[bedowin62]

Beyond me that SCOTUS would disregard the MEANING of the amendment, and specifically what it was meant for..... Not for PERVERSION of our culture both sexually and by invading hoards. THIS is the reason a PRESIDENT DISREGARDS a SCOTUS decision....as I've stated previously, who has the POWER to stop him?...We shall see the Manchurian muslim PUSH THIS THEORY to the limit, within the next 17 months!...MARK MY WORDS!

I suspect much is beyond you. Compassion, empathy, justice, understanding, human decency. Constitutional law is way beyond your understanding. You start with your bigotry and whatever tortured construction you come up with that supports that is your construction.

i suspect you're an emotional midget leftard; engagnig in hyperbole masking phony empathy

 

[bripat9643]

only a left-wing moron thinks it makes one a "jackboot" to ask people if they are supposed to be in this country.

The Left has done an extraordinary job brainwashing people and demonizing their opponents who hold different views. but with every report of yet another illegal murdering an American citizen (or three, like one illegal in florida), the Left's IDIOTIC excuse that that is just the price of "empathy" and that we owe these people something, and that Americans kill Americans too so it's all cool, gets harder and harder to justify, as if it want asinine already

the douchebag left cant win on this issue, all they can do is demagogue and pander

If you want to stop everyone, of all colors and ages, and ask for their papers we aren't stopping you. Start by issuing everyone a national photo ID card. Go for it.

That'not necessary, and no one has proposed it other than Nazi libs like you.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

That's entirely necessary as there would be no other way to know who to kick out and whether or not they were sneaking back in. A police state is the only way to accomplish your goals.

Wrong. It's very easy to tell who to kick out. Do they have a birth certificate or legal visa? No? Then out they go. Very simple. If that's a police state, then we already have one.

 

[Vigilante]

Beyond me that SCOTUS would disregard the MEANING of the amendment, and specifically what it was meant for..... Not for PERVERSION of our culture both sexually and by invading hoards. THIS is the reason a PRESIDENT DISREGARDS a SCOTUS decision....as I've stated previously, who has the POWER to stop him?...We shall see the Manchurian muslim PUSH THIS THEORY to the limit, within the next 17 months!...MARK MY WORDS!

I suspect much is beyond you. Compassion, empathy, justice, understanding, human decency. Constitutional law is way beyond your understanding. You start with your bigotry and whatever tortured construction you come up with that supports that is your construction.

They were right, you are an

SUICIDE as is now being perpetrated on the people of Europe, by murdering bands of Islamists is also being perpetrated on America by your Undocumented DemocRATS.... You sir, if a lawyer,are pathetic, and should take lessons from the black shyster in here as to idiotic remarks being thrown out as so much mana to the poor! Apparently YOU can't read and understand the 14th amendment either...another 2 digit IQ'd subversive trying to make himself important to the other subversives on this forum.... Entertaining, as all liberal morons are!

 

[OnePercenter]

Fine and imprison employers that knowingly hire illegal workers. The cost is paid for by the fines.

 

[bripat9643]

How do you find and deport 11 million people? And what legal theory allows the deportation to Mexico of American citizens?

Who's talking about deporting American citizens?

Trump. The children of undocumented.

Was it Ok with you when Harry said it?
“no sane country” would give automatic citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants.

I do not care what a Senator said. The Constitution states otherwise.

No it doesn't.

 

[bripat9643]

Fine and imprison employers that knowingly hire illegal workers. The cost is paid for by the fines.

Why are liberal morons so eager to subject employers to jail terms but perfectly content to allow illegals, who obviously broke the law, to remain here and enjoy government benefits? People who say this stuff are just commies who hate capitalism.

 

[bripat9643]

How do you find and deport 11 million people? And what legal theory allows the deportation to Mexico of American citizens?

Who's talking about deporting American citizens?

Trump. The children of undocumented.

no stupid; would you leave your child(ren) behind?

People send their children here alone. Figure it out.

Well then why should we be concerned with "separating them" if their own parents aren't concerned?

Not to bright, are you PMH?

 

[bripat9643]

Who's talking about deporting American citizens?

Trump. The children of undocumented.

Was it Ok with you when Harry said it?
“no sane country” would give automatic citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants.

I do not care what a Senator said. The Constitution states otherwise.

You might want to read what the writers of the 14th Amendment had to say on the subject.

Before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, citizens of the states were automatically considered citizens of the United States. In 1857, the Dred Scott v. Sanford decision had held that no black of African descent (even a freed black) could be a citizen of the United States. The Fourteenth Amendment was thus necessary to overturn Dred Scott and to settle the question of the citizenship of the newly freed slaves. The Fourteenth Amendment made United States citizenship primary and state citizenship derivative. The primacy of federal citizenship made it impossible for states to prevent former slaves from becoming United States citizens by withholding state citizenship. States could no longer prevent any black from United States citizenship or from state citizenship either.

The Civil Rights Act of 1866 had previously asserted that "All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States." The immediate impetus for the Fourteenth Amendment was to constitutionalize and validate the Civil Rights Act because some had questioned whether the Thirteenth Amendment was a sufficient basis for its constitutionality. A constitutional amendment would also have the advantage of preventing a later unfriendly Congress from repealing it.

One conspicuous departure from the language of the Civil Rights Act was the elimination of the phrase "Indians not taxed." Senator Jacob Howard of Ohio, the author of the Citizenship Clause, defended the new language against the charge that it would make Indians citizens of the United States. Howard assured skeptics that "Indians born within the limits of the United States, and who maintain their tribal relations, are not, in the sense of this amendment, born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States." Senator Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, supported Howard, contending that "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" meant "not owing allegiance to anybody else...subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States." Indians, he concluded, were not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States because they owed allegiance—even if only partial allegiance—to their tribes. Thus, two requirements were set for United States citizenship: born or naturalized in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction.

By itself, birth within the territorial limits of the United States, as the case of the Indians indicated, did not make one automatically "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. And "jurisdiction" did not mean simply subject to the laws of the United States or subject to the jurisdiction of its courts. Rather, "jurisdiction" meant exclusive "allegiance" to the United States. Not all who were subject to the laws owed allegiance to the United States. As Senator Howard remarked, the requirement of "jurisdiction," understood in the sense of "allegiance," "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."

Guide to the Constitution

Since the Supreme Court has ruled against you, more than 100 years ago, now what?

Appoint better judges.

 

[bripat9643]

Trump seems to think that all you have to do is to pick Juan up off the street and drive him to Nuevo Laredo. He seems to have forgotten details, like the constitutionally required trial, and conviction, first (for which we would most likely have to pay Juan's attorney).

The federal immigration law states immigrants that are stopped and found in violation of the law are to be deported, not given a trial. They violated Federal law and INS has been given the authority under the law to deport them.

Absolutely false. No one can be deported unless they have been found guilty of being an illegal immigrant. This is how it is done:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/12/us/split-second-justice-as-us-cracks-down-on-border-crossers.html

They aren't entitled to a trial by jury, numskull. They get a hearing. That's it.

 

[bripat9643]

no stupid; would you leave your child(ren) behind?

People send their children here alone. Figure it out.

good one dummy; now figure out why, ask yourself the same question.

geesh

I have, which is why I know that when people are deported they don't always take the kiddos with them. They send them here, and leave them here, because this is where they can have a better life. That should make you happy, but it won't.

but you've already acknowledged the parents ARE with the children here you mindless moron; WHICH MEANS they had always planned to be here together. if they choose to leave their own children behind it is their decision dummy; eithe way it isnt a deportation on the part of Republicans

Trump wants them deported as well. There would be no way to keep the family together otherwise. Read what he says instead of trying to impose your own vision. If he doesn't want to split up families then he would have to deport the kiddos. There's no other way.

You just proved we have no reason to be concerned about keeping the family together.

 

[Vigilante]

Fine and imprison employers that knowingly hire illegal workers. The cost is paid for by the fines.

Why are liberal morons so eager to subject employers to jail terms but perfectly content to allow illegals, who obviously broke the law, to remain here and enjoy government benefits? People who say this stuff are just commies who hate capitalism.

IMHO, It's not about capitalism, it's about enabling crime to be committed and extending it into perpetuity! We've had this problem since right after WW II, with the only one actually doing anything about being Ike!