Trumps deportation plan would cost $100-$200 BILLION

[Unkotare]

You proud of yourself? You are complicit in hiring illegal aliens and you don' t have to live with these creeps. So you don't have a vested interest covering damage they do, do you? Good for you , you are a saint. They are just total jerks and wastrels to me, but I have to deal with them. They don't benefit anyone but chaps like YOU.

Of course nobody has ever lived within 100 miles of a person from Mexico other than you, so your ridiculous, pathetic racism simply MUST be accepted because you cry and bitch about it.

 

[SwimExpert]

Having human DNA doesn't make you a person.

Makes you a human being who should have Constitutional rights.

Nope, not even close. Human DNA is as common as dirt, and about as worthy.

Sorry, but the only thing with human DNA is a human being. You are science illiterate.

I have a friend who recently had her tonsils removed. I bet if you did a test you'd find human DNA in those things. Her tonsils aren't human beings.

Did her tonsils come from a goat? Only humans can produce human DNA. If human DNA exists, a human created it. A fetus is a human. It is not a goat. It has it's own distinct human DNA.

Are you trolling, or are you just a meth head? Your word salad is incomprehensible.

 

[charwin95]

"We're going to build a wall across our southern border.
All logistics have been considered and it can be done.
This solves the problem of illegals crossing our southern border.
The wall will be paid for by Mexico who depend on US trade."

Nothing there is specific. What will it cost? How will it benefit us? No logistics have been considered. You just make shit up and post it. It will not solve the problem of illegals since close to 40% entered legally and stayed. And Mexico will not pay for it. We depend on their trade as much as they depend on ours and we currently have a treaty that cannot be abridged. The rest of this hemisphere would not stand for us trying to bully Mexico. Your posts reveal more and more stupidity on your part.

We don't need trade from Mexico. Anything we build in Mexico can be built here, just cost a bit more. We don't sell much shit over there so fuck it, screw em, and charge em. And your 40% entered legally is a bullshit outdated number that doesn't take into consideration how it's happening in the current situation. And if true gives us reason to stop letting them in legally too.

Our trade with Mexico amounts to over 300 billion, 117 billion in shit we sell over there, and you think we do not need that trade. How fucking stupid do you have to be to make that comment.

The other $200 billion is shit they sell to us. There's nothing Mexico produces that we can't purchase elsewhere. ON the other hand, a $200 billion hit to their exports would devastate their economy. They need us far more than we need them. Any claims to the contrary are worse than stupid.

You are now a fucking trade expert. Produced some where? There's a big economic reason why mfr. goes to Mexico or China. We do not like the trade agreement will built in US or somewhere. Do you even understand the implications and consequences?

Yes, they build plants in Mexico and China because labor is cheaper there. However, after we impose a 50% tariff on Mexico, it won't be cheaper any longer.

Have you forgotten something? How much do you think those products will cost to American consumers.?

 

[charwin95]

It is too bad that Trump is not running for office in the legislative branch...especially since everything he has come up with requires congressional action, and is not under the authority of the Executive branch.

If Trump wins the presidency on the promise to build the wall, there will be legislation passed in Congress to build the wall. Remember...elections have consequences? In fact... should Trump win by what could be defined as a "mandate" amount, there will not be many in Congress who will oppose the wall. Politicians are not all stupid... some of them understand how to survive. By the time we get to this point, even the pinheads on this board will be concocting some kind of way to backtrack and claim you've always been in favor of the wall.

But I have to say, it is monumentally hilarious to me how libtards are suddenly discovering separation of powers and the limitations of the executive branch... that's just really funny to me for some reason.

All of a sudden the Constitution isn't flexible.

US-Mexico trade BTW, a bit over half a trillion, a year.

Largely favoring Mexico..........
Most of our trade south for stuff like auto parts to build and assemble for sale in the United States.......
It would be their main loss and not ours.

It would pressure them to help secure the dang border.

You are the one with a border issue, not them.

They would be the ones with an economic issue not us if we hit them with high tariffs and pulled our funding and aid to them...........
pawn to knights four bitch.

What made you think they will not retaliate by hitting us with higher tariffs. This will hurt both countries.
Let me make it simpler. If I sell you (US) a cow and I (Mexico) buy your steak. You increase my tariffs of selling you the cow I will also increase my tariffs to compensate for the lost.

As I have pointed out repeatedly, it will hurt them a lot worse than it hurts us. We have the leverage. They don't

End of story.

No son. You can bully however you it doesn't work that way. You sound like used car salesman.

 

[Boss]

Congress has plenary power. It does not matter WHAT SCOTUS rules. It has never made a ruling that confers citizenship on children born to illegal aliens. Never!

Yes, it has. It knew of the issue, and did not care. Read the dissent in Wong, written by the people who lost. It makes no difference how you got here, only were you born here.

You don't know what you are talking about. I just posted the resource itself... the Constitution and 14th Amendment, telling you clearly that Congress has plenary power. This is not a power SCOTUS has. It's in the Constitution. Clearly. Both in Article 1 and in the 14th itself.

It is a matter of statutory policy. Congress doesn't even have to pass legislation, they can probably issue a joint resolution to make this issue clear for those who don't comprehend. Birthright Citizenship under the 14th Amendment is a myth.

What you post is nonsense, utterly: United States v. Wong Kim Ark | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

Read the case, especially the dissent. It mentions your issue, which was ruled against.

This is a case about two naturalized parents. Nothing to do with birthright citizenship for illegal aliens.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Congress has plenary power. It does not matter WHAT SCOTUS rules. It has never made a ruling that confers citizenship on children born to illegal aliens. Never!

Yes, it has. It knew of the issue, and did not care. Read the dissent in Wong, written by the people who lost. It makes no difference how you got here, only were you born here.

You don't know what you are talking about. I just posted the resource itself... the Constitution and 14th Amendment, telling you clearly that Congress has plenary power. This is not a power SCOTUS has. It's in the Constitution. Clearly. Both in Article 1 and in the 14th itself.

It is a matter of statutory policy. Congress doesn't even have to pass legislation, they can probably issue a joint resolution to make this issue clear for those who don't comprehend. Birthright Citizenship under the 14th Amendment is a myth.

What you post is nonsense, utterly: United States v. Wong Kim Ark | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

Read the case, especially the dissent. It mentions your issue, which was ruled against.

This is a case about two naturalized parents. Nothing to do with birthright citizenship for illegal aliens.

They were Chinese nationals, who went back to China you dumbass. If you had read the ruling you'd know that.

 

[charwin95]

Bripat From your post #1012.
Thousands of illegals deported each year is correct. However most or all are illegals caught crossing the borders. We are talking 11 millions or more that you are trying to eliminate.
All kids born in this country are US citizens. Maybe you are not aware that all kids born in this country are us citizens.

Sorry, but plenty of legal scholars disagree, and the Senator who wrote the 14th Amendment disagrees.

You can fuck the senators if you want but that is the law of the land. Either you like it or not. If the senators that wrote this law didn't agree so why in the world they made that law to begin with.

It's only your opinion that it's the law of the land.

Even your lord trumpbots will tell you they are US citizens. According to your law it doesn't. If that is your religious belief. Then that is your law.

 

[Ernie S.]

I live about 35 miles from the border, and cross it regularly. I find it more than a little amusing that anyone would think that a fence would stop someone who has already made up his mind to walk for at least 3 days across a desert full of cactus and rattlesnakes, with little or no water and food, in scorching heat, with no shade, guide, or even a pair of boots. In AZ, we find about 200 bodies per year of those that fail to make it. It is beyond absurd. Besides that, few actually walk from the border to Phoenix. They are usually driven through the border in a truck or van and dropped off on the other side, to fend for themselves against the elements. Then, of course there is the other half of them who come over on visa's and simply don't go back. Down in Nogales, a bus fell through the pavement of a street, because it caused a tunnel under the border to collapse. The fact that China built the world's largest wall, which failed, over 1,000 years ago does not discourage Trump or his fans either.

The whole thing is just a continuation of the movement to keep the (Irish), (blacks), (Italians), (Chinese), (Jews), (Muslims), (Latinos) out.

"The whole thing is just a continuation of the movement to keep the (Irish), (blacks), (Italians), (Chinese), (Jews), (Muslims), (Latinos) out."

BULLSHIT! The whole thing is to manage the number of immigrants we take in, just like it has been for generations.
Your family immigrated from somewhere, part of mine did as did virtually all of someone in all of our family trees. The difference is we all did it the right way. These illegal immigrants are little more than invaders who've come to take advantage of our system and citizens.

Racist? BULLSHIT! (says the guy with the confederate flag avatar).

Who said "racist"? Oh! It was you.
The Confederate flag avatar is there simply to piss people like you off. Thanks for confirming it is doing what I intended it to do.

 

[Ernie S.]

The problem Boss is just like others. You have this attitudes I want, I want, I want just like Paddy mentioned. Then you you and others keep saying I don't care, I don't care. When the fuck of the matter is you YOU don't have any specific how to handle this problem. You don't even understand the logistics. And yet you keep insisting the bullshit from this bullshiter.
Everyone wants to solve this problem. Now if you can tell us the specific how to solve this problem will be glad to shut.
For now, since you don't have any clue what you are talking about. Shut the fuck up.

Well if you go back and read the thread, you'll find that my assertion of what "I want" is presented in response to someone implying I wanted "to kick out brown people." Since that was NOT what I want, I felt strongly compelled to set the record straight. I'm sorry if my setting the record straight offended you in some way. As for now, we live in a free and open society and you do not have the authority to tell me to shut up.

Now... You want specifics...

We're going to build a wall across our southern border.
All logistics have been considered and it can be done.
This solves the problem of illegals crossing our southern border.
The wall will be paid for by Mexico who depend on US trade.

That's about as specific as we can be.

What kind of specific is that? It's like telling me. I'm going to stop the rain with a bucket. If you don't know just say so.
What made you think a wall will solve the problem?
You mentioned only WALL. I think the topic of this thread is about illegals. How about illegals that are here?

I really don't understand this continual clamoring for "specifics" when it has been presented about as specifically as it can be at this point. Do you need to know how many bags of concrete will be used? How much re-bar will be needed? Will it be a Corps of Engineers project or will we do contract bids? Well.. no one has all that laid out and settled yet but it's not a big deal. Nothing here is unprecedented or impossible. Walls have been built before... Great Walls!

What makes me think a wall would solve the problem? Well... Hmmm... maybe because walls are difficult to get over? And hey... if the wall is not too hard to get over, we can also plant some land mines... that's an option. What makes your retarded ass think a wall wouldn't stop illegal aliens from crossing our southern border?

I've already addressed illegals already here... When they break a law here, we fucking deport them like we're supposed to be doing. AFTER we have a wall built, we can look at what to do with the law-abiding illegals still here. We're not going to just give them a free amnesty pass... they will probably have to pay a fine and apply for citizenship. BUT... we're not even going to have that conversation until the wall is built. It's pointless.

That is the icing on the cake, Boss. anytime that someone starts talking about the US government planting land mines to stop people from committing misdemeanors, I know that their train left the baggage at the station. You have revealed all you need to say about yourself, now, and I am not going to take anything you say seriously from here on out.

We always could pass a law making crossing our borders illegally a capitol felony. I believe President Trump could do that by executive order, if the past 6.5 years can be taken as precedent.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The problem Boss is just like others. You have this attitudes I want, I want, I want just like Paddy mentioned. Then you you and others keep saying I don't care, I don't care. When the fuck of the matter is you YOU don't have any specific how to handle this problem. You don't even understand the logistics. And yet you keep insisting the bullshit from this bullshiter.
Everyone wants to solve this problem. Now if you can tell us the specific how to solve this problem will be glad to shut.
For now, since you don't have any clue what you are talking about. Shut the fuck up.

Well if you go back and read the thread, you'll find that my assertion of what "I want" is presented in response to someone implying I wanted "to kick out brown people." Since that was NOT what I want, I felt strongly compelled to set the record straight. I'm sorry if my setting the record straight offended you in some way. As for now, we live in a free and open society and you do not have the authority to tell me to shut up.

Now... You want specifics...

We're going to build a wall across our southern border.
All logistics have been considered and it can be done.
This solves the problem of illegals crossing our southern border.
The wall will be paid for by Mexico who depend on US trade.

That's about as specific as we can be.

What kind of specific is that? It's like telling me. I'm going to stop the rain with a bucket. If you don't know just say so.
What made you think a wall will solve the problem?
You mentioned only WALL. I think the topic of this thread is about illegals. How about illegals that are here?

I really don't understand this continual clamoring for "specifics" when it has been presented about as specifically as it can be at this point. Do you need to know how many bags of concrete will be used? How much re-bar will be needed? Will it be a Corps of Engineers project or will we do contract bids? Well.. no one has all that laid out and settled yet but it's not a big deal. Nothing here is unprecedented or impossible. Walls have been built before... Great Walls!

What makes me think a wall would solve the problem? Well... Hmmm... maybe because walls are difficult to get over? And hey... if the wall is not too hard to get over, we can also plant some land mines... that's an option. What makes your retarded ass think a wall wouldn't stop illegal aliens from crossing our southern border?

I've already addressed illegals already here... When they break a law here, we fucking deport them like we're supposed to be doing. AFTER we have a wall built, we can look at what to do with the law-abiding illegals still here. We're not going to just give them a free amnesty pass... they will probably have to pay a fine and apply for citizenship. BUT... we're not even going to have that conversation until the wall is built. It's pointless.

That is the icing on the cake, Boss. anytime that someone starts talking about the US government planting land mines to stop people from committing misdemeanors, I know that their train left the baggage at the station. You have revealed all you need to say about yourself, now, and I am not going to take anything you say seriously from here on out.

We always could pass a law making crossing our borders illegally a capitol felony. I believe President Trump could do that by executive order, if the past 6.5 years can be taken as precedent.

Not gonna happen, and if you managed to, the SC would kill it based on this:

"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.[2]"

 

[Ernie S.]

I believe invading the US could become a capitol felony if POTUS issued an executive order.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I believe invading the US could become a capitol felony if POTUS issued an executive order.

You can believe it all you like, it isn't true.

 

[charwin95]

Is there any other nation that provides taxpayer benefits to those immigrants who have extended their stay or violated their immigration laws? Yet, how many are able to do so without building a fence? We are living in a time where terrorists are looking for a way to infiltrate and hide within the United States with the predetermined notion of killing its citizens, however enforcement is not an option to many. The United States government is not a world charity organization for all who desire to sneak across our borders, we are a nation that lives and is governed by laws... it's time we start acting like one.

Well, that settles it, then. It is against the law to profile Latinos and pull them over and demand proof of citizenship, without probable cause that they committed a crime. If you don't believe me, ask Sheriff Joe. That being the case, Trump obviously has no plan on how to deport any of them that are not engaged in criminal activity.

If illegals are suspected to work at a specific sight or through an employer, government agents have every right under their authority of upholding "the law", to go in and investigate the same as officers that enforce our drug laws. We don't offer them asylum like sanctuary cities and give excuses to ignore the law

The open borders assholes think that's acting like the Gestapo.

Can you believe these morons? Perhaps we shouldn't arrest drug dealers and throw them in prison because that would separate them from their children!

No moron. Read your post if that will make any sense to you.
All I mean all when someone commit a felony will be arrested and put to jail. You are talking illegals that are drug dealers and killers.
We are talking about 40 millions of people that you are going eliminate.

They aren't going to be "eliminated." The are going to be sent back where they came from. You oppose that because it would "break up families." Well, putting muggers, armed robbers and drug dealers also breaks up families. IF that's your justification for letting illegals stay, then it's also an argument for not locking up felons of various types.

You are far more stupid than I thought. Yes we are putting drug dealers, robbers or muggers to jail. And it breaks up families. But we are talking about families that didn't commit these kind of crime you specified. And we are not using that as justification either.
It is you who is using this kind justifications to prove your unrealistic opinion.
I know exactly what and how your are going to respond.... They come here illegally they are criminals.

 

[Boss]

I thought it to be appropriate to quote the 14th amendment wording, so that it's myth can be exposed:

"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."

14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.

Okay.. If the argument of those who believe it confers birthright citizenship were valid, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" would not be necessary. The clause would read: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." But "subject to jurisdiction thereof" is a very important phrase and it means something. Even the simple word "and" is important. So now you have a list of criteria to meet. You must be born or naturalized, and also... subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

What ‘Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof’ Really Means

In Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment (1998) the court said “jurisdiction is a word of many, too many, meanings.” Therefore, it is important to discover the operational meaning behind “subject to the jurisdiction” as employed under the Fourteenth Amendment rather then assuming its meaning from other usages of the word jurisdiction alone. Both Sen. Trumbull and Sen. Howard provides the answer, with Trumbull declaring:

The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.

In other words, it isn’t local jurisdiction the Fourteenth Amendment recognizes but only the lack of owing allegiance to some other nation because the United States only recognizes those who are ‘true and faithful’ alone to the nation. As will be explained shortly, only acts under the laws of naturalization can remove an alien’s allegiance to some other country under United States law.

Additionally, Trumbull argued Indians could not be subject to the jurisdiction for the reason the United States deals with them through treaties. This is also exactly how the United States deals with aliens; it enters into treaties with outer countries to define legal rights of their citizens while within the limits of the United States and vice versa. Example: A treaty with China prohibited the United States from naturalizing Chinese citizens.

Sen. Trumbull further added, “It cannot be said of any Indian who owes allegiance, partial allegiance if you please, to some other Government that he is ‘subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.’” Sen. Jacob Howard agreed:

concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Trumbull], in holding that the word “jurisdiction,” as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, coextensive in all respects with the constitutional power of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.

This remark by Sen. Howard places this earlier comment of his on who is “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” into proper context: “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.”

What Sen. Howard is saying here is citizenship by birth is established by the sovereign jurisdiction the United States already has over the parents of the child, and that required that they owe allegiance exclusively to the United States – just as is required to become a naturalized citizen. It does not require a leap of faith to understand what persons, other than citizens themselves, under the Fourteenth Amendment are citizens of the United States by birth: Those aliens who have come with the intent to become U.S. citizens, who had first complied with the laws of naturalization in declaring their intent and renounce all prior allegiances.

Sen. Trumbull further restates the the goal of the language: “It is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens…” Note that Trumbull does not say temporarily within our jurisdiction, but completely within our jurisdiction.

 

[Boss]

Congress has plenary power. It does not matter WHAT SCOTUS rules. It has never made a ruling that confers citizenship on children born to illegal aliens. Never!

Yes, it has. It knew of the issue, and did not care. Read the dissent in Wong, written by the people who lost. It makes no difference how you got here, only were you born here.

You don't know what you are talking about. I just posted the resource itself... the Constitution and 14th Amendment, telling you clearly that Congress has plenary power. This is not a power SCOTUS has. It's in the Constitution. Clearly. Both in Article 1 and in the 14th itself.

It is a matter of statutory policy. Congress doesn't even have to pass legislation, they can probably issue a joint resolution to make this issue clear for those who don't comprehend. Birthright Citizenship under the 14th Amendment is a myth.

What you post is nonsense, utterly: United States v. Wong Kim Ark | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

Read the case, especially the dissent. It mentions your issue, which was ruled against.

This is a case about two naturalized parents. Nothing to do with birthright citizenship for illegal aliens.

They were Chinese nationals, who went back to China you dumbass. If you had read the ruling you'd know that.

No, they were legal US residents.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Yes, it has. It knew of the issue, and did not care. Read the dissent in Wong, written by the people who lost. It makes no difference how you got here, only were you born here.

You don't know what you are talking about. I just posted the resource itself... the Constitution and 14th Amendment, telling you clearly that Congress has plenary power. This is not a power SCOTUS has. It's in the Constitution. Clearly. Both in Article 1 and in the 14th itself.

It is a matter of statutory policy. Congress doesn't even have to pass legislation, they can probably issue a joint resolution to make this issue clear for those who don't comprehend. Birthright Citizenship under the 14th Amendment is a myth.

What you post is nonsense, utterly: United States v. Wong Kim Ark | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

Read the case, especially the dissent. It mentions your issue, which was ruled against.

This is a case about two naturalized parents. Nothing to do with birthright citizenship for illegal aliens.

They were Chinese nationals, who went back to China you dumbass. If you had read the ruling you'd know that.

No, they were legal US residents.

They were here legally, but they were Chinese Nationals, and the court said, quite clearly, it didn't matter where mommy and daddy were from, just where you were born. Legal or illegal makes no difference.

So, why would the child of two ________ nationals be made automatically, almost without exception, and American citizen?

 

[Boss]

They were here legally, but they were Chinese Nationals, and the court said, quite clearly, it didn't matter where mommy and daddy were from, just where you were born. Legal or illegal makes no difference.

So, why would the child of two ________ nationals be made automatically, almost without exception, and American citizen?

No, they were legal naturalized citizens being denied their citizenship rights and the court found they were legal naturalized citizens with rights and their baby was also a naturalized citizen by birth. This case has absolutely nothing to do with children born to illegal foreigners. --NADDA!

 

[PaintMyHouse]

They were here legally, but they were Chinese Nationals, and the court said, quite clearly, it didn't matter where mommy and daddy were from, just where you were born. Legal or illegal makes no difference.

So, why would the child of two ________ nationals be made automatically, almost without exception, and American citizen?

No, they were legal naturalized citizens being denied their citizenship rights and the court found they were legal naturalized citizens with rights and their baby was also a naturalized citizen by birth. This case has absolutely nothing to do with children born to illegal foreigners. --NADDA!

Whatever case you are speaking of is not the one that matters. What, by chance, is it?

 

[Boss]

Whatever case you are speaking of is not the one that matters. What, by chance, is it?

No case matters. This is not a matter of court ruling. I've already shown you where the Constitution as well as the 14th give Congress plenary power on the issue of naturalization. The court cannot decide who is naturalized. --PERIOD! --END OF!

 

[Boss]

They were here legally, but...

And illegal aliens are NOT here legally.