Opening Up the Immigration Debate

Trump laid out a plan for immigration, and did the GOP a huge favor. From what I gather, Trump’s is for deportation of all illegals and building a secure border. This is far more vigorous than any GOPer has proposed and, indeed, it is probably a plan which would never get majority support. It is also makes things a bit more difficult for the GOP – but at the same time it opens up a gigantic opportunity.

First off, the Democrats love it – not the plan, but that Trump said it as a Republican. They desperately need a divisive, racial issue which can be used to juice up the base for Hillary in 2016. Regardless of what happens to Trump, Democrats will paint the Trump position as the GOP position – and as the Democrats will put it, the GOP plan is cruel deportation. No amount of mealy-mouthed GOP claims to the contrary will matter because, quite simply, the MSM won’t sufficiently report them…but you can bet that they’ll drive this into the ground…it’ll be endless “REPUBLICAN Donald Trump wants to DEPORT ALL ILLEGALS” on replay for days as the MSM drives the Narrative into the public mind. The bottom line is that the Democrats and their MSM lapdogs will try to convince LIVs that the GOP hates Latinos.

Will it work? Of course it will. All it took was one badly answered question and the GOP was hammered successfully with “war on women” twaddle for two election cycles. LIV are LIV for a reason – they don’t know anything other than what the MSM tells them. And the MSM will tell them about Trump and the mean, horrid, racist, cruel Republicans.

Secondly, though, it does open up the field of debate – any GOPer can now be a relative moderate on immigration but still be tough on illegal immigration: he or she just needs to step an inch to the left of Trump. We can condemn both extremes of immigration – mass deportation and open borders, while at the same time calling for real immigration reform which will actually give the United States an immigration policy based upon rational ideas. LIV who have been told that the GOP is a horrid, racist bunch of anti-Latino bigots will eventually get to hear the actual GOP nominee speak about it…and when he or she lays out a rational plan for immigration reform, and then challenges Hillary on the Democrats’ open border nonsense, LIV will have their eyes opened (well, we hope – as long as there isn’t some Kardashian news on the debate nights).

My ideas on immigration start with strict border security – both as a matter of national defense and as an act of mercy towards the illegals: our Progressives will downright refuse to see it, but open borders in the United States merely means that criminal gangs control entry into our nation, and they treat the illegals extremely badly. I’d like to see a modification of birthright citizenship, but I believe any change here would require a Constitutional amendment (I would amend it to say, “any person born to at least one U.S. citizen is a natural born citizen of the United States”, in order to finally clear up forever the entire issue). I’d like to have some sort of guest-worker program. I’d slap a 90% tax on remittances from people in the United States to people in foreign countries (I believe this would, of itself, cause several million illegals to just go back home – they are only here to send money back home and once we stop that, there’s no reason for them to be here), though I’d offer no tax penalty to a guest-worker who takes his savings with him when he leaves (in other words, while he’s working legally as a guest-worker let’s say he saves $10,000.00…if he tries to wire that home, we take $9,000.00…but if he goes home with it, no penalty; massive incentive to leave when your legal time is up). I would explicitly have a program for eventual citizenship for those illegals here for, say, 5 years or longer, who have committed no crimes while inside the United States, who have had children while living in the United States, and who have not sent more than 10% of their gross income back home since arriving in the United States (in other words, I’m getting a path to citizenship for those illegals who’s actions indicate a desire to settle permanently in the United States and become Americans). I believe that any GOPer can take all or part of these ideas and craft an immigration plan which would command majority support.

One thing for certain, Trump has torn the lid off our politically correct political process. Whether this will harm or help the conservative cause long-term remains to be seen. But now that Trump has lanced the boil, it is time for any GOPer who really wants to be President to step up, steal Trump’s thunder and come up with plans which walk the actual middle line between the extremes. We’ll see if anyone does it.

Advertisements

18 thoughts on “Opening Up the Immigration Debate

  1. Cluster August 19, 2015 / 1:28 pm

    I think Rush just defined it properly as an invasion, not immigration. There are literally thousands of people including children streaming across our border. That is NOT immigration. Immigration is a managed process. What we have now is chaos and that chaos is fully supported by the Democrats. That needs to be pointed out.

    Also, we need to frame the issue economically. Those thousands of people coming across our border are being added to the welfare rolls (and in CA they are being added to city councils), and they are driving wages down in the low skilled labor market, which drives unemployment up particularly in the black community.

  2. Cluster August 19, 2015 / 1:40 pm

    And this just in from Rasmussen:

    Among all likely voters, 51% favor building a wall on the border; 37% disagree, and 12% are not sure. Eighty percent (80%) support the deportation of all illegal immigrants convicted of a felony; only 11% are opposed.

    Time to put a top to Sanctuary cities, and for God’s sake, drop the lawsuit against AZ for enforcing immigration laws.

    • M. Noonan August 19, 2015 / 9:02 pm

      Border security plus some sort of amnesty is probably the plan which would command the greatest support – but people will want to see border security, first. Something along the lines of we build the wall and only after, say, two years do we start to implement any form of amnesty.

      • Retired Spook August 19, 2015 / 9:39 pm

        I would support giving legal residency status to long-term illegal residents who are employed, and have no criminal record, but citizenship should be reserved for those who came here legally.

      • M. Noonan August 19, 2015 / 9:55 pm

        I can understand that – but worry that will eventually create a class of what they called in ancient Athens “Metics” – native born Athenians who lacked the franchise. They eventually significantly outnumbered the citizen class. In my view, either every illegal has to go, or some of them, at least, have to become citizens by some means.

      • Retired Spook August 20, 2015 / 7:24 am

        The problem is that I think there are a significant number of voters (me included) who will not vote for a candidate who favors rewarding someone who jumped the line with a path to citizenship. Plus, to do that with significant numbers of illegals would all but ensure permanent Democrat rule.

      • Amazona August 20, 2015 / 10:57 am

        “… worry that will eventually create a class of what they called in ancient Athens “Metics” – native born Athenians who lacked the franchise…”

        Aside from the fact that native born Americans WOULD be citizens, which do you think poses the greater long-term threat to the nation? The knowledge that all people in this country are held to the same standard of law, and that there are consequences for breaking that law, or the belief that some people are above the law and not held to the same standard?

        I see no problem in telling a young person that no, Grandpa can’t vote because he broke the law of this country many years ago and this is the penalty for that, though he was allowed to stay here and work here because he had proven himself to be a good person. That, to me, sends a very positive message.

        On the other hand, I find the message of “Go ahead and do whatever you want to do, no matter what the law says, because if you are a certain color or ethnicity you can get away with anything” to be very negative. How does a teenager separate the treatment of his parents or grandparents, not only punished in any way for breaking our laws but then REWARDED with citizenship, from his own inclination to ignore a law he finds inconvenient?

        And I am deeply offended by the attitude that citizenship in this country is of so little value that we are willing to just hand it out, even to people who have shown no respect for our laws. I also don’t know how we can possibly justify this kind of attitude to those who HAVE respected this country, and its laws, and sacrificed so much to EARN citizenship. I think handing out citizenship to people who just ignored our laws and did what they wanted would be a huge slap in the face to all those who treated this nation, and its laws, with respect.

      • M. Noonan August 20, 2015 / 9:59 pm

        Certain polling does put you in the mainstream on this – but I just don’t want non-citizens living in large numbers in my nation

      • Amazona August 20, 2015 / 11:11 am

        I’m with Spook on this. I think that such a position on the GOP side would turn away so many voters that it would be the kiss of death to GOP hopes for regaining the presidency.

        Mark, you once argued that we forgive felons—that once they have served their time and paid for their crimes we don’t continue to punish them. My response was “Yes, but we also don’t give them a car for breaking the law in the first place”.

        People whose goal was to become citizens chose the “path to citizenship” in their native lands. Those whose goal was just “a better life” took another path. We can acknowledge that striving for “a better life” with compassion and generosity and understanding without forcing the two paths to merge.

      • Amazona August 20, 2015 / 10:17 pm

        “…I just don’t want non-citizens living in large numbers in my nation”

        Too late.

        And just why do you think being given the prize of citizenship is going to make these people more of an asset to the country? It’s not as if the legal status is going to miraculously make them love this country, or be loyal to this country over their native lands. No, they will be the same people no matter what—-but able to vote for more entitlements and, presumably, more lax immigration laws in the future.

        The idea is to stop the problem, not make sure it is self-perpetuating.

        Keep in mind, if we institute good border control and a functional immigration system, that pool of non-citizen residents will shrink every year, through attrition.

        My plan would give long-term work permits and at the end of the designated period the alien would have to either apply for permanent residency or go home. That is one form of attrition. Another would be mandatory deportation for committing crimes. And, of course, this status would only apply to those already here illegally who fall under the reform, so as they die off, they would presumably not be replaced by other illegals. This WOULD be the last form of amnesty in any form.

        If we agree that this is a complex problem that can’t be resolved quickly, then we ought to be able to understand that it probably will take at least one full generation to take care of it. That is, an entire generation grown and passed on, either as anchor babies or permanent residents, leaving the nation with a population of native born citizens and those who respect our nation and our laws and follow the rules to become naturalized citizens, with a certain number of legally allowed seasonal workers who only live here part of the year.

      • M. Noonan August 21, 2015 / 10:33 am

        We’ll have to agree to disagree on whether or not illegals can ever become citizens – with my last point on that is who is a worthier citizen: the guy who came illegally 20 years ago and has worked every single day since then, or the descendant of a person who arrived on the Mayflower who has been on welfare the past 20 years?

        I think it will take a generation or two – mostly because we haven’t actually assimilated the immigrants, legal and illegal, in decades. We haven’t demanded they become American, and so the process of Americanization has been greatly delayed. I think it best we shut the door to new immigrants for about 20 years and allow those who have flooded in to become completely Americanized, and then we can reconsider opening the doors again.

      • Amazona August 21, 2015 / 11:49 am

        Any ideas on the reparations morally and possibly legally due to those who actually DID respect our laws and go through the arduous (for them) process of achieving citizenship? Would it be adequate to simply reimburse their sizable legal fees? Would we be liable for any additional damages they suffered as the result of the long time it took for them to go through our legal processes?

        Or do we just spit in their faces and sneer “Too bad, suckers—you should have just flipped us off like these other guys walking away with full citizenship. Guess that’ll show you how much the laws mean in this country!”

  3. Amazona August 22, 2015 / 8:56 pm

    I posted this on the Out and About thread but it really belongs here, I think. I am encouraged after learning enough to realize that the whole anchor baby thing might not require an amendment but just a ruling on the meaning of jurisdiction. I think Congress could pass a law based on its understanding and let the Supremes sort it out.

    *******************

    BTW, this also ties in with discussion about “anchor babies” as the 14th Amendment says “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States…”

    If citizenship is actually transmitted through the father, or the parents, and if “..change of location never changes or alters a persons allegiance to their country of origin except by acting in accordance to written law in throwing off their previous allegiance and consenting to a new one…” then any child born in this country to parents who are still citizens of another country, because they have not “thrown off” their previous allegiance and “consented to a new one” (been naturalized as citizens of this country) is not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States, and therefore is not a citizen of the United States.

    Put another way, if two citizens of Mexico, “subject to the jurisdiction” of Mexico, have a child, their Mexican citizenship is passed on to that child. The child is not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States no matter where it is born. It is, by birth, a Mexican citizen, who happens to be in the United States.

    This is an argument made about the meaning of the 14th Amendment.

    Slaves had no allegiance to any other nation, as they were property owned by people in this country. Therefore, they were not “subject to the jurisdiction” of any other nation and by default WERE “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. This was the purpose of the 14th Amendment—to make sure that the children of slaves would be citizens.

    • Retired Spook August 22, 2015 / 10:25 pm

      Rush was talking about this the other day, and I only caught part of it, so it didn’t really make sense. I pulled the transcript and here is what he said (and coupled with what you’ve said, it all makes sense now):

      And I really think as I listen to some of the Republicans talk about what they think is important about anchor babies this, anchor babies that, offensive term or not, misses the whole point. It’s so small an item compared to what it actually is about. And I’ll tell you something else. Even after yesterday’s program, the number of people who cannot get it through their heads that the 14th Amendment does not establish citizenship by virtue of birth to an illegal citizen or person in the country. It’s not there.

      And even after telling people, even after exposing it, some people just refuse to learn it. You know, Trump’s out saying that the 14th Amendment has nothing to say about anchor babies, and there are people still arguing with him about it. It’s not even a Supreme Court decision. Folks, it’s not in the Constitution that a baby born to somebody here illegally is automatically an American citizen.

      You know how it happened to become accepted? I forget the case, and I can’t quote for you the year. Justice William Brennan of the United States Supreme Court wrote, I don’t know what, footnote or a little addendum to a full-fledged Supreme Court opinion in which he just proffered his opinion that is the case and it has been glommed onto. And for that reason it’s assumed that the Supreme Court’s spoken about this, but they haven’t.

      The Supreme Court has not said a word about what’s being called anchor babies. The Constitution says one thing about this, and what it says is that Congress shall determine the definition of citizenship, that Congress shall determine the technique, the mechanism by which one becomes naturalized. The 14th Amendment doesn’t speak to it. And yet even though that’s been out there now easy to learn for the past couple days, we still have people refusing to learn it and still mouth it. And the reason they do is because they’re pandering. They think most of America thinks it. So rather than argue with most of America, rather than teach most of America, just pander to ’em and just repeat what they think.

      But it isn’t true. So now the argument over the term has erupted, which is a sideshow. That’s the sideshow, the “anchor baby” term offensive or insulting or whatever, it’s a sideshow. The reason the left doesn’t like it is because it happens to be too descriptive. It happens to be too right on. That’s something they don’t want people to really understand is happening here.

  4. tiredoflibbs August 22, 2015 / 10:42 pm

    In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by stating:

    “Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. 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. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.”

    This understanding was reaffirmed by Senator Edward Cowan, who stated:

    “[A foreigner in the United States] has a right to the protection of the laws; but he is not a citizen in the ordinary acceptance of the word…”

    The phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was intended to exclude American-born persons from automatic citizenship whose allegiance to the United States was not complete. With illegal aliens who are unlawfully in the United States, their native country has a claim of allegiance on the child. Thus, the completeness of their allegiance to the United States is impaired, which therefore precludes automatic citizenship.

    Supreme Court decisions

    The correct interpretation of the 14th Amendment is that an illegal alien mother is subject to the jurisdiction of her native country, as is her baby.

    Over a century ago, the Supreme Court appropriately confirmed this restricted interpretation of citizenship in the so-called “Slaughter-House cases” [83 US 36 (1873) and 112 US 94 (1884)]13. In the 1884 Elk v.Wilkins case12, the phrase “subject to its jurisdiction” was interpreted to exclude “children of ministers, consuls, and citizens of foreign states born within the United States.” In Elk, the American Indian claimant was considered not an American citizen because the law required him to be “not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.”

    The Court essentially stated that the status of the parents determines the citizenship of the child. To qualify children for birthright citizenship, based on the 14th Amendment, parents must owe “direct and immediate allegiance” to the U.S. and be “completely subject” to its jurisdiction. In other words, they must be United States citizens.
    ——————-
    So, what we have here, the left has once again bastardized the Constitution. As the left claims, Trump will trash the Constitution if his immigration plan comes to reality. Far from it, the left has already trashed it and continues to do so.

    • M. Noonan August 22, 2015 / 11:25 pm

      Right now, though, US law considers any person born in the United States to be a U.S. citizen – SCOTUS rulings, as far as I can tell, have only extended citizenship to person born in the United States to persons legally resident in the United States (ie, if you’re born to a legal alien, you’re American from day one; but even this excludes children of foreign consuls and such born in the United States). Various bits of legislation have been routinely submitted to restrict birthright citizenship to children of citizens, or at least children of legal immigrants (even Harry Reid in days of yore proposed such a law) – but none of them have passed Congress. Obama, of course, would veto any such legislation, so its completely moot unless there is a GOP President who would be willing to sign it – and only Cruz and a couple others probably would. But even then, it would be challenged in Court and I doubt highly that the current members of the SC would uphold such a law, so all we’d get is a Roe which forever enshrines “get here and give birth” as a path to citizenship. I prefer strict border security and heavy taxes on remittances to stop the flow of new illegals and to get a huge number of illegals to just go home, as working here doesn’t do what they want: get money back home to the folks. Once we’ve done that and the pressure is off, we can probably then do all sorts of things to revise American citizenship requirements.

    • tiredoflibbs August 23, 2015 / 7:27 am

      The Constitution is clear:

      Article I Section 8 Clause 4: The Congrass SHALL have the Power …. To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,..

      ….not the pResident with his Executive Orders
      ….not the Supreme Court and their leftist activist judges

      ….but Congress. The left has continued to undermine our Naturalization laws, starting with Ted
      Kennedy in the 1960s in which his legislation allowed for chain migration. This coupled with the welfare state has caused a huge influx of illegals. We used to have measured, gradual immigration that allowed time for assimilation; today there is no period of assimilation, just one unprecedented and uninterrupted flow of immigrants with no end in sight. Those who claim this is good for America are either uninformed or lying through their teeth.

      When Obame said our system was broken…. it was the left who broke it.

      • Amazona August 23, 2015 / 7:55 am

        Great posts, Tired. I would just like to add that not even Congress has the authority to change the Natural Born Citizen requirement. All Congress could do would be to pass some cockamamie law that conveys citizenship to people here illegally, putting them under the jurisdiction of American citizenship, so their offspring might qualify as NBC.

        I think we have had the wisdom of the Founders laid out and writ clear, in our experience of the past seven years, having a president who did not grow up as an American, whose father was not only not a citizen but who hated the United States. It appears that technically he was a natural born citizen, given the fact that his mother was a citizen and his father had resided in this country, but it is a very thin technicality, and while legally defining him as an American it does not change the facts.

        I recently read something that said he had spent his “formative years” in the United States and this means he grew up as an American. Well, not really. He didn’t move to Hawaii till he was in his teens and even then he grew up in a state that had a strong anti-American contingent resentful of the new statehood and was “mentored” by an ardent America-hater, Frank Marshall Davis, who was his father figure (if not his real father).

        While there is no way to impose a traditional American childhood on a presidential candidate, requiring that he or she grow up only as an American citizen with at least one parent who was a citizen at the time of his or her birth is an effort to address the issue, and can’t be ignored or overlooked.

Comments are closed.