Do you think all migrants, no migrants or some migrants should be vetted before entering the USA?

[rareboy]

I don't disagree with this. They should be admitted as asylum seekers, immigrants, or denied, based on the law and the merits of their case. At the same time, they must be treated with respect and dignity as the human beings they are and not simply turned away unilaterally because of who they are. That includes keeping families together.

This is the answer.

It is exactly what civilized countries do.

 

[gsdx]

How does that make Donald an anchor baby?

I didn't write the piece. I posted the facts as I know them. Interpret them as you will. (Hint: neither Trump's mother nor Melania were American citizens when their children were born. By Trump's reasoning, that makes both Trump and his son 'anchor babies'. Neither he nor Barron would be allowed to stay in the United States according to his new rules.)

 

[mikey3000]

Since you asked the question Mikey, how about giving us your thoughts too?

I agree that everyone should be vetted for criminal activity and health concerns. No birth-right citizenship privileges and no chain migration privileges.

Do you mean vetted like your family was when it was dumped off a ship into Canada?

Actually my family and many like mine were invited to immigrate to Canada by the federal government and given free land out west, nothing else. They had to clear it, tame it and farm it. And they are still at it. My mother's family are all wheat farmers still out in Manitoba. My father's family were given political asylum in Canada because they were a political/scientific family and being murdered by the Bolsheviks. My maternal grandfather's brother somehow ended up in Argentina right after WW II, but we dont talk about poor uncle Ivan .

 

[72-Jay]

I say no (or atleast almost no) migrants should be allowed in.

 

[Mariatenebre]

Do you mean vetted like your family was when it was dumped off a ship into Canada?

Again as I have told you before cultures all across the world have invaded and waged war and took the lands of other peoples. Native Americans for instance in many cases fought against other tribes and even decimated some of their rivals. Arab Islamic countries have stolen as much land as the Christian West but you are not asking for them to have open borders letting anyone in. Again people should be vetted to see if they are actual refugees and not criminals or terrorism. The self flagellation of the West by the regressive left is why Trump one.

My Grand Parents were not vetted. Because of tehre hard work I have a BA and Masters Degree and pay more taxes than most.

- - - Updated - - -



How were you vetted?

- - - Updated - - -



We apparently do not need Canadians like you to decide!

I was born here and again if we are letting people into our country we need to make sure they are not criminals or terrorists. Once more this open borders nonsense is the reason why in Europe for instance they have tons of terror attacks and hell even rapes. Once more these people who say that the West should have open borders as penance for their past would never say this to say Arab Islamic nations which have stolen as much land from people and caused as much brutality and carnage as the Europeans and still do. It is people like you that are the reason that Trump won. We have to protect our borders. The thing is that people like you have had it so good for so long and haven't had a real war that has ravaged your country you have forgotten that security and stability isn't always guaranteed. If you don't protect your borders you will be conquered plain and simple. So spare me with your regressive leftist self flagellation.

 

[peeonme]

I didn't write the piece. I posted the facts as I know them. Interpret them as you will. (Hint: neither Trump's mother nor Melania were American citizens when their children were born. By Trump's reasoning, that makes both Trump and his son 'anchor babies'. Neither he nor Barron would be allowed to stay in the United States according to his new rules.)

The term anchor baby is used for the children women who have entered the USA illegally and then gave birth, Trump's mother was not here illegally nor was Melania.
Trump has not changed the rules and I don't think that he has the power to do so.

 

[cityboy-stl]

I agree that everyone should be vetted for criminal activity and health concerns. No birth-right citizenship privileges and no chain migration privileges.

Ok, so we agree on the vetting of migrants.

But the thread topic is migrants. Migrants already don't have birth-right citizenship privileges because they're not born here. Or do you mean children of immigrants born in the U.S. should not have birth-right citizenship? Then what citizenship would the child have? Are you saying only children of citizens should have birth-right citizenship? That's not the meaning of birth-right is it? What if the immigrants become naturalized citizens? Can their children be citizens then? What if only one parent is a citizen or they're green-card holders and their children? I'm not advocating for or against. I'm just asking questions.

So when my great grandmother immigrated here she became a naturalized citizen. She then sponsored her nephew to come here where he became a naturalized citizen as well. I guess that is what they are calling chain migration. All citizens, native born or naturalized have the same rights don't they? Where is line drawn on this chain migration?

If we are talking about changing the constitution or the law for these issues, these are some of things that must be accounted for. What would be appropriate thing to do?

 

[mikey3000]

In America, anchor babies are the product of "birthright citizenry", babies born on American soil with neither parent having status in America, correct? In Canada we don't have anchor babies. If a child is born on Canadian soil, that child may be a citizen, but the non landed parents can and do get deported and have the choice of leaving the child behind or taking it with them. No anchor.

 

[gsdx]

The term anchor baby is used for the children women who have entered the USA illegally and then gave birth, Trump's mother was not here illegally nor was Melania.
Trump has not changed the rules and I don't think that he has the power to do so.

Take it up with the guy who created the item.

I'm done with this.

 

[Rickrock]

Immigrants should be vetted according to the laws to make sure that they aren't criminals or terrorists, etc. Families should be treated humanely. People fleeing danger should be given opportunity to avoid it. There could be quotas enforced if that can be done humanely. People born here if one or more of their parents are legally here should be given preference and/or citizenship. More or less what rareboy said above. Certainly families should be able to sponsor relatives if the relatives aren't dangerous. That is what most families did in the past including my family more than a century ago.

 

[smokeshadow]

Aren't migrants, or immigrants, who claim asylum, vetted as part of the process for granting that request?

 

[Thad1527]

My township has remained vital due to immigrants. We'd be a depressed community with a dwindling aging population were it not for immigrants from many countries. We've always been and remain popular with immigrants from Ireland. But today, the littlest municipality in our school district (there are 3) has the highest percentage of Asian Indians of any community in America. Our restaurants reflect our new diversity - Korean, Lao, Ecuadorean, Salvadorean, Peruvian, West African and more. Our commercial districts are fully leased and thriving.
I like it. The world has come to me.

 

[rareboy]

I agree that everyone should be vetted for criminal activity and health concerns. No birth-right citizenship privileges and no chain migration privileges.


Actually my family and many like mine were invited to immigrate to Canada by the federal government and given free land out west, nothing else. They had to clear it, tame it and farm it. And they are still at it. My mother's family are all wheat farmers still out in Manitoba. My father's family were given political asylum in Canada because they were a political/scientific family and being murdered by the Bolsheviks. My maternal grandfather's brother somehow ended up in Argentina right after WW II, but we dont talk about poor uncle Ivan ��.

So they weren't vetted and they were fleeing persecution and death squads.

Right.

 

[opinterph]

The term anchor baby

In America, anchor babies are the product of "birthright citizenry", babies born on American soil with neither parent having status in America, correct?

anchor baby (English Oxford Dictionary)

 

[peeonme]

anchor baby (English Oxford Dictionary)

And your point is? I was responding to post 16.

 

[mikey3000]

So they weren't vetted and they were fleeing persecution and death squads.

Right.

The world has changed a lot in the past 50-100 years, don't you think? Globalists have made sure of that.

 

[opinterph]

And your point is?

The point: Usage of the term is not limited to the United States and the term generally involves citizenship of the child’s mother.

I was responding to post 16.

You quoted what is currently post #22.

I was responding to provide additional information in order to help facilitate a robust and informed discussion. I note that at least one member has expressed confusion or uncertainty about the meaning of the term.

… status in America, correct?

 

[opinterph]

(Paraphrased)

Do you think globalists have made sure that the world has changed a lot in the past 50-100 years?

Change is the only constant. I don’t think proactive measures by any particular group of people have predicated the fact that a lot of change has taken place during the past 50 to 100 years.

How does change in the world relate to the matter of vetting immigrants?

 

[gsdx]

And your point is? I was responding to post 16.

The definition has changed over time. Take your pick. Your definition doesn't work. The one in the image I posted does work.

 

[mikey3000]

The point: Usage of the term is not limited to the United States and the term generally involves citizenship of the child’s mother.




You quoted what is currently post #22.

I was responding to provide additional information in order to help facilitate a robust and informed discussion. I note that at least one member has expressed confusion or uncertainty about the meaning of the term.

​

I said America to clarify that I am not discussing Canadian law, as I am Canadian living in Canada.

Change is the only constant. I don’t think proactive measures by any particular group of people have predicated the fact that a lot of change has taken place during the past 50 to 100 years.

How does change in the world relate to the matter of vetting immigrants?

I think citizenship in a western, first world country is not as coveted as it once was; many consider it a right, not a privilege. It's a mere convenience now as many "refugees", once they gain status in their new country, jump on a plane and go back "home" to visit friends and family for months at a time. Many individuals also use citizenship to escape prosecution, not persecution, when it is convenient for them to do so. It now truly is a "global village."