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

[novastar]

Just as we lock our doors in the evening we need to vet who is coming here and why. The vast majority just want to work and have a decent life, away from gangs and violence. My father legally immigrated.

 

[peeonme]

You already have that, a good set of immigration laws, but they have to be enforced.

They should be enforced in a humane fashion, we should not separate families or 'hunt' for those who were brought here as children and have made America their home. We need to offer amnesty and a path to citizenship to all who reside here and contribute to the system.

 

[rareboy]

They should be enforced in a humane fashion, we should not separate families or 'hunt' for those who were brought here as children and have made America their home. We need to offer amnesty and a path to citizenship to all who reside here and contribute to the system.

This. This is the answer.

 

[cityboy-stl]

After reading through this my thoughts on the various categories:

Those born on U.S. soil are citizens by the 14th amendment.

The criminals and troublemakers obviously should be prosecuted and sentenced or deported. No one disputes that.

All new immigrants should be vetted in a humane fashion according to the law and the merits of their case.

Those who were brought here under a certain age by parents or others and lived most their lives here (the DACA folks), did not directly break the law and should have a path to citizenship.

For the remainder I offer this compromise.
Those who came here illegally, have been here for a certain length of time (to be determined), have otherwise no criminal record and contribute to society should have a path to permanent resident green-card status so that they are legal but should never have access to naturalized citizenship due to their illegal entry in the first place. It would be totally inhumane to break up existing families.

Those who came here illegally and have been here less than that same length of time (to be determined) need to leave and come back through the appropriate legal process.

I do get the point that it does feel like gaming the system for mothers to step across the border the day before giving birth so the child can be a U.S. citizen. But the constitution stands. Maybe some sort of length of prior residency requirement may be the answer but I'm on-the-fence about that. Any change requires a constitutional amendment.

 

[mikey3000]

I assume that this is the part of the 14th Amendment...

"Section 1. 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

But this is the part that is giving much discussion. "...and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." Here is an opinion of a very learned fellow in constitutional law.

In a nutshell, it means this: The constitution of the United States does not grant citizenship at birth to just anyone who happens to be born within American borders. It is the allegiance (complete jurisdiction) of the child's birth parents at the time of birth that determines the child's citizenship--not geographical location. If the United States does not have complete jurisdiction, for example, to compel a child's parents to Jury Duty - then the U.S. does not have the total, complete jurisdiction demanded by the Fourteenth Amendment to make their child a citizen of the United States by birth. How could it possibly be any other way?

https://www.14thamendment.us/articles/anchor_babies_unconstitutionality.html

In Canada things work a little differently here with illegal aliens, we deport them. If they have children here while illegal, they are given the choice of giving that child to a relative here who has status, or take the child back with them. Now I agree that if they are already here, working and contributing to society, they should maybe get expedited consideration, but they do not get a free pass. Where do we draw the line?

www.yorku.ca/goldring/clippings/tories_deporting_illegal_workers.pdf

 

[peeonme]

In a nutshell, it means this: The constitution of the United States does not grant citizenship at birth to just anyone who happens to be born within American borders. It is the allegiance (complete jurisdiction) of the child's birth parents at the time of birth that determines the child's citizenship--not geographical location. If the United States does not have complete jurisdiction, for example, to compel a child's parents to Jury Duty - then the U.S. does not have the total, complete jurisdiction demanded by the Fourteenth Amendment to make their child a citizen of the United States by birth. How could it possibly be any other way?

It's a stretch or reach to split hairs in such a way. It overlooks the thought of "the spirit of the law vs. the letter of the law." The 14th amendment was not written for any purpose than to insure citizenship and equal protection to all, not to exclude.

 

[cityboy-stl]

In a nutshell, it means this: The constitution of the United States does not grant citizenship at birth to just anyone who happens to be born within American borders. It is the allegiance (complete jurisdiction) of the child's birth parents at the time of birth that determines the child's citizenship--not geographical location. If the United States does not have complete jurisdiction, for example, to compel a child's parents to Jury Duty - then the U.S. does not have the total, complete jurisdiction demanded by the Fourteenth Amendment to make their child a citizen of the United States by birth. How could it possibly be any other way?

^^^^

That is spin to twist the wording to fit what you want it to fit. The people who were actually there have far more credibility: "The only exceptions, in the words of the amendment, are persons not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. Members of Congress at the time made clear that this wording applied only to Native Americans living on reservations — then considered members of their own tribal sovereignties, not the nation — and American-born children of foreign diplomats"

Anyone on U.S. soil is subject to the jurisdiction of the laws the United States.

Read the NYT story in the link.

https://www.justusboys.com/forum/th...-cannot-do?p=11173340&viewfull=1#post11173340

 

[Harke the Boeotarch]

I'm curious to see how all you guys feel about these migrants that will be at your door shortly.

Let's handle this better than last time we had such an influx (in the nineties)
.

Won't be at my door, however if they turned up we'd welcome them in Scotland.

You might have to eat those words, as I'm planning to come over there.

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

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."

And then promptly are recaptured by the regime they previously fled. What a sad way of proving the initial asylum request was justified.

 

[peeonme]

I'm curious to see how all you guys feel about these migrants that will be at your door shortly.

I am in favor of using buses for a caravan, sending them to Canada since it seems Canadians have such an interest in this issue.

 

[mikey3000]

Have you been to Canada lately? He have plenty of legal immigrants, but thousands of your illegals are bailing from America and sneaking over our border too.

 

[rareboy]

^ We actually do have an interest.....Canada has had a steady flood of people crossing over the border from the US looking for political refuge. Thousands of them so far this year. It is certainly stressing shelters in the main points of entry.....but we handle the refugees differently.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/asylum-seekers-overview-data-1.4503825

 

[rareboy]

I assume that this is the part of the 14th Amendment...

"Section 1. 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

But this is the part that is giving much discussion. "...and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." Here is an opinion of a very learned fellow in constitutional law.



https://www.14thamendment.us/articles/anchor_babies_unconstitutionality.html

In Canada things work a little differently here with illegal aliens, we deport them. If they have children here while illegal, they are given the choice of giving that child to a relative here who has status, or take the child back with them. Now I agree that if they are already here, working and contributing to society, they should maybe get expedited consideration, but they do not get a free pass. Where do we draw the line?

www.yorku.ca/goldring/clippings/tories_deporting_illegal_workers.pdf

P. A. Madison mustn't be that learned. A search turns up some shaky articles for the Federalist Blog and nothing else where he has been cited as a constitutional scholar.

But nice try.

 

[mikey3000]

Lol!! Only you would try to discredit a constitutional researcher who quotes the man who actually authored the amendment in 1866.

Fortunately, we have the highest possible authority on record to answer this question of how the term "jurisdiction" was to be interpreted and applied, the author of the citizenship clause, Sen. Jacob M. Howard (MI) to tell us exactly what it means and its intended scope as he introduced it to the United States Senate in 1866.

Maybe you should tell us how Senator Jacob M. Howard and the entire senate was wrong when they amended the constitution.

 

[peeonme]

^ We actually do have an interest.....Canada has had a steady flood of people crossing over the border from the US looking for political refuge. Thousands of them so far this year. It is certainly stressing shelters in the main points of entry.....but we handle the refugees differently.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/asylum-seekers-overview-data-1.4503825

From what the article said it seems that these aren't Americans, but rather people from other nations that are in the US seeking political asylum, not immigrants looking for a better life as is the case with the caravan.

 

[gsdx]

not immigrants looking for a better life as is the case with the caravan.

Which, in case you haven't noticed, has all-but vanished from the radar since the election. As suspected, it was nothing more than another con by the king of conmen, Donald J. Trump. All that's left if thousands of troops at the border living in tents, no mess, no fans, no air conditioning... nothing. Hundreds of millions of tax dollars down the toilet for a political stunt that has failed badly.

Troops at the border are sleeping in tents that house 20 soldiers and have no electricity or air conditioning, with some suffering heat exhaustion within days of starting the mission. There’s no mess hall — only pre-made “Ready-to-Eat” meals — and the only phone chargers available are attached to “a few generators that power spotlights around the living area.” Department of Defense officials worry that if the number of troops increases to 15,000, the cost could be as high as $200 million.

https://washingtonmonthly.com/2018/...-trump-time-to-bring-the-caravan-troops-home/

 

[rareboy]

From what the article said it seems that these aren't Americans, but rather people from other nations that are in the US seeking political asylum, not immigrants looking for a better life as is the case with the caravan.

Yes.

Many of them are in the US...using it as a transit through to Canada. Some of them have overstayed their time in the US and are afraid of being seized and deported by ICE.

 

[fabulouslyghetto]

Could they be any better/worse than the descendants of migrants who currently occupy the US? who knows? I would think if we're going to scrutinize people who want to enter our country to the nth degree we should do the same to the people who already live here. all the sick, hateful, angry fuck-bags who make america stink should be the first to go to be perfectly honest. but these immigration debates boil down to the right implying that the evil librul left wants to let Mexican rapists and MS13 gang members roam the American streets all willy nilly as if that's an accurate representation of liberal immigration policies.

 

[mikey3000]

all the sick, hateful, angry fuck-bags who make america stink should be the first to go to be perfectly honest.

Can you please give us another example?

 

[mikey3000]

Which, in case you haven't noticed, has all-but vanished from the radar since the election. As suspected, it was nothing more than another con by the king of conmen, Donald J. Trump. All that's left if thousands of troops at the border living in tents, no mess, no fans, no air conditioning... nothing. Hundreds of millions of tax dollars down the toilet for a political stunt that has failed badly.



https://washingtonmonthly.com/2018/...-trump-time-to-bring-the-caravan-troops-home/

Really? Maybe you should change the channel. MSM reported this morning that thousands and thousands are about a week away, but no longer marching. Now they are being transported by cattle trucks. Nice photo op, eh? Cattle trucks. I wonder who paid for those. Me investigate and get back to you.

 

[peeonme]

Which, in case you haven't noticed, has all-but vanished from the radar since the election. As suspected, it was nothing more than another con by the king of conmen, Donald J. Trump. All that's left if thousands of troops at the border living in tents, no mess, no fans, no air conditioning... nothing. Hundreds of millions of tax dollars down the toilet for a political stunt that has failed badly.



https://washingtonmonthly.com/2018/...-trump-time-to-bring-the-caravan-troops-home/

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/migrant-caravan-embarks-route-death-through-mexico-n931041
So, NBC reported fake news?
Both sides used this to sway the election, and yes, like all other drama it is forgotten after the votes are cast.