Are Trump's immigration views out of the mainstream? (Survey says No)

Washington Examiner ^ | 8/16/15 10:53 PM | BYRON YORK

[Leep]

“Now, Chrispy doing that would be a sight to behold!”

I would guess, mostly through it. Kind of like this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_fjEViOF4JE

[Georgia Girl 2]

It must have killed Byron York to admit this. LOL!

[theoldmarine]

I really like your thinking. Of course Allen West is great but Oliver North would also be fantastic!

[xzins]

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." This could not be more obvious.

I agree that the 'subject clause' makes that amendment absolutely clear, but Scotus decided nonetheless that it meant anyone born here. It is an irrational interpretation, and in my opinion a criminal one.

Nonetheless, it needs to be stopped, and an addition to the amendment is the most certain answer. "All persons born to a US citizen or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof..."

[knarf]

I'm going to stop trying to explain to FreepeRs that I'm talking about the publications .... NOT Trump NOR his policies

Really, really READ what I said

[knarf]

You TOO ?

It's about the publications ... not Trump

I'm supporting him NOW ... why would I change if he gets the nomination ?

[xzins]

I wouldn’t worry about it. Since there’s no edit key you can’t go back and reword what you meant, so any number of people for the next day or two will read something for the first time and not realize a person has already responded to it.

Edit keys are nice, but every thread eventually blows over. :>)

[knarf]

Yeah ... thanx

[noinfringers2]

I tend to believe you have given a workable and needed listing of persons and positions for a Trump cabinet. However, there has to be a place for Cruz.

[Tzimisce]

14th Amendment's guarantee of birthright citizenship.

There is no such thing as birthright citizenship.

The 14th Amendment took the power of defining citizenship out of the hands of the states and put it in the power of the federal government so that the freed slaves would be incorporated into the general population.

[jjsheridan5]

But absent from the Trump's report is a commitment to e-verify beyond just mentioning it -yes, I understand that there is a general provision elsewhere in the document which calls for the enforcement of laws but I am also informed that e-verify is voluntary under current law.

Just a thought. By background, Trump is the type of person who would be well-versed in the skill of holding back cards, to play at the right time. Of all of the specific components of his immigration plan, the one that would have the broadest and loudest support would be "crack down on employers". Maybe he is only hinting at this now, so that he can later make a big splash with the specifics of what he would do to those employers.

I have a hard time believing that he would listen to Sessions on everything else, yet hit employers with padded gloves. I have a gut feeling that when he comes out with the specific remedy for these types of employers, it is going to be shocking in its severity.

[nathanbedford]

That could be but it also could be that Trump calculates that illegal aliens do not Vote and (or at least should not vote) and business owners do.

I have no information either way.

[jjsheridan5]

I hope it is not. I suspect the number of affected business owners is dwarfed by the number of people who would be breaking out champagne if the employer penalties included significant jail-time.

[P-Marlowe]

Congress has both the power and authority to pass legislation to enforce the 14th Amendment. If Congress determines that Illegal Aliens, by trespassing on the territory of the United States, are not “subject to the Jurisdiction of the United States, then their children born during the trespass would not be eligible for birthright citzenship. The power to control the immigration laws is given to Congress and not the courts. The 14th amendment was not passed to give trespassers the same rights as legal residents. There is nothing in the history of the 14th Amendment which could possibly be construed to suggest that was the intent.

[ek_hornbeck]

When the media characterizes views as "mainstream" vs. "fringe/extreme," they aren't referring to any kind of statistical majority among Americans. They're referring to the spectrum of opinion allowed by the political establishment, i.e. the range of views acceptable to the DNC and the RNC. The GOP establishment has embraced amnesty and has jumped aboard the liberal bandwagon on immigration generally, so with both parties championing illegals, anything contrary to open borders and amnesty has become "extremist" or "fringe," even though a majority of Americans oppose them.

When you get to define the limits of acceptable dissent, all definitions are self-referencing.

[ASA Vet]

Ted Cruz would be great as Senate Majority leader.

[spacewarp]

Sorry. I completely misread your post.

[knarf]

no problem

[JediJones]

Why in the world do current immigration policy and the advocates for more immigration constantly say we’re in need of both low-skilled and high-skilled immigrants? Who DON’T we need more of according to them? Do we not already have a country? You’d think we were trying to populate a barren desert for the first time judging by what they say.

We need more of everybody according to them because Democrats want to increase their non-white voting blocs and big business knows the more immigrants that come, the more the supply of labor goes up and the less they can pay their workers. We can’t stay a rich country if we continue “melding” with the third world. Our wages will end up averaging out with those of what the third-world immigrants are willing to accept until we’re just as poor as they are now.