How you going to pay for it Trump?
How, huh how?.
They are citizens you moron.
> “Mexico receives billions of dollars a year in payments from their out-of-the-country population, which is probably a main support of subsistence and lifestyle for a great many of its citizen/nationals living within its geographic borders.”
And Donald Trump will use a substantial portion of those remittance payments to fund the building of the Trump Wall!
Not unless Congress approves a tax on those remittances - Trump could not do so himself.
Now, there may be other ways a president could recoup the cost of building the wall without the assistance of Congress - withholding foreign aid payments, etc. - but no president could constitutionally impose a tax on remittances on his own.
That would be simple justice. :<)
I just heard today that Mexico has filed a blistering complaint with the federal government that certain hospitals on the southern border were not issuing birth certificates to the children of their nationals born on U.S. soil, and demanding the federal government compel them to do so.
What chutzpah!!!
Again, the Reconquista comes to mind: Mexico could not and cannot defeat us militarily; but they can defeat us demographically.
One anchor baby is ground zero for multi-generational chain migration into the United States, in an ever-expanding geometric progression. The United States simply cannot afford this — economically, fiscally, culturally.
But the good news is an Article V Convention of the States probably would not have to put repeal of the Fourteenth Amendment on its agenda. Congress already has the power to address the citizenship issue, granted in Article I, Section 8. And reinforced in Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment itself — "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article" — all of the previous four Sections.
The bad news is, Congress evidently is loathe to do its duty here. Which appears simple enough: Just clarify what Section 1's "and under the jurisdiction thereof" means. And it turns out the Supreme Court defined it, in 1873 (the Slaughterhouse Cases [83 U.S. 36, 73 {1873}], which was a Fourteenth Amendment case mainly dealing with the "privileges or immunities" clause).
Referring to the Framers' intent (and the Fourteenth had quite recently been ratified, in 1868; so SCOTUS' memory was likely fresh on these matters), the Court wrote:
“The phrase, ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.” (Emphasis added)All Congress has to do is secure the border and define U.S. citizenship to reflect this understanding of U.S. "jurisdiction."
Seems simple enough.
But methinks we'd probably need to get a brand-new Congress to get that work done.
Meanwhile, Congress defers to the whims of the president, whose immigration policy is — shall we say? — extraordinarily permissive and whimsical.