[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
Opinions/Editorials Title: Donald Trump, the GOP and the immigration swamp Donald Trump should not be exempt from normal scrutiny or from consideration of the effect of his candidacy on conservatism's future. "This was not a subject that was on anybody's mind until I brought it up at my announcement." Donald Trump, on immigration, Republican debate, Aug. 6 Not on anyone's mind? For years, immigration has been the subject of near-constant, often bitter argument within the GOP. But it is true that Trump has brought the debate to a new place – first, with his announcement speech, about whether Mexican migrants are really rapists, and now with the somewhat more nuanced Trump plan.
Much of it – visa tracking, E-Verify, withholding funds from sanctuary cities – predates Trump. Even building the Great Wall is not particularly new. (I, for one, have been advocating that 2006.) Dominating the discussion, however, are his two policy innovations: (a) abolition of birthright citizenship and (b) mass deportation. Birthright citizenshipIf you are born in the United States, you are an American citizen. So says the 14th Amendment. Barring some esoteric and radically new jurisprudence, abolition would require amending the Constitution. Which would take years and great political effort. And make the GOP anathema to Hispanic-Americans for a generation. And for what? Birthright citizenship is a symptom, not a cause. If you regain control of the border, the number of birthright babies fades to insignificance. The time and energy it would take to amend the Constitution are far more usefully deployed securing the border. Moreover, the real issue is not the birthright babies themselves, but the chain migration that follows. It turns one baby into an imported village. Chain migration, however, is not a constitutional right. It's a result of statutes and regulations. These can be readily changed. That should be the focus, not a quixotic constitutional battle. Mass deportationLast Sunday, Trump told NBC's Chuck Todd that all illegal immigrants must leave the country. Although once they've been kicked out, we will let "the good ones" back in.
On its own terms, this is crackpot. Wouldn't you save a lot just on Mayflower moving costs if you chose the "good ones" first before sending Swat teams to turf families out of their homes, loading them on buses and dumping them on the other side of the Rio Grande? Less frivolously, it is estimated by the conservative American Action Forum that mass deportation would take about 20 years and cost about $500 billion for all the police, judges, lawyers and enforcement agents – and bus drivers! – needed to expel 11 million people. This would all be merely ridiculous if it weren't morally obscene. Forcibly evict 11 million people from their homes? It can't happen. It shouldn't happen. And, of course, it won't ever happen. But because it's the view of the Republican front-runner, every other candidate is now required to react. So instead of debating border security, guest-worker programs and sanctuary cities – where Republicans are on firm moral and political ground – they are forced into a debate about a repulsive fantasy. Which, for the Republican Party, is also political poison. Mitt Romney lost the Hispanic vote by 44 points and he was advocating only self-deportation. Now the party is discussing forced deportation. It is not just Hispanics who will be alienated. Romney lost the Asian vote, too. By 47 points. And many non-minorities will be offended by the idea of rounding up 11 million people, the vast majority of whom are law-abiding members of their communities. Donald Trump has every right to advance his ideas. He is not to be begrudged his masterly showmanship, his relentless candor or his polling success. I strongly oppose the idea of ostracising anyone from the GOP or the conservative movement. On whose authority? Let the people decide. But that is not to say that he should be exempt from normal scrutiny or from consideration of the effect of his candidacy on conservatism's future. If you are a conservative alarmed at the country's direction and committed to retaking the White House, you should be concerned about what Trump's ascendancy is doing to the chances of that happening. The Democrats' presumptive candidate is flailing badly. Republicans have an unusually talented field with a good chance of winning back the presidency. Do they really want to be dragged into the swamps -- right now, on immigration -- that will make that prospect electorally impossible? Yes, I understand. The anger, the frustration, etc., etc., that Trump is channeling. But how are these alleviated by yelling "I'm mad as hell" -- and proceeding to elect Hillary Clinton?
Click for Full Text!(1 image) Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 8. "If you are born in the United States, you are an American citizen. So says the 14th Amendment." If you are born in the United States you are are subject to our laws -- unless you're a diplomat. So says the 14th Amendment. And if our laws say you're not a citizen, then you're not. So says the U.S. Constitution.
#8. To: misterwhite (#6) If you are born in the United States you are are subject to our laws -- unless you're a diplomat. So says the 14th Amendment. You are indulging in fantasy thinking. If it were so easy as just "Say what I want, and that's what words mean", then you'd have your way. But that's not what the 14th says, and it's not what jurisdiction means, and it's not going to change. You people are going to exhaust yourself attacking an invincible hill and accomplish nothing. There are plenty of ways to win the war against illegal immigration, but a direct assault on the 14th Amendment is going to fail disastrously. You can repeat all you like that I'm wrong. If it's ever litigated, you will discover that you knew the outcome all along, because I've told you. IF the Bahamas invade America, the Bahama's lose. There's no other possible outcome. The same is true with this direct assault on the 14th Amendment that has gained popularity in the fever swamp. It's popular in the fever swamp, it's a fever, it's dumb as a post, it's contrary to language and law, and it will never win one victory, in any appellate jurisdiction in America, and the Supreme Court will wipe out the idea 9-0. You can take that to the bank. Now spend your time and energy on things that CAN work to address illegal immigration. There are plenty. You are pouring your energy into a dark rathole with this 14th Amendment jurisdiction approach. There are lawyers out there who are PAID to generate pretty bad arguments to try to support the idea. But anybody who is working on this pro-bono is an utter fool. Jurisdiction means "power to try". Illegals and their children can be tried, therefore, they are by definition subject to US jurisdiction, and THEREFORE under the 14th Amendment, the children born here are citizens. That's what it SAYS in plain English. That's what it means. No appellate court will ever find anything different. No matter how enraged you get me for telling you the truth, that truth is not going to change, at all, ever. For the court to change the definition of jurisdiction, to narrow it, would be to cut off their own power. They will not do that.
Replies to Comment # 8. #9. To: Vicomte13, misterwhite (#8) Jurisdiction means "power to try". Illegals and their children can be tried, therefore, they are by definition subject to US jurisdiction, and THEREFORE under the 14th Amendment, the children born here are citizens. That's what it SAYS in plain English. That's what it means. No appellate court will ever find anything different. And specifically, SCOTUS has ruled that illegal aliens are subject to the jurisdiction. Plyler v. Doe 457 U.S. 202 (1982).
U.S. Supreme Court PLYLER v. DOE, 457 U.S. 202 (1982) 457 U.S. 202 PLYLER, SUPERINTENDENT, TYLER INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. v. DOE, GUARDIAN, ET AL. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 80-1538. Argued December 1, 1981 Held: A Texas statute which withholds from local school districts any state funds for the education of children who were not “legally admitted” into the United States, and which authorizes local school districts to deny enrollment to such children, violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Pp. 210-230.
(a) The illegal aliens who are plaintiffs in these cases challenging the statute may claim the benefit of the Equal Protection Clause, which provides that no State shall “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is a “person” in any ordinary sense of that term. This Court’s prior cases recognizing that illegal aliens are “persons” protected by the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, which Clauses do not include the phrase “within its jurisdiction,” cannot be distinguished on the asserted ground that persons who have entered the country illegally are not “within the jurisdiction” of a State even if they are present within its boundaries and subject to its laws. Nor do the logic and history of the Fourteenth Amendment support such a construction. Instead, use of the phrase “within its jurisdiction” confirms the understanding that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protection extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State’s territory. Pp. 210-216.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 8. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|