Trump

[heironymouspasparagus]

Wong Kim Ark was here legally.

You even quote

"Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children even of aliens born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto are subjects by birth."

This does not include those here illegally.

I know the link below is authored by "right wingers" but it quotes authors of the legislation. They clearly meant this to apply to those here legally, which I am not arguing against. What is at question is the "anchor baby" policy that we are following.

http://www.federalistblog.us/2007/09/revisiting_subject_to_the_jurisdiction/

Yep, it is right wingers who are trying to muddy the water.  The "intent" of some of the authors were to have it that way - no foreign allegiance of parents - but, in spite of their fondest desires and hopes, that is NOT what was ratified.  And any part of the legislation in conflict with the amendment was rendered obsolete and superceded.

And apparently the Supreme Court agrees, at least for the last 100+ years.  

Nothing says one born here of alien parents HAS to accept it when they reach age of majority or sometime after, but they are citizens until that point.  Goes to the concept of dual citizenship.


If what those right wingers was suddenly transformed into being they way they want it, that would open a very interesting can of worms related to Native Americans...they could then likely go to the world court and start proceedings against the US for some serious crimes against humanity that have been inflicted upon them, even as recently as when I was young - in the 50's and 60's.  Not to mention the breaking of every international law that was ever negotiated with the US since it became the US!   I have no delusions that the US would let international courts rule against us, but it would certainly bring up a whole lot of 'stuff'.   The very most recent transgression of treaty law is the Dakota Access pipeline getting into the news in the last week or so.  By the Supreme Law of the Land, the company would be in violation of the rights of a sovereign nation - against international laws that we ratified and agreed to.  

[Hoss]

And now it seems Trump has taken on a charity case.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/17/us/politics/donald-trump-roger-ailes.html?_r=2

Although the campaign won't confirm that he is.

[heironymouspasparagus]

And the rest of the story...

http://www.snopes.com/2016/08/16/rudy-giuliani-911-remarks/

The sad part is that NPR seems to have been "fooled" as well.

http://www.npr.org/2016/08/16/490200895/rudy-giuliani-claims-no-terror-attacks-in-u-s-pre-obama

This does not help when trying to maintain that Gubment check.

Revisionist history, apologist time on the RWRE trail...again.  He said what he said.  Nobody was fooled by it.  Maybe he meant to say it another way, but where has he come out and tried to 'walk it back', explain, and make it right?  Yeah, we all now he is going for the histrionic moment...maybe he should just stay on teleprompter...

Kinda like the intent versus reality of the 14th amendment.  It's alzheimer's time in the Giuliani family.

[heironymouspasparagus]

The actually welfare spent on illegal aliens is something like $20 Billion (~100bil for all immigrant families). Compared to $1 Trillion on US Citizens (and that's counting medicaid as welfare, but not SS or Medicare). But we are actually fairly low on the "welfare" state spending in spite of what you may hear on talk radio. Similar in Welfare/GDP to Israel or Slovakia, not the socialist paradise we may be led to believe and at 19% we are below the global average of 22%. In the broadest sense, Social security and medicare make up the bulk of our welfare spending, then medicaid ($488B, not counted as welfare in most countries), "food stamps" (291B), Housing (40B), unemployment (36B) and the rest is basically trivial in the Federal Budget.

HUGE wrongness here!!   You are falling into the trap of listening to and letting the RWRE LIE MACHINE control the dialog!!!

Social Security and Medicare are NOT welfare in any way, shape, or form!!  They are totally and exclusively funded by money paid by workers in this country directly from their paychecks!   No general fund moneys - go to pay any of the benefits!

IN FACT, the OASDI has assets of almost $3 trillion sitting in Treasury instruments that is helping bail out the massive debt accumulation that runaway, rampant RWRE negligence has created for this country!  That's bigger than the debt that China supposedly is owed !!

And while people have been saying it will start paying out more than it takes in - it was supposed to have happened a couple years ago - it hasn't happened yet.  And the problem of reduced funding for the trust fund is something that could be easily cured by one small, simple step that would put the program on absolutely solid footing for EVER!!  But the obstructionist Congress (RWRE teabaggers in case anyone has forgotten exactly who they are!) have fought against that every step of the way, as they have so many programs and ideas and actions that would benefit the 99%!


There is NOTHING even close to welfare about those programs!!

https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4a3.html

[Conan71]

Social Security and Medicare are NOT welfare in any way, shape, or form!!  They are a ponzi scheme totally and exclusively funded by money paid by workers in this country directly from their paychecks!   No general fund moneys - go to pay any of the benefits!

[erfalf]

Medicare is 15% of the federal budget after offsetting receipts are taken into account. Only 37% is financed by payroll taxes (again a ponzi scheme I know, expected depletion 2028 per Medicare Trustees). 42% comes straight from the general fund. What else would you call it?

I would be interested to know how the % of illegals receiving benefits and amounts are tabulated. As we have been discussing, the anchor baby phenomenon means that newly minted legal citizens could hypothetically be receiving benefits too, through no thought of their own. How the parents of these children are tabulated would be what I was interested in particularly. And while it may not be a huge portion (2% I think you said) it still has created this perverse incentive to come to this country. When we need productive citizens, we are incentivising non-productive immigrants.

That expected depletion rate of the medicare trust I mentioned up there, was actually shortened recently due in part to lower payroll tax receipts. In other words, less people working. Perverse incentives.

Let's not get started on Social Security (24% of Federal Budget). If only it paid out according to what it paid in then it wouldn't be a welfare program. But it doesn't.

[erfalf]

Yep, it is right wingers who are trying to muddy the water.  The "intent" of some of the authors were to have it that way - no foreign allegiance of parents - but, in spite of their fondest desires and hopes, that is NOT what was ratified.  And any part of the legislation in conflict with the amendment was rendered obsolete and superceded.

And apparently the Supreme Court agrees, at least for the last 100+ years.  

What was ratified was quit vague, and the Supreme Court has hardly made any definitive statements. Certainly no precedent has been set for doing what I am proposing. Congress, per the constitution, at minimum has the authority to regulate immigration as they see fit. I don't see how any supreme court could stop this type of change. No amendment needed in my opinion. The intent of the law was clearly to benefit slaves who had already been here through no action of their own. How that has been perverted into granting citizenship rights to people that don't even follow the rules to get here willingly is beyond me. Unless you can show me the case where the Supremes ruled that illegals are American citizens this is a debate to be had. Also, the Indian thing is nothing. They have specifically (worded) been granted citizenship as of 1923 (I think that's the right year). Again, I'm pretty confident a constitutional amendment is not necessary as the constitution already addresses immigration be delegating that authority to congress. Now, whether anything will actually happen is an entirely separate discussion. A political half reality discussion.

But by your logic, authors intent be damned, and Supremes are interpreted by yourself. The case is closed. The RWRE boogie men are out to drum up support because they hate non-white.

[Hoss]

I guess Trump is doubling down on the freakshow.

He hires Steve Bannon (CEO of Breitbart!) to run his campaign.

This should really be entertaining now.

[erfalf]

I guess Trump is doubling down on the freakshow.

He hires Steve Bannon (CEO of Breitbart!) to run his campaign.

This should really be entertaining now.

Breitbart has been "campaigning" for months already. What's the difference?

[cannon_fodder]

I didn't count SS or Medicare as welfare. I did state that in the "broadest sense" they make up the most of our welfare spending. While SS correlates to earnings, it isn't an actual retirement plan and steps are taken to level the payout by reduce the return on the higher end of contributions. Medicare has nearly no correlation between the tax collected and the future cost of services. Ergo - I was acknowledging that in the broadest sense, these programs could be considered a form of social welfare. (Devils advocate: I pay into the general fund, the general fund pays for food stamps. So if I go broke and get food stamps its not welfare because I paid for it by previously working?)

Trump wouldn't understand this debate.

Also, Trump can't run a campaign with the same people in high level positions for more than 3 months at a time. But he will do great running a country. Yuge. The best.

[Hoss]

Breitbart has been "campaigning" for months already. What's the difference?

Seriously? 

It's about perception.  What if Clinton had hired the CEO of Daily Kos or some other liberal leaning rag?  You conservatives would be apoplectic about it.

Hell, he's already hired Ailes as a consultant.  What's next?  Hannity?

I find it funny actually.  He keeps saying he's going to moderate.  He does a rally where he talks via prompter and sounds about as interesting as paint drying.  He knows this.  It's why he goes off the reservation so often.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Wow.  That is amazing....


But I bet you are "all about" the massively failed 401k program rammed down the throat of the American people as "replacement" for defined benefit pension programs...the one that let corporations do their little sleight of hand to raid all the pensions for the trillions of dollars sitting there just waiting for the C-suite to use more effectively. 

[heironymouspasparagus]

What was ratified was quit vague, and the Supreme Court has hardly made any definitive statements. Certainly no precedent has been set for doing what I am proposing. Congress, per the constitution, at minimum has the authority to regulate immigration as they see fit. I don't see how any supreme court could stop this type of change. No amendment needed in my opinion. The intent of the law was clearly to benefit slaves who had already been here through no action of their own. How that has been perverted into granting citizenship rights to people that don't even follow the rules to get here willingly is beyond me. Unless you can show me the case where the Supremes ruled that illegals are American citizens this is a debate to be had. Also, the Indian thing is nothing. They have specifically (worded) been granted citizenship as of 1923 (I think that's the right year). Again, I'm pretty confident a constitutional amendment is not necessary as the constitution already addresses immigration be delegating that authority to congress. Now, whether anything will actually happen is an entirely separate discussion. A political half reality discussion.

But by your logic, authors intent be damned, and Supremes are interpreted by yourself. The case is closed. The RWRE boogie men are out to drum up support because they hate non-white.

CF covered it well if you read it.

Not my interpretation - the Supremes.  Cases are never 'closed' - if the Court says they will take it.

"...the Indian thing is nothing..."   True - in the context of white America.  They were nothing except a bounty and they remain only an obstacle today as being so graphically illustrated just in the last week or two in the Dakotas.  Amazing how so many people feel that they are doing the remaining native people of this country such a huge "favor" by "granting" them citizenship.  Shows the mindset.  And yeah, it IS the training and philosophy of the RWRE that maintains these attitudes and propagates them down through the ages.   And it only took until 1923 until the white world decided to grant that Native Americans were human beings and weren't to be counted as "0" persons in the census??  Wow, what a progressive idea!!  Those darn liberals that let that happen - what were they thinking??

Well, at least they quit offering bounties on every scalp...I guess they should be grateful for that boon!

[heironymouspasparagus]

Hell, he's already hired Ailes as a consultant.  What's next?  Hannity?

Hannity has had a bromance with Trump for a LONG time!!

[heironymouspasparagus]

(Devils advocate: I pay into the general fund, the general fund pays for food stamps. So if I go broke and get food stamps its not welfare because I paid for it by previously working?)

Trump wouldn't understand this debate.

True.   When it works that way for corporate America so well, why should it not work for the people that actually do the work and make that corporate welfare all possible?


and True.