President Jackass thinks he can overrule the Constitution

[RavenSky]

People who try to immigrate legally care.

First of all, a U.S. citizen must be at least 21 years old to even make an application for their parents. And said application is only for a green card, not U.S. citizenship for the parents. Moreover, the U.S. citizen child must be able to prove they can financially support their parents (a minimum of 125% above poverty level), and show that they and their parents intend to live in the U.S. full time.

In other words, you are suggesting that these Russian mothers having their "anchor babies" in the U.S. are playing a really really really long game for the sole purpose of MAYBE obtaining a green card that MAYBE could lead to citizenship... or nothing different than what any other legal immigrant faces.

Yes I am suggesting that. Their plan is to retire in US. And there are no "MAYBE". If kid does not die they will get a green card and free travel to US before that.

Again, given that they will need to wait 21+ years to even apply for the green card (with zero guarantee of getting it or eventual citizenship, so what?

 

[RavenSky]

You mean, she is willing to break the immigration laws?

It is NOT against the law to seek asylum.

But you know that. And I know why you continue to pretend otherwise.

 

[barbos]

Yes I am suggesting that. Their plan is to retire in US. And there are no "MAYBE". If kid does not die they will get a green card and free travel to US before that.

Again, given that they will need to wait 21+ years to even apply for the green card (with zero guarantee of getting it or eventual citizenship, so what?

So what?
And yes, It's 100% guaranteed and does not require having permanent residence in US for 5 years and paying lawyers shitload of money to push papers.
Plus as I said it's a free visa before that. By the time the kid is ~12 they can send him to some school in US and demand visits.
In Russia there are all these politicians who West sanctions with all these lists, do you know where they keep their kids? .... in the West.

 

[TV and credit cards]

I am not sure of that. But the point is, you have people who are using this law to their advantage.
This amendment needs to be amended. It was never intended to work in today's environment. And it's unfair too. same applies to 2nd one

What's different about today's environment? People traveling to new lands to seek opportunity and safety is age old.

1) How many/year? Seriously, in a country of 300 million, if even a few thousand immigrants/year get in this way, who the fuck cares. It really doesn't affect anything, it's a drop in the bucket.
In other words, who the fuck cares.

A few thousand here, a few thousand there, next thing you know, you're a nation of immigrants.

 

[barbos]

I am not sure of that. But the point is, you have people who are using this law to their advantage.
This amendment needs to be amended. It was never intended to work in today's environment. And it's unfair too. same applies to 2nd one

What's different about today's environment? People traveling to new lands to seek opportunity and safety is age old.

Air travel.

 

[RavenSky]

Yes I am suggesting that. Their plan is to retire in US. And there are no "MAYBE". If kid does not die they will get a green card and free travel to US before that.

Again, given that they will need to wait 21+ years to even apply for the green card (with zero guarantee of getting it or eventual citizenship, so what?

And yes, It's 100% guaranteed and does not require having permanent residence in US for 5 years and paying lawyers shitload of money to push papers.

wrong on all counts

Plus as I said it's a free visa before that. By the time the kid is ~12 they can send him to some school in US and demand visits.

So can anyone else (with the money)

 

[Max Rockatansky]

Is he trying to overrule the 2nd Amendment part of the Constitution? If not, who cares? It’s a living document up for interpretation.

Sad but true. The anti-gun Left had no problem when Obama tried to circumvent both the 2nd, 5th and 14th Amendments by declaring anyone on the "No Fly List" and any vets receiving financial assistance from the VA to be denied gun rights. They have no problem constantly trying to reinterpret the 2nd Amendment by saying "okay, you can own a gun but you can't have ammo" or efforts to that effect. The hypocrisy in Washington has always been a problem, but the bullshit is reaching eye-level now and more Americans should be concerned.

 

[barbos]

And yes, It's 100% guaranteed and does not require having permanent residence in US for 5 years and paying lawyers shitload of money to push papers.

wrong on all counts

Sorry but you have to be more specific.

Plus as I said it's a free visa before that. By the time the kid is ~12 they can send him to some school in US and demand visits.

So can anyone else (with the money)

Unless it's $800K (last time I checked) you can't exchange money for green card , as for the visa, money do help but don't guarantee it.

 

[TV and credit cards]

I am not sure of that. But the point is, you have people who are using this law to their advantage.
This amendment needs to be amended. It was never intended to work in today's environment. And it's unfair too. same applies to 2nd one

What's different about today's environment? People traveling to new lands to seek opportunity and safety is age old.

Air travel.

So this additional method of travel is reason enough to change the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution? Birthright citizenship in the United States predates the Fourteenth Amendment, the Civil Rights Act of 1866, moreover, has always been a part of US history. We adopted this from English common law. To my knowledge, there is no precedent to stand on to challenge it. And you think the invention of air travel is sound legal footing? Maybe teleportation but I wouldn't hang my hat on air travel.

You state, "the point is, you have people who are using this law to their advantage". We all use laws, regulations, tax codes, etc. to our advantage. Can you point out the negative ramifications of having the law stand as is? What have all these anchor babies done that has been detrimental to society?

 

[Derec]

You mean, she is willing to break the immigration laws?

It is NOT against the law to seek asylum.

But you know that. And I know why you continue to pretend otherwise.

It's against the law to fraudulently seek asylum. Even pro-caravan reporting admits they are leaving because of lack of jobs or low pay and yet are planning to apply for asylum. And note that her asylum request can be rejected and her kid is still automatically a US citizen if she is on US soil when she gives birth. So the anchor baby tactic does not require a legitimate asylum request.

Under your "logic", there is no longer any such thing as "illegal immigration" now that the illegals have found the asylum loophole.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Wiki on asylum:

Asylum has three basic requirements. First, an asylum applicant must establish that he or she fears persecution in their home country.[4] Second, the applicant must prove that he or she would be persecuted on account of one of five protected grounds: race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or particular social group. Third, an applicant must establish that the government is either involved in the persecution, or unable to control the conduct of private actors.

Political opinion could be because various persons are not willing to take part in drug manufacture, sale, wars, violence, etc. If they do not obey the drug gangs, then they lose opportunity for a job and they could get persecuted by the gang including violence and death. Such persecution may be allowed by corrupt govt officials and the uncorrupted govt officials may not be able to control it. Also membership in particular social groups: women and children are targeted way more than men to get men to comply. So Particular Social Groups is another reason.

Political Opinion and Particular Social Groups

• U.S. asylum law applies to those who have a well-founded fear of persecution “on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.” Those fleeing generalized crime and violence in their home country do not easily fit into these categories. Nevertheless, at times U.S. immigration judges have interpreted this law so as to grant asylum to Central American migrants who can demonstrate “a well-founded fear of persecution” within the standards described above, or who qualify for protection under the UN Convention Against Torture.
• Due to the way that Central American gangs operate, in many cases women and children are targeted by these criminal groups precisely because they are women and children, which U.S. courts have repeatedly interpreted as them being persecuted due to “membership in a particular social group.”
• Children and young adults are particularly vulnerable to death threats, as local gangs often try to forcibly recruit them, extort them, or in the case of girls, pressure them into relationships with gang members (see this short video series featuring Central American children who fled their home countries because of threats to their lives).

https://www.wola.org/analysis/fact-sheet-united-states-immigration-central-american-asylum-seekers/


Government not able to control the violence

Honduras and El Salvador ranked in top 5 in the world in violence:
http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/fileadmin/docs/U-Reports/SAS-Report-GVD2017.pdf

 

[barbos]

Air travel.

So this additional method of travel is reason enough to change the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution?

Yes. It has to be modified to prevent abuse which I described.

Birthright citizenship in the United States predates the Fourteenth Amendment, the Civil Rights Act of 1866, moreover, has always been a part of US history.

So was slavery.

We adopted this from English common law. To my knowledge, there is no precedent to stand on to challenge it. And you think the invention of air travel is sound legal footing? Maybe teleportation but I wouldn't hang my hat on air travel.

You state, "the point is, you have people who are using this law to their advantage". We all use laws, regulations, tax codes, etc. to our advantage. Can you point out the negative ramifications of having the law stand as is? What have all these anchor babies done that has been detrimental to society?

It pisses some members of society (myself included) off. Why some punk who probably does not even speak english, have not spent any meaningful amount of time in US, does not really have connection to US have advantage over someone who speak english and has spent years working in US?

Birthright citizenship was meant to mean that if you were born in US and stayed there then you are a US citizen, it does not matter who your parents are, be they legal or illegal. It was not meant to deal with people coming to US with explicit intent to get birth certificate and then go back. There has to be more effort put onto it than buying Moscow-LA ticket.

 

[Opoponax]

It pisses some members of society (myself included) off. Why some punk who probably does not even speak english, have not spent any meaningful amount of time in US, does not really have connection to US have advantage over someone who speak english and has spent years working in US?

You think that Latino immigrants have some sort of advantage?

Over who???

I grew up and lived in SoCal for 45 of the 49 years I've been alive. You think that you can walk into say, a title insurance firm and find some non-English speaking guy who climbed the fence near Mexicali a few months back working as a title officer making 80K a year? Sorry, that doesn't happen.

Those people are working in the fields, they're working in sweat factories; they're rooming with multiple people/families. They're standing outside Home Depot looking for anything anyone will hire them to do. I guess if those things = Advantage over someone like you, then you're right.

Yours is the typical, "If someone else has something, then it's taking away from what I have" thinking of the modern American conservative. Petty, divisive, inaccurate.

I don't know how you got to the U.S., but I'm betting it didn't involve risking your life or the lives of you wife and children to do it. Those people from our southern borders don't just immigrate, they immigrate hard.

It's the willingness to acknowledge, "I've had a shit life and was born into shit, but I'm gonna keep this shit life going so that my kids can have it better." That's noble, and I can't see how anyone else thinks otherwise.

And another thing. What does it say about a person who so despises the poorest, most vulnerable people on the planet? Where does one find it in themselves to generate such contempt for them? What good does it do you to hope these people remain in squalor?

 

[barbos]

It pisses some members of society (myself included) off. Why some punk who probably does not even speak english, have not spent any meaningful amount of time in US, does not really have connection to US have advantage over someone who speak english and has spent years working in US?

You think that Latino immigrants have some sort of advantage?

I was not talking about Latino immigrants I was talking about birthright citizenship scam.

Over who???

Well, I understand legal immigration from Mexico is pretty large so they do have advantage.

I grew up and lived in SoCal for 45 of the 49 years I've been alive. You think that you can walk into say, a title insurance firm and find some non-English speaking guy who climbed the fence near Mexicali a few months back working as a title officer making 80K a year? Sorry, that doesn't happen.

Those people are working in the fields, they're working in sweat factories; they're rooming with multiple people/families. They're standing outside Home Depot looking for anything anyone will hire them to do. I guess if those things = Advantage over someone like you, then you're right.
Yours is the typical, "If someone else has something, then it's taking away from what I have" thinking of the modern American conservative. Petty, divisive, inaccurate.

Again, I am not talking about mexicans. I am really talking about children of members of Russian Parliament.

I don't know how you got to the U.S., but I'm betting it didn't involve risking your life or the lives of you wife and children to do it. Those people from our southern borders don't just immigrate, they immigrate hard.

Well, I remember I had to live on sugar and water for a month to get to pay for GRE/TOEFL test. I bet mexicans did not have to do that.

It's the willingness to acknowledge, "I've had a shit life and was born into shit, but I'm gonna keep this shit life going so that my kids can have it better." That's noble, and I can't see how anyone else thinks otherwise.

Again, I am of the opinion that US is largely responsible for shit in Central America hence have to fix it somehow.

 

[RavenSky]

It pisses some members of society (myself included) off. Why some punk who probably does not even speak english, have not spent any meaningful amount of time in US, does not really have connection to US have advantage over someone who speak english and has spent years working in US?

You think that Latino immigrants have some sort of advantage?

It sounds to me more like he's upset he can't get pregnant.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Which is nobody’s fault, not even the Republicans.

We can, however, fight for his right to get pregnant.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Yes I am suggesting that. Their plan is to retire in US. And there are no "MAYBE". If kid does not die they will get a green card and free travel to US before that.

Again, given that they will need to wait 21+ years to even apply for the green card (with zero guarantee of getting it or eventual citizenship, so what?

Huh? What do you mean, no guarantee of getting it?

Dot your i's and cross your t's and a parental green card will be approved.

The ones that get denied are spousal ones that appear not to be genuine marriages. Given our age difference and childfree choice they put us through their fraud investigation, but doing well on their life-trivia test (split the couple up, ask them a bunch of trivial questions about day-to-day life. Stuff that's so trivial you can't prepare for it) was enough to convince them.

 

[barbos]

It pisses some members of society (myself included) off. Why some punk who probably does not even speak english, have not spent any meaningful amount of time in US, does not really have connection to US have advantage over someone who speak english and has spent years working in US?

You think that Latino immigrants have some sort of advantage?

It sounds to me more like he's upset he can't get pregnant.

No need to get pregnant, father can get green card just fine.

 

[ideologyhunter]

It's so sweet when Trump mentions chain migration as an evil. Imagine having a political movement that can help you dispose of your in-laws.

 

[Max Rockatansky]

It's so sweet when Trump mentions chain migration as an evil. Imagine having a political movement that can help you dispose of your in-laws.

LOL. Agreed. I remember last summer when he was complaining about chain migration then a couple days later his in-laws were naturalized.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/lad...granted-full-us-citizenship/story?id=57121694
Sources familiar with the matter tell ABC News first lady Melania Trump sponsored both her parents' green card application, a move which eventually led to their gaining U.S. citizenship on Thursday through a process that the president has derisively called “chain migration”.