The vanguard of the Caravan is already in Mexico City, more than halfway to the border

[Loren Pechtel]

Did I say "uneducated"? I was talking about a lack of capital! (Note that education is a form of capital, but I was more talking about the ability to buy tools.)

So? Why do we care if people who are willing and able to do productive work have the ability to buy their own tools? Is this reason to turn them away at the border? Just let people share their tools, it's not rocket science! You're framing these as intractable facts of the universe, but they are conscious societal choices.

Have you never seen the inside of a factory!?

Two workers share their tools, they accomplish little more than one worker would have.

 

[Harry Bosch]

And we have the first anchor baby from this caravan.
Honduran woman in migrant caravan gives birth in US

The idiotic misinterpretation of the 14th amendment is giving a huge incentive for illegals to come here to give birth.
And if a 8 month pregnant woman can scale the fence, it's too short. We need a better barrier.

Even if the family's bogus "asylum" claim is ultimately rejected, the baby is still a US citizen. The illegal Honduran woman admits herself that giving birth on US soil was a "huge reward".
We need to amend the birthright citizenship law. And amend the asylum laws as well. People who enter illegally should not get to claim "asylum" to avoid deportation.

Even if I agreed with you (and I don't) to amend the birthright citizenship would require a constitutional congress. Not an easy feat.

 

[Derec]

Even if I agreed with you (and I don't) to amend the birthright citizenship would require a constitutional congress. Not an easy feat.

Not necessarily. The 14th amendment does not explicitly say that children of illegals must be automatically given citizenship. That is a matter of interpretation.
To paraphrase Jsutice Robert H. Jackson: The constitution is not a suicide pact.

if this state of affairs (unrestricted influx of large numbers of uneducated, religious Mexicans and Central Americans who have many children) continues, US will become yet another Spanish speaking Latin-American country just like Western Europe is about to become majority Islamic.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Even if I agreed with you (and I don't) to amend the birthright citizenship would require a constitutional congress. Not an easy feat.

Not necessarily. The 14th amendment does not explicitly say that children of illegals must be automatically given citizenship. That is a matter of interpretation.
To paraphrase Jsutice Robert H. Jackson: The constitution is not a suicide pact.

if this state of affairs (unrestricted influx of large numbers of uneducated, religious Mexicans and Central Americans who have many children) continues, US will become yet another Spanish speaking Latin-American country just like Western Europe is about to become majority Islamic.

Have you read the 14th amendment? It says: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof..." Seems pretty black and white to me. Or are you trying to say that immigrants and visitors in the US are not subject to US law?

 

[Derec]

Have you read the 14th amendment? It says: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof..." Seems pretty black and white to me. Or are you trying to say that immigrants and visitors in the US are not subject to US law?

"Subject to jurisdiction thereof" clause is critical here. It is meant to exclude some persons "born or naturalized in the United States", otherwise there would be no point to it. Originally (and before the Indian Citizenship Act) it applied to American Indians. I do not see a reason why it should not apply to illegals for the purposes of citizenship. I do not think SCOTUS ever made a decision on it. People just assume it means illegals must be given citizenship, but it ain't necessarily so.
If right to abortion can be gleaned from "emanations from the penumbra", I do not see why SCOTUS could not decide that no, children of illegals are not automatically citizens.
Now, I say that both right to abortion and restricting birthright citizenship are good and necessary policies, but neither issue is clearly spelled out in the Constitution.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Have you read the 14th amendment? It says: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof..." Seems pretty black and white to me. Or are you trying to say that immigrants and visitors in the US are not subject to US law?

"Subject to jurisdiction thereof" clause is critical here. It is meant to exclude some persons "born or naturalized in the United States", otherwise there would be no point to it. Originally (and before the Indian Citizenship Act) it applied to American Indians. I do not see a reason why it should not apply to illegals for the purposes of citizenship. I do not think SCOTUS ever made a decision on it. People just assume it means illegals must be given citizenship, but it ain't necessarily so.
If right to abortion can be gleaned from "emanations from the penumbra", I do not see why SCOTUS could not decide that no, children of illegals are not automatically citizens.
Now, I say that both right to abortion and restricting birthright citizenship are good and necessary policies, but neither issue is clearly spelled out in the Constitution.

So you don't think that "illegals" are subject to the laws of the US while in the US "jurisdiction"? Does that mean that they aren't illegal?

 

[Bomb#20]

The idiotic misinterpretation of the 14th amendment is giving a huge incentive for illegals to come here to give birth.

What incentive? Where does the 14th amendment make it beneficial for a Honduran to have an American child?

Even if the family's bogus "asylum" claim is ultimately rejected, the baby is still a US citizen. The illegal Honduran woman admits herself that giving birth on US soil was a "huge reward".

That's not the 14th Amendment's doing. That's Congress's doing. They lack the balls to say "Your baby can stay. You can't."

To paraphrase Jsutice Robert H. Jackson: The constitution is not a suicide pact.

Not seeing how treating non-immigrant babies as non-immigrants is a suicide pact. They won't be anchor babies if we cut the chain. The fact that an American baby has a constitutional right to remain in his home country even though he has a Honduran mother does not imply he has a constitutional right to make the rest of us let his mother in. That's up to Congress. If Congress were to make it an additional crime to come to the U.S. illegally to give birth, and were to make committing that crime a disqualifier for subsequent immigration, then after the mother is deported, even waiting eighteen years for her kid to grow up and sponsor her won't get her in. So much for the incentive.

Have you read the 14th amendment? It says: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof..." Seems pretty black and white to me. Or are you trying to say that immigrants and visitors in the US are not subject to US law?

"Subject to jurisdiction thereof" clause is critical here. It is meant to exclude some persons "born or naturalized in the United States", otherwise there would be no point to it.

Sure. It excludes the American-born children of foreign diplomats, who take on their parents' diplomatic immunity.

Originally (and before the Indian Citizenship Act) it applied to American Indians. I do not see a reason why it should not apply to illegals for the purposes of citizenship.

It doesn't apply to the children of illegal aliens because they don't have diplomatic immunity and they don't have reservations, so there's nothing stopping them from being subject to U.S. jurisdiction.

I do not think SCOTUS ever made a decision on it.

If you think when they do it will go down the way you want, good luck with that.

People just assume it means illegals must be given citizenship,

No one assumes that. We assume it means American-born babies must be given citizenship. It's illegal for foreigners to cross into the U.S. without permission. It isn't illegal to be born here. Babies born here didn't cross in without permission. They didn't do anything illegal. So citizens or no, they aren't illegals.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Have you read the 14th amendment? It says: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof..." Seems pretty black and white to me. Or are you trying to say that immigrants and visitors in the US are not subject to US law?

"Subject to jurisdiction thereof" clause is critical here. It is meant to exclude some persons "born or naturalized in the United States", otherwise there would be no point to it. Originally (and before the Indian Citizenship Act) it applied to American Indians. I do not see a reason why it should not apply to illegals for the purposes of citizenship. I do not think SCOTUS ever made a decision on it. People just assume it means illegals must be given citizenship, but it ain't necessarily so.
If right to abortion can be gleaned from "emanations from the penumbra", I do not see why SCOTUS could not decide that no, children of illegals are not automatically citizens.
Now, I say that both right to abortion and restricting birthright citizenship are good and necessary policies, but neither issue is clearly spelled out in the Constitution.

Yes, it excludes some individuals--namely, diplomats. If you have diplomatic immunity you also don't get birthright citizenship.

 

[PyramidHead]

Did I say "uneducated"? I was talking about a lack of capital! (Note that education is a form of capital, but I was more talking about the ability to buy tools.)

So? Why do we care if people who are willing and able to do productive work have the ability to buy their own tools? Is this reason to turn them away at the border? Just let people share their tools, it's not rocket science! You're framing these as intractable facts of the universe, but they are conscious societal choices.

Have you never seen the inside of a factory!?

Two workers share their tools, they accomplish little more than one worker would have.

If only there were some way to increase the supply of tools, but alas, we simply don't have enough money to do that. Pardon me while I spend another few billion on this air craft carrier that will be obsolete by the time it's built. I suppose we could prioritize our money better so that poor people don't die in Central America because they don't own their own tools, but yeah, your take is better.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Have you never seen the inside of a factory!?

Two workers share their tools, they accomplish little more than one worker would have.

If only there were some way to increase the supply of tools, but alas, we simply don't have enough money to do that. Pardon me while I spend another few billion on this air craft carrier that will be obsolete by the time it's built. I suppose we could prioritize our money better so that poor people don't die in Central America because they don't own their own tools, but yeah, your take is better.

You missed the whole point of what I said. Poor immigrants have no capital, thus the factory doesn't have any more capital to provide tools for the workers. The wage per worker drops. At current immigration levels this effect is trivial but under open borders it would be catastrophic.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Have you never seen the inside of a factory!?

Two workers share their tools, they accomplish little more than one worker would have.

If only there were some way to increase the supply of tools, but alas, we simply don't have enough money to do that. Pardon me while I spend another few billion on this air craft carrier that will be obsolete by the time it's built. I suppose we could prioritize our money better so that poor people don't die in Central America because they don't own their own tools, but yeah, your take is better.

You missed the whole point of what I said. Poor immigrants have no capital, thus the factory doesn't have any more capital to provide tools for the workers.

What factory are you imagining where workers have to bring their own tools? What century are you living in?

 

[PyramidHead]

Have you never seen the inside of a factory!?

Two workers share their tools, they accomplish little more than one worker would have.

If only there were some way to increase the supply of tools, but alas, we simply don't have enough money to do that. Pardon me while I spend another few billion on this air craft carrier that will be obsolete by the time it's built. I suppose we could prioritize our money better so that poor people don't die in Central America because they don't own their own tools, but yeah, your take is better.

You missed the whole point of what I said. Poor immigrants have no capital, thus the factory doesn't have any more capital to provide tools for the workers. The wage per worker drops. At current immigration levels this effect is trivial but under open borders it would be catastrophic.

You're missing the point of what I'm saying. The amount of capital a factory has should be controlled by the workers who use it to make things and the society that decides they are worth making and allocates them enough capital to buy goddamn tools for everyone. This is an extremely obvious, inescapable conclusion of taking democracy seriously at all levels of society and not being a callous douchebag who cares more about profits than human life.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You missed the whole point of what I said. Poor immigrants have no capital, thus the factory doesn't have any more capital to provide tools for the workers.

What factory are you imagining where workers have to bring their own tools? What century are you living in?

I said nothing of the kind. I'm talking about the ratio of workers to capital.

Lets take a stable society and add 20% poor immigrants. Businesses hire those additional workers but they don't have any more capital with which to buy tools, space etc. The output per worker falls, wages fall.

 

[southernhybrid]

8 million undocumented people currently work in the US and we need them!

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/11/us/undocumented-immigrant-workers.html?action=click&module=News&pgtype=Homepage

They make beds in inns across the country. They pick oranges in Florida, strawberries in California and vegetables in Ohio. And they have built new subdivisions in Phoenix, Atlanta and Charlotte.

For years, policymakers have talked about shutting off the influx of undocumented workers. But the economy has grown to rely on them.

Ending illegal immigration, say many of those who have studied the issue, could mean that American workers would lose their jobs, companies would close and the economy would contract.

In recent years, though, border security has tightened considerably, a strong economy has driven down unemployment, and many employers, particularly those offering low-paid jobs, say there are few alternatives to hiring workers without legal documents.

Have any of you who seem terrified of immigrants ever given serious consideration to how badly we need these workers? Please read the entire article before you criticize. It gives a detailed explanation as to why we need more immigrants, not fewer.

And, I will add that since we currently have such a low birth rate, we also need more immigrants to pay taxes and social security so that when the rest of you are old enough to need SS, there will be enough younger people to pay into the program. Unless you're a multi millionaire many times over, believe me when I tell you that you will need SS eventually. I would prefer that we allow these immigrants to come in legally and prove they can contribute to our economy, but the way things are these days, the best option for many is to sneak across the border and get a job.

Btw, we did have an open border with Mexico back in the early 70s when I was living in Texas. I went back and forth across the border many times without having to even show ID. They just asked if you had anything to declare, then let you through. I lived in San Antonio, the part of Texas that the US originally stole from Mexico. Mexican Americans were in the majority and more than half of my nursing class were the children of immigrants, as well as my two favorite professors, who were top notch in every way. Still, even back then, it was typical to hear very prejudice remarks made by Texans. But, I digress.

I'm not suggesting that every single person that wants in, should automatically be welcomed in, but the current system is draconian and if Trump gets his way, it will continue to be cruel as well as not in our best interests as a country that has alway needed immigrants, and grown due to the contributions of immigrants. If you don't want more undocumented, then make it easier for good people to come in legally.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You missed the whole point of what I said. Poor immigrants have no capital, thus the factory doesn't have any more capital to provide tools for the workers. The wage per worker drops. At current immigration levels this effect is trivial but under open borders it would be catastrophic.

You're missing the point of what I'm saying. The amount of capital a factory has should be controlled by the workers who use it to make things and the society that decides they are worth making and allocates them enough capital to buy goddamn tools for everyone. This is an extremely obvious, inescapable conclusion of taking democracy seriously at all levels of society and not being a callous douchebag who cares more about profits than human life.

And so those workers cast the "raise capital" spell they learned from their Marxist textbooks???

 

[Elixir]

You missed the whole point of what I said. Poor immigrants have no capital, thus the factory doesn't have any more capital to provide tools for the workers. The wage per worker drops. At current immigration levels this effect is trivial but under open borders it would be catastrophic.

You're missing the point of what I'm saying. The amount of capital a factory has should be controlled by the workers who use it to make things and the society that decides they are worth making and allocates them enough capital to buy goddamn tools for everyone. This is an extremely obvious, inescapable conclusion of taking democracy seriously at all levels of society and not being a callous douchebag who cares more about profits than human life.

And so those workers cast the "raise capital" spell they learned from their Marxist textbooks???

No, you pay them enough that they can afford to buy your products, and presto: PROFITS!

 

[Underseer]

Friendly reminder:

Republicans spend a lot of time talking about immigrants because white supremacists spend a lot of time talking about immigrants, and they want everyone to know that they stand firmly in the corner of white supremacists, but don't point out what's going on, or else you become "the real racist here."

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And so those workers cast the "raise capital" spell they learned from their Marxist textbooks???

No, you pay them enough that they can afford to buy your products, and presto: PROFITS!

1) That's long-discredited garbage.

2) The issue is where the capital comes from to expand the means of production by 20%, not where the sales come from. It takes a long time for sales to turn into capital.

 

[Ford]

So we're more than a month and 36 pages into this thread. The "invasion" hasn't exactly overwhelmed America and the border cities/states (I live in one of the latter) haven't burned to the ground or been wiped out by terrorists.

Are we still fear-mongering about this caravan?

 

[untermensche]

Right now there is a massive struggle between the forces of American good against the zombie demons from the South.

The US is tottering.

The outcome is not clear yet.