CptJake wrote:
I'm not sure you can do it without an amendment and have it make it through the courts.

Ouze wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Trump... *shudders*... released a great Immigration plan:
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/immigration-reform

Make Mexico Pay For The Wall

That's not a great plan. That's totally unworkable crazypants. I'm not cherry picking out the stupidest idea, but that's the one the rest of it hangs on. There is absolutely no way we can make that happen.

The rest of it ranges from the reasonable (tripling ICE agents

, nationwide e-verify) to the dubious

and sort of hypocritical (cutting off funds to sanctuary cities)

to the lol no (ending birthright citizenship).

Of course, since Mr. Trump knows he'll never have to actually try to get any of these things passed, he has a free hand to say whatever he will get him the best ratings. I mean, don't hate the player, hate the game right?

 whembly wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
I'm not sure you can do it without an amendment and have it make it through the courts.

Actually... it ought to be simple due to the fact that a child is a citizen should not and does not confer on the child’s parents and siblings the right to live in the United States. That right is strictly the right of the child. It is not wrong for the child to remain with the child’s parents in their country until reaching of age, and then deciding where to live. Simple solution to a simple problem.

2. A nation without laws is not a nation. Laws passed in accordance with our Constitutional system of government must be enforced.

 whembly wrote:

Actually... it ought to be simple due to the fact that a child is a citizen should not and does not confer on the child’s parents and siblings the right to live in the United States. That right is strictly the right of the child. It is not wrong for the child to remain with the child’s parents in their country until reaching of age, and then deciding where to live. Simple solution to a simple problem.

 CptJake wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
I'm not sure you can do it without an amendment and have it make it through the courts.

Actually... it ought to be simple due to the fact that a child is a citizen should not and does not confer on the child’s parents and siblings the right to live in the United States. That right is strictly the right of the child. It is not wrong for the child to remain with the child’s parents in their country until reaching of age, and then deciding where to live. Simple solution to a simple problem.

I don't disagree in theory (heck, parents could even leave the child in the US with relatives who are here legally), but it would require policy changes and funding to enforce. And the optics of 'deporting babies or forcing families to separate' won't sell. And again, it WOULD be challenged in court.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Actually... it ought to be simple due to the fact that a child is a citizen should not and does not confer on the child’s parents and siblings the right to live in the United States. That right is strictly the right of the child. It is not wrong for the child to remain with the child’s parents in their country until reaching of age, and then deciding where to live. Simple solution to a simple problem.

Unless you want to mandate that the child remain with its parents until it reaches the age of majority, which is de facto deportation, you'll likely be dumping a bunch of kids into the social services system.

 whembly wrote:

Did you read that details or just the bolded section? That plan stems from charging fees to pay for the wall... not sending someone to mexico demanding that they fork over a check.

 whembly wrote:

Yup. That's what I'm arguing for. Keep the family together.

Ouze wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Trump... *shudders*... released a great Immigration plan:
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/immigration-reform

Make Mexico Pay For The Wall

That's not a great plan. That's totally unworkable crazypants. I'm not cherry picking out the stupidest idea, but that's the one the rest of it hangs on. There is absolutely no way we can make that happen.

Ouze wrote:
Re: sanctuary cities: I think they're a pretty gakky idea. I agree with the idea that the federal government is the sole arbiter of immigration policy, and that cities should neither enforce immigration laws nor hinder them. So I just as strongly feel that Sheriff Arpaio and Arizona were wrong for making stops solely on suspected unlawful immigration status as I feel that San Francisco shouldn't do what they do. It's not their role, either of them.

However, the hypocritical aspect comes into play when it's usually the same people who are arguing things are best decided at the local level and that the federal government is ALWAYS the problem,. and is too overreaching, that think that the federal government should defund sanctuary cities. It reeks of "it's best when the state and cities make their own policy, unless it's one I don't like".

I didn't think nationwide e-verify was dubious, I was putting it with the reasonable, even the no-brainer. Again, that is a federal role IMO and one states should pass on to them.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

Ouze wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Trump... *shudders*... released a great Immigration plan:
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/immigration-reform

Make Mexico Pay For The Wall

That's not a great plan. That's totally unworkable crazypants. I'm not cherry picking out the stupidest idea, but that's the one the rest of it hangs on. There is absolutely no way we can make that happen.

There's a way to make it happen, just ask this guy.

 whembly wrote:
Just when you thought it couldn't get even weirder:
Hillary's email firm was run from a loft apartment with its servers in the BATHROOM, raising new questions over security of sensitive messages she held
So... to recap...

The "Platte River" IT firm that stored HRC's backup server was a tiny 'mom & pops' shop with NO security clearance and NO internal security.

Nevermind that the equipment was alledgedly in the bathroom's closet!

O.o

The Onion or Duffel Bag wrote that... right?

 jasper76 wrote:

Spoiler:

 whembly wrote:
Just when you thought it couldn't get even weirder:
Hillary's email firm was run from a loft apartment with its servers in the BATHROOM, raising new questions over security of sensitive messages she held
So... to recap...

The "Platte River" IT firm that stored HRC's backup server was a tiny 'mom & pops' shop with NO security clearance and NO internal security.

Nevermind that the equipment was alledgedly in the bathroom's closet!

O.o

The Onion or Duffel Bag wrote that... right?

Come on dude....sources, not British tabloids.

The Boy Who Cried Wolf isn't just an entertaining story, there's an important moral to be found in it

Reporter: "did you wipe the server?"
HRC: "thats for the investigators to find out."

 jasper76 wrote:
As regards Trump's immigration plan, I wouldn't be surprised if he just sunk the GOP's chances at the White House. This opinion piece sums it up better than I could:

Did Republicans just give away the 2016 election by raising birthright citizenship?
by Paul Waldman, Washington Post
(https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/08/18/did-republicans-just-give-away-the-2016-election-by-raising-birthright-citizenship/)

Spoiler:

It may not seem like it, but this week has seen the most significant development yet in the immigration debate’s role in the 2016 election. I’d go even farther — it’s possible that the entire presidential election just got decided.

Is that an overstatement? Maybe. But hear me out.

For months, people like me have been pointing to the fundamental challenge Republican presidential candidates face on immigration: they need to talk tough to appeal to their base in the primaries, but doing so risks alienating the Hispanic voters they’ll need in the general election. This was always going to be a difficult line to walk, but a bunch of their candidates just leaped off to one side.

After Donald Trump released his immigration plan, which includes an end to birthright citizenship — stating that if you were born in the United States but your parents were undocumented, you don’t get to be a citizen — some of his competitors jumped up to say that they agreed. NBC News asked Scott Walker the question directly, and he seemed to reply that he does favor an end to birthright citizenship, though his campaign qualified the statement later. Bobby Jindal tweeted, “We need to end birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants.” Then reporters began looking over others’ past statements to see where they stood on this issue, and found that this isn’t an uncommon position among the GOP field. Remember all the agonizing Republicans did about how they had to reach out to Hispanic voters? They never figured out how to do it, and now they’re running in the opposite direction.

Here is the list of Republican candidates who have at least suggested openness to ending birthright citizenship, which would mean repealing the 14th Amendment to the Constitution: Donald Trump, Scott Walker, Bobby Jindal, John Kasich, Rand Paul, Chris Christie, Lindsey Graham, and Rick Santorum. That’s nearly half the GOP field, and more may be added to the list.

The 14th Amendment states in part: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” It was passed after the Civil War to ensure that former slaves had all the legal rights of other citizens. You can’t end birthright citizenship without repealing it. That means that no matter who gets elected in 2016, birthright citizenship is not going to be eliminated. The bar is so high for amending the Constitution that it’s impossible to imagine any amendment this controversial getting ratified, which is as it should be.

But the political impact is going to be very real, whether or not the idea goes anywhere in practical terms. The simple fact is that if Republicans don’t improve their performance among Hispanic voters, they cannot win the White House. Period.

This discussion about birthright citizenship sends an incredibly clear message to Hispanic voters, a message of naked hostility to them and people like them. It’s possible to argue that you’re “pro-immigrant” while simultaneously saying we should build more walls and double the size of the Border Patrol. Indeed, many Republicans do, and while their argument may not be particularly persuasive, it’s not completely crazy. But you can’t say you’re pro-immigrant and advocate ending birthright citizenship. You just can’t.

I promise you that next fall, there are going to be ads like this running all over the country, and especially on Spanish-language media:

“My name is Lisa Hernandez. I was born in California, grew up there. I was valedictorian of my high school class, graduated from Yale, and now I’m in medical school; I’m going to be a pediatrician. But now Scott Walker and the Republicans say that because my mom is undocumented, that I’m not a real American and I shouldn’t be a citizen. I’m living the American Dream, but they want to take it away from me and people like me. Well I’ve got a message for you, Governor Walker. I’m every bit as American as your children. This country isn’t about who your parents were, it’s about everybody having a chance to work hard, achieve, and contribute to our future. It seems like some people forgot that.”

When a hundred ads like that one are blanketing the airwaves, the Republicans can say, “Wait, I support legal immigration!” all they want, but it won’t matter. Hispanic voters will have heard once again — and louder than ever before — that the GOP doesn’t like them and doesn’t want them. Will it be different if they nominate one of the candidates who doesn’t want to repeal birthright citizenship, like Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio? Somewhat, but the damage among Hispanic voters could already be too great even for them to overcome.

Now let’s look at the magnitude of the challenge the Republicans face. A number of analysts have all come to the same conclusion: given that Hispanics are rapidly increasing their share of the population and whites’ share is declining, Republicans need to improve their performance among Hispanics to prevail.

And they may have to improve dramatically. For instance, in this analysis by Latino Decisions, under even the most absurdly optimistic scenario for Republicans — “that white voters consolidate behind the Republican Party at levels that were observed in 2014; that black participation and Democratic support returns to pre-Obama levels; and the expected growth in the Latino vote does not fully materialize” — the Republican candidate would need 42 percent of the Hispanic vote to win. As a point of comparison, according to exit polls Mitt Romney got 27 percent of Hispanic votes in 2012, while John McCain got 31 percent in 2008. Under a more likely scenario, with an electorate that votes something like in 2012 but with African-American turnout reduced, the Republican would need 47 percent of the Hispanic vote. In their worst-case scenario for Republicans — an electorate that votes identically to the way it did in 2012, but adjusted for changes in population — the Republican would need a stunning 52 percent of Hispanic votes.

So to sum up: even in the best possible situation when it comes to turnout and the vote choices of the rest of the electorate, the Republican presidential candidate in 2016 is going to have to pull off an absolutely heroic performance among Hispanic voters if he’s going to win.

That seemed awfully unlikely a week ago. How likely does it seem today?

 whembly wrote:
Sure, it's an exclusive get for that UK site. What's interesting is that no one is disputing this at all. Normally, you'd see some stories pointing out "yeah... that BS man).

 whembly wrote:

While I disagree with the idea of ending birthright citizenships... I think the writer is really underestimating how the majority feels about the current immigration policies.

 jasper76 wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Sure, it's an exclusive get for that UK site. What's interesting is that no one is disputing this at all. Normally, you'd see some stories pointing out "yeah... that BS man).

The article may be factually true in every regard, but when its sandwhiced between

"It's good to be rich! Bikini-clad Princess Olympia of Greece enjoys lavish Bahamas getaway with cousin Talita von Furstenberg and Elle Macpherson's son"

and

"Donald Trump was AMAZING in bed' Former Penthouse Pet reveals the presidential hopeful had his secretary track her down after spotting her in sexy magazine spread... and he didn't disappoint"

noone is obligated to take it seriously.

 jasper76 wrote:

 whembly wrote:

While I disagree with the idea of ending birthright citizenships... I think the writer is really underestimating how the majority feels about the current immigration policies.

I think you missed the point of the article. It's not about how whites or the national majority feel about immigration, its about how Hispanic voters, which are by all accounts crucial for a Republican White House victory, feel about the message they are receiving from Republican candidates about repealing the 14th Amendment.

 jasper76 wrote:
Clinon-wise, If you're expecting me to jump up and say "This must be BS", don't hold your breath, because I don't know what her email situation is, and she doesn't have my vote at this stage anyways.

Immigration-wise, If the GOP doesn't take the Latino vote seriously, they'll be signing the same song they were after Romney, and have no one to blame but themselves.

In order for this debacle not to blow up in their faces, the best thing the establishment dudes (Jeb and Marco) can do is come out forcefully and unequivocally against repealing the 14th Amendment. But they can they do that and appease the right-wingers with the taste of red meat on their establishment tongues? And is the brand even repairable Lation-wise? This is why this issue Trump has raised is so perilous for the GOPs presidential prospects.