Those IDs are meaningless without the will to impose penalties on businesses that continue to employ undocumented workers. The practical use of those IDs is to make it easier for undocumented workers to participate in the economy by purchasing things such as houses and cars. If the economic incentive wasn’t there, those IDs would not exist.
I’ve never made excuses for the GOP. Their obstructionism is indefensible.
I say this from the standpoint of recognizing that affluent liberals may favor more sensible immigration laws, but are also quite good at erecting barriers to keep them out of their neigborhoods. There is an undeniable hypocrisy to it all. That is why in places like CA, you will find an affluent neighborhood with good schools that is predominantly white and Asian on one side of a freeway, and a predominantly hispanic neighborhood with high levels of homelessness and failing schools on the other side.
Of all the waterboys, you are my favorite.
No, you say it from the standpoint of yet another fucking lazy ass moron, who doesn't know what the fuck they are talking about, aka your default position on pretty much every subject.
Learn something you stupid "both sides" bitch.
https://www.epi.org/publication/california-immigrant-labor-laws/
You know what the difference is between you and slowspyder and taj? I have no idea, you appear to be cut from the same cloth.
"But the anchor baby, while potent politically, is a largely mythical idea.
Here's the basic concept: People, namely women, come to the United States illegally and give birth to children, generally for the specific purpose of bolstering legal attempts of the child's parents remain in the United States or even become citizens themselves.
Looser definitions suggest "anchor babies" can simply be intended to help illegal-immigrant parents access taxpayer-financed public education and/or social services through their citizen children -- another political hot button, to be sure. (Even here, the law limits those benefits to the children themselves.)
But usually the debate has been about the residency of the parents, who after all are supposed to be using the child as their "anchor."
This is the definition that has little legal underpinning. For illegal immigrant parents, being the parent of a U.S. citizen child almost never forms the core of a successful defense in an immigration court. In short, if the undocumented parent of a U.S.-born child is caught in the United States, he or she legally faces the very same risk of deportation as any other immigrant.
The only thing that a so-called anchor baby can do to assist either of their undocumented parents involves such a long game that it's not a practical immigration strategy, said Greg Chen, an immigration law expert and director of The American Immigration Lawyers Association, a trade group that also advocates for immigrant-friendly reforms. That long game is this: If and when a U.S. citizen reaches the age of 21, he or she can then apply for a parent to obtain a visa and green card and eventually enter the United States legally.
In order to apply for such an option, the parent of a so-called anchor baby would need to do all of the following.
If a person has lived in the United States unlawfully for a period of more than 180 days but less than one year, there is an automatic three-year bar on that person ever reentering the United States -- and that's before any wait time for a visa. So that's a minimum of 21 years for the child to mature, plus the three-year wait.
- Wait for his or her child to reach the age of 21.
- Leave the United States.
- Return to their home country.
- Have their child begin the lengthy process of applying for a family reunification immigration request.
- Clear consular interviews and a U.S. State Department background check. (One or both would very likely provide evidence that said parent, at some point, lived in the United States illegally -- long enough for that "anchor baby" to be conceived or born. And despite widespread belief to the contrary, there is indeed a penalty for that.)
And, for the vast majority of these parents, a longer wait also applies. If a person has lived in the United States illegally for a year or more, there is a 10-year ban on that person reentering the United States. So, in that case, there would be the 21-year wait for the child to mature to adulthood, plus the 10-year wait.
All told, the parents of the so-called anchor baby face a 24-to-31-year wait to even enter the United States, much less obtain a visa and green card or become a citizen.
Immigration courts routinely reject claims that an undocumented parent must remain in the United States to care for a U.S. citizen child. The main but rare legal exceptions are for children who are so seriously ill or profoundly disabled that one parent must care for them full-time, or for a child in need of medical care unavailable in their parents' home country.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...defense/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.fbf638339619
It’s ok waterboy, one day you will be able to counter my response without acting like a triggered little bitch. Today was not that day.No, you say it from the standpoint of yet another fucking lazy ass moron, who doesn't know what the fuck they are talking about, aka your default position on pretty much every subject.
Learn something you stupid "both sides" bitch.
https://www.epi.org/publication/california-immigrant-labor-laws/
You know what the difference is between you and slowspyder and taj? I have no idea, you appear to be cut from the same cloth.
Ah yes, the standard butterfly effect rationalizationBothSidesDoIt™ is what right-wing authoritarians say when they know god damn well that their "b-b-b-but libruuuuuls are the bad guys" argument gets laughed at by anyone to the left of Pinochet.
It's also the BigLie that the corporate, mainstream media dishes out in order to retain the largest possible audience to sell reverse mortgages and dick pills, because the corporate media isn't interested in journalism, but in profit.
Starbuck is kinda like David Brooks - a man who has been wrong about everything for his entire political life, but says it in a very civil, and BothSidesDoIt™ way that confuses "centrists" into buying the argument that sure, elected Republicans are fucking terrible, but, like, there's this one libruuul blogger with 11 readers, who says equally stupid shit as, say, the elected Republican Senator, Governor, President, etc.
It's a means to an end. Without the BothSidesDoIt™ enablers, the right-wing authoritarians wouldn't be in charge of anything outside of the rural south and rural west.
I am probably further to the right on this issue than Trump: I'd argue birthright citizenship just leads to an entitled electorate.
I'd prefer a system more like what R.A. Heinlein wrote of in his seminal Starship Troopers where all people are guaranteed basic constitutional civil rights and guarantees but only those who have done federal service (which cannot be declined under any circumstances) are allowed to hold office or vote.
I always think it's weird that Americans think the people who are willing to travel thousands of miles, to an alien culture, speaking a different language are going to be the mooches while their fellow citizens who cannot be arsed to get out of their armchair for another cold beer are the upstanding ones.
In know the example above is not really functional as our system is set-up today... But I do know that you need a god damn constitutional amendment to end birthright citizenship.
Wow, your education really failed you...
-Well it was a public education from start to finish so no surprises there .
You haven't really given me anything to work with in terms of a response so that's another handicap I have to contend with, care to clarify your stance?
You were expecting honesty from one of these Trumpers?
But I do know that you need a god damn constitutional amendment to end birthright citizenship.
Trump gets more awesome by the day.
If there is anything the left has helped show me, it is that amendments / Bill of Rights doesn't matter. An amendment can mean something for centuries, then mean something different today. *cough* attacks on the 2A *cough*
It’s ok waterboy, one day you will be able to counter my response without acting like a triggered little bitch. Today was not that day.
CA enacting localized laws to protect illegal immigrants in no way solves the underlying problems of wage suppression, and it exasperates other problems like housing shortages. Probably why those illigal immigrants remain concentrated in areas like Santa Ana, living 10 to a home in modest post war suburban tracts never designed to accomodate such density. It also contributes to the large homeless populations that formed along the Santa Ana river, to which there is still no good solution.
Trump gets more awesome by the day.
If there is anything the left has helped show me, it is that amendments / Bill of Rights doesn't matter. An amendment can mean something for centuries, then mean something different today. *cough* attacks on the 2A *cough*
Amazing how planning to violate the Constitution is "more awesome by the day". I guess Republicans weren't serious when they said they were strict constructionists in regards to the Constitution.
Trump gets more awesome by the day.
If there is anything the left has helped show me, it is that amendments / Bill of Rights doesn't matter. An amendment can mean something for centuries, then mean something different today. *cough* attacks on the 2A *cough*
If he can legally do this with an EO, then the constitution isn't violated. And as the liberals have shown, amendments' meaning is really just flavor of the day. amirite?
If he can legally do this with an EO, then the constitution isn't violated. And as the liberals have shown, amendments' meaning is really just flavor of the day. amirite?
Lindsey Graham supports cheeto and just in case the EO fails, he's introducing legislation to end BRC. I guess he interprets the 14th as cheeto does.
https://thehill.com/blogs/floor-act...uce-legislation-ending-birthright-citizenship
Sorry if already posted...this is a fast moving thread.
Lindsey Graham supports cheeto and just in case the EO fails, he's introducing legislation to end BRC. I guess he interprets the 14th as cheeto does.
https://thehill.com/blogs/floor-act...uce-legislation-ending-birthright-citizenship
Sorry if already posted...this is a fast moving thread.
I agree. And unlimited "donations" to politicians will keep it like that. A drastic change is needed, but people voted for what they have.Our entire society is run like a business, leaving the majority distracted by pissing matches and fighting over crumbs.
Lindsey Graham has been a shithead about this issue for a long time, he's more than welcome to try the legislation route which won't work any better than Trump's EO route.
Again though, this entire issue is just meant to rile up Trump's base and useful idiots like Spidey. While Trump may be too stupid to know his order would be unconstitutional his lawyers certainly know. If he wants to waste his time doing it he should feel free. It's not like he's doing anything useful as president otherwise so maybe this will keep his attention focused so he doesn't fuck anything else up.