Will “mass deportation” actually happen (3 Viewers)

[superchuck500]

It’s so repulsive to see people cheering for what is basically 80% the same thing as the Holocaust - different end result but otherwise very similar.

Economists have said it would tank the economy and cause inflation - notwithstanding the cost.

Is it going to actually happen or is this Build The Wall 2.0?

 

[RobF]

The only possible way to get around the 14th Amendment's guarantee that "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States, and the states wherein they reside" is to conclude that children of illegals are somehow not subject to U.S. jurisdiction. Some wackos have argued that this is true but it's unquestionably not true and even nonsensical. The Supreme Court isn't going to ignore that obvious result of the 14th Amendment - so it will be ruled unconstitutional.

So - I agree - but I've seen the wackos take on this. For example:

Birthright Citizenship: A Fundamental Misunderstanding of the 14th Amendment

What’s the citizenship status of the children of illegal aliens? That question has spurred quite a debate over the 14th Amendment lately, with the news that several states—including Pennsylvania, Arizona, Oklahoma, Georgia, and South Carolina—may launch efforts to deny automatic citizenship to...

www.heritage.org

Now I think that's garbage. But I'm not entirely sure it isn't the kind of garbage that a majority on this Supreme Court wouldn't cook up and serve as haute cuisine.

 

[superchuck500]

So - I agree - but I've seen the wackos take on this. For example:

Birthright Citizenship: A Fundamental Misunderstanding of the 14th Amendment

What’s the citizenship status of the children of illegal aliens? That question has spurred quite a debate over the 14th Amendment lately, with the news that several states—including Pennsylvania, Arizona, Oklahoma, Georgia, and South Carolina—may launch efforts to deny automatic citizenship to...

www.heritage.org

Now I think that's garbage. But I'm not entirely sure it isn't the kind of garbage that a majority on this Supreme Court wouldn't cook up and serve as haute cuisine.

I can think of at least two justices that eat that shirt up like a tasty biscuit (the American kind, not English )

 

[Lapaz]

So - I agree - but I've seen the wackos take on this. For example:

Birthright Citizenship: A Fundamental Misunderstanding of the 14th Amendment

What’s the citizenship status of the children of illegal aliens? That question has spurred quite a debate over the 14th Amendment lately, with the news that several states—including Pennsylvania, Arizona, Oklahoma, Georgia, and South Carolina—may launch efforts to deny automatic citizenship to...

www.heritage.org

Now I think that's garbage. But I'm not entirely sure it isn't the kind of garbage that a majority on this Supreme Court wouldn't cook up and serve as haute cuisine.

That article makes a good argument. I actually think birthright citizenship creates perverse incentives. I believe we should facilitate citizenship for the vast majority of illegals. I also believe all kids that have been born in the US should keep their birthright citizenship, but I’m sympathetic to changing that law.

 

[MT15]

That article makes a good argument. I actually think birthright citizenship creates perverse incentives. I believe we should facilitate citizenship for the vast majority of illegals. I also believe all kids that have been born in the US should keep their birthright citizenship, but I’m sympathetic to changing that law.

It’s not really a law. It’s in the Constitution.

 

[Lapaz]

It’s not really a law. It’s in the Constitution.

The argument is that illegals’ children are not under U.S jurisdiction. I’m not sure if that is valid, but I think it is a good argument. If US citizens illegally migrate to another country to escape for some reason and then have a child, is that child still under US jurisdiction or the foreign country’s jurisdiction? Or do both countries have jurisdiction?

 

[MT15]

The argument is that illegals’ children are not under U.S jurisdiction. I’m not sure if that is valid, but I think it is a good argument. If US citizens illegally migrate to another country to escape for some reason and then have a child, is that child still under US jurisdiction or the foreign country’s jurisdiction? Or do both countries have jurisdiction?

There is no caveat in our Constitution that stipulates anything about the status of the parents. It’s not in there.

Children born in other countries to US citizen parents are US citizens. See Ted Cruz for example.

Other countries mostly don’t have birthright citizenship so the same rules don’t apply.

 

[bird]

Republicans hate birthright citizenship…unless it benefits them.

 

[Sendai]

The argument is that illegals’ children are not under U.S jurisdiction. I’m not sure if that is valid, but I think it is a good argument. If US citizens illegally migrate to another country to escape for some reason and then have a child, is that child still under US jurisdiction or the foreign country’s jurisdiction? Or do both countries have jurisdiction?

Anyone in the United States is subject to U.S. jurisdiction. The jurisdiction clause is there in regard to those who enjoy diplomatic immunity. They are not covered by U.S. jurisdiction and their children born here are not citizens.

 

[samiam5211]

I don't agree with this idea that the Supreme Court has told Trump he can do whatever he wants and can ignore the courts.

For example, Trump has said he's going to "end birthright citizenship" on day 1 and Homan has said he will deport families even if the children were born in the US. This is clearly unconstitutional and will be enjoined by a federal court as soon as the filing is made to challenge it. The only possible way to get around the 14th Amendment's guarantee that "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States, and the states wherein they reside" is to conclude that children of illegals are somehow not subject to U.S. jurisdiction. Some wackos have argued that this is true but it's unquestionably not true and even nonsensical. The Supreme Court isn't going to ignore that obvious result of the 14th Amendment - so it will be ruled unconstitutional.

There's rabbit holes of constitutional crises we can envision from there but there are still going to be legal limits with what the administration can and cannot do. It's one thing for a president to flout the rule of law, it's another when a wholesale program includes activity that violates federal court order.

If Trump cancels TPS, and orders the immediate removal of everyone who had been on TPS, regardless of whether or not they have a pending asylum claim, the only thing required to make that happen is a ICE bureaucracy and agents willing to carry out that order. A court ordering them to stop pending the outcome of certain individuals asylum claim wouldn't be enough to stop it from happening, if Trump and his willing ICE refuse to acknowledge it.

Birthright citizenship is a more extreme case, but if Trump ordered children born in the US deported if their parents are being deported, claiming they were not US citizens, then what court order would stop him and a willing ICE from doing it?

The executive branch has incredible power with a willing bureaucracy and a legislative branch that will not be willing to hold the executive accountable.

The courts are impotent in such a situation, and we are in even worse position because the judicial branch has given a ruling that will allow sycophants in the legislative branch and executive bureaucracy a way to rationalize not holding him accountable.

Even worse, I have no doubt that they are about to drive experience from the federal bureaucracy, and replace it with automation. Likely Xai's flavor of automation, so the bureaucracy is about to be coded by sycophants, like Elon.

Elections have consequences, as they love to say.

 

[Lapaz]

If Trump cancels TPS, and orders the immediate removal of everyone who had been on TPS, regardless of whether or not they have a pending asylum claim, the only thing required to make that happen is a ICE bureaucracy and agents willing to carry out that order. A court ordering them to stop pending the outcome of certain individuals asylum claim wouldn't be enough to stop it from happening, if Trump and his willing ICE refuse to acknowledge it.

Birthright citizenship is a more extreme case, but if Trump ordered children born in the US deported if their parents are being deported, claiming they were not US citizens, then what court order would stop him and a willing ICE from doing it?

The executive branch has incredible power with a willing bureaucracy and a legislative branch that will not be willing to hold the executive accountable.

The courts are impotent in such a situation, and we are in even worse position because the judicial branch has given a ruling that will allow sycophants in the legislative branch and executive bureaucracy a way to rationalize not holding him accountable.

Even worse, I have no doubt that they are about to drive experience from the federal bureaucracy, and replace it with automation. Likely Xai's flavor of automation, so the bureaucracy is about to be coded by sycophants, like Elon.

Elections have consequences, as they love to say.

This is the fear I have. I agree that the 14th amendment protects people born here, but the executive branch is the enforcement branch. I think they’ll proceed with deportations of children born in the US no matter what the courts order. If seems impeachment would be the only way to stop it, and I don’t think that would happen. Is there any other way to stop a rogue executive branch?

 

[samiam5211]

This is the fear I have. I agree that the 14th amendment protects people born here, but the executive branch is the enforcement branch. I think they’ll proceed with deportations of children born in the US no matter what the courts order. If seems impeachment would be the only way to stop it, and I don’t think that would happen. Is there any other way to stop a rogue executive branch?

It is a really difficult problem for many people who have taken the oath to uphold the constitution. Trump winning the popular vote is a huge deal in this respect. "subject to the jurisdiction there of" is ambiguous enough to allow many of our poorly educated employees of the executive branch enough wiggle room to just go along with whatever the duly elected executive is proposing, because "it is what the people wanted", and "I need to pay by rent next month".

Many people have to retake that oath on a regular basis, and just took it again shortly before the election. I can assure you that it was a complicated experience for many of the people taking that oath.

 

[Lapaz]

Let's say Trump manages to deport many minor birthright American citizens, can they re-enter the U.S. as soon as they reach 18 years of age? I would assume the answer is yes, but they'll be very mad at Republicans, so perhaps that will swing latinos back to Democrats.

I also assume that businesses are going to have to invest in automation to replace the workers they lose. That will be expensive, so I assume that will add even more to the inflation than just the loss of U.S. supply. The demand won't change, but with less U.S. supply, the remaining supply will get more expensive, which will probably match the cost of imported supplies due to the tariffs. We may end up with hyper-inflation.

 

[MT15]

Let's say Trump manages to deport many minor birthright American citizens, can they re-enter the U.S. as soon as they reach 18 years of age? I would assume the answer is yes, but they'll be very mad at Republicans, so perhaps that will swing latinos back to Democrats.

I also assume that businesses are going to have to invest in automation to replace the workers they lose. That will be expensive, so I assume that will add even more to the inflation than just the loss of U.S. supply. The demand won't change, but with less U.S. supply, the remaining supply will get more expensive, which will probably match the cost of imported supplies due to the tariffs. We may end up with hyper-inflation.

A lot of the jobs done by migrants cannot be done by automation at this point in time. We are going to get inflation, IMO, pretty bad inflation. Don’t know if it will be hyper though.

 

[superchuck500]

 

[superchuck500]

It’s coming - but don’t talk about it!

 

[bird]

A lot of the jobs done by migrants cannot be done by automation at this point in time. We are going to get inflation, IMO, pretty bad inflation. Don’t know if it will be hyper though.

Hyper? Maybe, maybe not. Inflation? You bet. So, what happens when the “everyday Americans” get hit with higher grocery prices? Who will they whine to then?

 

[Optimus Prime]

Hyper? Maybe, maybe not. Inflation? You bet. So, what happens when the “everyday Americans” get hit with higher grocery prices? Who will they whine to then?

They’ll still figure out a way to blame democrats

 

[bird]

They’ll still figure out a way to blame democrats

Yeah, there is that.