Trump: End birthright citizenship for some US-born babies

[Boiler 43,433]

1 hour ago, Marty Byrde said:

You dont have to stay together but 2 years Technically. I know several that left after a few months and did not get sent home 

Actually once you are here there are all sorts of options and it would be difficult to get rid of you.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

1 hour ago, lierre said:

Sources?

 

 

No sources needed, it's just a fraction.  The potential number of illegal immigrants I mentioned above divided by the US population, roughly 328 million.

 

If you're asking about the 20 mil number, it's an estimate.  The 11 mil number is seriously flawed, in my opinion (and anyone who is familiar with immigration would do well to doubt its veracity.

 

If you'd like to read more, here is one article I found for you:  https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0201193

 

 

[lierre 224]

38 minutes ago, Satisfied said:

No sources needed, it's just a fraction.  The potential number of illegal immigrants I mentioned above divided by the US population, roughly 328 million.

 

If you're asking about the 20 mil number, it's an estimate.  The 11 mil number is seriously flawed, in my opinion (and anyone who is familiar with immigration would do well to doubt its veracity.

 

If you'd like to read more, here is one article I found for you:  https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0201193

 

 

 

Thanks for sharing that article. It’s good to know the various statistical methods that have been used by different academic perspectives. Keep in mind though that all estimate derivations are predicated on assumptions & have limitations. Like was mentioned in the article, census estimates are subject to certain limitations, too.

 

For the study you cited, their assumptions were primarily based on 1990s migration rates when information on unauthorized immigrants was largely unknown. Furthermore, the assumption that illegal immigrants are more likely to keep returning after being deported is very conservative & does not reflect political conditions in the 2010s.

 

Replicating what they did on the specific data they used and on future data would add to the internal validity of their research. It would be important to consider all research with a critical eye, more intensely the ones using new methodology and haven’t been replicated.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

16 minutes ago, lierre said:

 

Thanks for sharing that article. It’s good to know the various statistical methods that have been used by different academic perspectives. Keep in mind though that all estimate derivations are predicated on assumptions & have limitations. Like was mentioned in the article, census estimates are subject to certain limitations, too.

 

For the study you cited, their assumptions were primarily based on 1990s migration rates when information on unauthorized immigrants was largely unknown. Furthermore, the assumption that illegal immigrants are more likely to keep returning after being deported is very conservative & does not reflect political conditions in the 2010s.

 

Replicating what they did on the specific data they used and on future data would add to the internal validity of their research. It would be important to consider all research with a critical eye, more intensely the ones using new methodology and haven’t been replicated.

I prefer logic, personally.  It makes sense that for every 2 illegal immigrants, there is at least 1 (or perhaps a fraction of 1?) that slips thru unaccounted for.  Hence the larger-than-assumed illegal population. 

[TBoneTX 43,058]

Here's an absolutely amazing analysis of the mentioned Executive Order:

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/10/birthright-citizenship-arguments-constitutional-requirement/

Discussion?

[OptimusSpice 164]

Why does it matter "how many people" would be affected by the policy?  I've seen much in the thread about the percentages....  Frankly, I don't care if the percentage is so small it's not noticeable, or so large that it's having undeniable negative impacts - anchor babies are an abuse to the system.  If it's such a small number affected, then why get up in arms to keep the issue unchanged?  If it's a large number, then it's apparent it needs changed.  Either way - small % or large % - changing the amendment is not a bad idea. 

 

From what I've observed (and the nature of VJ) we are ALL in support of LEGAL immigration.  From what I've seen and understood about the Trump administration and platform is more about being opposed to ILLEGAL immigration (though all the supporters of illegal immigration never want to use those words to define it).  Does Trump want to implement changes to the current legal system of immigration as well, yes.  So far, I haven't seen any proposed changes that would hurt the USA.  I'm not opposed to changes in our severely abused and way too "wide open" immigration policies.  That doesn't make me "anit-immigration".  That simply makes me "honest about the faults in the current immigration system".  Anything that makes it harder to abuse is a good thing.  I have zero problem with people who go through the entire process legally, honoring the intent of policies.  Those who try to abuse the system through fraudulent methods, even if they are going through the process - I have a problem with.  Part of why the process takes so excruciatingly long is because of all the abuses.  Cut the abuses, and the whole system becomes more efficient.  That's a win for all those who are using the immigration system for it's intended purpose, a very "pro-immigration" stance. 

 

If a fruit tree is allowed to grow unchecked, untended - it actually produces less fruit.  To maximize the production of fruit, a tree must be wisely pruned.  It can't be hacked so far back that there is nothing left, but if it's not cut back responsibly - all the energy goes into growing more branches rather than producing fruit.  Immigration is like that tree - if we want the best, most productive "USA possible" then we need wise management of the "Immigration Tree" - when it gets out of control, it needs pruned, however that pruning must not be so overkill as to remove all the branches.  How exactly we find that balance, I don't know but a good place to start is to review the immigration policies of countries all over the world and review how those policies compare/contrast to the values and strength of our Nation.  Regardless, our tree is so overgrown that it's a huge mess.  It needs attention.  That doesn't mean I want the tree cut down and removed (anit-immigration).  It means I want to see the tree as healthy as it can be (pro-immigration).

[Dashinka 23,242]

2 hours ago, OptimusSpice said:

Why does it matter "how many people" would be affected by the policy?  I've seen much in the thread about the percentages....  Frankly, I don't care if the percentage is so small it's not noticeable, or so large that it's having undeniable negative impacts - anchor babies are an abuse to the system.  If it's such a small number affected, then why get up in arms to keep the issue unchanged?  If it's a large number, then it's apparent it needs changed.  Either way - small % or large % - changing the amendment is not a bad idea. 

 

From what I've observed (and the nature of VJ) we are ALL in support of LEGAL immigration.  From what I've seen and understood about the Trump administration and platform is more about being opposed to ILLEGAL immigration (though all the supporters of illegal immigration never want to use those words to define it).  Does Trump want to implement changes to the current legal system of immigration as well, yes.  So far, I haven't seen any proposed changes that would hurt the USA.  I'm not opposed to changes in our severely abused and way too "wide open" immigration policies.  That doesn't make me "anit-immigration".  That simply makes me "honest about the faults in the current immigration system".  Anything that makes it harder to abuse is a good thing.  I have zero problem with people who go through the entire process legally, honoring the intent of policies.  Those who try to abuse the system through fraudulent methods, even if they are going through the process - I have a problem with.  Part of why the process takes so excruciatingly long is because of all the abuses.  Cut the abuses, and the whole system becomes more efficient.  That's a win for all those who are using the immigration system for it's intended purpose, a very "pro-immigration" stance. 

 

If a fruit tree is allowed to grow unchecked, untended - it actually produces less fruit.  To maximize the production of fruit, a tree must be wisely pruned.  It can't be hacked so far back that there is nothing left, but if it's not cut back responsibly - all the energy goes into growing more branches rather than producing fruit.  Immigration is like that tree - if we want the best, most productive "USA possible" then we need wise management of the "Immigration Tree" - when it gets out of control, it needs pruned, however that pruning must not be so overkill as to remove all the branches.  How exactly we find that balance, I don't know but a good place to start is to review the immigration policies of countries all over the world and review how those policies compare/contrast to the values and strength of our Nation.  Regardless, our tree is so overgrown that it's a huge mess.  It needs attention.  That doesn't mean I want the tree cut down and removed (anit-immigration).  It means I want to see the tree as healthy as it can be (pro-immigration).

It seems that even if one is in favor of legal immigration (changed or unchanged) one can still be labeled "anti-immigrant".  I know it makes no sense at all, but much of the logic used by the left makes little sense when it is all driven by emotions.  We constantly hear the Democrat leaders spout "comprehensive immigration reform", in fact the Democrat candidate running for the normally GOP House seat where I live had people calling and knocking on doors for her and when I asked these folks where the candidate stands on immigration issues I got the same response both times (paraphrasing; 'she is for comprehensive immigration reform').  When I further inquired for a definition of what that meant they were at a loss (wasn't surprising at least to me). 

 

In my opinion, there does need to be some changes to the system, but we should not get rid of legal immigration.  Open borders are a non-starter for me, but that seems to be where the Democrats are heading with their abolish ICE proposal, sanctuary city policies, DACA/DAPA and general lack of any real ideas for immigration reforms.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

11 hours ago, lierre said:

 

Thanks for sharing that article. It’s good to know the various statistical methods that have been used by different academic perspectives. Keep in mind though that all estimate derivations are predicated on assumptions & have limitations. Like was mentioned in the article, census estimates are subject to certain limitations, too.

 

For the study you cited, their assumptions were primarily based on 1990s migration rates when information on unauthorized immigrants was largely unknown. Furthermore, the assumption that illegal immigrants are more likely to keep returning after being deported is very conservative & does not reflect political conditions in the 2010s.

 

Replicating what they did on the specific data they used and on future data would add to the internal validity of their research. It would be important to consider all research with a critical eye, more intensely the ones using new methodology and haven’t been replicated.

Asking for a friend.  You are not a pediatrician by any chance are you ?

[Keith & Arileidi 437]

16 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

So if someone is for having laws to protect the borders and control immigration they are anti-immigrant?  Is that why the MDL seems to be embracing open borders?

Of course not.. but wanting to get rid of the lottery, chain migration, work visa for h1b(?) Spouses, and birth right citizenship does make you anti imagration. 

 

 

[Unlockable 7,306]

The Dominican Republic is one of the last countries to remove birthright citizenship. And the did it retroactively, meaning Haitians that was born in the DR all of a sudden lost their citizenship. I always use it as an example when I talk to my wife or her family/friends about issues with immigration and the US. I always say that a lot of other countries (including their own) have some of the worse immigration laws but the US gets the most chastised. BTW, my wife thinks it is a good idea to change unrestricted birthright citizenship.

 

http://blogs.law.unc.edu/ncilj/2016/01/26/dominican-republic-violates-intl-law-in-canceling-citizenship/

https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/10/08/dominican-republic-haiti-trujillo-immigration-deportation/

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/19/dominican-republic-violated-human-rights-haitians-citizens

Edited November 1, 2018 by NuestraUnion

[Randyandyuni 2,682]

26 minutes ago, Keith & Arileidi said:

Of course not.. but wanting to get rid of the lottery, chain migration, work visa for h1b(?) Spouses, and birth right citizenship does make you anti imagration. 

 

 

the diversity lottery in its current form is a joke, I would support a merit based lottery system, chain migration needs to be reeled in, children yes, parents, yes, brothers and sisters et al, no. H1b spousal work Visas, again on merit, not blanket, and I support birth right citizenship where one parent is a USC .. I do not consider myself anti-immigration although I do not support unauthorized/illegal immigration

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

47 minutes ago, NuestraUnion said:

The Dominican Republic is one of the last countries to remove birthright citizenship. And the did it retroactively, meaning Haitians that was born in the DR all of a sudden lost their citizenship. I always use it as an example when I talk to my wife or her family/friends about issues with immigration and the US. I always say that a lot of other countries (including their own) have some of the worse immigration laws but the US gets the most chastised. BTW, my wife thinks it is a good idea to change unrestricted birthright citizenship.

 

http://blogs.law.unc.edu/ncilj/2016/01/26/dominican-republic-violates-intl-law-in-canceling-citizenship/

https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/10/08/dominican-republic-haiti-trujillo-immigration-deportation/

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/19/dominican-republic-violated-human-rights-haitians-citizens

Needs to be changed. I dont agree with making it retroactive 

[lierre 224]

1 hour ago, Marty Byrde said:

Asking for a friend.  You are not a pediatrician by any chance are you ?

 

How is that question relevant to this topic?

 

 

 

4 hours ago, OptimusSpice said:

Why does it matter "how many people" would be affected by the policy?  I've seen much in the thread about the percentages....  Frankly, I don't care if the percentage is so small it's not noticeable, or so large that it's having undeniable negative impacts - anchor babies are an abuse to the system.  If it's such a small number affected, then why get up in arms to keep the issue unchanged?  If it's a large number, then it's apparent it needs changed.  Either way - small % or large % - changing the amendment is not a bad idea. 

 

From what I've observed (and the nature of VJ) we are ALL in support of LEGAL immigration.  From what I've seen and understood about the Trump administration and platform is more about being opposed to ILLEGAL immigration (though all the supporters of illegal immigration never want to use those words to define it).  Does Trump want to implement changes to the current legal system of immigration as well, yes.  So far, I haven't seen any proposed changes that would hurt the USA.  I'm not opposed to changes in our severely abused and way too "wide open" immigration policies.  That doesn't make me "anit-immigration".  That simply makes me "honest about the faults in the current immigration system".  Anything that makes it harder to abuse is a good thing.  I have zero problem with people who go through the entire process legally, honoring the intent of policies.  Those who try to abuse the system through fraudulent methods, even if they are going through the process - I have a problem with.  Part of why the process takes so excruciatingly long is because of all the abuses.  Cut the abuses, and the whole system becomes more efficient.  That's a win for all those who are using the immigration system for it's intended purpose, a very "pro-immigration" stance. 

 

If a fruit tree is allowed to grow unchecked, untended - it actually produces less fruit.  To maximize the production of fruit, a tree must be wisely pruned.  It can't be hacked so far back that there is nothing left, but if it's not cut back responsibly - all the energy goes into growing more branches rather than producing fruit.  Immigration is like that tree - if we want the best, most productive "USA possible" then we need wise management of the "Immigration Tree" - when it gets out of control, it needs pruned, however that pruning must not be so overkill as to remove all the branches.  How exactly we find that balance, I don't know but a good place to start is to review the immigration policies of countries all over the world and review how those policies compare/contrast to the values and strength of our Nation.  Regardless, our tree is so overgrown that it's a huge mess.  It needs attention.  That doesn't mean I want the tree cut down and removed (anit-immigration).  It means I want to see the tree as healthy as it can be (pro-immigration).

 

I am in agreement with refining the immigration process. There are many developed countries with a points-based system and the US could benefit from figuring out how that can be applied to its needs in terms of labor skills. 

 

Looking at the Axios video clip (link: https://www.axios.com/trump-birthright-citizenship-executive-order-0cf4285a-16c6-48f2-a933-bd71fd72ea82.html), you can’t really surmise what exactly the Executive Order would look like. “Chain migration” is not illegal and how to target that specifically using policies would mean an overhaul of the family based immigration process that’s already experiencing severe backlogs. 

 

To me, I would be interested to see this administration’s proposed immigration reforms and evaluate that based on what the US needs right now.

[Cyberfx1024 7,978]

7 minutes ago, Marty Byrde said:

Needs to be changed. I dont agree with making it retroactive 

 

55 minutes ago, NuestraUnion said:

The Dominican Republic is one of the last countries to remove birthright citizenship. And the did it retroactively, meaning Haitians that was born in the DR all of a sudden lost their citizenship. I always use it as an example when I talk to my wife or her family/friends about issues with immigration and the US. I always say that a lot of other countries (including their own) have some of the worse immigration laws but the US gets the most chastised. BTW, my wife thinks it is a good idea to change unrestricted birthright citizenship.

 

http://blogs.law.unc.edu/ncilj/2016/01/26/dominican-republic-violates-intl-law-in-canceling-citizenship/

https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/10/08/dominican-republic-haiti-trujillo-immigration-deportation/

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/19/dominican-republic-violated-human-rights-haitians-citizens

Same here both my wife and I agree that it needs to be changed and NOT retroactive. 

[lierre 224]

54 minutes ago, NuestraUnion said:

The Dominican Republic is one of the last countries to remove birthright citizenship. And the did it retroactively, meaning Haitians that was born in the DR all of a sudden lost their citizenship. I always use it as an example when I talk to my wife or her family/friends about issues with immigration and the US. I always say that a lot of other countries (including their own) have some of the worse immigration laws but the US gets the most chastised. BTW, my wife thinks it is a good idea to change unrestricted birthright citizenship.

 

http://blogs.law.unc.edu/ncilj/2016/01/26/dominican-republic-violates-intl-law-in-canceling-citizenship/

https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/10/08/dominican-republic-haiti-trujillo-immigration-deportation/

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/19/dominican-republic-violated-human-rights-haitians-citizens

 

Wow. That’s very, very wrong. 😢 Retroactive application of a birthright citizenship removal would be detrimental to this country.