Patterico's Pontifications


Donald Trump Releases Immigration Plan

Filed under: General — Dana @ 10:00 pm

[guest post by Dana]

Donald Trump released his immigration plan this weekend. For Republicans, immigration has been described as “a hanging curveball for Republican candidates, which no other candidate (save the floundering Rick Santorum) seems willing to swing at.”

Here are Trump’s three core principals for immigration reform:

1. A nation without borders is not a nation. There must be a wall across the southern border.

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

3. A nation that does not serve its own citizens is not a nation. Any immigration plan must improve jobs, wages and security for all Americans.

Some of the specifics of the plan include:

“Nationwide E-Verify, visa-tracking for foreign visitors, cutting off aid to sanctuary cities, making overstay of a visa a criminal offense, tightening up on H-1B visas to prevent their being used to import cheap labor, ending birthright citizenship, and more. It even addresses the excesses of refugee resettlement.

The Democrats are up in arms over the plan, and fellow GOP contenders varied in their responses, while Scott Walker and Bobby Jindal expressed support of ending birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants.


61 Responses to “Donald Trump Releases Immigration Plan”

  1. Hello.

    Dana (86e864)

  2. If Trump collapses, as many seem to hope or expect, it will only highlight the utter cowardice of the rest of the GOP as they all go silent on the issue again, trying desperately to avoid offending anyone on the left. If Trump becomes the nominee he will have earned it by taking the right risks and winning.

    Mr Black (f1b3a7)

  3. It’s of course a quite sensible plan, but a blowhard like Trump with his predeliction for dismissing Mexicans as criminals and rapists isn’t the right guy to be out in front of it. It’s like having your best sales campaign headed up by your most annoying sales rep.

    JVW (ba78f9)

  4. Trump is growing on me. I’m glad he takes it to the Mexicans. Mexican immigrants shouldn’t be Pro-Mexico. Seeing Mexican nationalism within our borders is worrisome. If it’s just displaying a flag of your origin, that’s one thing. It’s quite another when we have Mexicans lowering the US flag to raise it above the US flag, which was an actual event here in AZ. (Plus American students lowered the Mexican flag and got in trouble when they tore it up)

    Dejectedhead (152876)

  5. hmm, a real policy paper. Could it be Trump is not in it just for kicks but is serious?
    The GOP hierarchy is going to ensure he is not the nominee , just based on this immigration policy. I wonder now if he would make a 3rd party run and embarrass the GOP.

    seeRpea (a7b697)

  6. The chances are 100% if a rino is nominated by the GOP they will lose to bernie. lmao at team r.

    mg (31009b)

  7. No real problem with birthright citizenship. The problem is with the failure of our elected representatives to act responsibly. The fact that a child is a citizen should no 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 majority and then deciding where to live. Simple solution to a simple problem.

    Michael Keohane (6e4b6f)

  8. That is the law, Michael. In statutes and in Supreme Court opinions. It’s just that neither the peanut farmer, nor the divorced actor, nor the millionaire in the shotgun shack, nor the Arkansas skirt chaser, nor the oil company front man, nor the Chicago Mau Mau enforced it.

    nk (dbc370)

  9. *principles* i mean

    happyfeet (5546fb)

  10. If you have a previous comment that should contain “principles”, only you can see it. Moderation.

    nk (dbc370)

  11. no i was being a dork it’s in the post

    happyfeet (5546fb)

  12. And when people talk about “ending birthright citizenship”, I know they’re lying, ignorant pieces of s**t pandering to mouthbreathers because the only way that will happen is with three-fourths of Congress and 38 states passing a Constitutional amendment which means it will never happen and don’t tell me they don’t know it. I’m very disappointed in Walker. (Jindal I never was going to vote for.)

    nk (dbc370)

  13. i think if you’re specifically asked about birthright citizenship by a fox news propaganda slut there’s no harm in saying you think it’s a bad policy

    that’s all that happened here

    Mr. Governor Scott Walker’s immigration stance goes way beyond this one position

    “The next president and the next Congress need to make decisions about a legal immigration system that’s based on, first and foremost, on protecting American workers and American wages,” Walker said on Monday’s episode of the Glenn Beck Program. “The more I’ve talked to folks – I’ve talked to Senator Sessions and others out there, but it is a fundamentally lost issue by many in elected positions today – is what is this doing for American workers looking for jobs, what is this doing to wages, and we need to have that be at the forefront of our discussion going forward.”

    i think this is a useful policy lens

    happyfeet (5546fb)

  14. You’re right, I should not believe what is “reported”.

    Personally, I don’t even object to birth tourism, provided the rest of the law is enforced. So a few multi-millionaires arrange to drop the kid in the United States. Then the kid goes back home with his parents and when he’s 18 (or maybe it’s 21) and he’s an emancipated adult he can come back to America. He would have to be over 21 to sponsor his parents, and they would have to take place in line for a family unity visa which is like 20 or 30 or 40 years for China or Mexico, and he would have to show proof that he can support them so that they are not a public charge, and also buy them health and burial insurance. Which is what the law is.

    nk (dbc370)

  15. Maddoggit, I don’t like this one bit, but not because I object in principle to the policies.

    Seven years ago on the pages of this blog, in answer to the legendary troll Levi Juhl’s question “What could be worse than [Bush]?”, I told him Obama could potentially be the second coming (or worse) of Jimmy Carter, and I wasn’t looking forward to what might happen “if another closet pacifist is elected.”

    Bottom line: I DON’T TRUST TRUMP. He’s never, ever shown that he has a guiding principle beyond What’s Right For Donald Trump, and hate that he’s used his media monopolizing skills to set the agenda for candidates more thoughtful, more accomplished, more principled, and more conservative than he’s ever been. This is all too reminiscent of when Arnold Schwarzenegger decided he wanted to run for Governor and out of the blue started touting his admiration for Milton Friedman. We know how that story ended: Ahnuld was elected, called for a special election to institute his reform measures (which he couldn’t effectively articulate), got personally harassed and defeated at the polls by public employee union thugs, and the Wednesday morning after waved a white flag and started marching leftward for the rest of his term.

    As I mentioned in my blog, Schwarzenegger’s longest-lasting legacy is California’s open primaries, which were placed on the ballot in exchange for RINO State Senator Abel Maldonado’s deciding vote for a budget state Republicans unanimously rejected. Maldonado cynically wanted open primaries because he also sought to be named Lieutenant Governor by Ahnuld — which he was — and he thought he would cruise to re-election as an incumbent and a Latino. It backfired on him because Gavin Newsom ran for Lt. Gov after giving up on challenging Jerry Brown, and beat Maldonado soundly.

    You hear that nonsense about how the other Republican hopefuls are “puppets” of their donors, and how Trump is so filthy rich, he can’t be bought. The same was said of Schwarzenegger, who for years was the top box office draw for years on end. But Ahnuld didn’t cut a deal that crippled California Republicans (and thus any conservatives therein) because he was bought with dollars. He wanted to be able to say “I got this done,” so he did the buying. As a result, it is unlikely another Republican will be elected to statewide office any time in the near future.

    If Republicans hitch their wagon to Trump’s glittering, gold-lame star, they can expect California writ large. The supposed cure for the rudderless Republicans will prove to have been worse than the disease.

    L.N. Smithee (880b3e)

  16. One problem; birthright citizenship is written into the Constitution. I doubt we have the votes to Amend that. And I certainly don’t want to encourage politicians, even nominally Cmservative politicians, to ignore oarts of the Constitution they find inconvenient.

    Of course we could say, “the baby has the right to stay. You don’t.” Can you imagine the hullabaloo?

    C. S. P. Schofield (ab2cdc)

  17. Some of the specifics of the plan include: ……

    The first and most important “specific” has to be that illegal immigrants do not receive welfare, food stamps, housing, free health caer and the other dozens of state and federal programs paid for by the American taxpayer for the benefit of helping Americas who have fallen on hard times. What nation in it’s right mind pays people to invade it and then stay there? That’s why these illegals take America jobs. They get welfare and work under the table for cash thereby paying zero taxes, working for lower wages than Americans because we are making up the difference with subsidies.

    The establishment of the Welfare State has all but destroyed the African American culture and now the left is doing the same to Hispanic immigrants. Get’em on the dole and you’ve got a democrat voter for lie. The middle class be damned. But the bigger picture is they are paying people to invade our country, take our jobs and vote themselves more of our money.

    And all this crap about “anchor babies” is just that, crap. If a baby is born here he is an American. But his parents aren’t and must go back. If they don’t want to split the family it’s their problem so I suggest thy take the kid with them. When he’s 21 h can decide if he wants to exercise his American birthright. Until then he’s still their kid and their problem. Not ours.

    Hoagie (f4eb27)

  18. I agree with L.N. Smithee on this: nothing in Trump’s record indicates to me he’s a conservative an little indicates he’s a Republican. In fact nothing indicates anything except he’s always first and for most for Trump. That said, the democrats are running a gaggle of socialist/communists so even a Trump will get my vote over them. And Smithee’s right on another point: Trump isn’t the guy who gets bought like Hillary! is, he’s the guy that’s always done the buying.

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie (f4eb27)

  19. When L.N. talks, people should listen.

    JD (0b767c)

  20. I’m with Trump on birthright citizenship. It was written into the 14th Amendment to guarantee citizenship to former slaves, it was never intended to confer citizenship on the issue of illegal aliens who surreptitiously entered the US in violation of our immigration laws.

    Birthright citizenship is fruit of the poison tree. Our Constitution is not an invitation to break the law. If a child’s parents are in the US illegally any children born here are citizens of the country of origin of their parents. They are the children of illegal aliens and should never be rewarded with US citizenship for their parents illegal activities.

    ropelight (e44534)

  21. C. S. P. Schofield (ab2cdc) — 8/18/2015 @ 6:17 am

    “the baby has the right to stay. You don’t.” Can you imagine the hullabaloo?

    That’s the situation now. Since there are no mass deportations, this doesn’t come up much.

    Donald Trump said something about keeping families together but didn’t explain how that would work.

    Sammy Finkelman (4a5e8f)

  22. If you like this plan, you should simply support Jeff Sessions as a presidential candidate — he’s who wrote it for Trump.

    There are parts of it I like, parts of it I don’t, and parts of it that I think are well-intentioned but unrealistic. But I don’t think any of it sprang from the mind of Donald Trump. And I don’t think Sessions wants to see Trump elected; I think he ghost-wrote this (without much pretense of ghosting) for Trump because Sessions figured out that right now, Trump’s the best vessel for getting attention for his (Sessions’) own policies.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  23. 21. Of all those things, they do receove free emergency health care, unless a state decides to provide more. It would probably be contrary to medical ethics not to provie the health care, and very unfair, and potentially bankrupting, to the medical professionals not to pay them.

    It is argued that limiting this to emergency care is not always cost efficient, particularly when it comes to kidney disease, where the federal government will pay for dialysis but not a kidney transplant.

    Of course keeping sopmeone out of the country just for the sake of not helping them is absurd, and contradicts the whole idea of providing help.

    Sammy Finkelman (4a5e8f)

  24. Of course another Trump principle is that the economy is a zero sum game and just by making people DON’T have jobs and cannot export goods, you make other people better off. Not true.

    Sammy Finkelman (4a5e8f)

  25. Well then, kudos to Jeff Sessions for recognizing the zeitgeist and finding a way of bringing it front and center into the public arena. It’s well past time we all faced up to the consequences of illegal immigration and put a stop to it. And, kudos to Trump for having the courage to stand up and take on a difficult problem openly and forthrightly – that’s what leadership is all about.

    ropelight (e44534)

  26. The first and most important “specific” has to be that illegal immigrants do not receive welfare, food stamps, housing, free health caer and the other dozens of state and federal programs paid for by the American taxpayer for the benefit of helping Americas who have fallen on hard times.

    This is Prop 187 which was passed by 2/3 in California and overturned by federal Court

    Proposition 187 began with widespread support – a 37-point lead in July 1994, and 62-29% lead among likely voters by September 1994.[4] Proponents of the bill estimated that California spent $3 billion per year on services for illegal immigrants, about half of which provided education to children of illegal immigrants.

    After it was overturned, California became 50% Hispanic (mostly Mexican) and there is no chance of another similar measure ever getting on the ballot.

    On November 8, 1994, California voters approved the proposition by a wide margin: 59% to 41%.[8] According to the Los Angeles Times exit polls, 63% of ethnic European voters and 23% of Latino voters voted for Proposition 187;

    The 23% of Latinos were the legal residents.

    Mike K (90dfdc)

  27. that’s seems to be a bug in the system re SB 1070, any populist measure on immigrations, is garroted at the courts, drowned by lawfare,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  28. or any issue, that is counter to elite preferences, ie; Prop 8,

    narciso (ee1f88)

  29. From David Martosko at Daily Mail:

    Trump towers above rivals on policy issues as Republican voters say they trust him most on economy, immigration and ISIS.

    New CNN/ORC poll: 45 per cent of GOP voters say Trump is the Republican candidate they trust most to handle the economy.

    That number is up an astonishing 25 points since June and no other GOP candidate is in double-digits.

    Trump gets top marks from 44 per cent of Republicans on illegal immigration, his signature issue – up 30 points in the last two months.

    Overall Trump scores 24 per cent support among registered Republicans, nearly twice the number posted by nearest rival Jeb Bush.

    Donald Trump is towering above his rivals in a new poll that frames his candidacy as Republicans’ favored path to deal with specific policy problems like the ISIS terror army, illegal immigration and a stumbling U.S. economy.

    The Trump juggernaut hasn’t stopped rolling since the billionaire announced he would run for the White House in earnest, but a new poll from CNN and Opinion Research Corporation has solidified his standing as head and shoulders – and hair – above the Republican competition.

    As the tycoon begins to roll out policy specifics with a series of immigration-related pledges this week, pollsters and political insiders are watching to see if the GOP rank-and-file find them credible.

    So far, so good: The CNN/ORC poll found 45 per cent named Trump as the Republican candidate they trust most to handle the economy, a number that has vaulted 25 points in the last two months. , No other GOP candidate is in double-digits.

    Similarly, 44 per cent give Trump the highest numbers on the question of who can best tackle illegal immigration as president. That’s up 30 points since June.

    ropelight (e44534)

  30. oh goodness someone get megyn a napkin

    happyfeet (7b1a9e)

  31. 15. I’m pretty sure the GOP has perused Jeb’s national support languishing about 5% and decided to throw the contest regardless of the eventual toothless inbred azzphucker what wins the nomination.

    DNF (aaea3b)

  32. I find Jindahl’s tweet very suspect. Just yesterday afternoon he was on Hugh Hewitt’s show and refused, even after much pressing by Hewitt, to say that he was in favor of ending birthright citizenship. His tweet is careful to say for “illegal immigrants”, but this would do nothing to stem the tide of those here legally (on a visa, visiting, etc.)from claiming birthright citizenship for their child.

    Scott (bebecd)

  33. I’d be happy with building a fence and getting rid of the violent and drug-related illegal offenders as a start and go from there, than more and more bickering and getting nothing done.

    Maybe Trump can take some of his money and buy a section of land in Mexico 10 miles in from the US border and build a prison for those being sent from the US and hire a private force to run the place.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  34. Maybe Trump can take some of his money and buy a section of land in Mexico 10 miles in from the US border and build a prison for those being sent from the US and hire a private force to run the place.

    MD welcome back. You know I usually agree with you but not here. This is not a Trump problem, it’s an American problem. It’s a problem with the a-holes in Congress, the DOJ, ICE and immigration in general. Now if I had Trumps money I could be persuaded to build that prison in Mexico to imprison that list of reprobates.

    You know, even catch and release releases back to their natural habitat, in this case Mexico.

    Rev. Barack Hussein Hoagie (f4eb27)

  35. , but a blowhard like Trump with his predeliction for dismissing Mexicans as criminals and rapists

    Clumsy generalizations like that — ironically enough in which you’re stating that Trump in this instance is guilty of a clumsy generalization — is at the core of the lunacy of political correctness run amok.

    I don’t mind non-liberals/Republicans disregarding Trump for being too much of a political chameleon or squish, but I do have suspicions when such people rag on him in the way liberals will automatically do (such as “dismissing Mexicans as criminals…”).

    Mark (24da9b)

  36. An electoral victory handed to a Republican is a nothingburger. You can’t even say it postpones the inevitable.

    We are not a nation, comprised of a serious people, but merely chummed waters in inviting any toothy con artiste to brazenly relieve us of the last shiny thing we possess–we care for nothing more.

    DNF (755a85)

  37. Taking no prisoners and pissing ’em all off…

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  38. My friend Mark Pulliam was a law school classmate (1980) of mine at Texas Law School, where he was one of the Articles Editors for the Texas Law Review. He’s retired now, having moved back to Austin from LA, where until year-end 2010 he was a senior partner in the Employment Law section for Latham & Watkins, one of the biggest, oldest, and most successful BigLaw firms in America. Recently he’s written guest pieces for The Federalist, City Journal, and other such publications. He’s one of the smartest lawyers I’ve ever met, someone whom I’m honored to know and have worked with. He’s a helluva water skier too, and he’s tearing up the skinny lakes around Austin these days.

    I haven’t checked his work on this, but I hope the Wall Street Journal copies this, which I’ve copied (without his permission) from his Facebook feed:

    Here is a letter I sent today to the Wall Street Journal, in response to the editorial entitled “The Deportation Party?” (Review & Outlook August 18)
    Dear Editor:

    I admire the Journal‘s editorial consistency in advocating open borders, even as I disagree with the policy reasons perennially cited in support of that position. But amid the predictable lamentations regarding candidate Donald Trump’s immigration platform, you assert that ending so-called “birthright citizenship” would “require editing the Fourteenth Amendment.” This is not true.

    The 14th Amendment confers citizenship upon “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The primary goal was to correct the Dred Scott decision and recognize citizenship for the newly-freed slaves. The phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means lawfully present in the United States. The Supreme Court has never held otherwise. The decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) held that the children of legal Chinese residents automatically became U.S. citizens upon birth. There were no illegal immigrants in 1868, when the 14th Amendment was ratified.

    The notion that the 14th Amendment automatically confers citizenship on the offspring of illegal immigrants born in the U.S. is based solely on dicta in a footnote in Plyler v. Doe (1982), authored by the notorious activist Justice William Brennan, hardly a credible authority. If the Supreme Court did not disavow Plyler‘s spurious dicta, Congress could clarify the meaning of the 14th Amendment by statute, pursuant to its power under Section 5 thereof.

    Yale Law School Professor Peter Schuck covered all this in his 1985 book “Citizenship Without Consent: Illegal Aliens in the American Polity.” Plyler‘s conception of automatic birthright citizenship is an anomaly. The United States and Canada are the only developed nations in the world to recognize birthright citizenship for tourists and illegal immigrants. You may deplore Donald Trump, but he has raised a valid and long overdue challenge to an egregious misunderstanding of the 14th Amendment. Citizenship should be consensual. Rewarding lawbreakers with “birthright citizenship” is nothing short of folly.


    Mark Pulliam
    Austin, Texas

    Beldar (fa637a)

  39. * “copies this” –> “accepts and prints this”

    Mark is also a better proofreader than I am.

    Beldar (fa637a)

  40. Go Horns.

    DRJ (1dff03)

  41. Thanks, Rev. BHH,

    I must admit that my suggestion for Mr. Trump was not entirely serious but simply an attempt at “anything is better than doing nothing”.

    MD in Philly (f9371b)

  42. Since Mr. Pulliam is Beldars’s friend, I’ll restrain myself to saying that he’s expressing the “minority” view. Two glaring faults in his analysis: 1) The Slaughterhouse Cases held that the Fourteenth Amendment did not apply only to freed slaves. 2) Plyler v. Doe held that “within its jurisdiction” confirms the understanding that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protection extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State. It did not change the Wong Kim Ark rule which exempted only passengers on foreign flagged vessels, diplomatic personnel, or an invading army. If the State of Texas has the lawful authority to pull you over for not using your turn signal while changing lanes, then you are within its jurisdiction.

    And the United States is an “anomaly”, but I prefer “exceptional”, in the history of the world in very many respects and not only in recognizing the citizenship of illegal aliens and tourists. So what? You want we should be like France, maybe?

    nk (dbc370)

  43. P.S. It is inescapable that the Fourteenth Amendment only means what five Justices say it means at any point in time. But they haven’t said it yet.

    nk (dbc370)

  44. *the citizenship of the children of illegal aliens and tourists*

    nk (dbc370)

  45. The 14th Amendment is very clear, and changing it is politically impossible.

    However, it is possible to prevent birth tourism and illegal-alien anchor babies anyway.

    We establish a system where, when a non-resident alien woman gives birth, the delivery room is declared an annex of her home country embassy, so the birth is not in the U.S. This was done by Canada for Queen (then Princess) Juliana of the Netherlands in 1943, so her child would be eligible to succeed to the crown. (If the home country doesn’t cooperate, some impoverished African state will: Chad, or Malawi, or Liberia.) With electronic communications, the procedure could be executed in seconds. If the woman evades the rule by a covert home birth, she is automatically declared guilty of child endangerment; she goes to prison for a year, and is then deported, while the child is adopted.

    Rich Rostrom (d2c6fd)

  46. nk,

    At 17 you wrote:

    “He would have to be over 21 to sponsor his parents, and they would have to take place in line for a family unity visa which is like 20 or 30 or 40 years for China or Mexico”

    You are wrong. When a U.S. citizen petitions for a parent to immigrate to the U.S., the parent is treated as an immediate relative, just as if the U.S. citizen were petitioning for a spouse. There is no waiting period (aside from processing the paperwork, which usually takes a few months to a year), regardless of the country the parents are from, including China and Mexico.

    norcal (541872)

  47. Rewarding lawbreakers with “birthright citizenship” is nothing short of folly.

    So a child breaks the law by merely being born here if he/she has the misfortune of having alien parents?

    Historical points
    The UK at the time of the American Revolution held that anyone born in the UK was a subject of the British Crown no matter who their parents might be…that is, birthright citizenship was the law of the land in 1776. It is the common law, not just the 14th A.Only exception was a child of a diplomat on mission. Blackstone specifically contrasted the French law, which gave only children of French nationals French citizenship.

    In 1898 and 1868, every immigrant was a legal immigrant because the whole scheme of immigration restrictions was a 20th century invention. The Founders and the Reconstruction Congress would be astonished at the idea.

    kishnevi (294553)

  48. norcal is right. Parents are “immediate relatives”, along with spouses and minor children, without limit on the number of visas. But the citizen kid still has to be over 21. So “anchor baby” is misleading. That baby cannot make you legal for 21 years.

    Sorry for the doubleposting.

    nk (dbc370)

  49. nk,

    There are lots of folks who overstay their visas, have children in the U.S., and then hang out illegally for 21 years. In the end, they are rewarded with a green card.

    norcal (541872)

  50. I recently read the author of the 14th amendment never intended it to apply to foreign nationals. Thus the “… 1.All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the ……”

    It could be argued that babies born to illegals are not subject to the local state or federal juristictions, being as they are living in the shadow. Heck. Sanctuary cities are predicated on illegals being outside of their jurisdiction.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  51. If we only enforced the damn laws. If you overstay your visa for 180 days and leave voluntarily, you are excluded for three years. If you overstay for a year, you are excluded for ten years whether you leave voluntarily or are deported.

    nk (dbc370)

  52. #55, papertiger, John Eastman, former Dean of the Chapman School of Law, pointed out that many lawyers do not seem to understand the distinction between partial, territorial jurisdiction, which subjects all who are present within the territory of a sovereign to the jurisdiction of that sovereign’s laws, and complete political jurisdiction, which requires allegiance to the sovereign as well.

    ropelight (32d7c4)

  53. This article generally summarizes both sides of the birthright citizenship issue, for those who find it confusing.

    DRJ (1dff03)

  54. The citizenship clause originally excluded two groups from a birthright citizenship, “not subject to any foreign power” and “non taxed Indians”. The Sovereign Nations had their own citizenship. The children of Chinese citizens are citizens of China.

    The Burlingham Treaty specifically excludes the naturalization of Chinese immigrant labor, and visa versa for US citizens born in China.

    Chinese mine workers rail road workers and prostitutes, were sort of the original H-1B visa, brought in to make George Hearst & Leland Stanford rich.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  55. The Page Act of 1875 had prohibited the Shanghai immigration of Asian forced laborers and prostitutes to work in George Hearst’s mines. This is the first time Congress has exerted power to regulate the border.

    Page Act of 1875

    Up until that time there was no border, dept of immigration, property tax maybe, just a get off the dock you lazy bum.

    So the clever phrasing of dates in the defense’s argument gives me pause.

    “Just thirty years later,[after the 14th amendment, 1866] the Supreme Court interpreted the Citizenship Clause in a case involving the son of Chinese immigrants,” he continued. “Wong Kim Ark was born in San Francisco and had spent his entire life in the United States.”

    “When he was about 17, he traveled to China for a visit before returning home to San Francisco. When he returned to the United States after a second visit four years later, he was denied entry on the basis that he was allegedly not a citizen,”[Upon reaching the age of maturity; 21 years old] he went onto say. “Even though Congress had prohibited individuals of Chinese descent from becoming citizens, the Supreme Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment granted citizenship to all who were born in this country.”

    Thirty years after 1866; 1896. That’s Grover Cleveland’s second term.

    In total Cleveland appointed 45 federal judges, including four Justices to the Supreme Court of the United States (including one Chief Justice), nine judges to the United States Courts of Appeals, two judges to the United States circuit courts, and 30 judges to the United States district courts. Because Cleveland served terms both before and after Congress eliminated the circuit courts in favor of the Courts of Appeals, he is one of only two Presidents to have appointed judges to both bodies. The other, Benjamin Harrison, was in office at the time that the change was made. Thus, all of Cleveland’s appointments to the circuit courts were made in his first term, and all of his appointments to the Courts of Appeals were made in his second.

    Cleveland, like a growing number of Northerners (and nearly all white Southerners) saw Reconstruction as a failed experiment, and was reluctant to use federal power to enforce the 15th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which guaranteed voting rights to African Americans.
    The courts that he packed upheld excluding voting rights to African Americans.

    Secretary of State Thomas F. Bayard negotiated an extension to the Chinese Exclusion Act[1892], and Cleveland lobbied the Congress to pass the Scott Act, written by Congressman William Lawrence Scott, which prevented the return of Chinese immigrants who left the United States. The Scott Act easily passed both houses of Congress, and Cleveland signed it into law on October 1, 1888.

    The Scott Act (1888) was a United States law that prohibited Chinese laborers abroad or who planned future travels from returning. Its main author was William Lawrence Scott of Pennsylvania, and it was signed into law by United States President Grover Cleveland on October 1, 1888. It was introduced to expand upon the Chinese Exclusion Act passed in 1882 and left an estimated 20,000-30,000 Chinese outside the United States at the time stranded.

    On October 8, 1888, Chae Chan Ping, a Chinese citizen and unskilled laborer working in San Francisco, returned to the US after a trip home to China. He was stopped at the port of entry and denied entry. He challenged the denial and the case reached the Supreme Court. This case, Chae Chan Ping v. United States, was decided on May 13, 1889 in favor of the United States. The Supreme Court decision was an important precedent both for establishing the federal government’s discretionary power over immigration and for upholding the government’s authority to violate the terms of past international treaties (the treaty in question being the Burlingame Treaty of 1868).

    Ok, I’m confused.

    papertiger (c2d6da)

  56. And this is why I love her. Fox News Anchored in Stupidity on 14th Amendment

    papertiger (c2d6da)

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.5465 secs.