571–580 of 908 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
US citizen father wasn't allowed to take custody of his US citizen child, who was subsequently removed from the country to a place where the child presumably is not a citizen.
What about the mother? Do we know if she wanted the child to come with her or stay?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I honestly cannot. There is almost nothing worse than losing your kids. It might be worse than death. The humane solution is to allow a deported parent to keep them.
Ok, let's try some empathy and humane thinking: you don't throw out either of them in that case.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Rather a different interpretation of the XIV. It was intended for slaves and the children of slaves (there were few non-British foreigners in the US) at the time. However, over time, it was interpreted to mean anyone not only the descendants of slaves/ex-slaves). That could very well be re-interpreted.
“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.” This seems pretty clear to me. How else could you interpret it?
>and subject to the jurisdiction thereof
And if you go back and read what the drafters of that amendment stated they meant on the floor of congress, they did not intend it to mean Jus soli. The idea was so ridiculous at the time that no one thought it worth writing it down. Pity. The controlling Supreme Court case spends a lot of time talking about English Common Law and what "subject to the jurisdiction of the King" meant. It is not hard to believe, at all, that the current SCOTUS may have a different interpretation than "anyone who happens to be born across this line on the map is a US citizen and is granted all rights, responsibilities, and privileges thereof".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Being eventually forced to decide whether to leave your child behind or take them with you out of the USA is a direct consequence of the choice to illegally enter the country. Are you suggesting we never deport parents under any circumstance? Having a citizen child is not some get-out-deportation-free card.
This is like claiming that getting conscripted into the Russian Federation Armed Forces is a direct consequence of entering illegally So is their life forfeit now, and the respective goverment absolved of responsibility?
[flagged]
This isn't wrong. It's documented fact. Three U.S. citizen children (ages 2, 4, and 7) were deported by ICE through the New Orleans field office. A federal judge has already scheduled a hearing about this, citing a "strong suspicion" that a 2-year-old U.S. citizen was deported "with no meaningful process."
You're doing exactly what propagandists hope for - spreading doubt about documented human rights abuses without bothering to verify the facts.
"Last time the pitch was some illegal immigrant who was covered in MS-13 tattoos wasn't MS-13."
If you're referring to a case with photoshopped tattoos, you're literally proving my point! You fell for actual fake news and are now using that to dismiss real, verified reporting from multiple sources including federal court records.
"I wouldn't be surprised if in a few days we learn neither of their parents are citizens and they're foreign nationals."
You've already decided what "truth" you want to emerge. Meanwhile, one of these American children has cancer and was deported without their medication despite ICE being notified of their urgent medical needs.
Your cynicism isn't wisdom, it's complicity. You're pre-emptively discrediting reports of government abuses against literal American children because acknowledging them might force you to confront uncomfortable truths about a system you apparently want to defend at all costs.
These aren't anonymous claims! They're documented cases with legal representation, court filings, and federal judicial review already underway. What would it take for you to actually care about American citizens losing their rights?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Until a new law is passed, the government and courts have a duty to follow the current law.
You have misunderstood what it means to follow the law. The law guarantees liberties, but doesn't guarantee prosecution. Obama has DACA, which gives young illegal immigrants a deferral on their prosecution. More generally there's the concept of prosecutorial discretion. Have you ever for example driven a car badly, been pulled over, but the cop let you off with just a warning?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bondi -- an outrageously partisan hack who is destroying the DOJ -- reached peak irony when she stated that "no one is above the law" in talking about that case. Donald Trump and his administration are on an absolute crime spree[1]. Insider trading, launching shit-coins and engaging in self-dealing, completely disregarding both the constitution and the courts, up to and including the Supreme Court. The US is currentl…
> when she stated that "no one is above the law" in talking about that case My reading is that the judge lied to the FBI in order to help the subject escape, AFAIK this is a felony (obstruction?) and anyone else would be charged - so why isn't it equally applicable to a judge? I think people are assuming the judge has some form of power that she doesn't. Not going to discuss Bondi or Trump, on a GBA basis.
These were ICE "agents" with an administrative warrant. Nor did she "lie", she refused them entry to an operating courtroom -- which she was 100% right to do.
So nothing you said is accurate.
There is a 100% chance she will be completely exonerated, but of course this clown administration -- full of in-the-open criminals of the worst kind -- doesn't care about that, they just care about intimidation. Which is precisely why they brought up charges without a grand jury, which is basically unprecedented, because a grand jury would never have levied such a charge, and then arrested her in public with a perp walk with a photographer at the ready. And they know it won't stick. But because they're an administration of criminal garbage they just want to put the judiciary in its place, while supplicants and smooth-brains cheer them on.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They gave you a whole list of pragmatic policy differences, are you ignoring them or in agreement?
No, they gave a list of policy differences - and justified them with an emotional argument: "cruel". They said nothing about the pragmatic justification of them. Which is exactly my point: the left tends to operate on ideological emotional values. They could have said things like 'reproductive rights leads to X goods for the populace' or 'prohibition was a net positive in Y ways' or 'minimum wage laws are shown to im…
Six months ago I would have endorsed wide-scale deportations, but after seeing the consequences—families swept into jails, plain-clothes officers ambushing people on their way to work or school, and communities living in constant fear—it’s clear that indiscriminate removals are neither practical nor just. This approach diverts resources from pursuing violent offenders, erodes faith in the rule of law, and forces the…
Serious question: how did you envision "wide-scale deportations" playing out, prior to these events?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In study after study, immigrants actually raise the wages of citizen workers by taking the lower paying jobs while citizens can then be more productive. The idea they suppress wages is just another form of the ‘lump of labor’ fallacy. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41426727 https://www.dagliano.unimi.it/media/12-Ottaviano-Peri-2008.p...
You are really twisting things to make your argument sound plausible in the general case. More supply means less wages. Why focus on low paying jobs? Are you seriously suggesting that if we import every software engineer from India that wants to come here that my salary will increase? If so, that's very interesting why tech CEOs are lobbying so hard for this.
The economy isn't zero-sum. As Milton Friedman noted, "most economic fallacies derive from the tendency to assume that there is a fixed pie, that one party can gain only at the expense of another." Immigrants create demand for housing, food, education, entertainment, and specialized services that natives often provide.
Historical evidence consistently disproves the fallacy: When women entered the workforce, it didn't cause massive job losses among men. When segregation was abolished, Black workers didn't cause mass unemployment among whites. The vast majority of Americans descend from immigrants who contributed to economic growth.
Research on H-1B visas shows that firms that get immigrant labor end up "hiring more tech workers and paying them more, because they become more efficient and sometimes scale up." In fact, studies show each H-1B worker creates approximately 1.83 jobs for native-born Americans.
The UK's Migration Advisory Committee, after reviewing studies from 2003-2018, concluded that "immigration had little or no impact on average employment or unemployment of existing workers" and "little impact on average wages."
The overwhelming consensus among economists is that immigration grows the economic pie rather than merely redistributing slices. That's why America's most immigrant-rich cities consistently have the highest wages, not the lowest.
PLEASE, I am begging you. Spend 15 minutes reading actual economic research before posting confidently incorrect Econ 101 oversimplifications. The "immigrants take our jobs" fallacy has been debunked by virtually every reputable economic study for the past 30 years. This isn't some fringe academic view. It's the overwhelming consensus of actual economists who study this for a living. Your intuition about "more workers = lower wages" seems logical but falls apart when tested against actual economic data. The real world is more complex than a supply-and-demand graph from an introductory textbook.