Trump Desires to be Sued Over Birthright Citizenship, Does Anyone Understand Why?

[canpakes]

Unrelated (but related), but some may find it helpful to read the Cato Institute's Director of Immigration Studies recent testimony to the House. Unless Cato has became a leftist outlet in recent times, and can no longer be trusted by people with right-leaning ideologies..

Was he talkin’ about the report at the link below?

https://www.cato.org/blog/Trump-release ... um-seekers

[Bret Ripley]

Unrelated (but related), but some may find it helpful to read the Cato Institute's Director of Immigration Studies recent testimony to the House. Unless Cato has became a leftist outlet in recent times, and can no longer be trusted by people with right-leaning ideologies..

Was he talkin’ about the report at the link below?

https://www.cato.org/blog/Trump-release ... um-seekers

Not even the Cato Institute is immune to TDS:

"... while the Trump administration (2017–2020) was prioritizing prosecutions of migrant parents, separating families, and banning asylum, it also released criminals, including those who went on to commit crimes.

"Candidate Trump’s “mass deportation” agenda will make the country less safe in two significant ways. First, it would remove a population that is less likely to commit crimes, ultimately making America’s neighborhoods less safe. For instance, Cato’s research has shown that both legal and illegal immigrants are nearly half as likely to commit crimes for which they are incarcerated in the United States ...

"The second problem with mass deportation is just as significant: it would shift focus away from the removal of immigrants who do commit crimes. Noncitizens who commit serious crimes should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and deported. Whatever amount the government spends on immigration enforcement, it should spend on detaining and removing this small minority of individuals. Donald Trump claims that he did that, but the facts tell a different story regarding his record on migrant criminals."

There is a section of the report titled "Trump’s Policies Caused a Surge of Illegal Entries by Criminals," which just goes to show what can happen when TDS goes untreated.

[Markk]

A constitutional lawyer, Katie Cherasky, is stating that the Supreme Court has never offered a decision on this, and there is no precedence, and IHO Trump wants the court to hear this.

Isn't United States v. Wong Kim Ark literally a precedence for this exact thing? Whether someone born to non-citizens on US soil is a citizen by birthright. You sure she's not just a news personality with a law degree that claims to specialize in Constitutional Law? Or perhaps I'm not understanding what precedence you're referring to.


Unrelated (but related), but some may find it helpful to read the Cato Institute's Director of Immigration Studies recent testimony to the House. Unless Cato has became a leftist outlet in recent times, and can no longer be trusted by people with right-leaning ideologies..

I am not sure, but from what I read I think maybe Cherasky was saying there is no precedence on the court opining on one being born here when their parents were here illegally. I could not find whether or not Arks parents were here legally or not, but from what little I did find, it appears they might have been here legally, but that the lines were much different then.

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1850-1900/169us649
https://encyclopedia.densho.org/United_ ... g_Kim_Ark/

I suppose we will see soon what the argument is.

[Markk]

Gunner wrote: No, I don't necessarily want an open border, and I don't think we really have one now. But thank you for sharing the information you showed me that there are ways to design barriers that can effectively reduce the number of illegal border crossings but are also less environmentally damaging. There are certainly sections of the border where walls make more sense and are more practical than at other sites. I won't deny that, but there are also large sections of the border where building a wall is both impractical and prohibitively expensive. I don't think that building a wall along the entire 1,954-mile length of the border is either practical or the most cost-effective means of securing our border. I am convinced that there are large sections of the border where electronic surveillance and aerial surveillance by both manned and autonomous aircraft plus ground vehicles can be both sufficiently effective and more cost effective.

What kind of border do you envision, if not open?

Is Trump's saying he wants a wall along the whole border? CFR, I was never under that assumption. I thought they say there were places there would not need a wall? I agree they will use, and already use "electronic surveillance and aerial surveillance by both manned and autonomous aircraft plus ground vehicles can be both sufficiently effective and more cost effective."....and I will add a larger and more energized border patrol. Also what is import, very important, is that when some do get through illegally, getting them out ASAP is critical and send a huge message.

Would you be open to having anyone that wants to become a citizen, or receive a work visa....apply for one via our laws and system, and respect that system, and come here only if approved? And if they do not want to follow our laws and rules, be immediately removed. I have no problem with that at all.

Gunner: Yet, I think it would be nice if relations and mutual trust between us and our neighbor nations were such that communication and travel between us were freer and less hostile, more like the minimal restrictions concerning crossing the borders between the individual U.S. states or between the various nations of the EU. I know that isn't possible or practical now, but I wish it were.

How would you propose to keep criminals and terrorists out, drugs out, and people who do not want to contribute, but just bilk and take advantage our very giving system?

[Gunnar]

It seems likely to me that Trump's emphasis on targeting asylum seekers is probably due to his ignorance of the difference between people seeking asylum to escape unjust persecution from corrupt and evil authoritarian regimes, and people who are or have been patients in insane asylums. He seems to have the ludicrous idea that other nations are merely trying to dump the insane patients from their mental hospitals on us to avoid the time and expense to treat them themselves.

[Gunnar]

Is Trump's saying he wants a wall along the whole border? CFR, I was never under that assumption. I thought they say there were places there would not need a wall? I agree they will use, and already use "electronic surveillance and aerial surveillance by both manned and autonomous aircraft plus ground vehicles can be both sufficiently effective and more cost effective."....and I will add a larger and more energized border patrol. Also what is import, very important, is that when some do get through illegally, getting them out ASAP is critical and send a huge message.

Would you be open to having anyone that wants to become a citizen, or receive a work visa....apply for one via our laws and system, and respect that system, and come here only if approved? And if they do not want to follow our laws and rules, be immediately removed. I have no problem with that at all.

I would be fine with that as long as the standards applied for approval were reasonable and fair, and not unreasonably exclusive and onerous.

Gunner: Yet, I think it would be nice if relations and mutual trust between us and our neighbor nations were such that communication and travel between us were freer and less hostile, more like the minimal restrictions concerning crossing the borders between the individual U.S. states or between the various nations of the EU. I know that isn't possible or practical now, but I wish it were.

How would you propose to keep criminals and terrorists out, drugs out, and people who do not want to contribute, but just bilk and take advantage our very giving system?

By applying reasonable, responsible and fair standards and vetting for approval or rejection as warranted.

[Markk]

Is Trump's saying he wants a wall along the whole border? CFR, I was never under that assumption. I thought they say there were places there would not need a wall? I agree they will use, and already use "electronic surveillance and aerial surveillance by both manned and autonomous aircraft plus ground vehicles can be both sufficiently effective and more cost effective."....and I will add a larger and more energized border patrol. Also what is import, very important, is that when some do get through illegally, getting them out ASAP is critical and send a huge message.

Would you be open to having anyone that wants to become a citizen, or receive a work visa....apply for one via our laws and system, and respect that system, and come here only if approved? And if they do not want to follow our laws and rules, be immediately removed. I have no problem with that at all.

I would be fine with that as long as the standards applied for approval were reasonable and fair, and not unreasonably exclusive and onerous.

How would you propose to keep criminals and terrorists out, drugs out, and people who do not want to contribute, but just bilk and take advantage our very giving system?

By applying reasonable, responsible and fair standards and vetting for approval or rejection as warranted.

So what is unreasonable about our current system and sop to become a citizen and/or obtain a work visa?


Here is the application, is there anything un-reasonable about this?

https://www.uscis.gov/citizenship/apply-for-citizenship

[Jersey Girl]

It seems likely to me that Trump's emphasis on targeting asylum seekers is probably due to his ignorance of the difference between people seeking asylum to escape unjust persecution from corrupt and evil authoritarian regimes, and people who are or have been patients in insane asylums. He seems to have the ludicrous idea that other nations are merely trying to dump the insane patients from their mental hospitals on us to avoid the time and expense to treat them themselves.

Oh my word, GUN-ar! I think you may have just hit the nail on the head with that! It's scary to think how ignorant a person could be but...it does seem to fit.

[Jersey Girl]

An alternative response...so if you are right, he thinks that folks dumped out from insane asylums and are seeking entry into the US, and now (no really get this)...he has ICE agents yanking them off presumably steady jobs in Jersey and now Chicago. They can show up for work and do the work, but they're slap out of their minds and dangerous.

[Gunnar]

It seems likely to me that Trump's emphasis on targeting asylum seekers is probably due to his ignorance of the difference between people seeking asylum to escape unjust persecution from corrupt and evil authoritarian regimes, and people who are or have been patients in insane asylums. He seems to have the ludicrous idea that other nations are merely trying to dump the insane patients from their mental hospitals on us to avoid the time and expense to treat them themselves.

Oh my word, GUN-ar! I think you may have just hit the nail on the head with that! It's scary to think how ignorant a person could be but...it does seem to fit.

I am far from the first person to have suggested that.

Or it may be more likely that he knows the difference but is counting on large numbers of voters being too ignorant to know the difference being persuaded that that is what is meant by asylum seekers.