Random Politics & Religion #35: It's Turtle Time!

what's the big deal about immigrants coming to the US anyways?

Legal ones? Not a big deal at all.
Illegal ones? There's a huge list of ways that they can negatively affect the rest of the populace simply because they're not vetted.

Legally? Absolutely nothing, legal immigration is great because it brings in talents from other parts of the world and is one of the things that made American great.

Hordes of poor unskilled, uneducated economic migrants looking to live off a welfare state? Big *** problem because they drain the system without putting much value back in. Or to put another way, are you willing to donate $10,000 USD per year to an economic migrant while also providing food and shelter for anyone they bring with them? That is what's being asked of myself and other working professionals.

You can't get welfare if you arent a citizen.

This is how you "MAGA":
Provide for our citizens and the foreigners that come here to be part of our nation. Build up the poor and the weak. Be kind to those seeking asylum. Love what is good, honest, and pure. Hate what is evil, deceitful, and greedy for selfish gains.

You can't get welfare if you arent a citizen.

Unfortunately it doesn't work that way. Taxes are largely done at the federal level while welfare spending is at the state level. The federal government reimburses states on much of their welfare expenditures and thus redistributes wealth.

https://socialwelfare.library.vcu.edu/public-welfare/federal-state-public-welfare-programs/

This system was put in place to assist the under developed rural area's by transferring some of the economic prosperity from the developed urban area's. It's a vital system because the economic engines that are cities rely on the resources and manpower produced in the rural, and the cities will rarely distribute that wealth back. Now because states control how the welfare is spent they can "distribute" it however they want, meaning give it to "poor deserving undocumented immigrants" with the only requirement be that they vote Democrat.

Democrats attempting to use this system to buy their way into power has resulted in all sorts of *** up economics happening.

You can get many programs not being a citizen. Being in the healthcare industry in NY you can get medicaid, food plus(essentially food stamps for non-citizens), free public school education, etc.

There are a million workarounds for federal programs and more for state programs. The fact that you cannot get welfare if not a citizen is untrue. From a pure safety standpoint, and I have seen it first hand with migrant workers in my area that come up for the summer months for farm work. The are largely uneducated, vaccinated and often bring illnesses that we vax for but they do not in their home countries. We in the Syracuse area had a smallpox outbreak linked to a migrant farm where about 18 migrant workers were hospitalized.

We actually have a large boarder patrol presence here in my area of CNY, not just because of border with Canada but we have 100's of migrant workers come here on work visa's and then disappear into society in the fall when it is time to return.

To the part or what you said I put in bold:
These are essential for fixing the issue with immigrants being uneducated, unskilled, not vaccinated. This is a good thing for immigrants and US citizens to provide these benefits. These benefits build up immigrants and makes them stronger and more valuable as citizens and in turn makes us stronger as a whole people. Fixing a problem requires investment. The same is true for immigrants and new citizens.

So if I am understanding this correctly. The problem is still not the immigrants. The problem is still our system that is in place.

So if I am understanding this correctly. The problem is still not the immigrants. The problem is still our system that is in place.

To the part I put in bold text:
These are essential for fixing the issue with immigrants being uneducated, unskilled, not vaccinated. This is a good thing for immigrants and US citizens to provide these benefits. These benefits build up immigrants and makes them stronger and more valuable as citizens and in turn makes us stronger as a whole people. Fixing a problem requires investment. The same is true for immigrants and new citizens.

what's the big deal about immigrants coming to the US anyways?

At that time there wasn't really any "illegal immigrants" and the language is written to make anyone born on US soil a citizen by birth. Traveling used to take many months so the concept of an "anchor baby" as a way to bypass immigration laws didn't exist either.

You would have greater success arguing for the removal of the 2nd Amendment then the 14th as the 14th's is iron plated in it's simplicity. Instead remove the incentive to use an anchor baby, that the mother can submit paperwork as the both beneficiary of legal status and as the petitioner for that beneficiary. Specifically the newborn baby petitions UCIS for legal status for the illegal mother requesting an hardship exemption because separation from the mother would bring extreme hardship on the US citizen baby. The mother signs for the baby as the babies legal guardian, she also signs for herself. This paperwork creates an immigration case that takes ~years~ to finish and it usually results in legal status being granted by an immigration judge.

I would propose to make that situation impossible, the beneficiary can not be the legal guardian of an infant petitioner and that specific exemption would no longer be considered. The baby would still be 100% a US citizen and would go into foster care or be given to an adoption agency. If the mother doesn't want to do that then herself and the baby are deported together. The baby can always be admitted but the mother can't be.

Would do away with the entire point of an "anchor baby".

The mild dive ive done has lead me to believe that there is documented precident that prior to the 60s, birthright citizenship was not interpreted in the same manner. There were foreign dignitaries and nationals that were not affored this privilege.

Constitutionally, if one precident has existed in the past and was not changed as a result of a ruling, then its certainly up for debate. The constitution is theoretically bound by the intent of the founders and those who wrote it. Thats what makes it not a “living document” and thus why the left hates it so very very much.

Please lecture me on the 14th amendment I need to know this.

This the internet everything is a debate...