Immigration & Welfare

[RestorationOfLiberty]

As long as the US continues to only immigrate highly-educated, highly-skilled Muslims, the integration problem the Europeans have isn't going to be a problem. European nations have issues with integrating not just those from the ME, but Asians, Eastern Europeans, etc. It is because they have lax immigration standards. They're getting the rednecks and village idiots of the original countries.

The US gets the best of the best; they can typically speak English, are at least college educated (and hence more open to other cultures/ideas), have a valuable job set, and come here willing to sacrifice some culture to improve their lives in real ways.

2 Genners are not the best, regression to the mean dude.

[Swordsmyth]

Ask Native Americans if they thought the Europeans were just moving from one part of Britain to another. The Europeans were all immigrants at some point in time.

Ask them if open borders was a good idea.

[TheCount]

Its very clear via reading the 14th Amendment that they are not subject to our jurisdiction.

It's obviously not very clear because you do not understand what that means. If they are not subject to our jurisdiction then none of our laws apply to them.


Can a foreigner in the US be prosecuted for crimes they commit in the US? Then they are subject to its jurisdiction.

[RestorationOfLiberty]

Ask them if open borders was a good idea.

If you can find one...We will be waiting for their opinions Juan.

[RestorationOfLiberty]

It's obviously not very clear because you do not understand what that means. If they are not subject to our jurisdiction then none of our laws apply to them.


Can a foreigner in the US be prosecuted for crimes they commit in the US? Then they are subject to its jurisdiction.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...zenship-john-c

John Yoo’s NR essay repeats one of the same basic flaws. The first clause of the 14th Amendment provides that “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.” The Journal thinks the meaning is “straightforward”: “Subject to the jurisdiction” covers everyone born on U.S. soil (except the children of diplomats and invading armies), because “‘jurisdiction’ defines the territory where the force of law applies and to whom — and this principle is well settled to include almost everyone within U.S. borders, regardless of their home country or the circumstances of their birth.” It then states: “By the circular restrictionist logic, illegal immigrants could not be prosecuted for committing crimes because they are not U.S. citizens.” RELATED:.


Trump’s Critics Are Wrong About the 14th Amendment and Birthright Citizenship Professor Yoo makes the same claim (absent the ad hominem word “restrictionist”): “Almost all aliens in the United States, even citizens of other nations, still fall within our jurisdiction while they are in our territory: Otherwise they could commit crimes of all sorts without fear of punishment.” This claim plays off a widespread ignorance about the meaning of the word “jurisdiction.” It fails to recognize that the same word covers two distinctly different ideas: 1) complete, political jurisdiction; and 2) partial, territorial jurisdiction. Think of it this way. When a British tourist visits the United States, he subjects himself to our laws as long as he remains within our borders. He must drive on the right side of the road, for example. He is subject to our partial, territorial jurisdiction, but he does not thereby subject himself to our complete, political jurisdiction. He does not get to vote, or serve on a jury; he cannot be drafted into our armed forces; and he cannot be prosecuted for treason if he takes up arms against us, because he owes us no allegiance. He is merely a “temporary sojourner,” to use the language employed by those who wrote the 14th Amendment, and not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States in the full and complete sense intended by that language in the 14th Amendment.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/422960/we-can-apply-14th-amendment-while-also-reforming-birthright-citizenship-john-c"

Maybe you should learn THEN comment.

[TheCount]

John Yoo

You have got to be kidding.

[Zippyjuan]

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...zenship-john-c

John Yoo’s NR essay repeats one of the same basic flaws. The first clause of the 14th Amendment provides that “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.” The Journal thinks the meaning is “straightforward”: “Subject to the jurisdiction” covers everyone born on U.S. soil (except the children of diplomats and invading armies), because “‘jurisdiction’ defines the territory where the force of law applies and to whom — and this principle is well settled to include almost everyone within U.S. borders, regardless of their home country or the circumstances of their birth.” It then states: “By the circular restrictionist logic, illegal immigrants could not be prosecuted for committing crimes because they are not U.S. citizens.” RELATED:.


Trump’s Critics Are Wrong About the 14th Amendment and Birthright Citizenship Professor Yoo makes the same claim (absent the ad hominem word “restrictionist”): “Almost all aliens in the United States, even citizens of other nations, still fall within our jurisdiction while they are in our territory: Otherwise they could commit crimes of all sorts without fear of punishment.” This claim plays off a widespread ignorance about the meaning of the word “jurisdiction.” It fails to recognize that the same word covers two distinctly different ideas: 1) complete, political jurisdiction; and 2) partial, territorial jurisdiction. Think of it this way. When a British tourist visits the United States, he subjects himself to our laws as long as he remains within our borders. He must drive on the right side of the road, for example. He is subject to our partial, territorial jurisdiction, but he does not thereby subject himself to our complete, political jurisdiction. He does not get to vote, or serve on a jury; he cannot be drafted into our armed forces; and he cannot be prosecuted for treason if he takes up arms against us, because he owes us no allegiance. He is merely a “temporary sojourner,” to use the language employed by those who wrote the 14th Amendment, and not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States in the full and complete sense intended by that language in the 14th Amendment.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/422960/we-can-apply-14th-amendment-while-also-reforming-birthright-citizenship-john-c"

Maybe you should learn THEN comment.

"Not subject to the laws of the US" referred to diplomats and their families and "the various native tribes". Illegal immigrants ARE subject to the laws of the United States and can be prosecuted for any crimes they may commit. Convicts are also not eligible for jury duty or voting but are still citizens and still subject to the jurisdiction of the US. That is a poor example.

[RestorationOfLiberty]

"Not subject to the laws of the US" referred to diplomats and their families and "the various native tribes". Illegal immigrants ARE subject to the laws of the United States and can be prosecuted for any crimes they may commit. Convicts are also not eligible for jury duty or voting but are still citizens and still subject to the jurisdiction of the US. That is a poor example.

You clearly did not read the post, its OK, you have to deny reality in order to spew your lies.