I think that is not holding.
The second generation improves, but the end result is that the US is going to have a less skilled workforce though as even after four generations the academic achievement levels of Mexican-Americans is below the national average.
This is part of the massive cost of the achievement gap which is the equivalent to a permanent national recession according to McKinsey.
Repeating that does not change the fact that McKinsey had to tell us “If these results continue to hold”
The latest studies reported that it does not.
This is what Israel does - it hired asylum seekers to help build a fence with Egypt to keep out further migrants.
(regarding the supposed emitting countries refusing to accept back migrants supposed to be from their country)
it happens all the time for the countries like the France which has this deportation policy.
It is not exceptional, it is ordinary and must be expected.
Why not take the whole lesson of the roots of these policies and build camps, in new lands. You can even rebrand them with the american marketing as the original names are not very acceptable in the present world.
I have always loved how self centered and yet poorly informed about how other countries work in any given area that a certain class of americans are.
Well remember with the Berlin wall you had a wall that that was only a few feet to cross in some areas. Plus you had a west German government who welcomed East Germans with open arms. The only place close to that situation would be in San Diego and I guess many long tunnels have been found there.
Plus the Berlin wall was an artificial wall set up by a foreign government to split up a nation.
I dont think the 2 are the same.
Um, I think you have made a mistake in operating your quotation machine.
It what way is voluntary and paid labor the same as slave labor?
As I have mentioned before, I’m very supportive of jus soli in the US; I will not begrudge anybody who wants to better the lives of their family by coming here. However, I’d be willing to repeal it as part of a compromise:
- Make the border wide open; let people who want to try and find a job do so.
- Increase penalties (or step up enforcement) for hiring illegal aliens (which, given #1, mostly means paying under the table).
- Repeal jus soli.
- Remove quotas on citizenship; if they’be been here X years with a job and no arrests then they qualify.
The hard part is figuring out what benefits to give to immigrants who have a job but are not yet citizens. I’d be concerned about the practical problem of attracting more immigrants than available jobs. I don’t know if that is solvable to the satisfaction of a majority.
It’s kinda pathetic how CNN tries to [nitpick at Trump](Donald Trump undermines his own immigration policy):
So Trump basically says that those foreigners who graduate from US colleges should have an easy path to stay in the country. And CNN tries to frame it as if he’s contradicting his statement about “the influx of foreign workers” keeping salaries from growing, keeping unemployment high and making it difficult for “poor and working class Americans … to earn a middle class wage.”
That’s really grasping at straws trying to fault Trump for something. The two statements are not contradictory. A foreigner who comes to the US and, especially in STEM fields, earns a degree, especially a graduate degree, is a great asset, and keeping him in the US is an obvious benefit. That has nothing to do with the other statements by Trump, as much as you may object to them.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d103:S1351:
S.1351
Latest Title: Immigration Stabilization Act of 1993
Sponsor: Sen Reid, Harry (introduced 8/4/1993)
Go to the text of the legislation. At the end:
SEC. 1001. BASIS OF CITIZENSHIP CLARIFIED.
In the exercise of its powers under section 5 of the Fourteenth Article of Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the Congress has determined and hereby declares that any person born after the date of enactment of this title to a mother who is neither a citizen of the United States nor admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident, and which person is a national or citizen of another country of which either of his or her natural parents is a national or citizen, or is entitled upon application to become a national or citizen of such country, shall be considered as born subject to the jurisdiction of that foreign country and not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States within the meaning of section 1 of such Article and shall therefore not be a citizen of the United States or of any State solely by reason of physical presence within the United States at the moment of birth.
This is not the first time I’ve heard “subject to the juirisdiction thereof” clause used as an excuse to deny citizenship to people born in the U.S.
I don’t believe it can possibly withstand constitutional scrutiny, although, of course, it only takes five Supreme Court Justices to tell us what the authors of the14th Amendment “really meant” or what the text of the amendment “really means.”
Here is a good discussion of it: https://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=463532
The law is not as settled as you’d think. None of the relevant SC cases decided whether children born to illegal aliens fall under the Fourteenth.
How exactly does that work according to Trump? Do the foreign workers keep unemployment high because they are cheaper to hire than Americans are?
Well - let’s assume that were true. What would Trump’s “medicine” of keeping the foreign workers away really achieve? I suppose his line of reasoning is that companies would now have to resort to hiring Americans and paying them a “middle class wage”.
But of course that money has to come from somewhere. Few companies have deep enough coffers so that they could afford to ignore that kind of a cost hike. The vast majority would either have to cut cost elsewhere (an option rarely available) or to increase income. Increasing income means, selling your product at higher prices. If you cannot do that, because the market won’t buy at higher prices, your company goes bust. (Not the best way to create jobs.) If you can, good for your company and If that company is mainly selling on international markets, even good for America. If the company is selling on domestic markets - and most are - someone of course has to pay the higher prices. At the end of the day that is you, the consumer.
So when Trump suggests to help the “poor and working class Americans”, who are so close to his heart, he wants all of you to pay for that. He just somehow fails to mention it.
Are we being asked to follow the 3 absolutely meaningless statements in the OP as if they were actual policy positions?
At best you might consider the 3 statements together as some kind of guiding philosophy. As policy, they are empty sets.
It should be noted that Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump are in agreement on foreign workers.
Then that would mean that foreign embassy staff that have babies here are giving birth to American citizens.
Among all likely voters, 51% favor building a wall on the border; 37% disagree, and 12% are not sure.
…
Fifty-four percent (54%) of voters disagree with the current federal policy that says a child born to an illegal immigrant here is automatically a U.S. citizen.
Seems like Trump has significant support of the voters for his immigration policies.
The voters support enforcing the law. The voters support less immigration, not more. The only thing voters agree with liberals on is an earned amnesty, and even there liberals are trying to do a bait and switch.