jus sanguinis
There’s something illogical about calling a child born and raised in America foreign. Hasn’t this caused lots of problems in Europe ?
You and your wife? go to Thailand for a vacation when you/she is 8 months pregnant. You/she has complications and has to be rushed to the hospital for an early delivery. Is it illogical for you to assume that the child shares your citizenship, rather than a Thai one?
I see your point, but creating whole generations of “foreigners” who have never been to their “home” countries has its own problems.
So what! Children born here to foreign diplomats are not granted citizenship. Why can’t we draw the line wherever we want?
We can (albeit by amending the Constitution). I simply believe that it is fundamentally wrong and short-sighted.
Is there anyone else here who is in favor of not granting citizenship to children born in the U.S. to parents who are legally present in the U.S.? If so, why, and under what conditions?
Oh really? Please show us how it defies logic. Please be specific. Please keep in in mind what his goal is, which is to fix a huge problem facing our nation. So please, show how his proposed restrictions conflict with that goal.
If you haven’t noticed, the idea is to change our immigration policy, partly by imposing more restrictions and being more responsible in enforcing our immigration laws. There is a huge problem that the wise and courageous Tom Tancredo has been addressing for the past few years when the rest of Washington, including the two candidtates who ran last year, were silent on the issue.
Fortunately, his persistence has paid off and it is now on the table. He deserves a medal.
What’s the big deal? If people follow the laws there’ll be no jail time, no forfeiture, nothing. I mean, you do think peolpe should follow our laws, don’t you?
So with your great command of the legal profession, you’ve deliberated and reached the measured conclusion that…someone is an idiot.
Interesting you would use that word: “idiot”… Did you perhaps consider coming to other equally logical and insightful legal conclusions? Perhaps “fucking idiot”? Or is there a legal distinction between the two that lay person such as myself are not aware of? How about “asshole”? In you thoroughly considered legal opinion, would that have been an option, as well? It seems to capture the spirit you intend, but there might be a technical distinction I’m missing. Please, share your knowledge and fight the ignorance!
AKA “Eva Luna, Illegal Immigration Advocate”. I mean let’s be honest…
Please explain. Why wrong? Why shortsighted?
In your analysis you might want to take into account what a hugh problem illegal immigration problem presents the United States. Namely:
- Loss of national identity. Unlike large immigration waves in the past, the current one from south of the border is not assimilating into our society the way previous groups did. The reasons:
•There exist large Spanish-speaking populations in many cities, so the need to assimilate in order to function is not so great as for say, Russian-Jews at the beginning of the last century.
•They are not as eager to be “American” as previous immigrants were. This is due to the fact that their native countries are so close, they plan to go back to visit, if not to live. This, combined with the previous bullet, means there is very little to gain and something to lose by embracing a new country fully and completely.
•Language: America, by virtue of it’s being a conglomeration of people from so many diverse places benefits from having one language. A very large group that adheres to their old language and culture too strongly begins to balkanize the country. This can be seen in many large cities where all signs for blocks are in Spanish.
Additionally, excessive accommodation of one culture leads to an argument for all cultures. Right now, Canada is having to make accommodations for Sharia law, as Muslim’s insist that their legal traditions be recognized along with those of other laws. While the existence of other cultures make for a rich societal experience, the society needs a dominant culture to unite all the diverse groups. (This is also one of the reasons I am in favor of the U.S. having an official language.)
-
Dilution of citizenship. It should be self-evident that the more “rights” and privileges the country bestows upon non-citizens, the less meaning citizenship has. In Chicago and New York, and possibly other areas, this pendulum has swung so far that illegal immigrants are voting in school board elections.
-
Cost. Illegal immigrants are a drain on services and our coffers. As of now, they are legally entitled to emergency medical care (which they abuse, treating ERs as doctors’ offices), education (with the added cost of language instruction), and welfare.
Although I have seen in stated on these boards that Illegal immigrants contribute more to the U.S. than they get out of it, the information I’ve found indicates the opposite.
General
In California during 2004, illegal immigrants were responsible for $10.5 billion in government outlays, while paying $1.7 billion in taxes, for a net drain of $8.8 billion. (FAIR)
In Florida during the same year, illegal immigrants were responsible for 1.8 billion in outlays, while paying .9 billion in taxes, for a net drain of $.9 billion. (FAIR)
The Center for Immigration Studies looked at the national picture for 2002. They found costs to the federal government to be $26.3 billion, tax receipts to be $16 billion, for a net drain of $10.4 billion.
Center for Immigration Studies:
California study:
http://www.fairus.org/site/DocServe...s.pdf?docID=141
Florida study:
http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServ...lcoststudy_html
National numbers
http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServ...ch_researchf6ad
Education
Florida spends $1.5 billion a year to educate illegal immigrant children and their U.S.-born siblings. California spends $7.7 billion, enough to buy computers for half the legal school children in the state. (FAIR)
In 2004, illegal alien students and U.S.-born children of illegal aliens cost California $7.7 billion, Texas $3.9 billion, New York $3.1 billion. The bill to all 50 states is over $26.6 billion. (FAIR)
Healthcare
Taxpayer-funded, unreimbursed medical outlays for health care provided to the state’s illegal alien population cost Floridians about $165 million a year. In California, the number is $1.4 billion. (FAIR)
Not to mention hospital closings due to unreimbursed care given to illegals. The only information I have right now is that illegals are responsible for 84 hospital and emergency room closings in the past 10 years or so. I believe that is in the Southwest and West only.
Wages
This from this article: http://www.vdare.com/rubenstein/policy_cost.htm, (which has links to original research done by a Harvard economist and the National Research Council) states that:
“…The 1995 findings of Harvard economist George Borjas [George Borjas, “The Economic Benefits from Immigration,” Journal of Economic Perspectives, Spring, 1995] were confirmed by the National Research Council’s 1997 report The New Americans: essentially all the increase in Gross Domestic product [GDP] brought about by immigration is captured by the immigrants themselves, in the form of wages. Virtually no benefit accrues to native-born Americans.
(And once transfer payments like welfare, education and healthcare are factored in, immigration becomes a net cost—for example, over $1,000 in annual extra taxes per native-born household in California. Americans are financing their own dispossession.)
Even less publicized: the Borjas model reveals the true economic consequence of immigration: a massive redistribution of wealth within the American native-born community—basically, from labor to capital, because of immigration’s impact on wages.
The key variable: the rate at which native-born wages fall as the total number of workers rises—the so-called “price elasticity” of labor. Borjas estimates that each 10% increase in immigrant workers reduces native wages by about 3.5%. About 14% of employed workers in 2002 were immigrants. So the reduction in native wages attributable to immigrants that year was approximately 4.9% (35% of 14%).
As our reader told his dinner companions, it’s true that immigrants don’t do work Americans won’t do—they just do it for less.
But, more importantly, immigrants do indeed do one dirty job: make it easier for Americans to exploit each other.
I’ve recalculated this immigration impact on the basis of the latest government data. This is how it came out:
Net economic gain from the immigrant presence to native-born Americans, before transfer payments: just 0.2 percent of GDP (that is, two-tenth of one percent!) in today’s 10.4 trillion economy – that comes to a mere $84 per native-born American.
Native-born capital-owners’ gain as a result of immigration: about 3.1% of GDP, or $323.8 billion. This goes to employers and, for example, upper-income owners of stocks and employers of servants.
Native-born workers’ loss as a result of immigration: about 2.9% of GDP —$302.9 billion in a $10.4 trillion economy, or a remarkable $2,578 for each native-born worker every year.”
Warning: the original research done by Borjas is true egghead economics. Not for the faint of heart. Admittedly, I was lost through much of it.
Other
Then there’s also money taken out of the economy and sent to the illegal immigrants’ native countries. The Pew Hispanic Center estimates that the amount, which does not capture all remittances to Latin America, will go beyond $18 billion for 2005.
Not all “costs” are monetary. The drain on services is creating major problems for our education and medical infrastructures. Schools in border states are becoming overcrowded and are saddled with the increased expense of language instruction. The general student population suffers, as well, because classes have to be slowed down to accommodate so many non-native speakers. Many parents find the need to move their children to private school, increasing the burden on them.
I’ll end with an interesting anecdote that illustrates the problem well. It is from this article: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/a...RTICLE_ID=43275
“Cristobal Silverio emigrated illegally from Mexico to Stockton, Calif., in 1997 to work as a fruit picker.
He brought with him his wife, Felipa, and three children, 19, 12 and 8 – all illegals. When Felipa gave birth to her fourth child, daughter Flor, the family had what is referred to as an “anchor baby” – an American citizen by birth who provided the entire Silverio clan a ticket to remain in the U.S. permanently.
But Flor was born premature, spent three months in the neonatal incubator and cost the San Joaquin Hospital more than $300,000. Meanwhile, oldest daughter Lourdes married an illegal alien gave birth to a daughter, too. Her name is Esmeralda. And Felipa had yet another child, Cristian.
The two Silverio anchor babies generate $1,000 per month in public welfare funding for the family. Flor gets $600 a month for asthma. Healthy Cristian gets $400. While the Silverios earned $18,000 last year picking fruit, they picked up another $12,000 for their two ‘anchor babies.’”
- National Security. The more porous our borders are the greater the risk that terrorists can sneak across. In September 2004, The Washington Times reported that a top al Qaeda lieutenant had met with the Salvadoran street gang Mara Salvatruch (MS-13) to access their network of alien smugglers. In June of 2005, two Iraqis were apprehended in a border town near San Diego, along with two suspected alien smugglers.
Link (password necessary, but free): http://insider.washingtontimes.com/...30-124933-1494r
- National Health. In addition to being a drain on our healthcare system to the point that hospitals have had to close their doors, illegals are responsible for resuscitating deadly diseases we’ve eradicated, as well as bringing us new ones. From a report in the Journalal of American Physicians and Surgeons ([URLhttp://www.jpands.org/vol10no1/cosman.pdf):
“Many illegals who cross our borders have tuberculosis. That disease had largely disappeared from America, thanks to excellent hygiene and powerful modern drugs such as isoniazid and rifampin. TB’s swift, deadly return now is lethal for about 60 percent of those infected because of new Multi-Drug Resistant Tuberculosis (MDRTB). Until recently MDR-TB was endemic to Mexico. This Mycobacterium tuberculosis is resistant to at least two major antitubercular drugs. OrdinaryTB usually is cured in six months with four drugs that cost about $2,000. MDR-TB takes 24 months with many expensive drugs that cost around $250,000,with toxic side effects. Each illegal with MDR-TB coughs and infects 10 to 30 people, who will not show symptoms immediately. Latent disease explodes later.
TB was virtually absent in Virginia until in 2002, when it spiked a 17 percent increase, but Prince William County, just south of Washington, D.C., had a much larger rise of 188 percent. Public health officials blamed immigrants. In 2001 the Indiana School of Medicine studied an outbreak of MDR-TB, and traced it to Mexican illegal aliens. The Queens, New York, health department attributed 81 percent of new TB cases in 2001 to immigrants. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ascribed 42 percent of all new TB cases to “foreign born” people who have up to eight times higher incidence. Apparently, 66 percent of all TB cases coming to America originate in Mexico, the Philippines, and Vietnam….
Chagas disease…is transmitted by the reduviid bug, which prefers to bite the lips and face. The protozoan parasite that it carries…infects 18 million people annually in Latin America and causes 50,000 deaths. This disease also infiltrates America’s blood supply. Chagas affects blood transfusions and transplanted organs. No cure exists. Hundreds of blood recipients may be silently infected. After 10 to 20 years, up to 30 percent will die when their hearts or intestines, enlarged and weakened by Chagas, burst. Three people in 2001 received Chagas-infected organ transplants.Two died.
Leprosy… was so rare in America that in 40 years only 900 people were afflicted. Suddenly, in the past three years America has more than 7,000 cases of leprosy. Leprosy now is endemic to northeastern states because illegal aliens and other immigrants brought leprosy from India, Brazil, the Caribbean, and Mexico.
Dengue fever is exceptionally rare in America, though common in Ecuador, Peru, Vietnam, Thailand, Bangladesh, Malaysia, and Mexico. …
Polio was eradicated from America, but now reappears in illegal immigrants, as do intestinal parasites.
Malaria was obliterated, but now is re-emerging in Texas. About 4,000 children under age five annually in America develop fever, red eyes, “strawberry tongue,” and acute inflammation of their coronary arteries and other blood vessels because of the infectious malady called Kawasaki disease. Many suffer heart attacks and sudden death.
Hepatitis A, B, and C, are resurging. Asians number 4 percent of Americans, but account for more than half of Hepatitis B cases.”
- Crime. Illegal aliens are responsible for a disproportionate amount of crime committed. (Mind you, even if it was at the same rate as native born it would still be a valid reason.) According to an article by Jim Kouris.
In the population study of 55,322 illegal aliens, researchers found that they were arrested at least a total of 459,614 times… Nearly all had more than 1 arrest. Thirty-eight percent (about 21,000) had between 2 and 5 arrests, 32 percent (about 18,000) had between 6 and 10 arrests, and 26 percent (about 15,000) had 11 or more arrests. Most of the arrests occurred after 1990. ??They were arrested for a total of about 700,000 criminal offenses, averaging about 13 offenses per illegal alien. One arrest incident may include multiple offenses, a fact that explains why there are nearly one and half times more offenses than arrests. …??More than two-thirds of the defendants charged with an immigration offense were identified as having been previously arrested. Thirty-six percent had been arrested on at least 5 prior occasions; 22%, 2 to 4 times; and 12%,1 time.?? Sixty-one percent of those defendants had been convicted at least once; 18%, 5 or more times; 26%, 2 to 4 times; and 17%, 1 time. Of those charged, 49% had previously been? convicted of a felony: 20% of a drug offense; 18%, a violent offense; and 11%, other felony offenses. Twelve percent had previously been convicted of a misdemeanor.?? Defendants charged with unlawful reentry had the most extensive criminal histories. Nine in ten had been previously arrested. Of those with a prior arrest, half had been arrested on at least 5 prior occasions. ??Fifty-six percent of those charged with a reentry offense had previously been convicted of a violent or drug-related felony. By contrast, under half of those charged with alien smuggling, a third of those charged with unlawful entry, and just over a quarter those charged with misuse of visas and other charges had previously been arrested. The criminal histories of these defendants were generally less extensive: more than 70% had been previously arrested fewer than 5 times."?
This article was also interesting, particularly the opening quotes from the Mexican press: http://www.desertinvasion.us/articles/art2005jul12.html
I deliberately did not mention illegal immigration in the examples I chose from Tancredo’s bill, because that is a much more complex issue. I was quite specific. I agree that the causes and effects of illegal immigration are due to large problems of socioeconomic dislocaiton in the world, and more specifically the disparities between the U.S. and Mexico. I do NOT agree that the way to resolve these problems includes building a huge fence across the largest border between a developed and a developing nation in the world. People will always find a way into the U.S. And don’t forget that large numbers of people present in the U.S. without any lawful immigration status came legally, but overstayed their visas.
Or do you really think it makes sense for adjudication of H-1B petitions to require a security check no more than 7 days before the beginning of the proposed position when adjudication of an H-1B petition is taking up to 6 months, and security namechecks are taking several weeks and up in some cases? You would be building in a delay of anywhere to 3 months to infinity past the proposed start date. There are lots more examples where that came from.
Change is needed, I agree. I think the changes Tancredo is proposing are, for the most part, moronic.
Sure I think people should follow laws. But I also think penalties should bear some relationship to the violation. What the hell relationship does asset forfeiture have with overstaying a visa? Do you also think people should forfeit their homes if they write a bad check, for example?
In a word, yes. "Idiot"would be the accurate term for someone who is attempting to restructure a complex system without having, apparently, any real fundamental understanding of how it works in, you know, real life. I am reserving opinion on Tancredo’s intent, which is why I didn’t use the term “asshole.”
Please show me where, in my initial post, I said anything positive whatsoever about illegal immigration.
You are repeating the same thing that was said about the Chinese and many other immigrant groups throughout the years. The Mexicans that come here will intergrate like all the other groups. If they don’t they will face high unemployment, low education and only the crappiest of jobs. Anyone in that situation will do what it takes to improve their lot or at least do so for their children. In fact, I would say that this attitude does more to prevent Mexicans from integrating than any choice on their part.
I am sorry, are you arguing that discrimination in the legal system against certain religions is a good thing?
That pendulum swinging is a response to the reality of the situation. Legally or illegally these people are here and the government can’t just simply act as though they don’t exist.
I categorically reject the argument that becuase certain people cost the government more than they contribute in taxes they should be kicked out of the country. After all, you can make the same argument about numerous groups currently in the U.S. and I don’t see any movement to kick them out. In regards specifically to immigrants you can view it as an investment into the future of the country. If we work to integrate these people into our economy it will become larger and more able to compete in the global economy.
That is a seperate argument than immigration. If we want to secure our borders against terrorists, whatever, but that is not an argument against immigration.
Easy solution, legalize immigration and give them medical exams as they are coming into the country.
You’re going to have to do better than a cite from desertinvasion.com. Either way, even if illegal immigrants are responsible for a disproportiant amount of crime (which I have little doubt they do) the solution is to give them the oppurtunities to succeed in society that they are currently being denied.
As someone who has gone to great lengths to avoid accidentally moving into Tancredo’s district, I would like to heartily second the “idiot” diagnosis.
I reject this assertion.
I rejected it the last time you made it, when you declared that it was so obvious that it did not need to be supported.
Since I have still seen no evidence that it is true, I still reject it as a manufactured claim based on some nativists overeacting to college student rhetoric in the 1970s and failing to note that the predictions from the 1970s, (of both the Aztlán supporters and the nativists), have failed to come true.
As one example, it was widely reported that the immigrants from the South are refusing to bother to learn English. Yet the numbers do not bear out that claim. Between 1990 and 2000, the number of people who Spoke Spanish as a primary language rose from 17,339,172 to 28,101,052. (the horror), on the other hand, the number of Spanish speakers who spoke English “very well” is over half that number, at 14,349,796 and the number who spoke English “well” was recorded as 5,819,408. So, with an increase of over 10 million Spanish speakers, we still find 20,169,204 people who speak it well–2,830,032 people more than were even in the country in 1990. Since one would generally suppose that the most recent and poorest immigrants would be among those least likely to speak English, it is worth noting that only 7,931,848 Spanish speakers are in the “poor” or “none” categories (of whom only 2,801,448 are categorized as not speaking English, at all).
Census Bureau: Language Use and English-Speaking Ability: 2000 (.pdf)
Now, this does not, in and of itself, prove that they are willing to become “real” Americans. However, one of the founders of your cited F.A.I.R. organization was also a founder of a group to promote English as the official language of the U.S. A common theme in his statements in both organizations was that the immigrants were not assimilating and he pointed to their refusal to learn English as a clear example of that problem.
Yet, here the numbers show that they are not in any way refusing to learn English, so on one measurable scale (a scale set by the nativists), we see that the claim for refusing to assimilate is not supported by facts.
So where is the evidence for the claim? (A claim, as I have noted in earlier discussions, that is identical to the claims made during the last great wave of immigration, when immigrants were a much larger portion of the population, that was false, then.)
This article suggests that a) the relationship between Mexican migration to the U.S. is tied much more closely to economic conditions in Mexico than to anything else; b) blockading borders at specific points so far has served only to make apprehending any given illegal border-crosser more expensive to the U.S. government and more likely to be lethal to the border-crosser; and c) policy changes intended to dissuade illegal Mexican migration to the U.S. are full of all sorts of unintended consequences, for example, increasing legal migration to the U.S.
(By the way, to immigrate to the U.S. legally, a medical exam is already required and has been for ages. It screens for TB, HIV, syphillis, and any other disease of public health significance.)
I was expecting you.
I know you reject the assertion. And you are free to do so. But if I recall correctly, neither of us could find actual numbers that allowed us to reliably compare the rate of assimilation among European immigrants at the turn of the century with the rate of assimilation of those coming from south of the border now. Am I not remembering correctly?
So, it is not a fact. It is an assertion I make, that may or may be incorrect. My real-world experience suggests to me that it is true. But I have seen no proof one way or another.
Something else that I have no numbers for (but I think you will grant) seems to be a safer assertion. It is that the size, and number, of Spanish-speaking communities are growing, not shrinking. So, even if you are correct and the rate of assimilation (of which learning the language is only one component, albeit an important one) is the same as that during the turn of the century—or even greater—the country is still becoming fractured.
If you grant that areas where Spanish is the common language are growing in size and number (which the census data you provided seems to support), then whether the assimilation rate is greater or less than that of the turn of the century is irrelevant. The important point is that the assimilation rate is less than it needs to be. The answer is to do one of two things, possibly both:
• increase the rate of assimilation
• reduce the rate of immigration
Concerning the sole question of reducing these culturally distinct “islands”, I am fully receptive to plans that would fall into both camps. But that is not the sole issue.
Let me ask you a couple of questions, tomndebb. Do you think that the rate of immigration into a country can be too high? If so, does the country have the right to control it? Does a country have the right to control it’s borders and to not alow anyone to sneak in? Do you think that the rate of immigration into the U.S. (illegals and illegal) is too high?
The statistics I supplied just touch on why illegal imigration needs to be stopped cold and legal immigration needs to be controlled to a point where it serves us better.
Regarding the #s from the 2003 census that you provided, it shows that about 28,100,000 people speak language other than English at home. That accounts for about 60% of all those who speak a language other than English at home, and almost 11% of all 262,100,000 in the census. And that does not include those who did not take the census, which I would expect are disproportionately illegal aliens, who, in turn, I would assume, are disproportionately repressented by Spanish speakers from south of the border.
This seems like a significant problem. We have almost 18% of our residents (again, excluding many illegals) speaking a language other than English at home. Much more significant is that we have almost 11% speaking one language. This is amazing, much worse than I would have guessed. And to make matters worse, this group is not evenly dispersed throughout the country. 21% of the 28% of Spanish speakers are concentrated in the South and West.
It appears that the Balkanization of America is well under way.
Thanks. One less vote against him. 
He’s in a fairly safe district. He would need to be knocked off in the primary, I think. And with Republican party unity the way it is these days, that’s unlikely.
It is difficult to find numbers that demonstrate whether this is true or false. If you have some I would love to see them. What is obvious, though is that areas where Spanish is the tongue of the neighborhood are growing, not shrinking. This has lead to a society within a society. Immigration policy should take this into account. More people should not be coming in to the country—from anywhere—than the country can assimilate. A lack of eagerness on behalf of a particular group—if it exists— just makes the situation more problematic.
So, in other words, I and others had this reaction to the problem before the problem arose? I’m not sure that follows.
No. Only that a country can be too accommodating. Governments need to understand the ramifications of every accommodtaion they make. I use the Canada example to because I think that any sane western country will agree that Sharia law is vile, barbaric and inhumane. So whatever policy they adopt (as far as accomodating law other than the law of the land) has to be able to ban Sharia law without being discriminatory.
They should absolutely not act as if they do not exist. They should send everyone who is here illegally back to their native country.
ANYONE who is here illegally should be sent back to their native country.
Do you not believe in the concept of nationhood? Of borders? Because you are arguing to ignore those things. As far as having access to a labor force that will allow us to be more competitive in the global economy, I am all for LEGAL immigration a guest worker programs, dictated by OUR need. That’s why I favor a completely sealed border. One with the abilty to efficiently allow or invite peolpe in as we deem beneficial.
Technically, I agree. But I do not know how to separate the danger of someone sneaking over the border in order to do us harm from those who are merely looking for work. Either way, they are both violations of the law. And both cost the country.
Well, immigration is currently legal., for those who choose to go about it legally. If you are advocating simply opening the borders to all who wish to enter, we are not living in the same universe.
If you have a problem with the content, I’d love to hear it. Bt simply dismissing it because it comes from an admittedly biased view is a convenience for you I will not grant. Plus, I think I’ve supplied quite a bit more information than the part you object to.
I gather from your last sentence that you wish to make no distinction between ilegal and legal immigration. I find that extremely offensive and nonsensical. It’s like treating people who buy their cars legally and those who stole them equally.
You did not mention illegal immigration. But given the reality of the border it is diffcult to talk about one without the other. Yes, legal immigration needs to be reformed to make it easier and more efficient those seeking to legally enter the U.S.—and for whom we choose to accommodate.
But people who are here illegally—whether having sneaked in or overstayed their visas—should be sent back immediately. If this causes people to pay more attention to their stastus and to take the proper steps to extend or alter their status, great! That’s the idea. But the onus is on them to follow our laws. It is really as simple as that.
Why exactly, is this a problem? 
I find it disgusting that certain people in power are even seriously considering this proposal.
It’s racism. It’s racism in the purest sense. It’s an attempt to manufacture a definition of a genetic American race that Mexicans and other immigrants (most of them non-white, a coincidence, I’m sure) definitionally cannot be a part of.
And of course, it won’t stop immigration. There’s still considerable incentive to come to the US to make money. Some of them will have kids while they’re here. Those kids will remain in this country.
All this proposal would do is create a permanent underclass. A group who can’t ever be integrated and accepted into society. Able to work only through menial labor (and crime), but hey, the US is the only land they know, and their homelands are still shitholes.
I just can’t decide if that’s the intention, or merely an unplanned side-effect.