Of course the rewards exceed the penalties (cause there really arent any presently). We are forced currently to pay them the minimum wage, which makes it profitable for THEM to come here. We should make them ineligible for minimum wage- making it unprofitable for them to jump the vorder, live here, and endure the high living costs

This isn't difficult.

The POTUS has no authority to issue EO which alters Law. By misusing EO's Trump is no different than O except by degrees of severity. Whether he did so to help the nation or harm the nation the end result is the same, the degradation of the structure of the Constitution and the lessening of one branches power by the seize of that power by the other (executive).

I left the Tea party for their inability to see this rationale. You don't break the law to make the law, it can only be corrosive.

It appears from the results that the rewards for a business hiring illegals exceed the penalties to a business for hiring illegals.

So if you want borders, what requirements are there in your view are required to enter the country, and also to have a vote

How can you "clarify" a non-existent law? If Congress is silent on an issue, and the Constitution's stance on that issue is unclear or disputed, the President as executive can do nothing other than implement whichever policy is consistent with his own best understanding of Constitutional meaning. In this case, Trump must either adopt a government policy of not recognizing "birthright" citizenship, or continue the policies of previous administrations and recognize "birthright" citizenship. There is no third alternative, it's either/or.

I would ask you to distinguish Obama from Trump. Obama sought to add to, or take away from, or redirect the Constitution. Trump seeks to correct the _mis_direction of which past Presidents have been, frankly, guilty in this context.

Rules are not values. They might stand in for allowed virtues which are ways of getting values. A person's values are none of my business, how those values are obtained may possibly be my business when force is used against me.
For those who live by me, I want anyone who keeps his ways of pleasuring himself, physically including his music, partying, and arguing and fighting , on his own property.
All the HOAs that I am familiar with were done by developers. There are associations which are ways to get money from property owners for some community projects such as roads or water and sewer. Why be limited to a set of rules on how your property can be used, how you can paint your house, what roofing it must have, how often to mow your lawn, what landscaping you can have, when you are free to come and go through the gate, etc. Why would you want to live in a situation where you can be voted into selling your property requiring moving somewhere else. The HOA security officers will have to keep close tabs on you. If there is trouble with the current laws, what is the chance that they can be repealed and that more comfortable laws will spring into existence?
There are two main ways to become under the command of a dictatorship: Divide and conquer with being in the wrong division, and unite and rule. There can be also the one from Atlas Shrugged of 'sanction of the victim' where one's thoughts can end in being leashed to society in a subservient way.
Why limit yourself to those who think like you? Kind of a limited way to live.
Nowhere have I Indicated not wanting any borders. A border is nothing but a set of laws which one has to obey within that geographic area to which the laws apply. Law requires some agent of force to administer it, private government or some other form like the US government. One is stuck with laws which may even be inhuman such as in North Korea or to a somewhat lesser extent in china where a small amount of Capitalism has freed the lives of some of the people a little.

I came across this timely article. It explains context and the why.

https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com...

There is separation of powers for a reason. As for "setting policy in absence..." The Amendment, as the article would show, was reactionary for specific reasons. Policy since 1890 was anyone born in the US was citizen, but as we all can plainly see that is not what the intention was when the reconstruction Amendments were created. Even so, changing the law is outside the scope of even the highly exaggerated authority of the POTUS today.

Citing a case is moot as since 1890 the policy has been the problem we see today. I'm no lawyer to search case law (any more than a google search). In the article it does clearly show that the intent was ignored but that doesn't change the process to correct it.

People were furious when O use EOs beyond the authority given to the Executive but now its okay?

https://www.archives.gov/federal-regi...

"Setting policy is not creating law."

Yes, it is. The only Constitutional role of the Executive is to carry out the laws as passed by Congress. If clarification is necessary, they should be going back to the Legislature to clarify - not simply inventing things on their own. That they have been doing it and were substantiated in this through the Supreme Court's "Chevron deference" ruling doesn't make it Constitutional.

"the executive still cannot escape the obligation to set policy"

Article II of the Constitution is very explicit regarding the duties of the President, and they include the following (and only the following):
- Commander-in-Chief
- Oversight of executive functions (cabinet positions, etc.)
- Power to engage in treaties (subject to ratification by the Senate)
- Power to appoint "Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for" (subject to ratification by the Senate)
- Power to fill vacancies in the above positions during Senate Recess
- Give Congress information on the State of the Union
- recommend measures (but not institute them)
- Convene joint sessions of Congress
- Receive ambassadors and other public ministers
- Commission all Officers of the United States (meaning the Armed Forces)
- "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed"

As the Constitution was very carefully crafted to bestow a set of limited privileges and express activities to players in the Federal Government, anything not explicitly granted falls outside the Constitutional jurisdiction of that individual, branch, or body. Nowhere in Article II does it grant the President any policy-making, rule-making, or law-making authority. Constitutionally, any such activities beyond recommendations to Congress are prohibited.

Setting policy is not creating law. Setting policy is what executives do. If no law exists to guide policy, the executive still cannot escape the obligation to set policy. Even doing nothing, or doing what his predecessors did, is a policy.

Re: "nor is the Executive, permitted to make or adjust law as set forth by the Constitution." Trump is neither making law nor adjusting law. He is setting policy in the absence of any law regarding the topic in question. He would have been setting policy even if he had chosen to follow in the footsteps of his predecessors on this issue. Trump did not trespass on Congress' powers, he acted in the context of a legislative void that Congress chose not to fill. Congress is free to remedy this situation at any time.

World Trade Center.

As much as I would hate to side with Democrats, I think that might be good.
--But one way to prevent "anchor babies" might be to simply prohibit the entry into this country of a pregnant woman (unless she is already a citizen). Of if a legal resident alien becomes pregnant, require her to leave the country temporarily, until after she gives birth or has a miscarriage.

Someone born here is not an immigrant, legal or illegal.

One thing we could do, is form voluntary associations to teach newcomers about America and instill the proper American values.

You are not allowed to take private vengeance for wrongs done to you; you have to delegate that remedy to the government. That should be already enough for one who is born here.

And if we didn't have a welfare state we wouldn't have so much of a problem with the kinds of people coming in.(This remark should have been placed right after Irshulitis's).

What does "WTC" stand for?

"Subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means "obligated to obey the laws thereof", which sometimes does not apply to diplomats and their progeny. But having a child born here would not confer citizenship on the parent in any case.--In fact, one way to handle the problem of "anchor babies would be to bar pregnant women from entering the country; of, if a resident alien got pregnant after entry, expelling her temporarily from the country until after she either gave birth or had a miscarriage.

For some things, maybe, but his treatment of Blacks and Indians was a debacle. See Dinesh D'Souza's "Hillary's America".

I'd be hesitant to suggest any past President, because nearly all of them had problems. If you want to consider solely Andrew Jackson's military leadership and his willingness to stand up for his values and defy Congress (irrespective of what those values were), I can understand the appeal.

One note, however: Andrew Jackson got very close to being Impeached. We already have a current Democratic Congress which is willing to Impeach Trump just for being of the opposite party. I'd be careful about what you wish for.

If you want a model for President Trump from Presidents past, I suggest Andrew Jackson.

Glad we got that cleared up, but I'm not sure why this distinction is one that matters in any case other than a Presidential election. It certainly doesn't matter to the illegal caravan.

BTW - if you are looking for Supreme Court precedent on giving illegals rights, you should check out Justice Brennan's decision in Plyler v. Doe. I don't doubt that this case is one of the reasons some of our Presidents have punted. This decision is one more example of how disastrous it is to rely on Supreme Court precedent for such things when Congress has the Constitutional jurisdiction and responsibility to act.

Ah, now I see the confusion.

I was talking about how to define natural-born citizens, of the type John Jay should have the exclusive privilege of eligibility to the office of President.

A person can be a citizen-at-birth without being a natural-born citizen. The distinction of this: a natural-born citizen is a citizen-at-birth of one place only. A person can be a citizen-at-birth of two different countries, and free to choose. The Law of the Soil might say one thing (if the parents were domiciled on that soil), while the Law of the Blood says another.

I was talking strictly about the illegal-immigration case. Too many Presidents have in the past acquiesced in granting citizenship-at-birth to all children born in this country, regardless of circumstances. Donald Trump now refuses. Time, he believes, does not sanction all or even any presumptions upon the Constitution or on statutory or case law.

Now you know what I mean by "cite the case."

"Now: you maintain that under the current state of the law, where the stork drops you, you are a citizen by birth."

If you read my previous comments, I agreed with you that citizenship depends on the lawful residency of the parents. You held that both parents were necessary while I stated that I had read legal opinions stating that only one parent was necessary. But I think you are gravely misinterpreting my comments to mean something other than that. I have never held that so-called "birthright" citizenship is a proper interpretation of any citizenship clause - let alone the Fourteenth Amendment.

I adhere to the British common law notion - the same which the author of the 14th Amendment used - in that the 14th Amendment only holds jurisdiction over those who are in the United States but over whom there are no other jurisdictional claims. That was only the case for the freed slaves in the 1860's. No people since can claim that necessary zero jurisdiction - not even the Native American Indians, because they were treated as their own sovereign nations - and still are in many cases. Foreigners have zero claims under the Fourteenth Amendment for protection not only according to my opinion, but according to the explicit words of the author of the 14th Amendment: Jacob M. Howard of Michigan. He explicitly explained that in a speech on the Senate Floor. (This article was the best I could find on short notice https://www.cnsnews.com/blog/craig-ba...

Our immigration and citizenship system is antiquated and rooted in the reconstruction period after slavery abolition and also from the time when we wanted anyone we could get to populate the USA. That was then but this is NOW. USA needs skilled people who share the values that built this country, not a flood of uneducated refugees who want to feed off welfare