U.S. Birthright Citizenship explained:

Homesteading & Country Living Forum

Help Support Homesteading & Country Living Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

SHOOTER13

SNIPER
Neighbor
Joined
Nov 26, 2017
Messages
8,649
Location
PENNSYLVANIA
U.S. Birthright Citizenship explained:

What the law is... and how many people benefit from the archaic 1868 law.

President Donald Trump is trying to follow through on one of his campaign promises by ending birthright citizenship, a 150-year-old law enshrined in the Constitution that grants U.S. citizenship to anybody born on U.S. soil.

The law has been the target of anti-immigration groups for years, who claim it’s been abused by undocumented immigrants and companies that peddle “birth tourism.” But defenders say it’s been established in U.S. law, upheld by the Supreme Court.

Trump’s announcement that he will end the practice through an executive order just days before the midterm elections is sure to draw immediate legal challenges that could lead all the way to the Supreme Court. For now, here’s a look at some of the key aspects of birthright citizenship.

What is birthright citizenship?

The principle that anybody born on U.S. soil becomes a U.S. citizen.

It was added to the Constitution in 1868 in the first sentence of the 14th Amendment, which reads: "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 amendment was originally designed to grant citizenship to freed slaves following the Civil War, overriding the Dred Scott v. Sandford decision by the Supreme Court that had forbidden African-Americans from ever gaining citizenship and the Naturalization Act of 1790 that only conferred citizenship on free white persons "of good character."

In practice, it has become a bedrock of U.S. immigration law that has allowed anybody born in the U.S. to become citizens. Congress has passed laws extending birthright citizenship to people born in U.S. territories, including Puerto Rico, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

How many people benefit?

Citizenship was granted to about 275,000 babies born to undocumented immigrant parents in 2014 alone, representing about 7 percent of all births in the country that year, according to an analysis conducted by the non-partisan Pew Research Center.

Those numbers represented a drop from the peak years of illegal immigration, topped in 2006 when about 370,000 children were born to undocumented immigrants, or 9 percent of the population, according to the Pew estimate.

The vast majority of those births, however, were not a result of pregnant women crossing the border. Data shows that the vast majority of undocumented immigrants who give birth in the U.S. — more than 90 percent — arrived in the country more than two years before giving birth.

Those numbers do not include pregnant mothers who obtain visas to travel to the U.S. shortly before giving birth. Russians routinely fly to South Florida, and there is an entire industry in China designed to coach pregnant women on how to deal with U.S. immigration authorities so they can enter the United States for the sole purpose of giving birth to American citizens.

An estimate from the Center for Immigration Studies, a group that opposes birthright citizenship and advocates for lower levels of legal and illegal immigration, puts the total number of babies born through birth tourism at about 36,000 a year.

How many countries grant it?

Trump claimed that the U.S. is the only nation in the world to grant birthright citizenship. But he ignored America’s neighbor to the north, and dozens of other countries, that also honor it.

The Center for Immigration Studies identified at least 30 nations that grant birthright citizenship. That list includes Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, and Chile.

John Skrentny, a sociologist at the University of California, San Diego, said in 2015 that birthright citizenship is a holdover from colonial times, when European countries granted lenient naturalization laws in order to conquest new lands. That's why the practice is almost exclusively used in the Western Hemisphere.


Good Riddance ... Your tax dollars should be spent on our national interests...not illegal immigrant children !!

.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's Constitutional law. Can be changed by a Constitutional Amendment, same way it went in. Neither Trump, nor his barking dog lawyers can do it any other way.
 
Graham to introduce legislation to end birthright citizenship

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) on Tuesday said that he will introduce legislation to end birthright citizenship after President Trump suggested he wanted to do so through an executive order.

"Finally, a president willing to take on this absurd policy of birthright citizenship. I've always supported comprehensive immigration reform — and at the same time — the elimination of birthright citizenship," Graham said in a string of tweets.

He added that he plans "to introduce legislation along the same lines as the proposed executive order" from Trump. Congress is out of session until November 13th.

If Graham is going to propose legislation to amend the Constitution, his bill would need to win over not only two-thirds majorities in Congress, but also be ratified by three-quarters of the states.

His announcement comes hours after Trump said in an interview released Tuesday that he will sign an executive order intended to end the practice of birthright citizenship.

"It was always told to me that you needed a constitutional amendment. Guess what? You don't," Trump said during an interview with Axios.

"You can definitely do it with an act of Congress. But now they're saying I can do it just with an executive order," the president added, before stating, incorrectly: "We're the only country in the world where a person comes in and has a baby, and the baby is essentially a citizen of the United States ... with all of those benefits."

Most countries in the Western Hemisphere, including Mexico and Canada, have some form of birthright citizenship.

The move would spark an uphill court battle and pave the way for a showdown at the Supreme Court over the 14th Amendment, which states that all persons "born or naturalized in the United States" are "citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

=================================

Here's the Liberal View:

Democrats and progressive groups immediately panned Trump's comments as a distraction with a week to go until the midterm elections. The president has increasingly leaned into hard-line immigration rhetoric as he tries to fire up his base to vote next week.

"This is a blatantly unconstitutional attempt to fan the flames of anti-immigrant hatred in the days ahead of the midterms. The 14th Amendment's citizenship guarantee is clear. You can't erase the Constitution with an executive order," the American Civil Liberties Union said in a tweet.

Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) added that voters shouldn't "take the bait."

"He'll say anything before the election. Don't take the bait. Focus on ending the hate. Hug a kid. Be nice to someone you don't know or agree with. And vote. Please vote," Klobuchar added.

=================================

But Vice President Pence said "we all cherish" the 14th Amendment but appeared to suggest that the administration had an opening if Trump issues an executive order.

"The Supreme Court of the United States has never ruled on whether or not the language of the 14th Amendment subject to the jurisdiction thereof applies specifically to people who are in the country illegally," Pence said at a Politico event.

.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Federal Naturalization Laws (1790, 1795).

United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” (March 26, 1790).

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law to support the Constitution of the United States, which Oath or Affirmation such Court shall administer, and the Clerk of such Court shall record such Application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States. And the children of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: Provided also, that no person heretofore proscribed by any States, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed.



United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform rule of Naturalization; and to repeal the act heretofore passed on that subject” (January 29, 1795).

For carrying into complete effect the power given by the constitution, to establish an uniform rule of naturalization throughout the United States:

SEC.1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any alien, being a free white person, may be admitted to become a citizen of the United States, or any of them, on the following conditions, and not otherwise: —

First. He shall have declared, on oath or affirmation, before the supreme, superior, district, or circuit court of some one of the states, or of the territories northwest or south of the river Ohio, or a circuit or district court of the United States, three years, at least, before his admission, that it was bona fide, his intention to become a citizen of the United States, and to renounce forever all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty whatever, and particularly, by name, the prince, potentate, state or sovereignty whereof such alien may, at that time, be a citizen or subject.

Secondly. He shall, at the time of his application to be admitted, declare on oath or affirmation before some one of the courts aforesaid, that he has resided within the United States, five years at least, and within the state or territory, where such court is at the time held, one year at least; that he will support the constitution of the United States; and that he does absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty whatever, and particularly by name, the prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, whereof he was before a citizen or subject; which proceedings shall be recorded by the clerk of the court.

Thirdly. The court admitting such alien shall be satisfied that he has resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States five years; and it shall further appear to their satisfaction, that during that time, he has behaved as a man of a good moral character, attached to the principles of the constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the same.

Fourthly. In case the alien applying to be admitted to citizenship shall have borne any hereditary title, or been of any of the orders of nobility, in the kingdom or state from which he came, he shall, in addition to the above requisites, make an express renunciation of his title or order of nobility, in the court to which his application shall be made; which renunciation shall be recorded in the said court.

SEC. 2. Provided always, and be it further enacted, That any alien now residing within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States may be admitted to become a citizen on his declaring, on oath or affirmation, in some one of the courts aforesaid, that he has resided two years, at least, within and under the jurisdiction of the same, and one year, at least, within the state or territory where such court is at the time held; that he will support the constitution of the United States; and that he does absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty whatever, and particularly by name the prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, whereof he was before a citizen or subject; and moreover, on its appearing to the satisfaction of the court, that during the said term of two years, he has behaved as a man of good moral character, attached to the constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the same; and when the alien applying for admission to citizenship, shall have borne any hereditary title, or been of any of the orders of nobility in the kingdom or state from which he came, on his moreover making in the court an express renunciation of his title or order of nobility, before he shall be entitled to such admission; all of which proceedings, required in this proviso to be performed in the court, shall be recorded by the clerk thereof.

SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, that the children of persons duly naturalized, dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years, at the time of such naturalization, and the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident of the United States: Provided also, That no person heretofore proscribed by any state, or who has been legally convicted of having joined the army of Great Britain during the late war, shall be admitted a citizen as foresaid, without the consent of the legislature of the state, in which such person was proscribed.

SEC. 4. And be it further enacted, That the Act intituled, “An act to establish an uniform rule of naturalization,” passed the twenty-sixth day of March, one thousand seven hundred and ninety, be, and the same is hereby repealed.

.
 
It's Constitutional law. Can be changed by a Constitutional Amendment, same way it went in. Neither Trump, nor his barking dog lawyers can do it any other way.


So VT...

I take it you are in favor of the invading caravan of illegal, non-immunized, MS13 gang and child smuggling, Central American, Middle Eastern and African undocumented immigrants heading towards our sovereign border with Mexico...

While yet another gathering caravan from Guatemala, San Salvador, and Honduras is trying to bum rush the Mexican Military on their sovereign border as we speak...

And lets not forget the 22 million illegals already here...who leach off our welfare, food stamp, and medical systems...all at the expense of the American taxpayer.

What would you say if they were dumped into your Vermont neighborhood...and set up a tent camp in your backyard !?

When is enough...enough !?

When our Nation looks like the countries they are fleeing...!?

When overt Socialism makes us look like Venezuela...!?

When an illegal drunk driver kills yet another American citizen LEO with his car going the wrong way on a major highway... or with a stolen firearm they use to shoot and kill a beautiful young woman walking with her father on a fishing pier...!?

When...!?

.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
"This is a blatantly unconstitutional attempt to fan the flames of anti-immigrant hatred in the days ahead of the midterms. The 14th Amendment's citizenship guarantee is clear. You can't erase the Constitution with an executive order," the American Civil Liberties Union said in a tweet.

Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) added that voters shouldn't "take the bait."

"He'll say anything before the election. Don't take the bait. Focus on ending the hate. Hug a kid. Be nice to someone you don't know or agree with. And vote. Please vote," Klobuchar added.
As much as I hate to agree with a democrat, she is right.
Trump can't change the 14th amendment by executive order any more that Obama promised to change the 2nd by making evil "assault weapons" as illegal as machine-guns.
And DT knows that.
DT will however, play the liberal media like a drum:lol:
Does the law need to be changed to prevent illegals from having 'anchor-babies'? Of course.
But that will take 'an act of Congress' to do:rolleyes:.
 
...let's be clear...

Executive Actions once enacted usually only stay in place until the next President Elect who disagrees with it repeals it.

THAT is NOT the solution...CONGRESS MUST ACT...as only they can, by securing by vote a 2/3 majority in both the House and Senate, then they can repeal and replace an Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.


Factual History:

The Republican who drafted the 14th Amendment...three years after the Civil War...Senator Jacob Howard of Michigan...even clarified the meaning of the important context of the wording of the amendment on the Senate floor stating:


" This Amendment will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, and who are ambassadors or ministers of another country. "

=============================================================

The 14th Amendment states:

Section 1. 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

{ meaning you are a born here citizen who: does NOT owe allegiance to... and/or... are a citizen of another country... before traveling and stopping to have the baby in our sovereign borders }

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.


===============================================================

Democratic Liberals want to bend or erase the facts...hence why history and civics are no longer taught in schools.

You can't disagree with a fact if you were not taught the fact, and therefore don't know it's a truth.

History is taught for a reason...

So that a citizen can learn the how, when and why from it...and not repeat any mistakes from lessons learned through trial and error.



And in this case...the reasoning behind the wording of the amendment seems clear enough to me...

It was to clarify that slaves brought into and born into slavery in this country by no fault of their own had the unalienable right to be considered United Sates citizens...


No more...and no less.


~ Anyone who illegally sneaks over the border into our nation, then has a child here, is not a citizen.

~ Anyone who applies for asylum from persecution is not a citizen.

~ Anyone who scams the poorly written US immigration laws by lying is not a citizen.

~ Anyone here on a work or student visa that illegally over stays their permitted time in this country is not a citizen.

~ Anyone released from custody with a court date for a hearing on their asylum case and then does not show up for said hearing is not a citizen.

~ Anyone from a dozen foreign countries that come here to have a baby then applies for a passport for that child...then leaves the country with that child to wait until that child is 21 years of age...to declare all the benefits of US citizenship of that child, and then chain migrate the parents and other family members by scamming the immigration laws is not a citizen.


ONLY after legally applying for...then waiting in line to...then passing the history and civics tests to become a citizen... are you considered a citizen...and only then are you bestowed the inherent rights that go along with citizenship in our sovereign nation.

Period.


:smilie flag:

.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Preach it brother! You’ll be on the 2020 ballot, right?!...
 
I'm working on it my friend...

This Election cycle I'm the Deputy Constable for Voting Ward 9, Abington Township, Montgomery County, in the state of Pennsylvania.

I was on the ballot for Judge of Elections of Ward 9 the last local election...running against the incumbent Democrat. I only lost by 62 votes... but, she's been there for decades.

:cool:

.
 
Shooter, your command of logical thinking - in the case of the 14th Amendment - has been warped by your passion. Note that I am at least as considerate of your dignity as you are of mine.
 
It's Constitutional law. Can be changed by a Constitutional Amendment, same way it went in. Neither Trump, nor his barking dog lawyers can do it any other way.

Shooter, your command of logical thinking - in the case of the 14th Amendment - has been warped by your passion. Note that I am at least as considerate of your dignity as you are of mine.


Well VT...seems to me that I started this thread by posting a bi-partisan news article to bring the current debate over the US Birthright law up for discussion in Post #1.

31 minutes later, in Post #2...you replied with your Liberal view on the matter...to include a disparaging comment on your duly elected President and his lawyers.

Did you think that...being this is a public forum...and thus an area allotted for open debate on the title subject, that I should let your
interjected comment...as I was posting the next news article in Post #3 to report on the Lindsey Graham legislation, not be questioned with a reply asking for clarification on your curt statement.

So, after posting the factual historical text of the Federal Naturalization Laws (1790, 1795) in Post #4...

I turned my attention to you with my question in Post#5 ...asking that since you seemed in favor and comfortable with the idea of the
now 4 "caravans" (as of this writing ) heading to our sovereign border...if you would be in favor of those migrants being settled in your
Vermont community...with all that entails...?!

Yes...I'm a Constitutional Republican...who believes in the laws and amendments set down by the Founding Fathers of our Great Nation. And as such, I continually study and learn how they are applicable to our society in todays world.

And I take exception to your statement that "my command of logical thinking is warped" because it conflicts with yours...!!

If you don't want to debate like an adult...then don't drop innuendo and then run away.

Answer the questions posed above and then we can have a conversational debate as equals...and if nothing else, in the end, we can at least agree to disagree.

I look forward to your rational reply...in a "dignified" manner.

.

 
:popcorn:
 
An executive order is just an order issued by the President that is enforceable by members of the executive branch of government until either overturned by a law established by Congress, or overturned by a ruling by a court.

I do believe Trump will follow through knowing it will be challenged, in fact, I surmise that he wants it to go to SCOTUS.
 
^^ Exactly...!! ^^

The Supreme Court is there to interpret the laws according to our Constitution...not to pontificate or legislate on laws not contained within.

Abortion was not mentioned in the Constitution...therefore, it can not be decided on by SCOTUS...hence the Roe vs Wade decision is invalid.

...

:popcorn:
 
Well VT...seems to me that I started this thread by posting a bi-partisan news article to bring the current debate over the US Birthright law up for discussion in Post #1.

31 minutes later, in Post #2...you replied with your Liberal view on the matter...to include a disparaging comment on your duly elected President and his lawyers.

Did you think that...being this is a public forum...and thus an area allotted for open debate on the title subject, that I should let your
interjected comment...as I was posting the next news article in Post #3 to report on the Lindsey Graham legislation, not be questioned with a reply asking for clarification on your curt statement.

So, after posting the factual historical text of the Federal Naturalization Laws (1790, 1795) in Post #4...

I turned my attention to you with my question in Post#5 ...asking that since you seemed in favor and comfortable with the idea of the
now 4 "caravans" (as of this writing ) heading to our sovereign border...if you would be in favor of those migrants being settled in your
Vermont community...with all that entails...?!

Yes...I'm a Constitutional Republican...who believes in the laws and amendments set down by the Founding Fathers of our Great Nation. And as such, I continually study and learn how they are applicable to our society in todays world.

And I take exception to your statement that "my command of logical thinking is warped" because it conflicts with yours...!!

If you don't want to debate like an adult...then don't drop innuendo and then run away.

Answer the questions posed above and then we can have a conversational debate as equals...and if nothing else, in the end, we can at least agree to disagree.

I look forward to your rational reply...in a "dignified" manner.

.

With all due respect . . . I decline to argue with you, on this subject or any other. You appear to be unfamiliar with civilized debate. ( I will only point out 1) that I am not a "liberal" and 2) with respect to the Constitution, wishing does not change the words in it.)
 

Shooter, your command of logical thinking - in the case of the 14th Amendment - has been warped by your passion. Note that I am at least as considerate of your dignity as you are of mine.

I decline to argue with you, on this subject or any other. You appear to be unfamiliar with civilized debate. ( I will only point out 1) that I am not a "liberal" and 2) with respect to the Constitution, wishing does not change the words in it.)


That's a shame
VT...I would have liked to have gotten a clarification on those questions I posed you...

As far as civilized debate...my historically factual statements above set the stage for civil discourse on the subject...

You chose the low road...each time stating something derogatory to further an argument rather than persue a civil conversation.

Quote:

"Neither Trump, nor his barking dog lawyers can do it any other way."

and...

"your command of logical thinking - in the case of the 14th Amendment - has been warped by your passion"

and...

"You appear to be unfamiliar with civilized debate."

Unquote


So...If and when you would like to talk facts...stop on back and we can discuss facts... as not once did I insult you as you did me.


Otherwise, if you care not to debate...you can keep your personal vitriol of me to yourself and avoid this thread.


OK then
...Moving along...

.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hey buddy, can I insult ya? LMAO!:ROLF:

Just keeping it light my man!

I'm getting a few thoughts together & will respond shortly.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well let me say that I personally don't have a problem with anyone wanting to migrate here in order to become Legal Citizens of this great nation of ours. Let me also remind everyone, that with the exception of the original Native Americans, we are all immigrants! "E pluribus unum". The exception being, is that our forefathers came here and became US citizens the legal way. They did not come here by the thousands or millions for that matter and claim citizenship without due process. Nor did they sneak over the border to have children as sponsors in hopes of becoming US citizens. Moreover, most if not all brought with them something to offer this great nation in terms of skilled trades & crafts that contributed greatly to our society as a whole.

I will not labor each and every point mentioned above, however I will note that the last thing I want is for these immigrants to come here and milk our system so to say! If they want to become citizens, then let each and everyone of them apply on their own merits and reasons (whatever they may be) and experience and go through the application process, the legal way. And if they are denied, then oh well, so be it, send them back!

As I noted above, I don't want to labor each & every point above. However, I don't agree with Shooters claim that many of them are Middle Eastern and undocumented Africans, as there is no proof of this whatsoever! Even the POTUS admitted to this! This is nothing more than a political scare tactic made to frighten the voters.

The other thing I will ask and I have heard little or nothing about is the cost of this military effort. How long and how much is this going to cost us? Five to seven thousand troops is an awful lot of military personnel to maintain on our border!

Just my 2 cents!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The other thing I will ask and I have heard little or nothing about is the cost of this military effort. How long and how much is this going to cost us? Five to seven thousand troops is an awful lot of military personnel to maintain on our border!

Will it total 135 Billion annually? I don't know.
 
The other thing I will ask and I have heard little or nothing about is the cost of this military effort. How long and how much is this going to cost us? Five to seven thousand troops is an awful lot of military personnel to maintain on our border!

Just my 2 cents!
These are active-duty stateside troops and their salaries will cost the same, and they will eat about the same amount of food we already pay for.
And compared to shipping them overseas to help with some 1000-year-old urination contest:rolleyes:, they are actually doing their job - protecting the country.
Aside from the fuel to move them and their gear out there, the cost would be about the same as if they stayed where they were.
I know the pundits will gleefully add up the total cost of their salaries and supplies to make it sound like it's costing millions, but we pay that anyway.
I'd rather see them on the border than spending 1.3 billion playing war-games in the sea of Japan.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Understood Supp! It does appear cheaper to keep them stateside than shipping them overseas.
Thanks. I do believe that the main mission of our military is to protect the country from foreign invaders; which this obviously is.
If someone has a different view; that the military has a more important mission, they are free to flame me at will:D.

Edit: The 'caravan' as it is called, are people seeking asylum here and bypassing the immigration laws.
Of course they have traveled the entire length of Mexico from south to north, which BTW offered them asylum, which they refused.
They just want in the USA.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I liken this to strangers, banging on the front door of your house & demanding to be let in!:eek:

Coming into this country in this manner is illegal & against the law, plain & simple and breaking the law is punishable which they should be subjected too!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Just don't let them in. Why not make border patrol a rotating 'standard tour' for a few thousand soldiers at a time? with some OJT it ought to be more effective than any practical wall would be. A lot of the terrain and climate in New Mexico and Texas must be fairly similar to the places they've been deployed in the past almost-two decades.
 
If someone has a different view; that the military has a more important mission, they are free to flame me at will:D.

Make that “flame us”... On your six S42!:smilie flag:
 
Just don't let them in. Why not make border patrol a rotating 'standard tour' for a few thousand soldiers at a time? with some OJT it ought to be more effective than any practical wall would be. A lot of the terrain and climate in New Mexico and Texas must be fairly similar to the places they've been deployed in the past almost-two decades.
It's no more complicated than that; just don't let them in.
If they overwhelm our defenses with sheer numbers, just take them prisoner like any invading force that has surrendered.

On a side note, it would be an ideal time to test the 'less than lethal' defense technologies we have:

(I know, we've wandered off-topic of 'birthright citizenship' but still it's a good discussion)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I remember hearing about this technology in the CG. I also remember experiencing similar technology years ago when I was a Patrol Officer. Standard procedure was when we received a call for an activated burglar alarm and found the home or building unlocked, we would have to enter the building and make a quick sweep or search of that building. I recall certain homes/buildings that I would not enter because of the type of alarm system they had.

These alarm systems had such powerful piercing sound waves that they would throw my equilibrium off to the point wherein I could not even walk or stand up straight! The nausea was so bad that I would sometimes have to vomit. In addition, I would feel the effects of this for several hours after the fact, as it took that long just to recover. I always kept a mental note of which buildings or homes had these types of alarm systems! I always stayed on the outer perimeter or even away from these buildings when those alarms were activated.

I will note however, that this type of disruption did not appear to affect everyone, in that some Officers were not affected by this and could walk through the building or home with no problems whatsoever! Obviously I was not one of them!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes...I follow you Dutch...Sonic Disruption.

Focused sound for crowd/riot control.

The Military has what you describe on a greater scale.

Imagine standing next to a fire alarm or an ambulance siren x 1000 decibels...

What amount of high pitched sound can a human being stand for a certain amount of time...?!

A clap of thunder from a nearby storm (120 dB) or a gunshot (140-190 dB ) ...depending on the weapon, can both cause slight but immediate damage.

( Accepted standards for recommended permissible exposure time for continuous time weighted average noise, according to National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health...and the CDC. )

.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top