Hillary Clinton

[Greyfox]

Originally Posted by Hoofless_Wonder

This is the key point. You really don't need a wall, if stepping into "No Man's Land" gets you shot.

Rather than build a wall, the Feds simply ought to rent out border tracts to U.S. citizens wanting to test out night vision goggles and sniper rifles. Anything that moves is fair game.

Problem solved.

The Zone between North and South Korea works, for whatever reasons.

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by Greyfox

The Zone between North and South Korea works, for whatever reasons.

It isn't 2000 mile long, and the North Koreans are committed to keeping their people from crossing. The US border would be a lot more effective if the Mexican government was committed to containing their people.

[ReplayRandall]

Originally Posted by Greyfox

The Zone between North and South Korea works, for whatever reasons.

There are 28,000 reasons why it works, as in US Troops...

[Robert Goren]

Originally Posted by Greyfox

The Zone between North and South Korea works, for whatever reasons.

No, it doesn't! There are a lot of North Koreans who cross over to South Korea, just there were a lot of people who escaped from East Germany to West Germany. But those two examples of wall are not really analogous. The two example cited were of one country trying to keep people in and the other side welcoming them with open arms. I don't think you will find a case where a wall was used successfully to keep people out.
I still maintain that the only way to stop illegal immigration is to take a way the reason they are coming here, jobs. It is not something the republicans or even the conservatives posters here are willing to address because it means sending republicans voters to jail. I guarantee if we start giving employers who hire illegal immigrants a 5 year jail sentence, you will see a huge drop in the number of illegals in this country. No jobs means no reason to be here. Building a wall is like putting lotion on a rash. It only treats the symptoms and not the disease. We know how to treat this disease, it just matter of having the will to do it. Trump and his supporters are in the lotion selling business.

[Greyfox]

Originally Posted by Robert Goren

No, it doesn't! There are a lot of North Koreans who cross over to South Korea, just there were a lot of people who escaped from East Germany to West Germany.

You exaggerate eh. A few each year is not a lot.

[Tom]

No, it doesn't! There are a lot of North Korea

Define a lot.
Is it 11 million, or 22 million, depending on who you listen to for how many have crossed here?

Come on Bobby, you can't seriously compare the two borders.

[Clocker]

Because the Korean border is so tough to sneak through, the normal route for North Korean defectors is through China.

[dartman51]

Originally Posted by Robert Goren
I still maintain that [B

the only way to stop illegal immigration is to take a way the reason they are coming here, jobs[/B]. It is not something the republicans or even the conservatives posters here are willing to address because it means sending republicans voters to jail. I guarantee if we start giving employers who hire illegal immigrants a 5 year jail sentence, you will see a huge drop in the number of illegals in this country. No jobs means no reason to be here. Building a wall is like putting lotion on a rash. It only treats the symptoms and not the disease. We know how to treat this disease, it just matter of having the will to do it. Trump and his supporters are in the lotion selling business.

I actually agree with you, Robert. But I would start with a HUGE fine for the first offence, then a 5 year jail sentence, for ANY employer, hiring even 1 illegal. I don't care if it a private citizen hiring a maid, or someone working in their yard. Stop ALL ILLEGALS from obtaining drivers license, welfare, free education, or any other freebees. Then, pass a law stating that any children, born in the U.S., to illegals, do NOT get citizenship, make it retro-active. Once you do that, you will see a lot of traffic heading back across our southern border.

[OntheRail]

Originally Posted by dartman51

I actually agree with you, Robert. But I would start with a HUGE fine for the first offence, then a 5 year jail sentence, for ANY employer, hiring even 1 illegal. I don't care if it a private citizen hiring a maid, or someone working in their yard. Stop ALL ILLEGALS from obtaining drivers license, welfare, free education, or any other freebees. Then, pass a law stating that any children, born in the U.S., to illegals, do NOT get citizenship, make it retro-active. Once you do that, you will see a lot of traffic heading back across our southern border.

Ding Ding Ding... winner winner. Was going to post about the same thing. In other words stop the Liberal give a ways.

[FocusWiz]

Originally Posted by dartman51

Then, pass a law stating that any children, born in the U.S., to illegals, do NOT get citizenship, make it retro-active. Once you do that, you will see a lot of traffic heading back across our southern border.

While I tend to agree with the concept presented, I think it may be overly liberal to interpret the law as automatically making children of people in this country illegally into United States Citizens as the law currently stands. I realize that this is a commonly held belief, but a nuance of this law was pointed out to me by an immigrant who is and has been in this country legally for decades.

In general, a person who is born in the United States, subject to its jurisdiction, is a citizen of the United States regardless of the race, ethnicity, or alienage of the parents. The phrase "subject to its jurisdiction" has no clear definition and may mean that people here without legal status are still under the jurisdiction of their home country or at least not under ours since to be under our jurisdiction, I would think we would have needed to have granted their residence here some legal basis.

One court case worth noting is Elk versus Wilkins where the court held that children of Native Americans were not automatically citizens of the United States unless the parents had been naturalized by treaty or by a federal collective naturalization statute, or taxed or recognized as a citizen by the United States or a state. In other words, such Native Americans still had their main allegiance to their tribe and, as such, were members of a political entity other than the United States of America. In much the same way, I would contend that a foreign citizen in the United States has their primary allegiance to their true home country and are not to the United States unless there is some concept giving the United States similar jurisdiction. They cannot legally work here, but they do pay Sales Tax, so conceivably that could be enough to make their children citizens. It took an act of Congress to grant citizenship to all Native Americans.

In United States versus Wong Kim Ark, it was determined that even though the parents had primary allegiance to the Chinese emperor, they were under the jurisdiction of the United States. While this has long been touted as the basis for claiming that anyone born here is a citizen, I no longer believe that this is settled law. Although the federal court decision made no distinction between being in the United States lawfully or unlawfully there was no need to since the child's parents were legal resident aliens at the time of the child's birth. They did note that the parents had a permanent domicile and residence in the United States at the time of the Child's birth (and were not diplomats from China). While I could never conceive of someone here illegally as having a permanent (though extremely tentative) residence, I am neither an immigration expert nor a lawyer.

However, since being informed of this, I have read articles where it was argued that the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was never intended to apply to the children of individuals who were not in any way granted authorization to be here (and hence not under United States jurisdiction).

Just some food for thought, that our laws may actually have this situation covered. I do not think this has ever gone to court (and likely never will), but if the current law does not disallow it, we would likely need to amend the constitution (a much slower and more difficult process) to fix this problem.

[magwell]

Originally Posted by rastajenk

I think the long story is thus: There is no love between the Clintons and the Obamas; Hillary will have to run against his positions of some of the issues to claim the unofficial position of Leader of the Party. The only one who can run on defending the entire Obama Legacy is Biden. So the Obamas will allow enough investigatory pressure from Justice to derail the Clinton candidacy to set it up for a late Biden run to preserve the "progress" of the Obama Administration. There is absolutely no reason to believe they wouldn't.

Members of the media could be facing a tough Pete Seeger question in a few months: Which side are you on, son, which side are you on?

I think your on to something , if Obama lets her get run over by the bus in Oct by Gowdy, he than could have Biden to run, knowing Sanders has no shot and then he could still direct traffic behind Uncle Joe.

[Clocker]

Information about the latest probe into Hillary's email issues was leaked to the NY Times, and the Times says the info came from a "senior government official". I have seen a number of articles from political analysts who say such a leak would only come from the White House, and only with administration knowledge.

Michael Goodwin of the NY Post speculates that the leak came from Valerie Jarrett.

Somebody very high in the food chain leaked the memos requesting the probe. The New York Times, which broke the story, identified its source only as “a senior government official.”

My money is on Valerie Jarrett, the Obamas’ Rasputin, who is known to despise Clinton. If it was Jarrett, she would not do this against the president’s wishes.

That also would be true for any “senior government official” who leaked the memos. Targets don’t get any bigger than Hillary Clinton, so this was not a rogue operation. This was an approved hit.

Clinton has an enemies list — and it looks like she’s on Obama’s. It’s also possible the White House is using the issue to keep her in line on the Iranian nuke deal. The implied threat is “look what happened to Robert Menendez.”

Either way, she had it coming. Her arrogance and bald-faced lies about the emails must have infuriated her boss and colleagues. Her decision to conduct government business on a private server in her home and use personal email accounts was a giant “f–k you”

http://nypost.com/2015/07/26/hillary...dministration/

[Tom]

Beware of Kerry in the wings.

[Hoofless_Wonder]

At this rate, Hillary will drop out prior to the primaries. Probably some vague health issue will be provided as the reason, though it won't be from a bad ticker - 'cause of course she has no heart.

I was looking forward to her debating, since there's so much good ammo to use against her. And it would hardly take a skilled opponent to get under her skin, and set her off.

When she drops out, I'll feel cheated.

[davew]

Originally Posted by Tom

Beware of Kerry in the wings.

an extra confident boost after the great Iran deal, and will continue 0bama's policys of bringing down America to 3rd world status