promotion image of download ymail app
Anonymous asked in Politics & GovernmentImmigration · 1 decade ago

Is THIS illegal immigration remedy a potential Passkey to the Presidency for an enterprising candidate?

The first candidate who states categorically that he will do THIS just might win the nomination, and then the election, handily! That's my opinion. What's yours? ---

Pass a federal law that mandates a minimum of penitentiary time AND a $25,000 mionimum fine to be assessed to any employer who either hires, or continues to employ, any ILLEGAL alien. These penalties to be enforced upon **both** the personnel manager who does the hiring AND the head of the company, for companies having personnel managers. No exceptions!!

This would make it IMPOSSIBLE for any illegal aliens (other than a handful of them having sugar daddies) to survive in the USA, and almost all of them would have scrambled back south of the border within a month or so of this having taken effect.

NO wall or fence necessary, and NO risk to any officers, since there'd be no need for forcible deportations.



Finally, RESCIND, retroactively, the citizenship status of all "anchor babies," regardless of their age, even if they've become adults. If they were BORN here to illegals, then THEY are illegal, too, and are therefore rendered unemployable.

This plan would END almost ALL illegal immigation overnight, and do so bloodlessly, and at virtually NO expense to taxpayers.

Once back outside of the country, they could apply for LEGAL immigration, and get in line behind everyone else who's doing it the RIGHT way.

And the first candidate to adopt it might very well become our next President!

Update 2:

To "unionjackass" -- No one born in the USA to an ILLEGAL alien should ever have had "natural born citizenship" status in the first place. That's a mockery of the system. Illegals HAVE illegals. Anything else is asinine.

Update 3:

TO EVERYONE -- As soon as I've posted this additional comment, I'm going to close this question and award "Best Answer" to "hockey g," for his fine documentation. THIS is why I'm closing it so soon: I wanted to e-mail "hockey g" to tell him what I'd done with my information in my blog. But unfortunately, he doesn't take e-mails! So... by my awarding him "BA," Yahoo will notify him of that -- and THEN he can see the blog article.

After all that is done, I'll post a re-phrased version of this question that can stay up for several days. Thanks for understanding! (And thanks to so many of the rest of you who provided excellent answers!)

If you want to see the blog article for yourself, just right-click on the link below, and "Open in New Window" that you can easily close. Because the blogsite's "Back" button doesn't always work, and this way it's hassle-free.) --

7 Answers

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    I agree 100%. Rescind all citizenship that was unconstitutionally granted in the first place. The 14th amendment, and specifically the citizenship clause, was carefully worded such that it denied citizenship to "foreigners and aliens"

    This is how it was introduced to the 39th congress by the author of the citizenship clause, Senator Jacob Howard.

    If you read the debates that ensued, as recorded in the congressional globe, it is clear to anyone of average intelligence that the congress that passed the 14th amendment did not intend to hand out citizenship like some kind of cheap carnival prize.

    The key to undoing the current misinterpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment is this odd phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." The whole problem is caused by the fact that the meaning of this phrase, which was clear to anyone versed in legal language in 1868, has slipped with changes in usage. Fortunately, there is a large group of court precedents that make clear what the phrase actually means:

    The Fourteenth Amendment excludes the children of aliens. (The Slaughterhouse Cases (83 U.S. 36 (1873))

    The Fourteenth Amendment draws a distinction between the children of aliens and children of citizens. (Minor v. Happersett (88 U.S. 162 (1874))

    The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction" requires "direct and immediate allegiance" to the United States, not just physical presence. (Elk v. Wilkins 112 U.S. 94 (1884))

    There is no automatic birthright citizenship in a particular case. (Wong Kim Ark Case, 169 U.S. 649 (1898))

    The Supreme Court has never confirmed birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens, temporary workers, and tourists. (Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 211 n.10 (1982))

    There are other cases referring to minor details of the question.

    In essence, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" meant, at the time the amendment was written, a person having a reciprocal relationship of allegiance and protection with the United States government. It was thus understood not to apply to persons whose presence in this country is transitory or illegal.

    That the Fourteenth Amendment does not grant automatic birthright citizenship is also made clear by the fact that it took an act of Congress in 1922 to give American Indians birthright citizenship, which would obviously not have been necessary if they had it automatically just by being born here. The courts have also long recognized an exception for the children of foreign diplomats, which exception would be unconstitutional if the Fourteenth Amendment granted automatic birthright citizenship to everyone.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    look to Arizona

    we have employee sanctions for hiring illegals and there is an upcoming proposition that will deny a birth certificate to anyone who's parents aren't legally here.

    It will be interesting

    *** and for the record, citizen rights are not in the Bill of Rights, but the 14 Amendment.

    The 14th was designed to ensure that all former slaves were granted automatic United States citizenship, and that they would have all the rights and privileges as any other citizen.

    It was not intended as it is currently being used

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    wow- that is a plan- good luck with that- although it seems a bit long winded....

    Wait- I actually went back and read what you said- your idea of taking away citizenship from natural born citizens is stupid and will never happen. Its a right that is part of the bill of rights- have ya heard of those? And besides that- why would you take that away just to have those people in 20 years coming here illegally. At least if they are citizens they will be paying taxes and contributing to the entire way of life here. Or did that not occure to you?

    PS how is life up there on the soap box???

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 4 years ago

    look, the political reward to finding such as you will do some thing a ways outweigh the worries that contain certainly doing issues. it is why Senators can communicate for doubtless ever w/out asserting something of substance. yet heavily, there are a number of companies that throughout the time of basic terms functionality w/the no longer costly exertions pool in place, & they pay lobbyists to confirm that enterprise maintains as time-honored. regrettably, we in usa of america have come to have faith that we can get issues for loose w/no effect. yet each and everything continually has a value linked to it. once you're taking earnings of the no longer costly deal, usually you're getting that deal on the fee of a few-one else. no longer that i'm anticipating any-one to develop up & the thank you to think of every time quickly......

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 1 decade ago

    "Businesses, which are barred by federal law from hiring illegal immigrants, can be sued by a legal worker who is displaced by an illegal one."

    Oklahoma has an interesting way of getting every citizen to participate in securing the border. Has anyone else heard of it?

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 1 decade ago

    At least it is a plan. And as far as the children go (if born here), they should have to go back with their parents and then when they are 18 years of age can come back on their own (if they want to) since they are not a minor anymore.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago


    You would make an excellent politician.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.