It's not xenophobia yet you single out 6 Latin American countries? No one seriously believes that "immigration reform" partisans would take such a hard stance on an illegal with more desirable (to you) origins like northern Europe, so spare us the "this isn't about ethnicity" bullshit.
well there are many illegal irish immigrants in the US apparently.
The others just don't come since illegal immigration isn't appealing to the poorer Europeans when they can just go to the UK (or Germany if they know the language) and try making it there first. Also only few families have strong contacts with US relatives. South italians without skills are more likely to work in a pizzeria in Germany these days.
Also if you don't have a land border you can cross it's difficult to immigrate illegally. They can just refuse entry, and if you're caught you'll never be able to get in again, unlike mexicans. Also southern european immigrants are mostly qualified people and would not be able to compete with mexicans for low wage jobs either. And who's ever hired an illegally immigrated engineer or nurse?
H1B indians are the cheap solution devised by the corporate overlords to solve this problem.
We, as a nation, should be able to pick and choose which applicants are allowed to come here...and who should not.
this is something that lefties have a problem understanding.
The only exception to this are legit asylum seekers and refugees, i.e. asylum seekers who seek asylum with a valid reason. Not the case for most Mexicans and in Europe, most africans.
But mexican illegals have no chance at asylum and indeed they don't seek it either.
I think the use of anchor babies and stuff is an abuse of ius solis, so eliminating this loophole makes sense. It's not in the spirit of that idea.
In reality due to the history and currect practice of US immigration policy (i.e. mexican illegals have special treatment compared to other illegals), it's probably become a politically suicidal proposal so it will not be fixed.
Shouldn't that be settled by the SCOTUS if it's just an interpretation of the constitution rather than repealing the whole 14th amendment?
so Congress can't make a law to implement the constitution according to what they deem to be its spirit?
Or, can't they edit the 14th amendment?
Sometimes it feels like the US is hostage of some ambiguous old book that can't be edited and its interpreter. Must be the influence of religion, the catholic church is pretty similar too, to change interpretations they have to do a council and lots of complicated stuff and waste lots of time.
In Switzerland you just set up a committee, write the updated or new article with the help of a jurist, gather 100k signatures in maximum X months (can't remember how many now), and the people say yes or no. It's that easy.
Facebook
Twitter