Ag is being automated anyway.

https://farm.bot

Robots are even cheaper than immigrant labor.

So you're okay with the fact illegals are being exploited so you can have cheap strawberries and apples?

The reality is that illegals are NOT good for our nation or industry. Why?
* 75% of illegals and immigrants are on some form of public welfare - so you ARE paying for them
* They drive down honest wages for hard working Americans who DO want to do those jobs - construction, roofing, framing, landscaping, agriculture. How are Americans supposed to compete with underpaid exploited cash labor?
* Huge socio-economic problems - language barriers, driving up ER healthcare costs, anchor babies, poverty, crime, etc. They don't get drivers licenses, don't carry auto insurance, victimize Americans economically and often criminally thru drugs, ID theft, property crimes, or violent crimes.
* They are exploited people, which is not cool. We should not be condoning that to get cheap labor so we can have cheap stuff.
* Not only do they drive down labor and create labor surplus for Americans who WILL do those jobs (e.g. our teenagers SHOULD be out there learning how to do manual labor jobs to teach them work skills), they often aren't paying taxes into a system from which they take benefits.
* What happens when they are retirement age but never paid into social security? It becomes a public problem again.

I heard Tucker Carlson recently point out that no nation becomes or stays an economic superpower by importing 3rd world impoverished humans en mass. Manual labor is not the wave of the future. Automation is going to be replacing a LOT of types of jobs. Robots are literally arriving to do the things these unskilled laborers do. Then we'll have tens of millions of young unskilled men out of work. That is a CRISIS waiting to happen. Disenfranchised poor young men are prone to violence, terrorism, revolts, uprisings, etc.

If we currently have 22,000,000 illegals and even 5% of them are criminals, do the math on how many are criminals. That's 1,100,000 extra criminals in our nation. What is the cost of THAT??? How about if that figure becomes 10% or greater?

Have you seen the size of the average American?

I think going without could solve a lot of problems

And, for any naysayers who say that these illegals aren't going to negatively change our nation, I disagree.

I want you to look back just a few decades. American was just as divided, but generally more polite and respectful. Sure, the voting was about the same split, 50/50. The house and senate were split about evenly then too. We had drugs and violence then too, sure, lots of crime. But Americans generally pulled together and seemed to be more kind. I remember when my teachers would go down to Mexico for a nice trip. I personally remember going to Mexico 3 times and enjoyed it. Now, it's advised Americans don't go due to the crime.

In the US today, radically different. I'm not going to entirely blame illegals on that. But it hasn't helped. The language has changed and now we see at least 2 languages, and often more. A nation that cannot communicate cannot exist. We have vastly different values and cultures.

The left claims that "diversity is our strength." That's false. Our strength is unity of mindset, history, language, culture, and goals. We had that for most of the 1900s until about the late 1900s. And it gets worse as we import more radicals, more leaches, more people that want to take from America and not give to America. That must end.

The benefit to importing people is trivial. I cannot see what the real "benefit" to the USA is. It's more of a humanitarian burden than anything. The cost is drastic. 9/11/01 was committed by immigrants. Other terrorism and crimes and deaths and such are committed by thousands of immigrants.

The whole system has become a big way to take advantage of the USA and our generosity, and must be shut down and re-evaluated and far more strict.

My great grandfather was a homesteader, he spoke no English, hopped on a boat for the promise of a better future, took a social welfare subsidy to get free land (homestead act) and worked his ass off till the day he died. I don’t think he was exploited because he lived in a sod hut on the middle of the prairie and maybe saw $50 a year. And you may think automation is going to replace the migrant worker but they have been trying to make a machine t can harvest a tomato without brushing it for 30 years and they still haven’t figured out how to replace the complexities of the human hand with a human brain attached to it. We need migrant labor, and we haven’t had immigration reform since Reagan was in office, I blame both sides for this problem, because like guns, abortion and drugs, pandering to your party line on the issues buys you cheap votes. If they fixed the problem then they would not be able to count on that issue to get them re-elected. I want a true immigration program where illegal crossings are the exception and not the rule. Migrants should be able to come in and work and go back home when the season is over and not have to worry about being able to cross again which is why you have so many illeagals here in the first place. A system where every migrant has a non resident ID and does not live in fear of being deported is way better than having human trafficking be the only way to come here if you’re brown.

So, what happens when the text of a constitutional amendment is interpreted differently than the legislature or governing body that enacted it intended it to be?

Our Liberty suffers - that's what happens.

We are doing what the anti-2A people are doing... 'Well, that's what it says, but not what it means'...

No that's not what it says. See the phrase about jurisdiction in addition to being physically born here?

On a practical matter it's insane to allow someone to run across your border and push out a baby and they get citizenship. Do you know what "birth tourism" is?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_tourism

The "interpretation" has been twisted to allow birth tourism.

Much like the 2A, there are only two rational ways to interpret the original intent for people who wanted the survival of the nation. For guns, they either wanted individual rights (correct) or centralized collective privilege (incorrect).

For immigration, there's two interpretations. Either drafters wanted some control over immigration and not rewarding illegal immigration and jeopardizing our nation to illegals who invaded and then suddenly were citizens thru birth, OR they wanted only citizens to birth citizens. The latter is more logical and supported by the comments at the Senate at the time. The former makes no sense whatsoever, and most nations also don't allow such illogical actions to reward illegal foreigners with granting their kids citizenry. Why saddle actual citizens with illegals? Makes zero sense.

And I'd further argue that since the drafting, our nation has FOOLISHLY rewarded and encouraged such illegal behavior by paying for birthing and raising kids here for illegals, compounding the problem.

In the 1800 and early 1900s, if you came here, you worked and paid. Now, you get a free ticket.

I've read the original documents surrounding the amendment, I know the intent. They assumed that everyone 'knew' it didn't apply to foreigners, ambassadors, etc. because that's what common sense is...


Even with specific language ala 2A, people will use what they want to attempt to reinterpret it to fit their intent, just as with scripture.

Now, you have an amendment that's worded one way on the face, but means something entirely different when researched. But they don't wanna do the research, because it would show them wrong.

No they didn't assume. They spelled it out, hence the "jurisdiction."

Nothing subtle about it. Very explicit. Jist because progressives have been ignoring that word for years doesn't change it's existance

You had a President get a BJ in the White House trying to say 'It depends on what your definition of 'is' is'......

You think they're not gonna pull a 'define 'under the jurisdiction of'' ?

Problem is that apparently the term "jurisdiction" has taken on an expanded meaning.

Words do that from time to time, so it is critical to apply common sense and an understanding of the intent. Intent is timeless. The intent was not to allow non-citizen foreigners to come here and have kids who are Americans. That would be dangerous to our republic. Obviously. And it has proven to be dangerous to our republic.

Again, look at the 2A. The left cites to "well regulated" to mean background checks and gun registration. That's not what "well regulated" meant in the era, nor was it the intent to create a central government which then gave "permission" before ownership and kept records on who owned what. In the era drafted, regulated meant the RIGHT to VOLUNTARILY assemble, organize, to get together and train and prepare to defend, home or state or nation, from enemies.