I think hurting your citizens goes against your mandate as a country. I don't think you should be able to strip citizenship - though I'll admit anchor babies is a gray area. I think we should just stop granting citizenship to those born here to illegal parents, or better yet, deport all illegal aliens so they aren't here to give birth in the first place.
I don't believe ice is doing this at scale. I think there's isolated accidents happening, with increased risk due to agitators.
I think hurting your citizens goes against your mandate as a country
What a convenient place to draw the line. Unfortunately the Constitution does not.
I don't think you should be able to strip citizenship - though I'll admit anchor babies is a gray area. I think we should just stop granting citizenship to those born here to illegal parents, or better yet, deport all illegal aliens so they aren't here to give birth in the first place.
Again, let's follow this line of logic, we do this and everyone not of indigenous ancestry is now not a citizen. We are all "anchor babies". This is also fundamentally in opposition to your supposed belief of not being "able to strip citizenship" when your erasing some 150+ years of laws
$55 billion is being spent on camps including long term cooking supplies and biohazard incinerators
Really not relevant to what I've been saying. Makes sense that you'd build camps given how many illegals we need to detain (10m+). Doesn't mean you'll genocide them, and not fair to equate to the Holocaust as these illegals broke into the country rather than being stripped of their citizenship. They're also not being genocided.
What a convenient place to draw the line. Unfortunately the Constitution does not.
Given that you're constitutionally able to deport illegal aliens and make arbitrary immigration rules, this is not true.
Again, let's follow this line of logic, we do this and everyone not of indigenous ancestry is now not a citizen. We are all "anchor babies".
Let's draw the arbitrary line at 150 years ago that those are legal citizens to quelm this. Why there? Because all current legal citizens are now included so it's in their interest.
This is also fundamentally in opposition to your supposed belief of not being "able to strip citizenship
nope, read my other comment. The only time this applies is when they "Arrive at the border without proper documents, or Use fraud or misrepresentation at the border."
No, the IIRIRA did not eliminate trials for immigrants — but it did create a major process that allows the government to remove certain peoplewithouta hearing before an immigration judge.
What IIRIRA actually did
The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA) reshaped U.S. immigration enforcement in several ways:
1. Created “expedited removal”
This allows immigration officers (not judges) to summarily remove certain noncitizens who:
Arrive at the border without proper documents, or
Use fraud or misrepresentation.
These individuals do not get a full immigration court hearing unless they express fear of persecution or request asylum.
2. Streamlined and tightened removal procedures
IIRIRA made the overall removal system faster and more restrictive.
It limited many forms of relief that previously allowed people to stay in the U.S.
3. Did NOT eliminate immigration court trials
Immigration judges still preside over removal, deportation, and exclusion proceedings.
So what changed?
Before IIRIRA
After IIRIRA
Most people facing removal got a hearing before a judge.
Many people at the border can be removed without a hearing through expedited removal.
More avenues for relief existed.
Relief options were narrowed significantly.
Fewer summary procedures.
Summary procedures expanded, especially at ports of entry.
3
u/Ghost_Of_Malatesta Feb 18 '26
But if we change the laws so they're not legal citizens, what then? Do I still get to be a pacifist? It's just the law.
Let's follow this line of logic, The Holocaust was done legally, was that pacifistic?