I just wanted to give you an example because you wouldn't understand otherwise. But I guess it didn't help. Let me try it this way. All American made cars except Corvette use parts made in Mexico. Trump's plan will stop production of a $20,000 car over $4,000 in parts. That may make sense to you and Trump, but it won't work for the car companies.
GM right in the middle and beats Honda, Hyundai, Honda, then Ford, then Mazda. https://www.msn.com/en-in/autos/photos/the-20-most-profitable-car-manufacturers/ss-AAq36pf#image=1 Stop throwing spaghetti on the wall hoping something will stick and get back in topic.
Not even a quarter of that and if they could not prove they could support themselves or had a sponsor they could Butler rejected and sent back. If they had health issues they could either pay to go to the hospital there or have a sponsor pay for it else they were sent back. And when it did become a strain the government lowered the quotas coming in. So since you bring it up shall we go back to that?
If you had paid attention in school you would know these little things (" ") indicate a direct quote. Ford Motor Co. Chief Executive Officer Jim Hackett encouraged President Donald Trump’s administration to resolve trade disputes quickly or it could do “more damage” to his company, which is already suffering losses from tariffs imposed by the White House. “The metals tariffs took about $1 billion in profit from us -- and the irony is we source most of that in the U.S. today anyways,” Hackett said in an interview on Bloomberg Television. “If it goes on longer, there will be more damage.”
If you would have paid attention in life you'd know not to believe anonymous kooks.....even when they are allegedly quoting someone. Who knows, maybe the tariff will help Ford. They'll be forced to use some quality steel and people might actually start buying their cars again.
Do you need new glasses? and the irony is we source most of that in the U.S. today anyways,” Hackett said in an interview on Bloomberg Television. Just when you think the Trumpies can't miss this one. Boom. They miss this one. Priceless.
You keep saying that but I have no idea what your point is. The Constitution gives the authority to Congress to regulate naturalization under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. There has also been numerous ruling by SCOTUS in regards to immigration.
Naturalization is not immigration. We should have no illegal problem for the right wing to be bigoted about.
????? Still do not understand your point. There are immigration laws and there have been numerous SCOTUS decision issued in regards to immigration. Are you saying that nobody should be disallowed into the country because it is not explained in the Constitution?
I am saying we should have no artificial illegal problem for the right wing to indulge their bigotry about.
Don't you get it? Per the Constitution anyone in the world can come into the USA because there is no Article in it that regulates immigration. It only regulates the process of naturalization. Of course illegal aliens break countless laws when they enter the US but their entry is not specifically barred by the Constitution.
Mathematically impossible. While Ellis Island was open from 1900 to 1954 it processed 12 million immigrants. 12 million / 54 years = 222,222 per year. 222,222 / 365 (assuming they worked 7 days a week) = 608 per day. Even if they didn't work weekends, it comes NOWHERE close to 10,000 per day. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellis_Island Sorry Daniel I call BS!
I read that number somewhere, before. In any case, according to the current information Ellis Island was built to handle five thousand per day; we should have no strain on our southern border.
That is one of the most bizarre concept I have seen on this forum. Murder is not specifically barred from the Constitution either, so does that mean it should be legal?
We have a naturalization clause not an immigration clause. We should be legal to our own laws before complaining about less fortunate "illegals".
Our laws are legal. Just because something is not specifically addressed in the Constitution, that does not mean laws created on that subject are not legal laws. To believe so shows a very shallow understanding of what the Constitution is all about.