Since a related post went downhill fast, how about we try this another way.
The rules:
Each person can post what they believe to be the #1 problem related to immigration and immigration reform and follow it with their best idea of how to fix it. No negative replies allowed. Post your ideas and read the other suggestions. No name calling, arguing or bashing of other's suggestions. Just consider this the immigration version of 100ideasOK.
I'll start. The number one problem associated with immigration is ignorance.
#1 problem? No emphasis on securing and controlling the borders for the last 50 years.
My #1 issue is people who consider others that disagree with them about illegal immigration as somehow "ignorant."
The number one problem with U.S. Immigration policy is allowing immigrants to retain citizenship in their birth country. The U.S. should forbid dual citizenship because it creates divided loyalties. To obtain U.S. citizenship an immigrant should renounce other citizenships. Conversely, no U.S. citizen should be allowed to retain their U.S. citizenship after obtaining citizenship in another country. I want U.S. citizens loyal to the U.S. period. The policy of allowing dual citizenship has been harmful to the United States because it creates divided loyalty.
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
The number one problem with U.S. Immigration policy is allowing immigrants to retain citizenship in their birth country. The U.S. should forbid dual citizenship because it creates divided loyalties. To obtain U.S. citizenship an immigrant should renounce other citizenships. Conversely, no U.S. citizen should be allowed to retain their U.S. citizenship after obtaining citizenship in another country. I want U.S. citizens loyal to the U.S. period. The policy of allowing dual citizenship has been harmful to the United States because it creates divided loyalty.
Good point and can't say I disagree on the dual citizenship issue.
Interesting take and I mean that sincerely. I don't mind giving you props when you say something that intrigues me.
Would you care to expand on what specifically you mean by loyalty? Do you mean in defense issues, sending money earned here back home which would otherwise benefit our economy? IOW- What areas of loyalty to you see harming the U.S.?
I am not talking about people who disagree with my views on immigration, I am speaking in the larger sense. As a whole, most people never thought about immigration until very recently, therefore there is a lot of ignorance about it.
Therefore, a lot of knee jerk reactions.
To answer Conan:
Most harmful when leadership has, or can obtain, dual citizenship and crafts U.S. policy that is not in the U.S.' best interest.
quote:
Originally posted by NellieBly
I am not talking about people who disagree with my views on immigration, I am speaking in the larger sense. As a whole, most people never thought about immigration until very recently, therefore there is a lot of ignorance about it.
Therefore, a lot of knee jerk reactions.
Who are you speaking of? Immigration has been an issue in the US for 50 years. It's just now that people are fed up with it because the effects are now being felt on a grand scale, and Americans are fed up with our politicians who've punted on the issue for the last 30 years. People are reacting to the fact that we've allowed this issue to reach critical mass before dealing with it sooner.
Immigration has been a hot button issue in this country since the Irish potato famine in the 1840s (?) if not sooner. Successive waves of immigrants arrived here for much the same reason - the economic opportunity that a good job brings. The Poles, Jews, Chinese and Italians all faced the same anti-immigrant biases. The present 'hot issue' of immigration is hardly new.
But if Marx was right about all conflict originating from economic reasons, then there's an economic solution to the problem of immigration. Simply eliminate the low-paying jobs that 'real' Americans won't take by passing legislation that heavily penalizes employers of illegals. Wages will rise until under-employed citizens see the jobs as a realistic alternative to lesser paying jobs.
How much would they have to pay for any one of us to take a job in a meat cutting plant or as a field hand? And how much would you be willing to see your grocery prices rise as a result?
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Originally posted by NellieBly
I am not talking about people who disagree with my views on immigration, I am speaking in the larger sense. As a whole, most people never thought about immigration until very recently, therefore there is a lot of ignorance about it.
Therefore, a lot of knee jerk reactions.
Who are you speaking of? Immigration has been an issue in the US for 50 years. It's just now that people are fed up with it because the effects are now being felt on a grand scale, and Americans are fed up with our politicians who've punted on the issue for the last 30 years. People are reacting to the fact that we've allowed this issue to reach critical mass before dealing with it sooner.
My main problem is that we have not learned a damned thing after Reagan's 1986 amnesty disaster (sorry, immigration reform). Furthermore, in reading on the issue, I have concluded (just as many of you) that all our national level politicians care about is courting the immigrant vote and not about rational policy. Finally, immigration issues should be taken much more seriously and aggressively by our governments at all levels, especially in a post 9/11 environment. Sorry I have more than 1 problem.
My number one gripe is the term "anchor baby". Last I heard, if you were born in America, you were born an American...period.
I think this effort to divide Americans into seperate little piles disavows the entire American experience. It's phrenology by a different name, and it's the kind of language, and the kind of thinking, that was used in those countries our ancestors left behind.
Thanks, Admin -
HomeTown:
That sounds very good to me - I too would like to hear more on the no-dual-citizenship idea. I've necver discussed it, nor heard it discussed. Any other reasons?
#1 in my book: EDUCATION ABROAD
Use mass media campaigns in other countries, especially those who have the most illegals here, educating would-be immigrants on the realities of the possibility of immigrating to the US. It should include bios of those who immigrated legally and are enjoying their "American Dream" and also stories of those who were caught here illegally and were deported, resulting in the loss of all they worked hard to get. It should show a welcoming country for those who qualify to immigrate legally, and also demonstrate the committment to enforce old laws.
People who are educated as to what is expected of them, what will qualify them for legal immigration will make great immigrants; and if they know they will be arrested and deported if caught here illegally will maybe cause some to refrain from illegally entering and taking up illegal residency.
The media is a powerful thing. We are not using it to educate either here or abroad.
quote:
Originally posted by Ed W
Immigration has been a hot button issue in this country since the Irish potato famine in the 1840s (?) if not sooner. Successive waves of immigrants arrived here for much the same reason - the economic opportunity that a good job brings. The Poles, Jews, Chinese and Italians all faced the same anti-immigrant biases. The present 'hot issue' of immigration is hardly new.
But if Marx was right about all conflict originating from economic reasons, then there's an economic solution to the problem of immigration. Simply eliminate the low-paying jobs that 'real' Americans won't take by passing legislation that heavily penalizes employers of illegals. Wages will rise until under-employed citizens see the jobs as a realistic alternative to lesser paying jobs.
How much would they have to pay for any one of us to take a job in a meat cutting plant or as a field hand? And how much would you be willing to see your grocery prices rise as a result?
Arizona has passed a twice and done law.
Any company caught knowingly hiring illegal immigrants the first time gets fined. The second offense is permanent loss of the companies business license.
Since I have an advanced stage of staircase wit, I came up with the other side of the economic question a little later.
We could encourage rising wages and living standards throughout Latin America by investing in businesses there and purchasing their products. By expanding employment there, we discourage illegals coming here.
I think UPS (United Parcel Service) has an interesting slogan...
"What can brown do for you?"
My biggest frustration is we have been rewarding illegal immigration while seemingly punishing legal immigrants. I believe to end illegal immigration we should reward legal immigration and strictly punish illegal immigration.
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
My number one gripe is the term "anchor baby". Last I heard, if you were born in America, you were born an American...period.
I think this effort to divide Americans into seperate little piles disavows the entire American experience. It's phrenology by a different name, and it's the kind of language, and the kind of thinking, that was used in those countries our ancestors left behind.
Really, your #1 problem related to immigration and immigration reform is the expression "anchor baby"? Wow.
My belief is that the #1 problem is that it took a century to get to this boiling point, yet everyone wants a fast, simple cure. Thats why the border wall has become an icon for the argument that we can just turn off the spigot.
Just like our middle east problems, this is going to take time and creativity to solve. Honestly, the remarks on this thread are the best I've heard on the subject.
quote:
Originally posted by Ed W
Since I have an advanced stage of staircase wit, I came up with the other side of the economic question a little later.
We could encourage rising wages and living standards throughout Latin America by investing in businesses there and purchasing their products. By expanding employment there, we discourage illegals coming here.
Yeah, sure worked with NAFTA, didn't it? [:D]
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
My number one gripe is the term "anchor baby". Last I heard, if you were born in America, you were born an American...period.
I think this effort to divide Americans into seperate little piles disavows the entire American experience. It's phrenology by a different name, and it's the kind of language, and the kind of thinking, that was used in those countries our ancestors left behind.
Not so quick.
Amendment XIV Section 1 to the U.S. Constitution: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The citizenship clause in the 14th amendment was aimed at citizenship for freedmen as a part of reconstruction. Unfortunately the words "subject to their jurisdiction" is pretty vague and largely ignored in favor of "all persons born..."
The reasoning behind the "subject to jurisdiction" was to deny automatic citizenship to Indians as they were considered subject to foreign government jurisdictions and their people were not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
The freed slaves were not subject to any foreign jurisdiction. Mexicans who cross over illegally or legally are still subject to the jurisdiction of the Mexican gov't.
To truly understand what the intentions were of the clause and what was specifically left out for the sake of brevity, a little research on the Senate debate is in order:
Senator Jacob Merritt Howard who introduced the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment said in introducing the bill:
"This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons."
What the Senators could not have foreseen in the vagaries of the language of the clause was how "subject to jurisdiction" was wide open for interpretation and that interpretation of the language would evolve over the next 140 years.
The secondary issue which comes with "anchor babies" and why they are called anchor babies, is that based on previous legislation, backed by Senator Kennedy in 1965, I believe. It encourages "chain migration". It gives the parents, minor siblings of that child, and even extended families the right to come here regardless of skill sets, and regardless of respect for our laws and customs.
My ultra-conservative friends bastardize the Constitutional phrasing as being: "Persons born to citizens or resident aliens in good standing" which is nowhere that I've been able to find in the Constitution or elsewhere in subsequent legislation.
Apparently tough anti-illegal immigration laws (local government) are not favored in Pennsylvania:
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/070726/illegal_immigrants_crackdown.html?.v=1
Issue: Economics
The United States has jobs to fill and Mexico has workers to export. The result is inevitable.
My solution would be to make worker programs easier on all levels and welcome hard working people to the United States. They helped build us and we are keeping them out. One could have extra taxes associated with imported workers or other means to make them less attractive than native workers (if that is your issue). But unless something is done to help even the supply and demand for workers - the problem will not go away.
It seems to me that one of the main issues effecting these United States today is that we have elected (and appointed) officals that do not do what is right for the country. People in positions of power that can make a difference in improving this country are bowing down and giving away the store. It seems we need some true Americans with some backbone that will live by their oath, is not on the take, say enough is enough, and stand up to the special interest groups. They need to call a spade a spade. America is being attacked on all sides and it needs to stop.
When I read about some of the things that go on in Congress and other areas of government, I can't help but wonder what our Founding Fathers would think.
And how about Rahm Emmanuel and his little political stunt saying Democrats won't revisit the issue until "at least" the second term of a prospective Democrat President?
Reticence on the part of law makers to do something about this which isn't related to courting votes is going to keep anything substantive from happening for the foreseeable future.
I think they will let it go until it's even more overwhelming than it is now just so that all of us who have been up in arms will finally say: "Allright damnit, just make 'em all legal and get it over with. That's what you want anyhow."
I'm thinking that unless something is done about this immigration issue in the near term, heads will roll come the next election, but then, they may roll anyway, if voters can remember that long. I simply cannot fathom how someone like Kennedy can stay in office so long. I'm also livid that a foreign country like Mexico can influence our policies. It's believed that they demanded that the 2 hero border patrol agents be prosecuted, as well as the deputy sheriff that did nothing wrong. They also pumped alot of money into some California propositions that would benefit immigrants in order to sway the vote.
Everyone seems to be in denial about the problems of immigration and terrorism because they're afraid they may upset someone. We need some gutsy, politically incorrect, leadership that will make this nation sovereign again.
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
Really, your #1 problem related to immigration and immigration reform is the expression "anchor baby"? Wow.
Yup. Because it's an epithet that distinguishes and diminishes a subset of Americans. And, as Conan clearly relates...
quote:
Unfortunately the words "subject to their jurisdiction" is pretty vague and largely ignored in favor of "all persons born..."
...that's exactly the goal of many people. Their is no question of law; the 14th Amendment decided that American citizenship was a birthright. That's about as settled as any law ever was, and people who
truly respect the law should be content, or at least resigned. But you see, for many, this isn't about the law; the law is just a thin veil for personal predjudices.
This term, and the term "chain migration" are just nasty neologisms for processes that are very established, and very American. Chances are your own great-great-grandparents were "chain migrants" and/or "anchor babies"...who the h*ll cares? Should you feel guilty? Heck no.
So, yeah, "anchor baby" bothers me because it affirms that, for many, this is about predjudice.
quote:
Their is no question of law; the 14th Amendment decided that American citizenship was a birthright. That's about as settled as any law ever was, and people who truly respect the law should be content, or at least resigned. But you see, for many, this isn't about the law; the law is just a thin veil for personal predjudices.
You know very well that what you just said is overbroad. The 14th amendment was in reaction to Dred Scott and dealt with slaves and african americans being denied citizenship. African americans who LIVED in America...
Those ratifying it never contemplated people purposefully breaching our borders to give birth for the sole purpose of gain citizenship for family members.
What I assume you are speaking of is the
Plyler case which establishes your premise. There was no contemplation of "anchor babies" when the 14th amendment was being drafted, and one simple reverse ruling from SCOTUS blows your assertions right out the water.
quote:
So, yeah, "anchor baby" bothers me because it affirms that, for many, this is about predjudice.
Oh well...Please forgive me for not getting all warm and fuzzy inside when a illegal immigrant runs across our borders and plops out a kid thereby gains citizenship when I have close friends who can't gain citizenship in spite of meaningful skill sets and years of hard work in the US.
Maybe I should tell him just to crank out a baby...
It's been nothing more than selective interpretation by judges when it has been brought before courts. "...subject to jurisdiction..." is much more clear in intent to some people than others.
The intent of the citizenship clause to Amendment XIV is extremely clear when reading what the Senator who drafted it said when he introduced the clause.
The clause is not being executed as it was intended in the mind of the author. Another damn scriveners error, I suppose. [;)]
I really don't find any similarity between a family who migrated here legally from China, Mexico, Ireland, Russia, etc. ad nauseum than a family who came here illegally from any of those places and suddenly establish citizenship rights because they had the impecable timing to be in this country when their child was born.
The anchor baby scam is perpetrated by people with no respect for our country other than what they can take. They use a new-born child for selfish purposes to exploit our un-checked generosity. Yes there are women who come here to give nothing back as we all are expected to do. They just come to take.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Their is no question of law; the 14th Amendment decided that American citizenship was a birthright. That's about as settled as any law ever was, and people who truly respect the law should be content, or at least resigned. But you see, for many, this isn't about the law; the law is just a thin veil for personal predjudices.
You know very well that what you just said is overbroad. The 14th amendment was in reaction to Dred Scott and dealt with slaves and african americans being denied citizenship. African americans who LIVED in America...
Those ratifying it never contemplated people purposefully breaching our borders to give birth for the sole purpose of gain citizenship for family members.
What I assume you are speaking of is the Plyler case which establishes your premise. There was no contemplation of "anchor babies" when the 14th amendment was being drafted, and one simple reverse ruling from SCOTUS blows your assertions right out the water.
No,
jus soli is accepted. Since your speculating about what the Supremes might do, I'll speculate that they wouldn't even hear a challenge. "(A)ll men are created equal" is an unambiguous statement and the basis for "equal protection".
I don't recall choosing to be born an American...but I was. I consider myself lucky. Same for all of the other babies born here to non-diplomats.
On a separate track, name me a single lawmaker who says the 14th Amendment is "overbroad"? Who wants to change it? This is not hot-button issue, it's about as settled as it gets.
I'm not the one making assertions, IP. Seems to me that that burden is on you. And you haven't made any persuasive ones.
quote:
"(A)ll men are created equal" is an unambiguous statement and the basis for "equal protection".
Then why isn't every citizen of the world considered a US citizen then...that statement is just rediculous.
Anyways it's peripheral to the fact that you stated it was the intent of the drafters of the amendment that ideas like "anchor babies" were to be included, and that's simply not the case.
quote:
On a separate track, name me a single lawmaker who says the 14th Amendment is "overbroad"?
Is one enough? Because there are a whole slew of them right now (and during Plyler)who are/were. Congress simply passes a law outlawing protection for "anchor babies" while limiting the federal court's jurisdiction to review...whether it will be done or not is a matter of time and politics.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
"...subject to jurisdiction..." is much more clear in intent to some people than others.
Conan, can an illegal immigrant violate the laws of the United States of America?
Let me answer that one for ya...sure as sh*t they can. There's no ambiguity here.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
"(A)ll men are created equal" is an unambiguous statement and the basis for "equal protection".
Then why isn't every citizen of the world considered a US citizen then...that statement is just rediculous.
Baloney, IP. All men
are created equal, and we have a
naturalization process that is the same for everyone. It's not ridiculous...equal opportunity is a core American value.
quote:
Anyways it's peripheral to the fact that you stated it was the intent of the drafters of the amendment that ideas like "anchor babies" were to be included, and that's simply not the case.
I never made such a statement. I said that US citizenship is a birthright...and it is. What is your claim to US citizenship, IP? You are the joker (at least I presume you are joking) who made assertions about the intent of the drafters. Get your facts straight.
quote:
quote:
On a separate track, name me a single lawmaker who says the 14th Amendment is "overbroad"?
Is one enough? Because there are a whole slew of them right now (and during Plyler)who are/were.
Please list them.
quote:
Congress simply passes a law outlawing protection for "anchor babies" while limiting the federal court's jurisdiction to review...whether it will be done or not is a matter of time and politics.
In other words, Congress simply passes a law that denies Americans equal protection under the law...yeah, right. Again, what is your claim to citizenship, IP?
quote:
Baloney, IP. All men are created equal, and we have a naturalization process that is the same for everyone. It's not ridiculous...equal opportunity is a core American value.
Please tell that to my friend from South Africa who can't manage to gain citizenship then. Immediate amnesty was granted to illegals last time in the 80's. This poor guy has been here for 12 years. Tell me again that "the process is the same for everyone." That's an out-and-out lie. If you come from Mexico the process gets REAL easy about every 15 years or so.
quote:
I never made such a statement. I said that US citizenship is a birthright...and it is. What is your claim to US citizenship, IP? You are the joker (at least I presume you are joking) who made assertions about the intent of the drafters. Get your facts straight.
As with everything in the law it's a gray area. The constitution/bill of rights are not infallible documents. If they were we wouldn't need judges. Judges in the past have construed that broadly, that may not be the case forever, and judges aren't the final arbitor of constitutional law.
quote:
In other words, Congress simply passes a law that denies Americans equal protection under the law...yeah, right. Again, what is your claim to citizenship, IP?
No. They use an equally valid constiutional process to limit rampant abuses of our resources and violations of law. Congress also has the constitutional duty to protect and defend the rest of the country in the process.
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
"...subject to jurisdiction..." is much more clear in intent to some people than others.
Conan, can an illegal immigrant violate the laws of the United States of America?
Let me answer that one for ya...sure as sh*t they can. There's no ambiguity here.
Well, that's a big "duh". They violate American law which we have a right to enforce when they enter the country "illegally".
"Subject to the jurisdiction" refers to being a citizen of another country. The drafters saw the biggest threat as being Indians at the time. The didn't have the foresight to see that a budding country would eventually be over-run do to their lack of specificity.
What should we expect when attornies write our laws? Keeps them all in business.
What's the old joke:
"A mobster will make you an offer you can't refuse. An attorney will make you an offer you can't understand."
quote:
Please list them
Okay. How about every congressman that signed onto:
2005-2006: H.R. 698
2003-2004: H.R. 1567
1999: H.J.Res.10
1999: H.R.73
1997-1998 H.J.Res.26-105
1995: H.R.1363
1997: H.R. 7
1997-1998: H.J.Res.26-105
FYI, there are scores if not hundreds of them.
No, conan, "subject to jurisdiction" refers to the status of the parents at the moment when the child was born, i.e., are they diplomatic employees. If you aren`t a foreign diplomat, then your child is an American. Speaking of, what is your claim to citizenship?
ip, what is your claim to US citizenship? thanks for the cites, I`ll look `em up when I`m not on this phone.
Born to two American citizens who were also born here from a long line of others born in America. I have ancestors who migrated as far back as prior to the DOI. None later than 1820 to 1830 that I'm aware of. My family owned and farmed land around Gettysburg from the American Revolution to beyond the civil war prior to moving further out west. Yep, my family was amongst the original rapists and pillagers.
I refer you again to the words of Senator Howard, apparently you have a different read on this than I do:
"This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons."
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
Really, your #1 problem related to immigration and immigration reform is the expression "anchor baby"? Wow.
Yup. Because it's an epithet that distinguishes and diminishes a subset of Americans. And, as Conan clearly relates...
quote:
Unfortunately the words "subject to their jurisdiction" is pretty vague and largely ignored in favor of "all persons born..."
...that's exactly the goal of many people. Their is no question of law; the 14th Amendment decided that American citizenship was a birthright. That's about as settled as any law ever was, and people who truly respect the law should be content, or at least resigned. But you see, for many, this isn't about the law; the law is just a thin veil for personal predjudices.
This term, and the term "chain migration" are just nasty neologisms for processes that are very established, and very American. Chances are your own great-great-grandparents were "chain migrants" and/or "anchor babies"...who the h*ll cares? Should you feel guilty? Heck no.
So, yeah, "anchor baby" bothers me because it affirms that, for many, this is about predjudice.
So in your world, the immigration problem will be solved once we banish the phrase "anchor babies" from our language. Hey, maybe racism will end once we banish the "N" word.
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
ip, what is your claim to US citizenship? thanks for the cites, I`ll look `em up when I`m not on this phone.
It's not a vaild question. It's interesting how you want to be such a strict constructionalist when it suits your purposes...
Common sense was the rule of the day when this amendment was drafted, which is certainly not the case today. Those drafting that amendment certainly were not faced with the same issues as we are today. The Irish, etc. did not immigrate to the US simply to squirt out a baby to receive citizenship. Anchor babies are an affront to everyone who has worked to gain legal citizenship.
You never answered my question either. Are you still asserting that the system is fair for all? No one could make such a claim with a straight face.
quote:
"This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons."
I don't think it can be stated any more clearly.
Reward those immigrants who obey the law by coming legally, punish the immigrants that don't. It's really simple. Since our immigration laws have not been meaningfully enforced, is it so awful to give enforcement a try instead of giving our country away? Since our borders have never been meaningfully secured, is it so awful to build a fence to secure it? Historically, this is a very effective way to secure a border. Just ask China, they have centuries of experience in this regard.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Born to two American citizens who were also born here from a long line of others born in America. I have ancestors who migrated as far back as prior to the DOI. None later than 1820 to 1830 that I'm aware of. My family owned and farmed land around Gettysburg from the American Revolution to beyond the civil war prior to moving further out west. Yep, my family was amongst the original rapists and pillagers.
I refer you again to the words of Senator Howard, apparently you have a different read on this than I do:
"This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons."
That's a pretty
awesome pedigree and sh*t, but what, in all of that, makes you an American citizen? Seriously...and by that I mean legally...what makes you an American citizen? I mean, Winston Churchill's mom was a Yank and Wong Kim Ark's parents were from China, so, forgive me for asking, but what makes you an American? Ya see, Wong Kim Ark was borned in Cali and died before your grandparents were borned in PA or wherever, and the 14th amendment to the Constitution had this to say about him:
quote:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
This was all figured out like, a hundred years ago. And, if you don't like it, you are welcome to go pound sand down a rathole. By the way, I've got ancestors that trump yours by 10,000 years or so, does that make me a SuperAmerican? What are my special powers? Can I like melt an "ullegal" with my x-ray glower or something?
'Cause ya see, what
really matters is this 1830 thing that you bring up, because Ark's parents had him in 1870 or so, which is like way, way different. I could possibly find you some sand for your ratholes...I don't know...I could make some calls...let me know.
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
So in your world, the immigration problem will be solved once we banish the phrase "anchor babies" from our language. Hey, maybe racism will end once we banish the "N" word.
Yeah, Guido, when people like you consider Americans to be
Americans, I'll be happy. I can probably find you some sand, too. Do you need some sand? I'm almost certain that if you need sand to pound down a rathole, I can help you out...I'll try anyway...let me know.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
ip, what is your claim to US citizenship? thanks for the cites, I`ll look `em up when I`m not on this phone.
It's not a vaild question.
Great, it's not a valid question, so why don't you just f*rt something out. What makes you an American citizen? Man, I wish I owned a barge full of sand.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
It's been nothing more than selective interpretation by judges when it has been brought before courts. "...subject to jurisdiction..." is much more clear in intent to some people than others.
The intent of the citizenship clause to Amendment XIV is extremely clear when reading what the Senator who drafted it said when he introduced the clause.
The clause is not being executed as it was intended in the mind of the author. Another damn scriveners error, I suppose. [;)]
I really don't find any similarity between a family who migrated here legally from China, Mexico, Ireland, Russia, etc. ad nauseum than a family who came here illegally from any of those places and suddenly establish citizenship rights because they had the impecable timing to be in this country when their child was born.
The anchor baby scam is perpetrated by people with no respect for our country other than what they can take. They use a new-born child for selfish purposes to exploit our un-checked generosity. Yes there are women who come here to give nothing back as we all are expected to do. They just come to take.
But you are not interpreting the mind of the author correctly, either. You have to keep in mind that in 1866, THERE WERE NO LAWS THAT PREVENTED ANYONE FROM IMMIGRATING TO THE UNITED STATES. Immigrants came over anyway they could, and as long as they passed health inspection, they were admitted. End of story. Not only were they "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US as soon as they stepped off the boat, many of them were given a gun and immediately drafted into the civil war. The only logical interpretation of the Senator's words are that he was referring to the Native Americans, whose citizenship was still not recognized. To say he meant to exclude illegal aliens is ridiculous since there were no illegal aliens. Since his words shed no light on the intent of the drafters of the Amendment, you are stuck with the plain language (actually, since the language is so plain, I don't think you should turn to anyone's statements made at the time of passage). It clearly says anyone born here is a citizen. Just as it would have been in the time of Senator Howard (unless you were a Native American). If you want to change that, you need a constitutional amendment.
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
Reward those immigrants who obey the law by coming legally, punish the immigrants that don't. It's really simple. Since our immigration laws have not been meaningfully enforced, is it so awful to give enforcement a try instead of giving our country away? Since our borders have never been meaningfully secured, is it so awful to build a fence to secure it? Historically, this is a very effective way to secure a border. Just ask China, they have centuries of experience in this regard.
Thanks for at least
thinking about your position 2A. America has never been about rewarding those who break the law, employers or employees. We've
always welcomed those who go all in and come here to work to make this place a better country, and we are stronger for it.
I'm infuriated that some sh*thead politicians have outlawed this system and FURTHERED this screw up with some bullcr*p insider deals with capital, e.g. NAFTA.
But blaming Jose Lunchpail for trying to feed his kids is just plain wrong.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
"This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons."
I don't think it can be stated any more clearly.
I agree. Howard was clearly talking about those with diplomatic immunity and only that class. To read that sentence differently would clearly require conjunctions and grammatical particles that are clearly not present.
This is not rocket science. We just need our current laws enforced. To solve the problem now after 20 years of open borders, we first must close and seal that border tight as a drum. Then we allow local law enforcement to arrest the illegals they find as they go about doing their day-to-day jobs, and as they come across them. A cop stops a car with a busted tail-light finds out the driver is illegal, goodbuy, he's gone and so on... Law enforcement is otherwise allowed to enforce any law state or any federal law except immigration. For some reason it's hands off immigration law breakers. That needs to change. Then we need to fine/jail employers who hire illegals and end the "anchor baby syndrome" Oklahoma's new law #1804 if enforced will make many illegals self-deport to other states, the path of the least resistance. Just doing the 3 steps I listed will make a huge difference for the better.
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
Really, your #1 problem related to immigration and immigration reform is the expression "anchor baby"? Wow.
Yup. Because it's an epithet that distinguishes and diminishes a subset of Americans. And, as Conan clearly relates...
quote:
Unfortunately the words "subject to their jurisdiction" is pretty vague and largely ignored in favor of "all persons born..."
...that's exactly the goal of many people. Their is no question of law; the 14th Amendment decided that American citizenship was a birthright. That's about as settled as any law ever was, and people who truly respect the law should be content, or at least resigned. But you see, for many, this isn't about the law; the law is just a thin veil for personal predjudices.
This term, and the term "chain migration" are just nasty neologisms for processes that are very established, and very American. Chances are your own great-great-grandparents were "chain migrants" and/or "anchor babies"...who the h*ll cares? Should you feel guilty? Heck no.
So, yeah, "anchor baby" bothers me because it affirms that, for many, this is about predjudice.
How is "anchor baby" prejudice? The illegals do that to abuse our laws and take advantage so they can get free bennies & perks. Many other nations have ended that "natural birth right" thing. The USA is about the only nation that still allows that, and things like that can break the American taxpayers when you have millions of people doing that. I believe even Canada stoped that practice. It needs to be changed so that to be born a U.S. citizen the mother needs to be a U.S. citizen, if the mother is not a citizen the baby is not a citizen. What can be more fair & simple than that? thanx.[:)]
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by guido911
So in your world, the immigration problem will be solved once we banish the phrase "anchor babies" from our language. Hey, maybe racism will end once we banish the "N" word.
Yeah, Guido, when people like you consider Americans to be Americans, I'll be happy. I can probably find you some sand, too. Do you need some sand? I'm almost certain that if you need sand to pound down a rathole, I can help you out...I'll try anyway...let me know.
Well as long as you are happy, that's what's important. Just leave the hard decisions regarding immigration to the rest of us.
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
Reward those immigrants who obey the law by coming legally, punish the immigrants that don't. It's really simple. Since our immigration laws have not been meaningfully enforced, is it so awful to give enforcement a try instead of giving our country away? Since our borders have never been meaningfully secured, is it so awful to build a fence to secure it? Historically, this is a very effective way to secure a border. Just ask China, they have centuries of experience in this regard.
Thanks for at least thinking about your position 2A. America has never been about rewarding those who break the law, employers or employees. We've always welcomed those who go all in and come here to work to make this place a better country, and we are stronger for it.
I'm infuriated that some sh*thead politicians have outlawed this system and FURTHERED this screw up with some bullcr*p insider deals with capital, e.g. NAFTA.
But blaming Jose Lunchpail for trying to feed his kids is just plain wrong.
No, they do deserve their share of the blame, too. As a Union member I could leave Tulsa for much greener pastures in much friendlier places. I choose to stay and stand up for an honest days pay for an honest days work, a safe workplace and secure health/retirement benefits where I have lived the majority of my life. Sorry, if I have very little sympathy or respect for those who lack the intestinal fortitude to stand up for themselves where they live and whose actions hurt the welfare of their fellow workers in the process. There is nothing redeemable or admirable about that IMO.
Interesting story about the Hazelton Pa. immigration laws....
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56904
To quote from the story...
(U.S. District Judge James)Munley also wrote that Hazleton's law was at odds with current federal immigration policy, which he said avoids "excessive enforcement" against illegals so as not to jeopardize foreign relations. Hazleton, he said, failed to consider "the implications of the ordinances on foreign policy."
So now it's offical policy not to enforce immigration laws? Are we expected compare every ordinance to foreign policy? How crazy is that? I guess we're supposed to cater to whatever the Mexican gov't wants as to enforcement. Anymore, the border patrol can't make a move without the Mexican officals saying it's ok. Who's running this country, anyway!?!
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
No, they do deserve their share of the blame, too. As a Union member I could leave Tulsa for much greener pastures in much friendlier places. I choose to stay and stand up for an honest days pay for an honest days work, a safe workplace and secure health/retirement benefits where I have lived the majority of my life. Sorry, if I have very little sympathy or respect for those who lack the intestinal fortitude to stand up for themselves where they live and whose actions hurt the welfare of their fellow workers in the process. There is nothing redeemable or admirable about that IMO.
So, what happens when they "stand up"? You gonna throw them out?
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
No, they do deserve their share of the blame, too. As a Union member I could leave Tulsa for much greener pastures in much friendlier places. I choose to stay and stand up for an honest days pay for an honest days work, a safe workplace and secure health/retirement benefits where I have lived the majority of my life. Sorry, if I have very little sympathy or respect for those who lack the intestinal fortitude to stand up for themselves where they live and whose actions hurt the welfare of their fellow workers in the process. There is nothing redeemable or admirable about that IMO.
So, what happens when they "stand up"? You gonna throw them out?
The ruling class euro oligarchies of Latin America that your nonsense politically correct policies enable would try. Liberal white guilt is the best friend the corrupt elitist juntas who rule our neighbors to the south could possibly have.
Few persons stop to think that the Hispanics are much more American than those of the US. They are descents of a superior race of highly intelligent people who were more of a part of an advance society when Cortez slew them by the thousands. Intermixing with the Spanish Nobles in its golden age, they were to spawn the society south of the River.
North of the river, from the King's land grants, English convicts, Religionist Fanatics and the girls that worked their passage out in the Boston Red light district [ they discussed politics with their Jon's] who were to become the most educated among the women. We formed the colonies, evicting a prevailing society that considered themselves as children of nature.
Now we are confronted with an invasion of the Spanish/Inca offspring's who are migrating to north of the river. [Legal or illegal] They are allured by the devalued dollar in the exchange for the pesos. To them the playing field slopes their way.
In the future the solution would be annexing Mexico and using one currency.
No, I don't think that would fly but in the future they will become more affluent in our political system as they increase their ranks in the minority. [They are already making themselves known] Best thing to do is learn Spanish because you already need to know it.
The number 1 problem with immigration today is the sheer volume of immigrants coming in. It's uncontrolled and dangerous to our way of life.
The fix is twofold: Secure the border and figure out what to do with those who are here now. Seems unreasonable to just say "Ya'll go home, now". The realistic thing is to let them stay. But we have to turn off the tap.
For the most part, the immigrants are just people who want a better life. Can't blame them for that. Unfortunately, the volume of them will degrade our lives. Do we owe allegiance to them or to ourselves and our children?
quote:
Originally posted by shadows
Few persons stop to think that the Hispanics are much more American than those of the US. They are descents of a superior race of highly intelligent people who were more of a part of an advance society when Cortez slew them by the thousands. Intermixing with the Spanish Nobles in its golden age, they were to spawn the society south of the River.
North of the river, from the King's land grants, English convicts, Religionist Fanatics and the girls that worked their passage out in the Boston Red light district [ they discussed politics with their Jon's] who were to become the most educated among the women. We formed the colonies, evicting a prevailing society that considered themselves as children of nature.
Now we are confronted with an invasion of the Spanish/Inca offspring's who are migrating to north of the river. [Legal or illegal] They are allured by the devalued dollar in the exchange for the pesos. To them the playing field slopes their way.
In the future the solution would be annexing Mexico and using one currency.
No, I don't think that would fly but in the future they will become more affluent in our political system as they increase their ranks in the minority. [They are already making themselves known] Best thing to do is learn Spanish because you already need to know it.
You are funny! (You are trying to be funny, right?)
quote:
Originally posted by shadows
No, I don't think that would fly but in the future they will become more affluent in our political system as they increase their ranks in the minority. [They are already making themselves known] Best thing to do is learn Spanish because you already need to know it.
I thought part and parcel with the whole discussion of illegal immigration and its positive effect on society was that these people really
DO WANT to assimilate, but it just takes time. Why should anyone currently living here be forced to learn Spanish if immigrants are so ready to assimilate?
I'm all for learning other languages, as I have a conversational understanding of French and Italian from traveling over the years, but why is this a requirement?
How impractical would it have been to require all Americans to learn Italian, French, German, etc, 100 years ago...not only is it not practical but it belies an implicit failure to assimilate.
The problem as that immigration should be based on supply and demand. The quotas should match this and updated annually in consideration to the needs of our economy. If you did this, the country benefits from immigration and at the same time the immigrants would be legal, therefore paying tax money as well.
The number one issue for me is not clarifying between illegal immigration and legal immigration. If you blend these two issues together you are not discussing the issue correctly, IMO.
Ding-ding-ding-ding-ding!
I'm with EdW. This is what I perceive to be the critical issue that needs to be addressed first and foremost. Other issues are by-products of this main issue, and will take care of themselves if this issue is dealt with.
It's a very old issue, as someone else mentioned. The difference now is people are coming from Mexico instead of Ireland, etc.
quote:
Originally posted by Ed W
Immigration has been a hot button issue in this country since the Irish potato famine in the 1840s (?) if not sooner. Successive waves of immigrants arrived here for much the same reason - the economic opportunity that a good job brings. The Poles, Jews, Chinese and Italians all faced the same anti-immigrant biases. The present 'hot issue' of immigration is hardly new.
But if Marx was right about all conflict originating from economic reasons, then there's an economic solution to the problem of immigration. Simply eliminate the low-paying jobs that 'real' Americans won't take by passing legislation that heavily penalizes employers of illegals. Wages will rise until under-employed citizens see the jobs as a realistic alternative to lesser paying jobs.
How much would they have to pay for any one of us to take a job in a meat cutting plant or as a field hand? And how much would you be willing to see your grocery prices rise as a result?
quote:
Originally posted by deinstein
The problem as that immigration should be based on supply and demand. The quotas should match this and updated annually in consideration to the needs of our economy. If you did this, the country benefits from immigration and at the same time the immigrants would be legal, therefore paying tax money as well.
The kind of immigrants we really need are skilled workers. Today's industry does not have much of a need for un-skilled or un-educated workers. Much of the unskilled work is going to China. People really need more than just a high-school education to make it in todays world. What they plan to do with millions of illegals when they make them legal is beyond me, and it will slam the taxpayers hard. For every dollar an illegal earns it costs the taxpayers about $2-$3.00 in socal services (or about $22,000 a year per illegal alien). The nation will go broke. We cannot afford floods of immigrants who can't pay their own way, and the jobs are not there for waves and waves of immigrants..
And yes, my post is WAY too simplified, given the topic. But I think employers conducting themselves legally is a good place to start. Seems like they add the most fuel to the fire. The other issues are the other issues. I just picked one because that's what the idea behind the thread was.
As an aside, most of the people I've encountered who have brought this subject up in my presence have done so from a very racist place. They have little to no knowledge of immigration policy or the laws past/present, no knowledge of immigration to/from this country historically, and no interest in having any knowledge going forward. The views seem to come from a place of frustration about things which they feel they have no control over, and are often largely unrelated to Mexican immigration, when you get right down to brass tacks. Reminds me of indian casinos. Don't get people going on that subject, either. The most asinine diatribes will spew forth with no apparent rhyme or reason.
This is one of those topics where I feel like we're best off eductating ourselves individually, then making informed choices come elections.
quote:
Originally posted by S.
Ding-ding-ding-ding-ding!
I'm with EdW. This is what I perceive to be the critical issue that needs to be addressed first and foremost. Other issues are by-products of this main issue, and will take care of themselves if this issue is dealt with.
It's a very old issue, as someone else mentioned. The difference now is people are coming from Mexico instead of Ireland, etc.
quote:
Originally posted by Ed W
Immigration has been a hot button issue in this country since the Irish potato famine in the 1840s (?) if not sooner. Successive waves of immigrants arrived here for much the same reason - the economic opportunity that a good job brings. The Poles, Jews, Chinese and Italians all faced the same anti-immigrant biases. The present 'hot issue' of immigration is hardly new.
But if Marx was right about all conflict originating from economic reasons, then there's an economic solution to the problem of immigration. Simply eliminate the low-paying jobs that 'real' Americans won't take by passing legislation that heavily penalizes employers of illegals. Wages will rise until under-employed citizens see the jobs as a realistic alternative to lesser paying jobs.
How much would they have to pay for any one of us to take a job in a meat cutting plant or as a field hand? And how much would you be willing to see your grocery prices rise as a result?
Just found this on a blog:
Is it OK for Oklahoma to have a law that promotes hate among people?"
Just as predicted, there are plans in the works from various groups to come to the aid of thousands of illegal foreign nationals in the state of Oklahoma despite legislation put in place by the will of the people, you know - the legal citizens of Oklahoma. I'm telling you if illegal foreign nationals end up having equal or more rights than legal citizens our country, as we know it, is finished.
Starting Wednesday, a billboard near 21st and 1-44 in Tulsa will say: "Is it OK for Oklahoma to have a law that promotes hate among people?"
This fight begins by an action that tries to shift the will of the people into a crime of hate! How dare they. How dare they!
I know all of the discussions about illegal immigrants coming into the US, and the discussions about crime, jobs, and clogging up ER's, and everything else.
But, there is a bigger issue that I think is overlooked in all of this, and that is the health of these people coming into our country. Anyone of us traveling out of the US depending on where we go, may need to get vaccinated for certain diseases, or booster shots for other issues. The people that are coming here illegaly have not been checked for any form of communicable disease what so ever. NOTHING! While not being ill, thet can be carriers of disease and illness.
I bring this up because my wife who is a 3rd generation Arizonian is currently dealing with and being treated for a form of meningitis. From talking to the people treating her, and information that I have researched on the CDC website, most forms of this have been controlled or removed from the US to the point that some forms have been rare in the US to the point of 2 per 100,000 people for some strains.
While we can't pinpoint the point of her exposure, I can't help but wonder if any of these illegal immigrants (I mean all illegals, period) could bring in something that was nearly removed from the US. There has been a recent change in the number of cases of bacterial meningitis in adults while there has been a decline in cases of infants, children, and the elderly.
I'm just saying that there is a larger concern that I haven't really seen addressed by anyone for the president on down to your local representative about this, in any state or in any form of news media.
Restored2x quoted: You are funny! (You are trying to be funny, right?)
***************************
Even the jesters may show wisdom even in jest.
"every illegal alien costs taxpayers $22,000 a year in social sevices"
what BS. That would mean the 60,000 illegals in Tulsa cost us 1.3 billiondollars!
This is an issue that needs to be dealt with soon, but that kind of misinformation is just plain silly.
As for the billboards, don't pro-immigrant groups have the same rights as anti-immigrant groups?
no. cuz the anti-immigrant groups are all VICTIMS.
/sarcasm.
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
QuoteNo, they do deserve their share of the blame, too. As a Union member I could leave Tulsa for much greener pastures in much friendlier places. I choose to stay and stand up for an honest days pay for an honest days work, a safe workplace and secure health/retirement benefits where I have lived the majority of my life. Sorry, if I have very little sympathy or respect for those who lack the intestinal fortitude to stand up for themselves where they live and whose actions hurt the welfare of their fellow workers in the process. There is nothing redeemable or admirable about that IMO.
Too bad. Because of the insatiable appetite of the unions of this country to unionize disount retailers like WalMart and their efforts to screw up the grocery industry, your unions have completely ignored the REAL workers of this country.
If the union bureacracy in this country cannot be reformed, it should be replaced. I have my CWA cards...
The worker is my brother... the worker who is trying to provide for his/her family... not some unionized bureaucratic tea party...
quote:
Originally posted by dbacks fan
But, there is a bigger issue that I think is overlooked in all of this, and that is the health of these people coming into our country. Anyone of us traveling out of the US depending on where we go, may need to get vaccinated for certain diseases, or booster shots for other issues. The people that are coming here illegaly have not been checked for any form of communicable disease what so ever. NOTHING! While not being ill, thet can be carriers of disease and illness.
I bring this up because my wife who is a 3rd generation Arizonian is currently dealing with and being treated for a form of meningitis. From talking to the people treating her, and information that I have researched on the CDC website, most forms of this have been controlled or removed from the US to the point that some forms have been rare in the US to the point of 2 per 100,000 people for some strains.
While we can't pinpoint the point of her exposure, I can't help but wonder if any of these illegal immigrants (I mean all illegals, period) could bring in something that was nearly removed from the US. There has been a recent change in the number of cases of bacterial meningitis in adults while there has been a decline in cases of infants, children, and the elderly.
I'm just saying that there is a larger concern that I haven't really seen addressed by anyone for the president on down to your local representative about this, in any state or in any form of news media.
Many/most meningitis outbreaks happen at college campuses. Care to tell me how we need to send college students back home? I, personally, had to get a vaccination for meningitis a few years back.......... some people actually died in the outbreak (including an acquaintance who was neither illegal nor hispanic)... and it wasn't caused by immigrants (legal or illegal)...
Instead of using this health issue to justify deportation, how 'bout we step up to the plate and REGISTER all our workers... after all, meningitis could kill them too, eh?
quote:
"every illegal alien costs taxpayers $22,000 a year in social sevices"
quote:
what BS. That would mean the 60,000 illegals in Tulsa cost us 1.3 billiondollars!
quote:
This is an issue that needs to be dealt with soon, but that kind of misinformation is just plain silly.
These aren't all local dollars, they are mostly federal dollars in the form of food stamps and welfare. Some local dollars would be hospital visits that aren't compensated for.
Wasn't the outbreak of disease drug resistant TB in the South Texas border region that was traced back to Mexican nationals?
Wingnut,
No way EVERY SINGLE ILLEGAL ALIEN costs the US $22,000 APIECE in services. If you use 12 million as the number of illegal people here that would be 264 BILLION DOLLARS! Give me a cite or source for your $22,000 number.
USRufnex is right when he says the anti-immigrant groups are Victims. They are victims of their own self-pity. Take out "illegal alien" and replace it with Jew, Asian, or Black and most people would recoil in disgust at the unabashed racism this is promoting.
And before you local Sturmabteilungsmann decide to kick me with your jackboots and call me a liberal apologist...I agree something must be done about the immigration problem. Our system is broken, subject to abuses by both the people coming here illegally and the companies profiting from their labor.
However, the term "illegal" is misleading, being in the US without the proper documents is still just a CIVIL infraction. Criminalizing these folks who have become a necessary part of our economy and who are doing nothing more than trying to earn a living goes against everything America is supposed to be about. Additionally, it adds a very real strain to our economy. When you start breaking up families and making two income households into one income households you certainly will see an increase in the need for tax payer funded social services.
The arguments that Hispanics are unwilling to assimilate is a false one. No one complains about the Oriental grocery store, Kosher market, or Middle Eastern delis. More likely, many immigrants are fearful of their status, and therefore less likely to readily intergrate.
The stereotype about the "uninsured Mexican" is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Unable to get a driver's license, they are consequently unable to obtain insurance. Drive by the car wash at 21st and Garnett and look at some of those trucks. As much money and time as some of those folks have put in their vehicles, you can bet your bottom they would have insurance if they could get it.
A reasonable solution needs to be found to allow people to provide the much needed labor necessary to our national economy and concurrently address the necessity of knowing who exactly is in our country. This won't be accomplished by throwing open our borders and it won't be accomplished by rhetoric which is thinnly veiled race hatred or pure political posturing.
The national spotlight will be turned on Oklahoma when one of these national legal organizations steps up and files a lawsuit. Maybe hb1804 will stand, maybe not. Whatever the case, our image on the national stage will be tarnished.
And if your answer to that is "I don't care," then you just don't get it.
DT,
Read it and weep.....http://www.heritage.org/Research/Immigration/tst052107a.cfm
All I know is what I read and then form an opinion. What I have read on the "pro-illegal immigrant" side seems to ignore the facts that laws are broken, that it costs taxpayers money, and that they demand their "rights", or they are being mistreated. I can't believe that the pro side was against the amnesty plan, saying it was too harsh on them, when it was giving them a free ride, virtually straight away.
I don't make any claims to know any more than anyone else about immigration. But when emergency rooms shutdown because they run out of money because too many illegals come up and use the free services (as has happened in the border region of AZ.) I would say there is a real problem.
One thing I read that rings true is that once someone does something illegal, like crossing the border, they will continue to do illegal things, like driving without a license, or insurance, getting bogus paperwork to get a job, turning to crime to make ends meet, etc. One crime begets another.
quote:
Originally posted by Der Teufel
However, the term "illegal" is misleading, being in the US without the proper documents is still just a CIVIL infraction.
Ooooh, shoot and a miss. Illegal immigration has been a
misdemeanor in the US since 1929. The penalty for a first offense is up to six months in jail or prison and/or a fine of $50 to $250. The fact that it's not enforced does not make it "legal."
Why should I take anything else you've said seriously since you didn't even bother to research this detail?
quote:
This won't be accomplished by throwing open our borders and it won't be accomplished by rhetoric which is thinnly veiled race hatred or pure political posturing.
I would sure call this latest shamnesty bill nothing but political posturing. They were doing nothing but trying to appease the illegals, get them a green card and sign them up to vote.
Why does a group of people wanting another group of people to follow the law become a racist group of people? What is racist about wanting order in a society?
On aspect of the whole issues that is usually overlooked is the fact that we import most all of mexico's oil. Should we start enforcing the law on the illegals that the gov't appears to be sending up here, they could shut off the tap.
I really don't buy the "system is broken" story line at all. There is a good working system in place and there always has been. The problem is that the gov't wasn't doing what they were supposed to be doing in enforcing the law. Those that have failed to do their job should be brought to justice.
I agree with Ip, do some research.
IPLAW,
So, I made a mistake oooooooh geeez burn me at the stake. Frankly, YOUR opinion matters least. Of all the posters I have read on this board, you are one of the most pompous and self-serving in your posts, rebuttals, etc. You're not the only guy (or gal) in town with a law degree, and I'll bet it drives you crazy some of the "ambulance chasers" I seen you complain about rake in the money. You probably look like your avatar in person. Anyway, sod off. (And pardon my overt hostility, but in the months I have been reading this board, you do come across as a horse's behind.)
Wingnut, on the other hand seems to be genuine. So, wing, here's my answer, I'm all for enforcement of the current immigration laws. I don't agree with you that one crime begets another, but I do agree that the US must be able to secure its borders and we cannot just open up the doors wide and invite everyone in.
Here's why the system is broken...the immigration mess is like "an attractive nuisance." (Oh, bugger me IPLAW isn't that Torts I?) If you owned a swimming pool, complete with slide, diving board and pool toys, and that pool sat in your unfenced back yard, you would be responsible if some child wandered back there, fell in and gurgled his last breath. This may seem like a paternalistic argument, but we (the States) have lured workers here with good jobs and lax enforcement. Now, we have to deal with the mess we have created.
One thing that is often overlooked is the fate of US Citizen children of illegals. Are they somehow less American than those of you born here? If so, doesn't that philosophy begin to chip away at what it is to be an American.
As to the racism question, here's the problem Wingnut, in the grand old days of unabashed racial profiling, the standard was easy, if a driver was Black, pull 'em over. Now, it's not quite so simple. Pulling over and questioning a Hispanic, the driver may be illegal or he may be a 5th generation American. Hell, he may be a Native American or just someone with a darker complexion than those of us blessed with blonde hair, blue eyes, and bonnie cheeks.
There has to be some sort of solution that addresses the real issues and is fair to all. However, until the 2008 elections are over, I doubt we'll see it.
quote:
Originally posted by Admin
Since a related post went downhill fast, how about we try this another way.
The rules:
Each person can post what they believe to be the #1 problem related to immigration and immigration reform and follow it with their best idea of how to fix it. No negative replies allowed. Post your ideas and read the other suggestions. No name calling, arguing or bashing of other's suggestions. Just consider this the immigration version of 100ideasOK.
The number one problem with is illegal immigration is the employers who hire illegals.The solution is to severely crack down on those hire illegals,we crack down on them by heavy fining,confiscating the property and assets,lengthy prison sentence,felony status and deny the offender any ability to own and or operate a business(no business licenses and anything required to own and or operate business.The fines,prison sentence,felony status,loss of property and assets and loss of future ability to own and or operate a business will encourage businesses to obey the law.The fines and property and assets confiscation of those found guilty of hiring illegals will entice local and state governments to make sure law enforcement is cracking down on those who hire illegals.No jobs for illegals means people will not be coming over here illegally to get jobs.
DT,
I'll take being called genuine as a compliment. Thank you. I try to read up on this stuff, usually on a daily basis, so I can carry on a basis conversation we people on the current topics of the day.
As for employers, Ann Coulter, love her or hate her, (not the point here), said that the gov't should let illegals sue their employers for paying them less than minimum wage. That would clear things up fast!
As fore the racism part. Who knows? If a robbery occurs and the discription is of a 5'8", xxxx color, male, driving a green 4 door, and the cops are looking for that and see someone matching that description, he just profiled. Does he have the right to pull him over whether he's the felon or not? Profiling is a sticky wicket. It's about the only real way to find what your looking for, but you also get what your not looking for, and thats what upsets people.
Look at Israel, they profile everyone in line at the airport. The guards and specially trained to look for sweaty foreheads and underarms and if they see someome that looks suspect, they check them out. Hence, no hijackings in years. Do they pull out innocent people, certainly, are they upset about it, probably not.
Laws forbidding cops to ask obviously illegal people their status because they might profile is crazy.
"The attitude that many illegals seem to have that it's their right to be here and demand citizenship lacks a certain humbleness and shows utter disrespect for Americans. This does follow, though, the philosophy of a movement that was started in the late 60s in Denver, Colorado. It's called the Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlán. In their philosophy it states: "Chicanismo involves a personal decision to reject assimilation and work towards the preservation of our cultural heritage. They seek an end to oppression and exploitation of the Chicano/Chicana community and create a Chicano nationalism which is the key to taking their people forward. You can read more about this on their national website. Their first National Liaison meeting will be held in Denver on Saturday, July 28th. This seems to explain the mindset of the outright indignant demands we see from many illegals, doesn't it? It also explains why the U.S. flag was removed in two instances in California and replace by the Mexican flag last year. One historic document on their website (with no links to it) is El Plan de Aztlan which starts off by saying:
"In the spirit of a new people that is conscious not only of its proud historical heritage but also of the brutal gringo invasion of our territories, We, the Chicano inhabitants and civilizers of the northern land of Aztlán from whence came our forefathers, reclaiming the land of their birth and consecrating the determination of our people of the sun, declare that the call of our blood is our power, our responsibility, and our inevitable destiny..."
(ztruth blog, 7/22/07)
Google "mecha" and find their national website and you can read for yourself.
Are you paying attention?
If I may borrow from CF:
(http://www.harringa.com/wforum/images/smiles/confused.jpg)
quote:
So, I made a mistake oooooooh geeez burn me at the stake. Frankly, YOUR opinion matters least. Of all the posters I have read on this board, you are one of the most pompous and self-serving in your posts, rebuttals, etc. You're not the only guy (or gal) in town with a law degree, and I'll bet it drives you crazy some of the "ambulance chasers" I seen you complain about rake in the money. You probably look like your avatar in person. Anyway, sod off. (And pardon my overt hostility, but in the months I have been reading this board, you do come across as a horse's behind.)
I'll take either Pot or Kettle on the phone for $500 Alex...
quote:
Here's why the system is broken...the immigration mess is like "an attractive nuisance." (Oh, bugger me IPLAW isn't that Torts I?) If you owned a swimming pool, complete with slide, diving board and pool toys, and that pool sat in your unfenced back yard, you would be responsible if some child wandered back there, fell in and gurgled his last breath. This may seem like a paternalistic argument, but we (the States) have lured workers here with good jobs and lax enforcement. Now, we have to deal with the mess we have created.
Poor analogy, you should pick up a torts book sometime, might do you some good.
quote:
One thing that is often overlooked is the fate of US Citizen children of illegals. Are they somehow less American than those of you born here? If so, doesn't that philosophy begin to chip away at what it is to be an American.
Not really, but you're free to make your points about it and we can go from there.
Fuel for the fire:
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1649483,00.html?cnn=yes
Parents brought them in when they were toddlers - now they may be deported because the parents got caught.
Not anchor babies - they were born in Colombia - but raised here.
I think this atricle tells us what is most wrong with the immigration thing: Politics.
IP:
I'll be the kettle, you be the pot. One puts one the kettle, and one....well you get the idea.
(Incidently, I like your avatar, I just couldn't resist the dig... I'll ask your indulgence.)
"Poor analogy, you should pick up a torts book sometime, might do you some good."
Done me better than you might imagine. I should like to know how exactly it is a poor analogy.
Why would the US Citizen child of illegals be less American than the rest of you? If you take a strict constructionalist view of the Constitution, are not all born here equally Americans?
So far you've only disagreed with me, but not offered any of your own arguments. Pray, dazzle us with your brillance Herr Doktor Rechtsanwalt.
brilliance Herr Doktor brilliance Diese Sprache ist häufig schwierig.
quote:
Originally posted by Wingnut
DT,
Read it and weep.....http://www.heritage.org/Research/Immigration/tst052107a.cfm
All I know is what I read and then form an opinion. ..
What do you read besides Heritage Foundation research...isn't that an oxymoron?[;)]
POEM - Illegal Immigrants
I cross River, poor and broke,
Take bus, see unemployment folk.
Nice man treat me good in there,
Say I need go see Welfare.
Welfare say, "You come no more,
We send cash right to your door."
Welfare checks, they make you wealthy,
Medicaid it keep you healthy!
By and by, Got plenty money,
Thanks to you, TAXPAYER dummy
Write to friends in motherland,
Tell them 'come, fast as you can'
They come in SUVs and Ford trucks,
I buy big house with welfare bucks.
They come here, we live together,
More welfare checks, it gets better!
Fourteen families, they moving in,
But neighbor's patience wearing thin.
Finally, white guy moves away,
I buy his house, and then I say,
"Find more aliens for House to Rent."
In my yard I put a tent.
Send for family, they just trash,
But can pay me rent with welfare cash!
Everything is very good,
Soon we own the whole neighborhood.
We have hobby it called breeding,
Welfare pay for baby feeding.
Kids need dentist? Wife need pills?
We get free! Medicaid pay bill!
TAXPAYER crazy! He pay all year,
To keep welfare check coming here.
We think America darn good place!
Too darn good for white man race.
If they no like us, they can GO,
Got lots of room in Mexico.
It's all a little ironic. Years ago white folks came here by the thousands. They thought indians were ignorant. They came in and changed our language, took over our land and change our government. Pushed indians onto reservations were the land was infertal and with more population than resorces to feed them. It all worked out for the best. Right? Unless you are indian. Better start brushing up on your spanish. This wouldn't be the first time this has happened in the USA.
quote:
Originally posted by USRufnex
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
QuoteNo, they do deserve their share of the blame, too. As a Union member I could leave Tulsa for much greener pastures in much friendlier places. I choose to stay and stand up for an honest days pay for an honest days work, a safe workplace and secure health/retirement benefits where I have lived the majority of my life. Sorry, if I have very little sympathy or respect for those who lack the intestinal fortitude to stand up for themselves where they live and whose actions hurt the welfare of their fellow workers in the process. There is nothing redeemable or admirable about that IMO.
Too bad. Because of the insatiable appetite of the unions of this country to unionize disount retailers like WalMart and their efforts to screw up the grocery industry, your unions have completely ignored the REAL workers of this country.
If the union bureacracy in this country cannot be reformed, it should be replaced. I have my CWA cards...
The worker is my brother... the worker who is trying to provide for his/her family... not some unionized bureaucratic tea party...
A brotherhood of rats who steal from the families of their siblings by working for slave wages? BTW, service workers shouldn't be relegated to second class, slave wage serfs, they deserve the right to join a union and collectively bargain, too. I agree with you that the leadership of Unions have been co-opted and have lost touch with their rank and file memberships. A Union job for a Union contractor means equal pay for equal work regardless of race, gender, religion, national origin, political affiliation, or sexual orientation. Think about what we would be like without unions: IF IT WASN'T FOR THE UNION
Loren Adams, 6th District Vice-President, Arkansas Postal Workers Union
Where would you be today if it wasn't for the Union? How much would you be making? Would you constantly be a target for firing just because... and with no such thing as "just cause"? What kind of a benefit package would you boast? How many rights could you claim?
Millions of workers in America find themselves living in fear: Fear of losing their jobs because the company bosses are threatening to outsource the whole operation to some other country if they don't get what they want — less pay for workers, more wealth for the few at the top.
On the other hand, there's the threat to hire immigrants (legal or the other kind) just because the current government looks the other way at such practices. In truth, if they decide not to export the company lock-stock & barrel, by golly they're going to import cheap foreign labor — just to show who's boss and to boast how "patriotic" they are.
Ruth Voshell drove me around Jonesboro a couple years ago and showed me empty factories that had moved to China, Mexico and elsewhere. I hope the buildings have re-opened to industry, that back then they were vacant. It was like seeing a ghost town, except they were fairly new buildings — empty of course.
I thought then, "How could they let this happen to America?"
Well, the pace has actually picked up. Our industrial base is deteriorating right under our feet. NAFTA, WTO and other such trade agreements have eroded the labor-base, and thus America's economic engine: the mighty middle class. They say the only things keeping us afloat are credit cards and indebtedness to China.
Yes, politicians give the problem proper lip-service, but what have they done? This is what's eating away at America's heart today -- not all the phony-balogny we hear so much about!
In contrast, Unions in this country have made a big impact — the kind that boosts the overall economy, the kind that helps the middle class be the powerhouse of the USA. The 8-hour day, 40-hour week, week-ends off, child labor laws, over-time, safety, retirement, health and life insurances, and a host of other benefits oft' forgot.
Do you question this fact? Well, before unions came along in the good ol' U.S. of A., there was no middle class — only the few "have's" and the "have-not's" (the rest of the population). Union pioneers opened the opportunities we enjoy today — paying for them with their blood, sweat and tears. Many of them were imprisoned; hundreds of the union rank & file died while trying to picket and demonstrate against injustice. It was never a pretty picture.
One incident stands out in my mind, the massacre at Ludlow, Colorado in 1914 where several dozen miners, their wives and children were mowed down by state troopers and hired company militia. Mother Jones was imprisoned there for many months trying to help the miners.
Ludlow was repeated by several incidents across the country, although at a smaller scale.
Our struggle for rights, better working conditions and a fair day's pay for a fair day's labor never came easy. Never will.
It's a fact: If it wasn't for unions, there would be no middle class. And as labor goes, so goes America.
And that's the predicament we're heading for now if we don't stand up and stand with the union!
Though some excuse themselves from sharing the load, they are quick at demanding the advantages — as if they were entitled to them. There are a million and one alibis NOT to belong — most every one of them groundless — but one main reason to join: RESPONSIBILITY. No one twists your arm to sign up; it's your own free will. Remember, though, that fellow workers are carrying your load — making sure that you have a good-paying job and better working conditions.
It's not cheap to keep it going either. Like hiring a lawyer... if you want a cheap ambulance chaser to represent you, then that's what you'll end up with. Best of luck with your jailtime.
On the other hand, let's be grateful to belong to one of the greatest organizations in the world: THE UNION. Just like democracy is imperfect, so is the union. But like democracy, unionism is the BEST there is to offer.
quote:
What do you read besides Heritage Foundation research...isn't that an oxymoron?
Who else has done any substantial research into the issue? Rector researches and studies the issues for a living. I don't, and I'll guess no one else on this board does either. If anyone would know about the true effects of illegal aliens on the country it would be him.
If you don't agree with Rectors evaluation of the situation, your issue is with him, not me.
By all means, show some other research that has some real numbers and not rhetoric and I'll read it.
Where do you get your information on the subject?
quote:
Done me better than you might imagine. I should like to know how exactly it is a poor analogy.
The doctrine of attractive nuisance applies only to children. Because children are easily distracted by sometimes inherently dangerous objects it becomes the responsibilty of the adult who owns said object to keep children away. Attractive nuisance really echos the idea that children are inherent incompent as it relates to appreciating and understanding dangers. It's an issue of imposing protection on those who don't possess the mental faculties to protect themselves from obvious dangers.
You're getting confused by the word "attractive." Yes, America is "attractive" which makes people want to come here, but there are no dangers we're bound to protect them against. We owe no illegal immigrant a duty to protect them from the fact that their homeland is a 3rd world dump, and America looks like paradise.
Plus the doctrine itself has balancing provisions in it, but I won't go there.
quote:
Why would the US Citizen child of illegals be less American than the rest of you? If you take a strict constructionalist view of the Constitution, are not all born here equally Americans?
Are you a strict constructionalist by philosophy or only when it suits your purposes?
quote:
So far you've only disagreed with me, but not offered any of your own arguments. Pray, dazzle us with your brillance Herr Doktor Rechtsanwalt.
No thanks. Given my opinion on the topic a few dozen times, the search feature should give you enough information to satisfy your curiosity.
Well, I see Chicken Little completely twisted off last week. Glad I brought back some sugary white sand to pound into a rat hole.
I also see as per usual, that our latest immigration discussion as gone absolutely no where and IP is picking up more fans.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Well, I see Chicken Little completely twisted off last week. Glad I brought back some sugary white sand to pound into a rat hole.
I also see as per usual, that our latest immigration discussion as gone absolutely no where and IP is picking up more fans.
[:P]
IP:
You win. (I expect you don't hear that too often). You win.
I haven't the slightest interest in searching through your past posts. Perhaps you should change the name IPLAW to ILLAW for intellectually lazy).
Ciao bello,
Conan,
We're still wondering if you two (you, and our friend IP) are U.S. citizens. If so, then why? What's your claim? It's apparently a real stumper for you guys; we've been waiting.[;)]
Sorry for making you wait.
I tried to illegaly migrate to the Mexican Riviera last week. Didn't work. They have certain procedures in place to keep Americans from having any rights, access to healthcare without a pocket-full of cash, a job, and even if my wife had given birth there, the child wouldn't have been given automatic citizenship. If I'd have pissed on a street corner I'd still be in jail.
Pretty much a bust.
Sorry the citizenship quandry is keeping you up at night. As a child of American citizens, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, I'm a citizen. Pretty tough to figure out, eh?
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Sorry for making you wait.
I tried to illegaly migrate to the Mexican Riviera last week. Didn't work. They have certain procedures in place to keep Americans from having any rights, access to healthcare without a pocket-full of cash, a job, and even if my wife had given birth there, the child wouldn't have been given automatic citizenship. If I'd have pissed on a street corner I'd still be in jail.
Pretty much a bust.
Sorry the citizenship quandry is keeping you up at night. As a child of American citizens, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, I'm a citizen. Pretty tough to figure out, eh?
(http://www.fivestars.org.uk/images/5starani.gif)
quote:
Originally posted by Der Teufel
I haven't the slightest interest in searching through your past posts. Perhaps you should change the name IPLAW to ILLAW for intellectually lazy).
The irony in your posts is just delightful. Thanks for the laughs.
Have anything of substance to add or are you just here to flame? Your obsession with me is bordering on pathetic.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Sorry for making you wait.
I tried to illegaly migrate to the Mexican Riviera last week. Didn't work. They have certain procedures in place to keep Americans from having any rights, access to healthcare without a pocket-full of cash, a job, and even if my wife had given birth there, the child wouldn't have been given automatic citizenship. If I'd have pissed on a street corner I'd still be in jail.
Pretty much a bust.
Sorry the citizenship quandry is keeping you up at night. As a child of American citizens, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, I'm a citizen. Pretty tough to figure out, eh?
Yeah...sorry Chicken, thought we both clearly answered that question last week, but nice summary Conan.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
...As a child of American citizens, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, I'm a citizen. Pretty tough to figure out, eh?...
That's not what the law says. The 14th Amendment says, "all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof shall be citizens of the United States and of the State in which they reside."
"Stars and Stripes Forever" mp3 (//%22http://www.dws.org/sousa/mp2/dws-ssf.mp3%22)
A child born to diplomats would not be "subject to the jurisdiction". But, children born to all others are born
Americans. While it may be "nifty" that your parents were born here, unless they themselves were born to diplomatic employees, their status is immaterial. In fact, pick a status: US citizen, legal alien, illegal alien, foreign national living here illegally, resident, or nonresident alien...unless they are diplomatic employees, they are all subject to the laws of this country. And no matter how you slice it, if they have kids here, their kids are 100%, true-blue
Americans.
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
...As a child of American citizens, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, I'm a citizen. Pretty tough to figure out, eh?...
That's not what the law says. The 14th Amendment says, "all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof shall be citizens of the United States and of the State in which they reside."
"Stars and Stripes Forever" mp3 (//%22http://www.dws.org/sousa/mp2/dws-ssf.mp3%22)
A child born to diplomats would not be "subject to the jurisdiction". But, children born to all others are born Americans. While it may be "nifty" that your parents were born here, unless they themselves were born to diplomatic employees, their status is immaterial. In fact, pick a status: US citizen, legal alien, illegal alien, foreign national living here illegally, resident, or nonresident alien...unless they are diplomatic employees, they are all subject to the laws of this country. And no matter how you slice it, if they have kids here, their kids are 100%, true-blue Americans.
Please start at the end of page one and continue on. I gave my explaination for this three weeks ago.
Looks like the sock puppets are out in force......
This article still haunts me today and shows you how bad "cheap labor" can affect legal citizens.
April 10, 2006
Arrival of illegal aliens ousts U.S. workers
By Jerry Seper
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published April 10, 2006
Linda Swope, who operates Complete Employment Services Inc. in Mobile, Ala., told The Washington Times last week that the workers --
whom she described as U.S. citizens, residents of Alabama and predominantly black -- had been "urgently requested" by contractors hired to rebuild and clear devastated areas of the state, but were told to leave three job sites when the foreign workers showed up.
"After Katrina, our company had 70 workers on the job the first day, but the companies decided they didn't need them anymore because
the Mexicans had arrived," Mrs. Swope said. "I assure you it is not true that Americans don't want to work.
"We had been told that 270 jobs might be available, and we could have filled every one of them with men from this area, most of whom lost their jobs because of the hurricane," she said. "When we told the guys they would not be needed, they actually cried ... and we cried with them. This is a shame."
Mrs. Swope said employment agencies throughout Alabama, Louisiana and Mississippi faced similar problems, when thousands of men from
Mexico and several Central and South American countries -- many in crowded buses and trucks -- came into the three states after Katrina,
looking for employment and willing to work for less money.
The number of foreign workers who flooded the area after the hurricane has been estimated at more than 30,000. Many of them have been identified by law-enforcement authorities and others as illegal aliens.
The Gulf Coast Latin American Association noted in a report that whether those workers will remain after the cleanup work is completed is
not clear, but the longer those jobs last, the more likely it is that the workers will settle permanently. After Hurricane Andrew hit
southeastern Florida in 1992, the association said, the construction boom attracted large numbers of Hispanic immigrants to several areas, including Homestead, Fla., where the Latino population doubled during the 1990s.
Many of the illegal aliens came into the Gulf Coast states not only from south of the border but also from California, Arizona and Texas,
responding to the demand for workers. U.S. Border Patrol officials in the three states have reported an increase in the number of illegals apprehended.
Some of the migrants who did get jobs in the Gulf states also were mistreated, records show. Two class-action lawsuits are pending in federal court in New Orleans in which thousands of migrant workers said they never were paid, although many worked 12-hour shifts, seven days a week and were required to remove toxic contamination from hurricane-ravaged buildings.
Some of the named companies were working on contracts from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and other government agencies.
Government estimates put at 400,000 the number of jobs lost in the Gulf region as a result of Katrina, which displaced more than 1.5
million people, and many of those workers left the area to seek employment elsewhere because available construction, laborer and cleanup
jobs in Alabama, Louisiana and Mississippi had been filled by foreign workers, including illegal aliens.
President Bush last week signed the Katrina Emergency Assistance Act of 2006, which extended for 13 weeks unemployment compensation
benefits to more than 140,000 residents of the Gulf states who were displaced from their jobs by Katrina. Their benefits, funded by FEMA,
had expired March 4. Would-be employers in Alabama, Louisiana and Mississippi, awash in cleanup and reconstruction jobs, faced little in the way of legal problems in hiring the illegal aliens after Katrina because the Department of Homeland Security temporarily suspended the sanctioning of employers who hired workers unable to document their citizenship.
Mr. Bush also had suspended the Davis-Bacon Act, which requires local contractors to pay "prevailing" wages, in the areas hit by Katrina to encourage reconstruction and cleanup.
"The men we sent to jobs in Alabama were local fellows looking for work, men who needed jobs," Mrs. Swope said. "After driving 50 miles to
the work sites where they had been promised $10 an hour, they discovered the employers had found substitutes who were willing to work
for less."
No, IP. You ducked this. You said that your your claim to citizenship wasn't a "valid question". And, you have dodged this question many times. I don't care how boring this thread gets. I'll keep asking you because it's a fair question. And it's pertinent.
You see, I believe that your only claim to citizenship is the circumstances of your birth. So, I'd like to know how you think someone who is entered this world under exactly the same legal circumstances would deserve lesser treatment.
I'd like to know why you are different.
I'd like to know how you are different.
I'd like to know why you think it's okay to demean other Americans. To suggest that they have a lesser claim. That they might be less deserving than you, or frankly, your foreign buddy. How do you justify this epithet, i.e., calling them "anchor babies"? How does your foreign buddy react when you talk like that?
You can't cook up a legal angle, this is all 101 stuff. So, I'll let you off the hook there. But, morally speaking, that little brown baby is your countryman, right?
Respek to Conan for actually providing an answer. I think it's funny that Conan believes he's some special strain of American because his parents and great-grandparents were Americans, too. I keep picturing him dressed like Mr. Howell, sitting on a yacht, plugging away on a laptop. [;)]
But, you know better, IP. You know the law and yet you still think it's okay to behave this way. Why?
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
No, IP. You ducked this. You said that your your claim to citizenship wasn't a "valid question". And, you have dodged this question many times. I don't care how boring this thread gets. I'll keep asking you because it's a fair question. And it's pertinent.
You see, I believe that your only claim to citizenship is the circumstances of your birth. So, I'd like to know how you think someone who is entered this world under exactly the same legal circumstances would deserve lesser treatment.
I'd like to know why you are different.
I'd like to know how you are different.
I'd like to know why you think it's okay to demean other Americans. To suggest that they have a lesser claim. That they might be less deserving than you, or frankly, your foreign buddy. How do you justify this epithet, i.e., calling them "anchor babies"? How does your foreign buddy react when you talk like that?
You can't cook up a legal angle, this is all 101 stuff. So, I'll let you off the hook there. But, morally speaking, that little brown baby is your countryman, right?
Respek to Conan for actually providing an answer. I think it's funny that Conan believes he's some special strain of American because his parents and great-grandparents were Americans, too. I keep picturing him dressed like Mr. Howell, sitting on a yacht, plugging away on a laptop. [;)]
But, you know better, IP. You know the law and yet you still think it's okay to behave this way. Why?
Are you ****ting me or are you really that glib.
Same legal circumstances? What about the parent being an
undocumented alien in the commission of a crime against the citizens of the United States?
How you arrive at any sort of correlation between someone who had the good fortune to be born to someone being able to keep their legs together just long enough to deliver a baby at some **** hole hospital in McAllen, Tx. to my grandfather who was born on the family farm in Nebraska is beyond me.
The main reason the anchor baby was born here in the first place was the family used it as an angle for quatro or ocho familias to become de-facto "citizens" of the U.S.
Comparing someone who purposefully broke the law to exploit the generosity of the American Government to my parents or your parents is outrageous.
Thurston Howell? Something special? No. I'm just sick and ****ing tired of the mentality of our Congress and some mindless nitwits who figure a billion $$ here and a billion $$ there doesn't affect their lives because most liberals don't write the check to the gov't at the end of the year, or don't bother to look at how much damn money the government sucks out of their paycheck every week to help support people who exploit the government.
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
No, IP. You ducked this. You said that your your claim to citizenship wasn't a "valid question". And, you have dodged this question many times. I don't care how boring this thread gets. I'll keep asking you because it's a fair question. And it's pertinent.
You see, I believe that your only claim to citizenship is the circumstances of your birth. So, I'd like to know how you think someone who is entered this world under exactly the same legal circumstances would deserve lesser treatment.
I'd like to know why you are different.
I'd like to know how you are different.
I'd like to know why you think it's okay to demean other Americans. To suggest that they have a lesser claim. That they might be less deserving than you, or frankly, your foreign buddy. How do you justify this epithet, i.e., calling them "anchor babies"? How does your foreign buddy react when you talk like that?
You can't cook up a legal angle, this is all 101 stuff. So, I'll let you off the hook there. But, morally speaking, that little brown baby is your countryman, right?
Respek to Conan for actually providing an answer. I think it's funny that Conan believes he's some special strain of American because his parents and great-grandparents were Americans, too. I keep picturing him dressed like Mr. Howell, sitting on a yacht, plugging away on a laptop. [;)]
But, you know better, IP. You know the law and yet you still think it's okay to behave this way. Why?
Let me say it again. Start on page one and proceed. All your questions are answered.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Are you ****ting me or are you really that glib.
Same legal circumstances? What about the parent being an undocumented alien in the commission of a crime against the citizens of the United States?
How you arrive at any sort of correlation between someone who had the good fortune to be born to someone being able to keep their legs together just long enough to deliver a baby at some **** hole hospital in McAllen, Tx. to my grandfather who was born on the family farm in Nebraska is beyond me.
The main reason the anchor baby was born here in the first place was the family used it as an angle for quatro or ocho familias to become de-facto "citizens" of the U.S.
Comparing someone who purposefully broke the law to exploit the generosity of the American Government to my parents or your parents is outrageous.
Thurston Howell? Something special? No. I'm just sick and ****ing tired of the mentality of our Congress and some mindless nitwits who figure a billion $$ here and a billion $$ there doesn't affect their lives because most liberals don't write the check to the gov't at the end of the year, or don't bother to look at how much damn money the government sucks out of their paycheck every week to help support people who exploit the government.
(http://www.jesseshunting.com/forums/style_emoticons/default/smiley_smack_paddle_ani.gif)
The fact that my parents, grandparents and great-grandparents:
1. Immigrated legally; and
2. I was born to legal citizens.
This doesn't really equate to someone who is ILLEGAL and squirts one out as they hop the fence. Why that is so hard to comprehend is beyond me...
Conan,
"The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin." Dt 24:16
This is, not coincidentally, a fundamental legal principle. And I think we can agree that we are better off for it.
The child has committed no crime. When a child is born a) on US soil, b) not the child of someone with diplomatic immunity, then that child is born an American citizen and a citizen of the state in which they reside. In the eyes of the law, that child's circumstance was no different than your own when you were born.
IP knows this, but he still hasn't admitted it...(yes, going back to page 1)....(sigh).[xx(] The actions of the parents may not EQUATE to the actions of your parents, but they don't MATTER, either. What you're saying is not hard to comprehend, it's simply unimportant. And if you believe in equal opportunity, then it should be unimportant to you, too.
The parents may be guilty of malfeasance, border jumping, and failure to display tailights on a horse at the time of the child's birth. Heck, the mom could deliver him from death row and it wouldn't matter. The child is not at fault. Right, IP?
quote:
Conan said
How you arrive at any sort of correlation between someone who had the good fortune to be born to someone being able to keep their legs together just long enough to deliver a baby at some **** hole hospital in McAllen, Tx. to my grandfather who was born on the family farm in Nebraska is beyond me.
The only relevant correlation is that two children were born on US soil, to parents who were not diplomatic employees. And that's the only correlation that matters to me as an American. It's very important to me that I continue to strive to treat everyone equally. It's hard for me and it's hard for everyone. But, in the end, we are all equal and we shouldn't be looking for excuses to treat others differently...and certainly not from birth.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
[The fact that my parents, grandparents and great-grandparents:
1. Immigrated legally; and
2. I was born to legal citizens.
But today's rules were not in place when your great-grandparents or their relatives came to America.
We didn't even register immigrants and establish green cards until 1940.
To say that they immigrated legally when there were almost no rules doesn't work.
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
The parents may be guilty of malfeasance, border jumping, and failure to display tailights on a horse at the time of the child's birth. Heck, the mom could deliver him from death row and it wouldn't matter. The child is not at fault. Right, IP?
Let's say I agree. The child is now a citizen. Congratulations the parents are STILL ILLEGAL and under the law should be DEPORTED. You can't have it both ways and argue that the LAW IS THE LAW and we should accept the rightful citizenship of those born here, but at the same time ignore the ILLEGAL STATUS of the parent. So that sword cuts both ways.
Is this the case or are you also arguing for selective adherance to laws?
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
[The fact that my parents, grandparents and great-grandparents:
1. Immigrated legally; and
2. I was born to legal citizens.
But today's rules were not in place when your great-grandparents or their relatives came to America.
We didn't even register immigrants and establish green cards until 1940.
To say that they immigrated legally when there were almost no rules doesn't work.
Which still makes them legal...they followed the rules enacted at the time they immigrated. By that line of thinking there were NO immigration laws when the pilgrims came, so we should have NO laws now...that's just silly.
The bottome line in this discussion is that the term "subject to the jurisdiction" has undergone increasing debate over the years. SCOTUS has never ruled on the legality of "anchor babies" so it is still up to Congress to decide what that phrase means, and if they decided to exclude "anchor babies" then SCOTUS will have its say. Right now it's just your opinion versus mine. There is no ruling on this issue and there is no consensus of opinion...but I can assure you that soon there will be.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
The parents may be guilty of malfeasance, border jumping, and failure to display tailights on a horse at the time of the child's birth. Heck, the mom could deliver him from death row and it wouldn't matter. The child is not at fault. Right, IP?
Let's say I agree. The child is now a citizen. Congratulations the parents are STILL ILLEGAL and under the law should be DEPORTED. You can't have it both ways and argue that the LAW IS THE LAW and we should accept the rightful citizenship of those born here, but at the same time ignore the ILLEGAL STATUS of the parent. So that sword cuts both ways.
Is this the case or are you also arguing for selective adherance to laws?
Now we're getting somewhere. Finally. (Whew!)[:)] Yes, I believe that the parents and those who hire them should face justice.
I also believe that this land was settled by immigrants...some of mine came here 20,000 years ago. I don't fear this dynamic. In fact, I love this great melting pot.
And so, I deeply resent the actions of those who have screwed this dynamic up. I want our lawmakers to be accountable; I want nationwide solutions that work. But I also want regular people to recognize their role. Effed up immigration policies are not an excuse to let loose our personal predjudices. In fact, if we want change, we should probably try extra hard to fight those tendancies...which are natural, but not American.
A good start, in my mind, would be to try and resist the temptation to villify young Americans over the circumstances of their birth. They are Americans. And they deserve more than an epithet. This homogenous society that we have created is what made us great to begin with and it's still important to our future.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
The bottome line in this discussion is that the term "subject to the jurisdiction" has undergone increasing debate over the years.
No, the bottom line is that they are Americans in the eyes of the law. Even if the law changed (it won't), these children would likely retain their status. Don't demean them.
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken LittleNow we're getting somewhere. Finally. (Whew!)[:)]
A good start, in my mind, would be to try and resist the temptation to villify young Americans over the circumstances of their birth. They are Americans. And they deserve more than an epithet. This homogenous society that we have created is what made us great to begin with and it's still important to our future.
Back up the cumbya train just a bit. The question of whether they really are legal or not has NOT been answered yet. It really lies in the land of "unchallenged" activities by illegal aliens. We simply haven't
legally reviewed the practice yet. Should SCOTUS rule on the issue and find the practice to be legal (which will not happen) I will agree with you in principle that the law should be obeyed. That has not happened yet and to say that "anchor babies" are 100% legal because the constitution says so ignores the fact that we often have to interpret the constitution to divine meaning, and that has not been done.
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
The bottome line in this discussion is that the term "subject to the jurisdiction" has undergone increasing debate over the years.
No, the bottom line is that they are Americans in the eyes of the law. Even if the law changed (it won't), these children would likely retain their status. Don't demean them.
Can you point me to the law that has interpreted the 14th amendment to include children born to illegal aliens? If not, Congress can still deny them legal status by passing a law which can be reviewed by SCOTUS. If it can be taken away, it aint settled law.
First, don't make me go find a third grader to explain to you which branch creates the law and which branch interprets it. There is no question about whether they "really are legal". Why would you even say this?
quote:
IPLAW said:
Can you point me to the law that has interpreted the 14th amendment to include children born to illegal aliens? If not, Congress can still deny them legal status by passing a law which can be reviewed by SCOTUS. If it can be taken away, it aint settled law.
Sins of the father...
As for the son:
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
quote:
Since Wong (according to the majority opinion) was a U.S. citizen from birth, the restrictions of the Chinese Exclusion Act did not apply to him. An act of Congress, the majority held, does not trump the Constitution; such a law "cannot control [the Constitution's] meaning, or impair its effect, but must be construed and executed in subordination to its provisions."
Chiming in here ...
To say that a person born into U.S. citizenship isn't settled law is a biiiiiiiig stretch. It's practically contortionist. Especially given the ample legal precedents.
The Constitution is specific. You're born in this country, you're a citizen.
In the unlikely event the Congress passes a law changing this, it will be quickly challenged and overturned on appeal well before it's enacted. And with America's demographics rapidly going Hispanics' way, don't bet on a such a constitutional amendment, either. It's just too hard to do.
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
Chiming in here ...
To say that a person born into U.S. citizenship isn't settled law is a biiiiiiiig stretch. It's practically contortionist. Especially given the ample legal precedents.
The Constitution is specific. You're born in this country, you're a citizen.
In the unlikely event the Congress passes a law changing this, it will be quickly challenged and overturned on appeal well before it's enacted. And with America's demographics rapidly going Hispanics' way, don't bet on a such a constitutional amendment, either. It's just too hard to do.
Would you care to provide me some examples since there is "ample legal precedent?"
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
First, don't make me go find a third grader to explain to you which branch creates the law and which branch interprets it.
Didn't think there was a dispute over this...
quote:
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
quote:
Since Wong (according to the majority opinion) was a U.S. citizen from birth, the restrictions of the Chinese Exclusion Act did not apply to him. An act of Congress, the majority held, does not trump the Constitution; such a law "cannot control [the Constitution's] meaning, or impair its effect, but must be construed and executed in subordination to its provisions."
Wong's parents were legal non-citizen residents. This case does not address the facts at hand. Care to mischaraterize any other caselaw?
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Wong's parents were legal non-citizen residents. This case does not address the facts at hand. Care to mischaraterize any other caselaw?
Care to admit you've been whipped? You've lost; you know it.
Children are accountable for the actions of their parents. Why do you agree with this statement, IP?You can't even take the first step, but, just so you know, you've got a whole mountain to climb after that. Here you go: United States V. Wong Kim Ark (//%22http://www.cetel.org/1898_wongkim.html%22)...all the "natural-born" goodness you would ever want to read...and it was written over a century ago.
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
Care to admit you've been whipped? You've lost; you know it.
Once I actually have been I'll admit it, but you're miles away...
quote:
Children are accountable for the actions of their parents. Why do you agree with this statement, IP?
This discussion does not focus around "accountability" it focuses around the legal status of parents and their children.
quote:
United States V. Wong Kim Ark (//%22http://www.cetel.org/1898_wongkim.html%22)...all the "natural-born" goodness you would ever want to read...and it was written over a century ago.
And that's a misstatement (or poor reading comprehension) of the law as there are more elements which serve to establish whether someone is citizen or not. Please provide me with case law that supports your assertion that children born to
illegal immigrants are citizens. Unless you have that, go fish. Congress is free to write laws that challenge the citizenship of those individuals until SCOTUS says it's unconstitutional.
Just as there are exceptions to citizenship based upon a parent being a diplomat, we can clearly divine that the nationality/citizenship or status of the parent
can have dramatic effects on whether we recognize a child as a citizen or not.
In the justice's opinion he states the following:
"Wong Kim Ark was born in 1873 in the city of San Francisco, in the State of California and and United States of America, and was and is a laborer. His father and mother were persons of Chinese descent, and subjects of the Emperor of China; they were at the time of his birth domiciled residents of the United States, having previously established and still enjoying a permanent residence therein at San Francisco"
Is that the same right for a child born to a mother with no permanent residence in the United States? That appears to be significant to SCOTUS in the Ark case. The justices relied heavily on the issue of having a permanent residence in the U.S.
"The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except in so far as this is done by the affirmative declaration that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." In this, as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162; Ex parte Wilson, 114 U.S. 417, 422; Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 624, 625; Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465. The language of the Constitution, as has been well said, could not be understood without reference to the common law. 1 Ken Com. 336; Bradley, J., in Moore v. United States, 91 U.S. 270, 274."
Citation of the English common law continues:
"Children, born in England, of such aliens, were therefore natural-born subjects. but the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the King's dominions, were not natural-born subjects, because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction of the King."
Still leaves room for more interpretation should someone care to dig into the common law issue to interpret the Constitution. "Hostile occupation" doesn't necessarily mean at war.
You're such a kidder.[}:)] Anybody who reads this thread, which at this point is just you and me, can see that your whole argument is predicated on this weird notion of cross-generational guilt. First, that's not very conservative of you.[;)] Second, it's bizarre. And third, unlike that Devil guy, you can't filibuster me.
These babies are Americans, the law says so. Convince us otherwise. You're not an eel, you're an attorney...give us your opinion.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Is that the same right for a child born to a mother with no permanent residence in the United States?
Yes. Resident, non-resident, legal, and illegal aliens are still subject to the laws of this country.
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
You're such a kidder.[}:)] Anybody who reads this thread, which at this point is just you and me, can see that your whole argument is predicated on this weird notion of cross-generational guilt. First, that's not very conservative of you.[;)] Second, it's bizarre. And third, unlike that Devil guy, you can't filibuster me.
These babies are Americans, the law says so. Convince us otherwise. You're not an eel, you're an attorney...give us your opinion.
Is this supposed to be a response?
It doesn't contain a single cogent response to anything I presented in the last 3 posts. If you continue to punt on the discussion while claimin victory that's your problem, and frankly it's just sad.
Did you bother to see that no one else is chiming in to argue this supposedly "obvious point" along with you. Might it be fair to assume that you don't have this as figured out as you think dear Chicken?
1. Both cases and statutes make the status of parents birthing children a consideration in granting citizenship to said children. To argue that it has no bearing simply denies standing case law.
2. No case has been decided on whether children born to
illegals are truly citizens.
Until you can explain away both of those considerations you can't make the claim you're attempting to make.
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Is that the same right for a child born to a mother with no permanent residence in the United States?
Yes. Resident, non-resident, legal, and illegal aliens are still subject to the laws of this country.
That question has never been decided by SCOTUS, despite your claims otherwise.
Again, all I'm asking for is (1) O-N-E case that states (and not in dicta, in the actual opinion) that children born to illegal immigrants are citizens. Just one, only one.
Chicken, you are doing an end zone dance when you have still failed to prove, other than by your own conjecture, that everyone born here is a citizen.
Until SCOTUS looks at the issue of people born to non-residents of the United States, I don't believe you can claim victory.
Let me make sure I understand you here. Let's say an Iranian family is on holiday here for a week. Better yet, for the sake of absurdity, let's say that the father is a key operative in Al Qaeda. Family has never been here before and never returns after they go home. The wife goes into labor six weeks premature and delivers the baby in a U.S. hospital. You believe that baby deserves to be a citizen? Are you personally for bestowing citizenship upon a baby born here by accident as well? That child could move back here when he/she is 18 and vote in our elections even though they know nothing of nor have cultivated any respect for our political process and customs and may have nothing but contempt for our people.
How do you feel about the dual citizenship aspect of people born here to foreign nationals?
Or are you just trying to be a crank to keep IP and myself fired up?
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
1. Both cases and statutes make the status of parents birthing children a consideration in granting citizenship to said children. To argue that it has no bearing simply denies standing case law.
What do you mean by the "status of parents"? Citizenship status or diplomatic status? They are not interchangeable. Diplomatic status matters; citizenship status does not.
quote:
2. No case has been decided on whether children born to illegals are truly citizens.
So what? Do courts make the laws, IP? Or, does Congress? You can speculate about the future, but that doesn't change the present. They are
truly legal.
quote:
Until you can explain away both of those considerations you can't make the claim you're attempting to make.
Done and done. You're the one with a case to make. Make one.
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
Diplomatic status matters; citizenship status does not.
Please, by all means, cite me a case that makes this pronouncement. Just one case that states that the citizenship of parents is NOT a factor. Not an argument from silence, but an actual opinion that explicitly states that assertion.
quote:
So what? Do courts make the laws, IP? Or, does Congress? You can speculate about the future, but that doesn't change the present. They are truly legal.
Courts interpret the laws...but I thought you knew that...and up to now, no court has EVER made the determination. They are legally unchallenged, that does not make them "legal."
I don't expect you to understand case law interpretation, as you have not had formal legal training (which is apparent), but the
facts of a case often make outcomes disparate. Even ones that seem to have similar fact patterns. Without a ruling stating that children of illegals are truly citizens you're just spinning your wheels.
Until you have a ruling stating that the 14th amendment applies to children born to illegals, Congress has the right to pass laws that deny citizenship to them, UNLIKE you or I who were born to legalized citizens, for which there are rulings stating that we CANNOT be denied citizenship. A HUGE FUNDAMENTAL CONSTITUTIONAL DIFFERENCE.All I'm asking for is ONE case.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Chicken, you are doing an end zone dance when you have still failed to prove, other than by your own conjecture, that everyone born here is a citizen.
Until SCOTUS looks at the issue of people born to non-residents of the United States, I don't believe you can claim victory.
Do courts make the law, Conan? Or does Congress? I can't believe you conservatives would take this tack. It's laughable.
quote:
Let me make sure I understand you here. Let's say an Iranian family is on holiday here for a week. Better yet, for the sake of absurdity, let's say that the father is a key operative in Al Qaeda. Family has never been here before and never returns after they go home. The wife goes into labor six weeks premature and delivers the baby in a U.S. hospital. You believe that baby deserves to be a citizen? Are you personally for bestowing citizenship upon a baby born here by accident as well? That child could move back here when he/she is 18 and vote in our elections even though they know nothing of nor have cultivated any respect for our political process and customs and may have nothing but contempt for our people.
No, the Constitution is bestowing citizenship upon him. He's a freakin' baby, what's his crime?
quote:
How do you feel about the dual citizenship aspect of people born here to foreign nationals?
I feel that, for some, dual citizenship can mean dual loyalty. I think that clearances and entitlements should be restricted in ways that protect the security of this country.
quote:
Or are you just trying to be a crank to keep IP and myself fired up?
No.
quote:
Do courts make the law, Conan? Or does Congress?
Congress may pass a law denying citizenship to children born to illegals. SCOTUS may deny citizenship based upon a cert petition. Is this really that difficult?
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
[brPlease, by all means, cite me a case that makes this pronouncement. Just one case that states that the citizenship of parents is NOT a factor. Not an argument from silence, but an actual opinion that explicitly states that assertion.
That's unecessary. The 14th Amendment says, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." Seems like you are the one that needs to give up ONE case where citizenship status resulted in someone being found not subject to the laws of this country.
quote:
Courts interpret the laws...but I thought you knew that...and up to now, no court has EVER made the determination. They are legally unchallenged, that does not make them "legal."
An unchallenged law is still the law. Show me different.
quote:
I don't expect you to understand case law interpretation, as you have not had formal legal training (which is apparent), but the facts of a case often make outcomes disparate.
Oh, climb off your high horse. You've been posting here for, what, over a year? What have you brought to this community? You do very little work and you don't share. It's all tactics..."Hey, look at me...I'm slippery...woo-hoo!" Well, to tell the truth, I like arguing with you. But, don't think that you've made an impression. I'll defer to you when you actually decide to go all in and show us something. Where's the beef? Where's the corpse?
quote:
Even ones that seem to have similar fact patterns. Without a ruling stating that children of illegals are truly citizens you're just spinning your wheels. Until you have a ruling stating that the 14th amendment applies to children born to illegals, Congress has the right to pass laws that deny citizenship to them, UNLIKE you or I who were born to legalized citizens, for which there are rulings stating that we CANNOT be denied citizenship. A HUGE FUNDAMENTAL CONSTITUTIONAL DIFFERENCE.
All I'm asking for is ONE case.
You see, this is much better. I understand this. But you are backwards and you know it. The 14th amendment applies until a ruling says otherwise.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Do courts make the law, Conan? Or does Congress?
Congress may pass a law denying citizenship to children born to illegals. SCOTUS may deny citizenship based upon a cert petition. Is this really that difficult?
Sure, they may, but they haven't yet. And the law says they are US citizens. Is it really that difficult?
Hey, I just wanted to slip in an aside here. You may remember a thread of a few weeks past that discussed the downturn in business in Tulsa's Latin community and reports that Latin people were leaving town. I expressed some reservations then about how deep this exodus was going to be. I am now confident based on news reports, reports from friends and calls to my place of employment, that there is indeed a real exodus in progress.
Of course I am most sad that people are living in fear and Oklahoma has acted without humanity in a way that diminishes all of us.
And it looks like this really may effect Tulsa's bottom line.
I want you to remember that we can thank our Congressman Sullivan and his cronies for this.
Chicken little,
IP didn't run me off, just bored with his babble. Er ist ein ziemlich stumpfer Gefährte, Sie zustimmen? Or in Okie, he's a boring guy.
You'll never convince him, and he is not interested in a real debate, he simply avoids the questions he doesn't wish to answer or engages in spin and equivocation. Or he is a sarcastic donkey of the fashion that probably had few dates in college. Waste of time to deal with him in any fashion.
It is refreshing to know there are compassionate people on both sides of this debate, you and Wingnut being examples.
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Do courts make the law, Conan? Or does Congress?
Congress may pass a law denying citizenship to children born to illegals. SCOTUS may deny citizenship based upon a cert petition. Is this really that difficult?
Sure, they may, but they haven't yet. And the law says they are US citizens. Is it really that difficult?
Yes, it is more difficult and complex than you're making it. You're making leaps that DON'T exist in the law. There is no law/ruling that grants them citizenship. They are NOT LEGAL, their citizenship exists in a vacuum in the law.
The
major legal distinction between a child born to an illegal and ME is that MY citizenship CANNOT BE CHALLENGED any longer. There is STANDING PRECEDENT stating that children born to legalized citizens are defacto citizens. There is NO SUCH RULING making that determination for anchor babies. The best you can establish is a
lack of the practice being challenged which does not equate to "legal." The Courts simply haven't made a determination yet. They have not examined whether the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction" includes children born to illegals. Until then they are neither legal nor illegal, they simply live in the US.
quote:
Originally posted by Hometown
Hey, I just wanted to slip in an aside here. You may remember a thread of a few weeks past that discussed the downturn in business in Tulsa's Latin community and reports that Latin people were leaving town. I expressed some reservations then about how deep this exodus was going to be. I am now confident based on news reports, reports from friends and calls to my place of employment, that there is indeed a real exodus in progress.
Of course I am most sad that people are living in fear and Oklahoma has acted without humanity in a way that diminishes all of us.
And it looks like this really may effect Tulsa's bottom line.
I want you to remember that we can thank our Congressman Sullivan and his cronies for this.
It would be interesting to hear from these people directly. Maybe some of your Latin business owner friends could sign up for an account and tell us what is going on.
If they're more comfortable in spanish - there's a place on here (Thanks TulsaNow!) that we could discuss this issue in spanish. English would be better, just because more people can participate. Spanglish also acceptable.
Tulsa businesses are important to all Tulsans - maybe hearing directly from someone affected would elicit more humane conversation and give some of us a different perspective.
quote:
Originally posted by Der Teufel
Chicken little,
IP didn't run me off, just bored with his babble. Er ist ein ziemlich stumpfer Gefährte, Sie zustimmen? Or in Okie, he's a boring guy.
Got anything of substance to add der wienerschnitzel or are you just here for the ad hominems?
quote:
Or he is a sarcastic donkey of the fashion that probably had few dates in college.
With as much attention as you give to me it seems like that's what you're wanting from me...why else would you be so obsessed?
quote:
You see, this is much better. I understand this. But you are backwards and you know it. The 14th amendment applies until a ruling says otherwise.
Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. The Constitution has be to interpreted to give meaning to phrases like "subject to the jurisdiction", as most issues require subjective SCOTUS interpretation. No one has ever asked the question of SCOTUS, "are children born to illegals really citizens?" and until that happens they are simply just
allowed to stay, that DOES NOT EQUATE to being LEGAL. Whether someone is really
legal or not depends on how the court rules with regards to interpreting "subject to the jurisdiction." Until then...well...they just
are because we refuse to do anything about it.
By your logic there can be no such thing as an illegal alien because as soon as they cross onto American soil with the intent of staying they become citizens because they are now "subject to the jurisdiction." Plainly an unworkable legal definition.
Here's a story I found kind of interesting ....
THE RAID HOTLINE IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
By Ed Morrissey
Illegal immigrants are mad as hell, and they're not going to take it any more. Claiming that the government "terrorizes" illegal by arresting them, activists have set up a hotline in my old stomping grounds of Orange County, California to tip off illegals when and where the ICE will conduct raids on employers (h/t CQ reader Stoo):
Responding to a refusal by city leaders to declare the city a sanctuary for illegal immigrants, more than a dozen people gathered outside City Hall on Monday night to denounce recent immigration raids, accusing federal officials of "terrorizing" immigrant communities and breaking up families.
A coalition of local immigrant rights groups, including the Orange County Alliance for Immigrants Rights and the Front Against the Raids, announced a planned program to create a hot line that will notify people where and when immigration raids will take place. The program would also coordinate a support system for the families of deportee targets.
"We want to have a more organized effort to counter these attacks," said Jaime Conteras, a 20-year-old Filipino immigrant who now lives in Santa Ana. "We cannot let people trample on our rights."
During five days of raids in June, 175 people in Orange County were arrested on suspected immigration violations. The raids arrested 27 suspected criminals, including a man wanted for murder and a convicted child molester. Santa Ana was one of the targeted cities.
Out of 175 suspected illegals, a seventh of them turned out to be wanted on other criminal charges, including murder and child molestation. And this is bad ... how?
Conteras needs a little more instruction on what constitutes rights. People who enter the country illegally have the right to due process on deportation, but they do not have the right to not be arrested for breaking the law. People who break the law get arrested when and where they are found, and it is not "terrorism" to arrest them at home, despite what immigration "activist" Khang Tran believes. If parents want to protect their "small children" from feeling fear, they should not come into the country illegally.
Now these same activists want to warn people of impending raids by setting up a hotline and trolling for tips. That should constitute interference with law enforcement, but the Orange County Register -- which helpfully includes the phone number -- doesn't mention that in its report. If someone set up a hotline to tip off criminals about an ATF or DEA raid, you can bet your bottom dollar that it would get the attention of the local US Attorney lickety-split -- and this should be no different.
Here's a question for the experts...What "rights" do the illegals have?
How does one deal with a family that is illegal, but with an anchor baby?
I'm sure it happens all the time, but legally, what's the outcome?
blah blah blah
I discovered a new blog that has some information about illegal immigration in Oklahoma. It appears there will be several lawsuits filed by more than one hispanic organization. They said the want to make "Oklahoma an example" I guess to show they have more power than the state government.
And the campaign is on to shift the focus of the new law, HB1804, on the backs citizens and the state legislature as an act of hate. Surely you have seen the new billboards? If not, you can see the most offensive one on this blog I stumbled across one day. It is called ztruth. I find the information thought provoking.
go to http://ztruth.typepad.com/ztruth/2007/08/we-are-going-to.html
In response to kakie's article here are a couple of other web sites that talk about how they want to take back what is theirs, because it does not belong to the US.
http://www.nationalmecha.org/archives/2007/04/naccs_xxxiv.html (//%22http://%22)
http://www.aztlan.net/homeland.htm (//%22http://%22)
And here is an article on Anchor Babies
http://www.nbc-2.com/Investigates/articles/readinvestigativearticle.asp?articleid=4869&z=5&p= (//%22http://%22)
And if this person show up at a rally, you will think the end is near.
http://www.americanpatrol.com/REFERENCE/JoseAngelGutierrezQuote.html (//%22http://%22)
Info on Jose Angel Gutierrez:
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2212
Interesting that a professor that teaches impressionable youth says things like this... "We have got to eliminate the gringo, and what I mean by that is if the worst comes to the worst, we have got to kill him."
IPLAW Quoted:
(/quote)Again, all I'm asking for is (1) O-N-E case that states (and not in dicta, in the actual opinion) that children born to illegal immigrants are citizens.(/quote)
(/quote)What the hell are you talking about?(/quote)
In going back over the posting on immigration I see where you are asking for the dictum of just o-n-e case where the court has used a sharp stylus to shape a decision on the right of citizenship to those born under the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment to alien parents. Although this case can be cited as the foundation for instant suits; being an old case it is relevant in cases that are brought before the courts today.
[In United States v.Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), held that a person born in the United States, and therefore a citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment, could not be excluded as an alien, although his foreign born-parents were not eligible for naturalization.]
Not withstanding that the court changes the constitution sometimes with their interpretation of a word or phase and has become a politically guided court; still is the last to determinate the laws of the land.
comp error
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We all bleed red!..We are all human beings. How can you call this the bible belt! We are even teaching are kids in schools across the country NOT TO BE RACISITS! Citizen ship, no citizen ship. WHO CARES!!!!!!!!!
IT'S SIMPLE,,IT'S ALL ABOUT MONEY!!!!!!IT ISNT CITIZENSHIPS!!!
This crisis is a shame. It is tearing GOOD, loving families completly apart. Mexicanos married to americanos and Americanos married to Mexicanos,OR WHAT EVER RACE .WITH KIDS, working, etc. Stopped for some unethical reason, basically physical apperence!) and SNATCHED tearing families in half!.hUM I WONDER WHY MOTHERES ARE STANDING IN LINE AT OFFICES. I DO ANYTHING I COULD TO TO FEED MY BABY(S)
What has THIS COUNTRY or state become.! We preach and preach not to be rasicit,OR FIGHT but in turn are childern watch us..THEY LEARN FROM US!
We are teaching them that a double standard is right!...WRONG...
IT"S money money money, and some one is making it some where.
Where are the people in the church, the belivers? God wasnt from here either, yet we dont question him or send him back, now do we. We dont call people to see if he is on a status do we. but he is here in the US , he is in our homes. He is every where!!!! Real belivers like myself, DONT JUDGE, DONT CARE ABOUT NO MONEY, OR MONEY, IT'S HOW WE TREAT EACH OTHER JUST LIKE THE ABOVE TEACHES US TO DO.
WE SAY NO ABORTION, NO NEGLECT TO OUR BABIES BUT IT'S OK TO SEND A PARENT THAT IS THE SOLE SUPPORTER OF FOOD AND MONEY BACK, LEAVING BABIES AND FAMLIES TO STARVE AND BE HOMELESS..NAH...SOMETHING IS WRONG.
ARE FORFATHERS HAD NO PAPERS EITHER. REMEMBER WE TOOK IT FROM THE INDIANS. GEE I WONDER IF THEY ARE TRYING TO GET IT BACK!
quote:
Originally posted by shadows
Not withstanding that the court changes the constitution sometimes with their interpretation of a word or phase and has become a politically guided court; still is the last to determinate the laws of the land.
No dear shadows...there has been no such determination. The determination of whether they are "legal" is a question that only a court may answer. I am legal because the question as to the legality of my citizenship (an American born to American citizens) has been vetted by the legal process. Up until now, no court has had the opportunity to consider the case of children born to illegals. That != legal citizenship.
We simply have permitted the practice of anchor babies to continue unabated. That also != legal citizenship.
Wong does not address the facts at hand.
quote:
Originally posted by eron2u
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We all bleed red!..We are all human beings. How can you call this the bible belt! We are even teaching are kids in schools across the country NOT TO BE RACISITS! Citizen ship, no citizen ship. WHO CARES!!!!!!!!!
IT'S SIMPLE,,IT'S ALL ABOUT MONEY!!!!!!IT ISNT CITIZENSHIPS!!!
This crisis is a shame. It is tearing GOOD, loving families completly apart. Mexicanos married to americanos and Americanos married to Mexicanos,OR WHAT EVER RACE .WITH KIDS, working, etc. Stopped for some unethical reason, basically physical apperence!) and SNATCHED tearing families in half!.hUM I WONDER WHY MOTHERES ARE STANDING IN LINE AT OFFICES. I DO ANYTHING I COULD TO TO FEED MY BABY(S)
What has THIS COUNTRY or state become.! We preach and preach not to be rasicit,OR FIGHT but in turn are childern watch us..THEY LEARN FROM US!
We are teaching them that a double standard is right!...WRONG...
IT"S money money money, and some one is making it some where.
Where are the people in the church, the belivers? God wasnt from here either, yet we dont question him or send him back, now do we. We dont call people to see if he is on a status do we. but he is here in the US , he is in our homes. He is every where!!!! Real belivers like myself, DONT JUDGE, DONT CARE ABOUT NO MONEY, OR MONEY, IT'S HOW WE TREAT EACH OTHER JUST LIKE THE ABOVE TEACHES US TO DO.
WE SAY NO ABORTION, NO NEGLECT TO OUR BABIES BUT IT'S OK TO SEND A PARENT THAT IS THE SOLE SUPPORTER OF FOOD AND MONEY BACK, LEAVING BABIES AND FAMLIES TO STARVE AND BE HOMELESS..NAH...SOMETHING IS WRONG.
ARE FORFATHERS HAD NO PAPERS EITHER. REMEMBER WE TOOK IT FROM THE INDIANS. GEE I WONDER IF THEY ARE TRYING TO GET IT BACK!
(http://www.jesseshunting.com/forums/style_emoticons/default/smiley-violin.gif)
Please take your discussions of religion elsewhere. It holds not weight in the eyes of the law, and for good reason.
quote:
Originally posted by shadows
IPLAW Quoted:
(/quote)Again, all I'm asking for is (1) O-N-E case that states (and not in dicta, in the actual opinion) that children born to illegal immigrants are citizens.(/quote)
(/quote)What the hell are you talking about?(/quote)
In going back over the posting on immigration I see where you are asking for the dictum of just o-n-e case where the court has used a sharp stylus to shape a decision on the right of citizenship to those born under the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment to alien parents. Although this case can be cited as the foundation for instant suits; being an old case it is relevant in cases that are brought before the courts today.
[In United States v.Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), held that a person born in the United States, and therefore a citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment, could not be excluded as an alien, although his foreign born-parents were not eligible for naturalization.]
Not withstanding that the court changes the constitution sometimes with their interpretation of a word or phase and has become a politically guided court; still is the last to determinate the laws of the land.
PWNED...by the Shadowman![;)]
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by shadows
IPLAW Quoted:
(/quote)Again, all I'm asking for is (1) O-N-E case that states (and not in dicta, in the actual opinion) that children born to illegal immigrants are citizens.(/quote)
(/quote)What the hell are you talking about?(/quote)
In going back over the posting on immigration I see where you are asking for the dictum of just o-n-e case where the court has used a sharp stylus to shape a decision on the right of citizenship to those born under the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment to alien parents. Although this case can be cited as the foundation for instant suits; being an old case it is relevant in cases that are brought before the courts today.
[In United States v.Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), held that a person born in the United States, and therefore a citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment, could not be excluded as an alien, although his foreign born-parents were not eligible for naturalization.]
Not withstanding that the court changes the constitution sometimes with their interpretation of a word or phase and has become a politically guided court; still is the last to determinate the laws of the land.
PWNED...by the Shadowman![;)]
(http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j33/C-4C/pwned-haha.jpg)
IP: You are bluffing. The court scribes with a sharp stylus on marble that the birthright of which the child was assigned by nature or intelligent design could not be in dispute.
The second part of the doctrine is painted with a wide brush which included that his parents, being not eligible for nationalism for any cause such as quota, illegal entry, criminal, subvert activity, and et al would have no effect on his birthright citizenship. The land mark decision is complete in its construction and not subjected to argument.
The sins of the parents cannot be visited on through their children.
quote:
Originally posted by shadows
IP: Your are bluffing. The court scribes with a sharp stylus on marble that the birthright of which the child was assigned by nature or intelligent design could not be in dispute.
The second part of the doctrine is painted with a wide brush which included that his parents, being not eligible for nationalism for any cause such as quota, illegal entry, criminal, subvert activity, and et al would have no effect on his birthright citizenship. The land mark decision is complete in its construction and not subjected to argument.
The sins of the parents cannot be visited on through their children.
Wong's parents were
LEGAL non-citizen residents of the United States. This case does not analogize to children born to illegals. I'm not going to belabor this point any longer, either you "get it" or you don't. You appear not to "get it" and nothing I say will help your misinterpretation of the law.
As to your other rather obscure points I suggest you pick up a Constitutional Law textbook at your nearest library (//%22http://www.tulsalibrary.org/about/locations.htm%22).
QED
quote:
The sins of the parents cannot be visited on through their children.
Tripe (//%22http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/fas/%22). Explain that then. See, I can be as flippant as you.
IP;
It is not my intent to spar with you on the instant issue. I have the book "Constitutional Law (Cases and Materials)" which I am using as a mouse pad at the instant time and have been certified to be able to read at the eight grade level.
Thanks for the QSO on your interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
I will move along now to other subjects.
Can anyone tell me how you can come to this country from Mexico LEGALLY? Mexico is not even in the national lottery is it? I say register everyone, tax them, require them to get some kind of license and insurance. You gotta secure our borders but it seems if we had a guest worker program we would could control the element of those working and living here. Ok I'm sure I'm naive, but thats how i feel....[:X]
quote:
Originally posted by heylucylucy
Can anyone tell me how you can come to this country from Mexico LEGALLY? Mexico is not even in the national lottery is it? I say register everyone, tax them, require them to get some kind of license and insurance. You gotta secure our borders but it seems if we had a guest worker program we would could control the element of those working and living here. Ok I'm sure I'm naive, but thats how i feel....[:X]
I say deport them. Not register them and "NO" to guest workers. Whenever a illegal is found out goodbye he's gone. A cop stops a car with a busted taillight finds out the driver is illegal, goodbye- he's gone we should ship him right back home- and so on. We have no idea who they are, Mexico has no criminal registration system to check backgrounds of illegal immigrants and fake I.D. is all over. Deporting and sealing the border is the answer. With the economy slipping into a recession the last thing we need is illegal workers taking American jobs.. Guest Workers" will never leave once here, there is no way to check for background criminal history of guest workers and we don't need them when we have unemployed U.S. citizens looking for work.
I am not a big immigration fan, but I think it's nuts to take such a hard stance. The economy is getting bad because we are running out the Mexicans. I read in the paper that in Kansas there was a special meeting of farmers because they could not find people to work. I don't think we are ever going to stop immigration, too many powerful rich people have an interest and they dictate what happens.
All the minutemen in the world can't compete with a big corporation and its money.
so I agree, it's probably better to identify people and give them some sort of guest worker status. In a way, it is the best solution because the people will be able to work and have to follow the rules, but they won't be getting to be citizens. That ought to satisfy everyone.
quote:
The economy is getting bad because we are running out the Mexicans
Something about the way this is phrased makes me snicker...
quote:
Originally posted by heylucylucy
Can anyone tell me how you can come to this country from Mexico LEGALLY? Mexico is not even in the national lottery is it? I say register everyone, tax them, require them to get some kind of license and insurance. You gotta secure our borders but it seems if we had a guest worker program we would could control the element of those working and living here. Ok I'm sure I'm naive, but thats how i feel....[:X]
Lucy, stop talking nonsense or I'm going down to the Mertz's to get drunk with Fred!
Love,
Ricky
quote:
Originally posted by KingMutt
I am not a big immigration fan, but I think it's nuts to take such a hard stance. The economy is getting bad because we are running out the Mexicans. I read in the paper that in Kansas there was a special meeting of farmers because they could not find people to work. I don't think we are ever going to stop immigration, too many powerful rich people have an interest and they dictate what happens.
All the minutemen in the world can't compete with a big corporation and its money.
so I agree, it's probably better to identify people and give them some sort of guest worker status. In a way, it is the best solution because the people will be able to work and have to follow the rules, but they won't be getting to be citizens. That ought to satisfy everyone.
How can you identify "Guest Workers" or illegal aliens when Mexico has no system of regstration of people with criminal histories, (no criminal records- data bases- are kept like the USA has). You can get a Mexican birth cerf. on the internet and fill it out with any name and address you wish. You don't know who is coming over here. The same goes with that Mexican trucker thing. Mexican truck drivers have no CDL, there's no way to do background checks on drivers you don't know who is driving over here.I don't even think they drug test Mexican truckers.. No nation can be secure by having open borders and not knowing who is here. We do need legal immigrants who have job skills and high education in todays world. Even a high school grad. is not enough today's world most jobs now require college degrees. The hard labor jobs that past immigrants did are gone. We don't need "guest workers" and who will check that the "guest workers" go back home when their job is done? We should use some of the illegals we already have here for "guest workers".. What we need is simple. Seal the border and deport, the illegals did not all come over here in one day and they won't all be deported in one day, we start deporting the 12 million illegals one illegal at a time...With a sealed border they can't return. A 1,000 mile walk starts with a single step.
quote:
Originally posted by sauerkraut
....
I saw on the news this evening that your Michigan team was seen entering Mexico illegally, while running 50 yards in 5 seconds flat. What's up with that? [^]
(http://i6.tinypic.com/6blf4u8.jpg)
quote:
Originally posted by Porky
quote:
Originally posted by sauerkraut
....
I saw on the news this evening that your Michigan team was seen entering Mexico illegally, while running 50 yards in 5 seconds flat. What's up with that? [^]
(http://i6.tinypic.com/6blf4u8.jpg)
What's up is Lloyd Carr has got to go. We need a new coach. We still have a good shot at beating the OSU Buckeyes on Nov.17th. That will mean alot. As far as the football season goes for us it's over. Our football season has been flushed away.[B)]
Sauerkraut, you're nuts if you think there are not plenty of jobs to do that do not require an education. There are lots of jobs that are necessary to the economy that do not require people to be high skilled.
I just don't see why people get so upset about these people. If you would spend the money on identifying them (photos, dna sample, fingerprints) that you spent screwing with them you would have an identifiable workforce. They don't have to be citizens, but give them some legal protection, and the problem is solved.
I think this is an easy target to bash on for people who have a lot of insecurity and hate inside themselves, and for some people who just believe the BS.
Maybe those guys have a valid reason to play the "race card"
quote:
Originally posted by KingMutt
Sauerkraut, you're nuts if you think there are not plenty of jobs to do that do not require an education. There are lots of jobs that are necessary to the economy that do not require people to be high skilled.
I just don't see why people get so upset about these people. If you would spend the money on identifying them (photos, dna sample, fingerprints) that you spent screwing with them you would have an identifiable workforce. They don't have to be citizens, but give them some legal protection, and the problem is solved.
I think this is an easy target to bash on for people who have a lot of insecurity and hate inside themselves, and for some people who just believe the BS.
Maybe those guys have a valid reason to play the "race card"
I don't see how you can I.D an illegals background. Mexico keeps no records or data bases of criminals like what we do in the USA. You don't know who they are. Sure you can take DNA now and finger prints now but that does not tell you what that person did in his past when he lived in Mexico. Their past history is a blank -They also have no past job refs. As for the jobs, today's economy is changing. Labor and unskilled jobs are going to China. The new service economy requires skills. The few unskilled jobs that remain here should go to U.S. Citizens and legal residents. Not illegals. What part of "illegal" don't you understand? They all broke the law just by coming here. We can't give jobs to all the worlds poor people.
They help the economy, they don't hurt it. Illegal, just about like speeding, who cares? Bottom line ID the people, if they committ a crime put em in jail and then deport them, if they come back put em in jail for a long long time.
Just spread a little peace and love[;)]
quote:
Originally posted by KingMutt
They help the economy, they don't hurt it. Illegal, just about like speeding, who cares? Bottom line ID the people, if they committ a crime put em in jail and then deport them, if they come back put em in jail for a long long time.
Just spread a little peace and love[;)]
They hurt the economy. Every working illegal alien costs the taxpayers $2-$3.00 for every dollar an illegal earns, or about $22,000 a year per illegal. Not to mention crime and driving with no insurance or drivers license- We have legal residents for work. To make all the illegal aliens legal with amnesty will cost the U.S. taxpayers $1.4 TRILLION DOLLARS, not to mention all the legal workers they dis-place. The answer to illegal immigration is to deport every illegal alien that law enforcement comes across. Give the cops the power to arrest illegals. Here's some sites or you can google "illegal alien mustang" or google "illegal alien" here's a site http://www.illegalaliens.us/
somebody else said this in another thread and did the math and said that was an insane number. I gotta agree with them.
Sauerkraut should I sing the Horst Wessel song and say seig heil?
You are one sick dude. And I am sorry for the personal attack, no, I am not.
Deport all those people, that's a good deal, "Put them all on a train!" Yes siree. That worked for the Nazis.
What have they ever done to you personally? Get off the Social Security Disability, stop goingb to gun shows and get a life. and stop hating people
Geez.
quote:
Originally posted by KingMutt
somebody else said this in another thread and did the math and said that was an insane number. I gotta agree with them.
Sauerkraut should I sing the Horst Wessel song and say seig heil?
You are one sick dude. And I am sorry for the personal attack, no, I am not.
Deport all those people, that's a good deal, "Put them all on a train!" Yes siree. That worked for the Nazis.
What have they ever done to you personally? Get off the Social Security Disability, stop goingb to gun shows and get a life. and stop hating people
Geez.
OK, If a homeless man broke into your house would you allow him to stay? Would you feed him and pay for his medical care? Would you allow him to bring his family over and live in your home? That's what the illegals are doing to our country. That's what the amnesty bill would of allowed. The illegals "break-in" to our country and live and work dis-placing LEGAL workers and taking their jobs and some people want that. No nation in the world would allow that. You can't sneak into another country take a job and expect to stay there and expect them to speak your language too. As a result of the open borders we have the violent MS13 gang from South America on our streets. We need to deport the illegals and seal the border.
If we allow illegal aliens to stay it's unfair to everyone who came here the legal way. It's a slap in face to every immigrant who followed the law and did everything legal in order to stay in the USA. That's very unfair. We tryed amnesty once in the 1986 Simpson/Mazolli immigration bill and it failed badly. Another point is illegals are not screened for medical conditions. I do not understand people who favor open borders.[xx(]
The Tulsa World had a story about illegals leaving the Tulsa public schools on the eve of Bill #1804 becoming law very soon. They wrote the story as if it was a bad thing. I think it's a good thing- if they don't belong here they over-crowd the schools for the legal residents and overcrowded classrooms are not good for learning. As always the taxpayers get stung with the bill for the illegals.The immigration laws need to be enforced.[B)]
there is another side to the story of WHO is valuable to Tulsa's economy...
your defense of the taxpayer is the usual anti-worker argument...
let's go back to slavery, private schools... and abolish public schools all together...
these people have VALUE.... gotta leave for work... more news at 11.
quote:
Originally posted by USRufnex
there is another side to the story of WHO is valuable to Tulsa's economy...
your defense of the taxpayer is the usual anti-worker argument...
let's go back to slavery, private schools... and abolish public schools all together...
these people have VALUE.... gotta leave for work... more news at 11.
The arguments of costing taxpayers money and costing U.S workers jobs, driving down wages, and increasing crime rates in our cities because of illegal aliens is real, it's not something pulled out of thin air. We have violent south American gangs like MS13 on our city streets because of open borders. What part of the word "illegal" don't you understand? Here's a web site http://www.illegalaliens.us/ you can also google "illegal aliens" are read some of the info that pops up thanx.
quote:
They hurt the economy. Every working illegal alien costs the taxpayers $2-$3.00 for every dollar an illegal earns, or about $22,000 a year per illegal. Not to mention crime and driving with no insurance or drivers license- We have legal residents for work. To make all the illegal aliens legal with amnesty will cost the U.S. taxpayers $1.4 TRILLION DOLLARS, not to mention all the legal workers they dis-place.
quote:
somebody else said this in another thread and did the math and said that was an insane number. I gotta agree with them.
Here are the numbers.....
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Immigration/sr14.cfm
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Immigration/wm1523.cfm
quote:
Originally posted by sauerkraut
quote:
Originally posted by USRufnex
there is another side to the story of WHO is valuable to Tulsa's economy...
your defense of the taxpayer is the usual anti-worker argument...
let's go back to slavery, private schools... and abolish public schools all together...
these people have VALUE.... gotta leave for work... more news at 11.
The arguments of costing taxpayers money and costing U.S workers jobs, driving down wages, and increasing crime rates in our cities because of illegal aliens is real, it's not something pulled out of thin air. We have violent south American gangs like MS13 on our city streets because of open borders. What part of the word "illegal" don't you understand? Here's a web site http://www.illegalaliens.us/ you can also google "illegal aliens" are read some of the info that pops up thanx.
I LIVE in east Tulsa.
I've been able to get to know these people, most of whom are here LEGALLY.
There are a lot of racists in Tulsa and across the country who want to treat these WORKERS like they were leaching off the economy. Or taking jobs away from "real" americans...
Pathetic. And hypocritical.
Please don't post agenda-filled statistics from anti-immigrant activist groups that treat migrant workers as if they do nothing and have no worth... If we start deporting people from the good ol' U.S. of A. for not being productive enough to justify their presence in this country, can we start with
your lazy uncle and
your good for nothing cousin??? Thanks. [:D]
Die Fahne hoch (Horst Wessel Lied) ver 4.mp3
Saurkarut,
Here you go! It's all you baby!
quote:
Originally posted by Wingnut
quote:
They hurt the economy. Every working illegal alien costs the taxpayers $2-$3.00 for every dollar an illegal earns, or about $22,000 a year per illegal. Not to mention crime and driving with no insurance or drivers license- We have legal residents for work. To make all the illegal aliens legal with amnesty will cost the U.S. taxpayers $1.4 TRILLION DOLLARS, not to mention all the legal workers they dis-place.
quote:
somebody else said this in another thread and did the math and said that was an insane number. I gotta agree with them.
Here are the numbers.....
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Immigration/sr14.cfm
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Immigration/wm1523.cfm
Yes, thanks for the post and links. I could not find them, but I knew the figures and numbers involved. I'm not too computer smart as it is... The fact is the illegals will bankrupt this nation and drag everyone down to 3rd nation status except the very rich. For every dollar a illegal earns we the taxpayers/economy wind up $3.00 in the hole. NO economy can't function very long like that.. The wages are already about 7% below what they should be due to illegals. Teens today have it hard to find work, illegals are dis-placing them at restaurants.
USrufnex- there's nothing racist about numbers. They tell the story. We also have a limeted number of jobs.- Jobs are not a national resource where if you give a job to a illegal alien another job will pop up to take the place of the job the illegal alien took. When a illegal alien is working it dis-places a legal citizen, it's that simple. The cost to taxpayers is the socal services they use and don't pay for. This is very serious. Playing a "race card" does not cut it.
GEEEEEEEZ. These immigrants work their butts off. You are all over these boards railing against the immigrants. What are you the Inspector General of the Minutemen or the Grand Cyclops of the Klan? [}:)]
Immigrants contribute to the economy with their tax dollars (both sales and the taxes they pay into the system that they will never get back)and with their hard work.
As for a drain on resources, come on, what they contribute outweighs what they "drain."
These immigrants LOOK DIFFERENT from other people here in Oklahoma. That is the real problem.
quote:
Originally posted by KingMutt
GEEEEEEEZ. These immigrants work their butts off. You are all over these boards railing against the immigrants. What are you the Inspector General of the Minutemen or the Grand Cyclops of the Klan? [}:)]
Immigrants contribute to the economy with their tax dollars (both sales and the taxes they pay into the system that they will never get back)and with their hard work.
As for a drain on resources, come on, what they contribute outweighs what they "drain."
These immigrants LOOK DIFFERENT from other people here in Oklahoma. That is the real problem.
Did you read the links? The illegals are a burden and a drain not a plus according to the numbers. I don't care how the immigrants look, or the skin color, or what their culture is as long as they come here the legal way. Why do you keep bring up race and culture? That has nothing to do with it.. I'm talking legal and law breaking. When you get a flood of illegal people who are not supposed to be here, displacing legal immigrants it's a big problem, this is also a secutity issue. We do not know nothing about the illegals or their background or even their real name and there's no way to do background checks. Fake I.D. is floating all over the place. Many illegals bring over diseases too, since illegals don't get no medical screening as do legal immigrants who come here..
quote:
Originally posted by sauerkraut
USrufnex- there's nothing racist about numbers. They tell the story. We also have a limeted number of jobs.- Jobs are not a national resource where if you give a job to a illegal alien another job will pop up to take the place of the job the illegal alien took. When a illegal alien is working it dis-places a legal citizen, it's that simple. The cost to taxpayers is the socal services they use and don't pay for. This is very serious. Playing a "race card" does not cut it.
Once again...
"lies, damnable lies, and statistics..." You could apply those very same statistics to the working poor in this country and come to the same conclusions...
I don't take my marching orders from a fiercely partisan, conservative-Republican
stink-tank like the Heritage Foundation, thank you very much.
Okay. Let's try this...
When all the baby boomers retire, who's gonna pay the taxes to support their strains on our infrastructure? I think our aging workforce is gonna be more of a burden on the economy than these young "illegal" workers ever will be... so let's document them, tax them, deport the "bad apples," and be done with it...
Why did I put quotation marks on the word
illegal? Because after at least the last two decades of ignoring the illegal immigration problem and not enforcing laws on the books, those laws have become a joke. If laws haven't been enforced in the entire time we had a "law-and-order" Republican congress and a Republican president... are those laws even valid anymore???
I worked at an El Chico in OKC two decades ago. I lived in a duplex with neighbors who likely lived here illegally. One of them loved to talk to me so he could try out his english... and would tell me what he learned about Thomas Jefferson...
Stereotyping these people as criminals or "invaders" with no intrinsic value to our American society
is racist. And I don't care if you heard it on talk radio. Sorry. That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it. If it walks like a racist duck and quacks like a racist duck...
Don't get me wrong. I don't want to live in a house in east Tulsa next door to a 3-bedroom home with TWENTY hispanics living there. So yes, there IS a problem... and it's irresponsible not to address it.But I like the latino family who lives across from me. They're NOT on section 8. The dad WORKS. To my knowledge, they're not selling drugs or cooking meth (unlike some of the
"born in the USA" young redneck punks who live in this apt complex)... best of all, they're "good people."
And I'm convinced that a big chunk of homes in east Tulsa would be boarded up if it weren't for these folks living here, working here, shopping here... opening up businesses here... there's a hispanic chamber of commerce here... these people have value and shouldn't be scapegoated... my old bowling alley (Tiffany Lanes) is filled with little businesses-- while the old Rose Bowl down the street is boarded up... my old skating rink (Skate World) is now a supermercado... Executive Mall on 21st and Garnett is filled with shops... my place of employment has a bilingual dept that could just as easily have been located in Chicago, but those dozens of decent paying jobs are HERE... those are
jobs created here in Tulsa and taxes paid here in Tulsa...
If we had double-digit unemployment in this country, I'd think differently. If the "Meskins" moving into the areas around McClure Park and 21st and Garnett were going on crime sprees, I'd think different. If those "dirty Meskins" had rusty old trucks on cinder blocks in their front yards instead of the professional landscaping and brickwork--- let's just say I've seen my share of tiny little crackerbox homes with nice lawns... and a truck in the driveway with a big ol' virgin mary painted in white on those tinted windows instead of one of them redneck pics of Calvin pissing on "Dodge" or "Ford" (or the one with Calvin praying)....
Homes that could have easily been boarded up and could have become magnets for drug-related crime are occupied... by families. Hard working families who may be working for $7 per hr assembling fishing poles today...
And these people's kids are learning english in our public schools and will be fighting in our military... in fact, many of them already are...
http://www.statemaster.com/graph/mil_arm_rec_per_his-military-army-recruits-percent-hispanic
Them thar aleeans don't get no meedeeekal scrinin
Gosh. That must be that high skilled Okie Education showing itself with the double negatives.
The numbers to which you refer are put out by an anti-immigrant think tank.
That's a lot like asking the American Atheists for their take on Evangelicals....won't be too unbiased.
Sure there are criminals, and FOR THE FINAL TIME, THEY SHOULD BE PUNISHED AND THEN DEPORTED AND BARRED FROM RE-ENTRY, AND IF THEY COME BACK THEY SHOULD BE IMPRISONED FOR A LONG LONG TIME!!!!
But if you cannot see a difference between Jose who is here to work, and Jose who is driving down the road with a pound of weed and two pistols, then something is wrong wth you, and it is a race issue.
I don't hear you calling for the imprisonment of fat lazy white or black folks who sit around watching talk shows on the government's tit.
Just because a black man shoots someone, I don't hear you calling for troops in black neighborhoods...maybe you will after you rid Oklahoma of the Hispanics...
quote:
Originally posted by KingMutt
Them thar aleeans don't get no meedeeekal scrinin
Gosh. That must be that high skilled Okie Education showing itself with the double negatives.
The numbers to which you refer are put out by an anti-immigrant think tank.
That's a lot like asking the American Atheists for their take on Evangelicals....won't be too unbiased.
Sure there are criminals, and FOR THE FINAL TIME, THEY SHOULD BE PUNISHED AND THEN DEPORTED AND BARRED FROM RE-ENTRY, AND IF THEY COME BACK THEY SHOULD BE IMPRISONED FOR A LONG LONG TIME!!!!
But if you cannot see a difference between Jose who is here to work, and Jose who is driving down the road with a pound of weed and two pistols, then something is wrong wth you, and it is a race issue.
I don't hear you calling for the imprisonment of fat lazy white or black folks who sit around watching talk shows on the government's tit.
Just because a black man shoots someone, I don't hear you calling for troops in black neighborhoods...maybe you will after you rid Oklahoma of the Hispanics...
yeah but your mixing up U.S. citizens and foreign citizens who should not be here. Jose who's here to work without legal papers is a criminal (and most likely had to steal someones I.D. in order to get a job and fill out gov't papers with false info and he's also taking a job away from a legal person) as is Jose driving down the street with drugs- In the eyes of the law both are criminals.
quote:
Originally posted by sauerkraut
yeah but your mixing up U.S. citizens and foreign citizens who should not be here. Jose who's here to work without legal papers is a criminal (and most likely had to steal someones I.D. in order to get a job and fill out gov't papers with false info and he's also taking a job away from a legal person) as is Jose driving down the street with drugs- In the eyes of the law both are criminals.
uh-huh. So I guess using that logic, EVERBODY in this country who's got a speeding ticket on their record is also a criminal.
Somebody who steals a loaf a bread? Criminal. Somebody who shoots your wife? Criminal.
Somebody who illegally takes a $7 per hr job assembling fishing poles or emptying out office trash? Criminal.
If we didn't have these "criminals" out there "stealing" $7 per hr jobs, then we could get back to the good ol' days, and say
"you just can't get good help anymore."
You guys still batting around this tired old canard?
Yeah, alot of opinions are going to be changed by the stuff on this thread, LOL. I have my views, but have given up wasting my breath on forums like this or any like it. NOBODY is going to change anyone else's mind on this.
You're probably right, but here's one last thought for Ol'Sauer....
Drive away the construction workers, you drive up the price of housing, so the whole housing market suffers. Good old regular US Joes cannot get affordable new housing.
Commercial construction suffers too. So does every business or concern that is touched by construction.
Workers leave, they don't spend their money in grocery stores or restaurants (Mexican or othrewise), these businesses suffer and fire employees.
My last post on this subject, really.
But can't you just see how there is going to be a ripple effect which will hurt all of us by getting rid of these people?
I agree CRIMINALS, dope dealers, rapists, etc. should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, but that's not every "illegal alien."
Bad people come in all shades.
I don't buy anything from the anti immigrant think tanks, any more than I would blindly believe the numbers put out by La Raza, but I do believe these immigrants, legal or otherwise, give more than they take.
And I do believe we (Regular ole Americans) are going to suffer if we "drive them out"
Besides, are we really that insecure and backwards that we feel we have to repel a foriegn invasion? It's like a gun show fanatic's wet dream, "Here honey, I finally get to use my AR-15 against those damn Mexican invaders!" Really, how frigin pathetic is that?
That being said, THIS IS AMERICA, and you have a right to your opinion.
quote:
Originally posted by KingMutt
You're probably right, but here's one last thought for Ol'Sauer....
Drive away the construction workers, you drive up the price of housing, so the whole housing market suffers. Good old regular US Joes cannot get affordable new housing.
Commercial construction suffers too. So does every business or concern that is touched by construction.
Workers leave, they don't spend their money in grocery stores or restaurants (Mexican or othrewise), these businesses suffer and fire employees.
My last post on this subject, really.
But can't you just see how there is going to be a ripple effect which will hurt all of us by getting rid of these people?
I agree CRIMINALS, dope dealers, rapists, etc. should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, but that's not every "illegal alien."
Bad people come in all shades.
I don't buy anything from the anti immigrant think tanks, any more than I would blindly believe the numbers put out by La Raza, but I do believe these immigrants, legal or otherwise, give more than they take.
And I do believe we (Regular ole Americans) are going to suffer if we "drive them out"
Besides, are we really that insecure and backwards that we feel we have to repel a foriegn invasion? It's like a gun show fanatic's wet dream, "Here honey, I finally get to use my AR-15 against those damn Mexican invaders!" Really, how frigin pathetic is that?
That being said, THIS IS AMERICA, and you have a right to your opinion.
I can't believe what ya posted. You mean our whole housing market economy rests on having illegal labor? How did they build houses in the past before the illegals flooded in?? American citizens built homes and people could still afford to buy them back in bygone eras.. I would not want to buy a home made by cheap illegal unskilled labor that will just fall apart. There is no free ride anyhow, the illegal alien labor costs all of us in taxes, socal services and free medical care when the illegal gets sick. It costs us more in the long run- not to mention lower wages. I'd want a home built by skilled American workers who are here legal.If it was up to me I'd send in the INS/ICE agents and round up illegals at const. sites and jail the builder who hired them and seize his homes that were built with illegal labor. Then I'd enforce the 1986 immigration law & fine the builder $10,000 per illegal. That will send a message to others not to hire illegal workers.
Congratulations, you guys have just earned the coveted dead horse award:
(http://www.undertheiceberg.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/09/BeatDeadHorse.gif)
Seems there are strong feelings on both sides. But I do believe in all polls the majority of Americans do not what illegals invading our country. If you have found a legitimate poll that says otherwise I'd be interested in seeing it.
For all those in the minority on this issue, does the rule of law not matter here? If so then we have anarchy if illegals can just invade our country.
I like Chocolate......
A majority of Americans don't want illegal immigrants deported, either.
Stalemate.
(http://www.bjacked.net/LuvToHunt/forums/phpBB2/modules/gallery/albums/album01/Beat_Dead_Horse.jpg)
quote:
Originally posted by kakie
Seems there are strong feelings on both sides. But I do believe in all polls the majority of Americans do not what illegals invading our country. If you have found a legitimate poll that says otherwise I'd be interested in seeing it.
For all those in the minority on this issue, does the rule of law not matter here? If so then we have anarchy if illegals can just invade our country.
Thankz, your 100% correct. The American people in poles do not want illegal aliens here by something like 80%. The pro-illegal alien and open border crowd just wants everyone to come in here take our jobs and get supported with our tax dollars. A nation without borders and the rule of law will soon not be a nation. This is a very clear cut issue. We have laws against just anyone coming here, there are legal ways to come here. Open borders mean we have no idea and no control on who comes here and who they are from MS13 gang members to terrorists smuggling in suitcase nukes to anchor babies to abuse our socal services and live off the taxpayers and I'm sick of that. I pay enough in taxes.No one will change anyones mind on this issue it seems. I want sealed borders and illegals deported. It's that simple.[B)]
quote:
Originally posted by sauerkraut
quote:
Originally posted by kakie
Seems there are strong feelings on both sides. But I do believe in all polls the majority of Americans do not what illegals invading our country. If you have found a legitimate poll that says otherwise I'd be interested in seeing it.
For all those in the minority on this issue, does the rule of law not matter here? If so then we have anarchy if illegals can just invade our country.
Thankz, your 100% correct. The American people in poles do not want illegal aliens here by something like 80%. The pro-illegal alien and open border crowd just wants everyone to come in here take our jobs.... blah, blah, blah....[B)]
Please find the poll that proves your assertions... because the polls I see here indicate the public is largely split...
http://www.pollingreport.com/immigration.htm
quote:
Originally posted by Lister
(http://www.bjacked.net/LuvToHunt/forums/phpBB2/modules/gallery/albums/album01/Beat_Dead_Horse.jpg)
(http://www.clarisita.org/media/1/0496.jpg)
USrufnex: Since you won't be getting on this thread anymore as it makes you sick I wanted to say bye bye. Good move on your part.
But I wanted to thank you for the link to the polling report.
Print Article Email Article Most Popular Change Type Size After deportation, shooter was caught, freed again
Judi Villa, Michael Kiefer, Carol Sowers and Michael Clancy
The Arizona Republic
Sept. 20, 2007 12:00 AM
Erik Jovani Martinez should have been in prison and not jaywalking the day he gunned down Phoenix police Officer Nick Erfle.
But despite a lengthy criminal history and a deportation, Martinez remained free, even after he was arrested again in the Valley just two months after he had been forced to leave the country in 2006.
Scottsdale police say they didn't know Martinez, 22, was an illegal immigrant or that he had been deported when they arrested him in May 2006 for grabbing his girlfriend's arm twice during a quarrel.
Martinez was deported in March 2006 after a felony conviction for theft.
Had Scottsdale police known, Martinez should have been jailed and should have faced federal charges for returning to the country illegally. A conviction would have earned him up to 20 years in prison.
Instead, he posted $300 bail and was released.
On Wednesday, one day after Martinez gunned down Erfle on a central Phoenix street, the officer's death reignited the ongoing immigration debate.
Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon called on Washington officials to "secure the border and secure it now" before another officer pays the ultimate price.
"This individual that took our officer's life is a perfect example, a poster child, of our failed Washington policy for securing our borders," Gordon said.
But others say Martinez shouldn't necessarily be a flashpoint in the acrimonious debate over where immigration policy and law enforcement should intersect.
Martinez was brought to the United States as an infant and lived his whole life here. Clearly, he also was a career criminal, racking up a dozen arrests before he turned 18 and continuing to have brushes with the law afterward.
Even law-enforcement officials said they were hesitant to say Erfle's murder could be blamed on immigration issues.
"It's a big, complex issue," said Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who has been in the national forefront when it comes to pursuing undocumented immigrants.
Still, Arpaio admitted, "You can't catch 'em all. We have a lot of violence out there, whether you're legal or illegal."
A troubled youth
Martinez has an extensive juvenile record that includes assaults and auto thefts. He was a documented gang member who admitted in court papers that he drank and smoked marijuana and crack cocaine. His first arrest, in July 1999, came after his parents reported him as incorrigible.
Martinez spent most of his teens on probation. Arrests for truancy led to more serious things: underage drinking, several threats and assault and stealing a vehicle. Martinez was serving time in juvenile detention for auto theft when he turned 18 and had to be released, according to court records.
Just months later, he was in trouble again, arrested for auto theft. He served time in a Maricopa County jail, then violated his probation and eventually wound up in prison in January 2006. Two months later, Martinez was deported. Typically, illegal immigrants convicted of a felony must serve all or part of their sentence before being deported.
Sneaking back
Martinez apparently sneaked back across the border almost immediately. Scottsdale police arrested him on May 15, 2006, after an officer saw him quarreling with his girlfriend. Scottsdale police spokeswoman Shawn Sanders couldn't say whether officers had contacted immigration officials after the arrest. She would say only that information about Martinez's deportation was "not available to us at that time."
A spokesman with Immigration and Customs Enforcement said he didn't believe Scottsdale police had contacted the agency, but he couldn't say that unequivocally.
A judge ordered Martinez into a domestic-violence counseling program, but he "didn't comply" and an arrest warrant was issued, Sanders said.
By the time Erfle was killed, Phoenix police were trying to find Martinez for hitting his girlfriend and threatening her with a shotgun in June 2006. Phoenix police obtained a warrant for his arrest in January and were trying to locate him.
The link between undocumented immigrants and crime is difficult to quantify. On Wednesday, about 18 percent of the 10,108 inmates in Maricopa County jails had immigration holds, sheriff's Capt. Paul Chagolla said. An estimated 10 percent of Arizona's population is Mexican nationals.
It's difficult to say whether that's a reflection of illegal immigrants committing a disproportionate amount of crimes or if it reflects Arpaio's crackdown on those who enter the United States illegally. The percentage of the jail population with immigration holds has doubled since Arpaio began his crackdown.
Still, crime certainly has morphed into a hot-button issue in the immigration debate.
Phoenix police were reluctant to address the issue before Erfle is laid to rest, but officials acknowledged that they could not draw a link between immigration policy and the officer's murder. "It's random," Lt. Benny Piña said. "I don't think there's a correlation there."
Before Erfle, the last Phoenix police officer killed by an undocumented immigrant was Marc Atkinson, who was ambushed and shot to death in 1999. Since then, five Phoenix police officers, including Erfle, have been shot to death in the line of duty.
"I think the officers are committed to doing their job regardless of whether the person's in the country illegally or not," Police Chief Jack Harris said.
Police Sgt. Andy Hill recalled that when Phoenix police Officer George Cortez Jr. was shot to death in July while answering a call about a bad check, the questions revolved around whether officers should travel alone or in pairs. Cortez did not have a partner.
"It's the job," Hill said. "It's you putting human beings in circumstances, and that human being is subject to all the dangers that are out there.
"We arrest people like that every single day who don't say they're going to kill a police officer."
When first contacted by the police Martinez gave a false name that happened to be a person also wanted on outstanding warrants. While being taken into custody, Martinez pulled a gun and shot the officer four times at point blank range.
dbacksfan- It's a mess. The stories posted above are scary indeed..The powers that be just seem to want open borders. However it's not a complex issue at all. It's very simple. FOLLOW THE CURRENT LAWS ALREADY ON THE BOOKZ, we don't need more immigration laws. Seal the border tight as a drum, have the army partol it and use the border area as a military base for training excersises, Clamp down on people who hire illegal aliens to shut off the job draw and magnet drawing illegals up here. Then allow local cops to enforce immigration laws, they can enforce any other federal law -why not immigration laws? Deport every illegal that they come across within 24 hours. This is not rocket science. Seal the border and deport...geeesh.. Some people make a mountain out of this and say things like "what can we do with the 20 million illegals we can't ship them back and we need "guest" workers and we can't seal the border it's too long" We ship back the illegals a little at a time, If 20 million illegals can come here- 20 million can go back home. A trip of 1,000 miles starts with a single foot step. The deportation of 20 million illegals starts with the deportation of the first one..[xx(]
quote:
Originally posted by sauerkraut
A trip of 1,000 miles starts with a single foot step.
So does falling off a ladder.
(http://mp.blogs.com/mp/images/immigration_cartoon.jpg)
The law is the law, without it everything breaks down. We can't run a "free-for-all" nation, with no borders, no enforcement of immigration law, and anyone and everyone from around the globe who wants to come here can just hop across the border and take a job and live here care free. What's the point in even being a U.S. citizen if it means nothing? The illegals can come and have full rights. I guess our constitution now applies to the whole world. We have falling wages, we have teens who can't get restaurant jobs because the illegals are working at the restaurants. Yep, let all the poor people of the world all 3 billion of them come to the USA we will gave them everything. After all, they just want to make better lives for their families and they are hard workers.[xx(]
MODS, can this thread be moved to Politics since it no longer has any connection to the thread's initial premise...?
(http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/20070503RZ1AP-Immigration.jpg)
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/07/31/navarrette/?iref=mpstoryview
Commentary: Illegal immigration is a self-inflicted wound
By Ruben Navarrette Jr.
Special to CNN
SAN DIEGO, California (CNN) -- We already knew we had broken borders. And when Congress chickened out on immigration reform and showed that it's not equipped to tackle anything more challenging than pork or pay raises, we knew we had a broken branch. Now it's clear that we have a broken dialogue.
We like to think of ourselves, and our communities, as innocent victims of sinister forces that are beyond our control. Concerned that there are too many illegal immigrants in the United States, that our culture is getting too spicy, and that the country is becoming too Hispanic, we blame Mexico or mega-corporations or what one commentator ominously labeled "socio-ethnic centric groups" such as the National Council of La Raza.
You see, illegal immigration is always someone else's fault. At least that's what we tell ourselves. It's easier that way.
And, when we do engage the topic, we get distracted by arguments over whether, for instance, a town such as Hazleton, Pennsylvania, has the right to dabble in do-it-yourself immigration enforcement or whether the Founding Fathers were on the right track in prohibiting that sort of thing by conceiving of the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution, which says that a state or locality cannot pass laws that interfere with federal law.
It seems that question has been answered now that U.S. District Judge James M. Munley of the central Pennsylvania district has struck down a poorly conceived ordinance dubbed the Illegal Immigration Relief Act, which sought to punish landlords who rent to illegal immigrants and employers who hire them. More than 100 towns and communities have passed similar ordinances.
Hazleton Mayor Lou Barletta, who has ridden the issue to some degree of national notoriety, has vowed to appeal the decision. But Barletta is whistling by the graveyard. Higher courts are likely to see this issue pretty much as the district court did. It's what attorneys call black letter law.
What we should be talking about instead is just how disingenuous these types of localities are being. Illegal immigration is a self-inflicted wound. And it's not just employers and landlords that benefit. It's also, yep, the same communities and towns that are doing all the complaining. There is only thing that lured illegal immigrants to Hazleton. It wasn't the scenery, the schools, or the local sports teams. It was jobs -- jobs willingly provided by individuals and businesses that, in turn, forked over tax dollars and filled town coffers. When businesses do well, the town does well. And when the town does well, the people who live there feel as if they're doing well.
I've never been to Hazleton. But I imagine that the place is lovely and has its share of restaurants, hotels and construction firms. It probably also has plenty of working mothers who rely on maids and nannies and plenty of working dads who come home to nicely manicured lawns maintained by gardeners and landscapers, all courtesy of our broken borders. And for years, it's been this way, and no one said a thing about it. Because everyone prospered.
Towns like Hazleton seem to think that they deserve some relief and some sympathy. But one thing they don't deserve is a free pass.
Ruben Navarrette Jr. is a member of the editorial board of The San Diego Union-Tribune and a nationally syndicated columnist with the Washington Post Writers Group.
One wonders if that fellow that is going to donate a 100 M to the river project was perhaps an German immigrant as we were preparing to enter into W.W.ll with Germany. Being of German descent Homeland Security could have prevented us from doing the river trails.
Isn't on which side of the fence one is looking over determines justification?
quote:
Originally posted by shadows
One wonders if that fellow that is going to donate a 100 M to the river project was perhaps an German immigrant as we were preparing to enter into W.W.ll with Germany. Being of German descent Homeland Security could have prevented us from doing the river trails.
Isn't on which side of the fence one is looking over determines justification
There's a huge difference between Immigrant and Illegal Immigrant. Any comparison is only an insult to those that did it properly.
Porky observes
There's a huge difference between Immigrant and Illegal Immigrant. Any comparison is only an insult to those that did it properly.
___________________________________________
Why don't you look it up when we were preparing to enter into the war with Germany. Look at the legal Japanese immigrants camps.
No flame just facts.
quote:
Originally posted by shadows
Porky observes
There's a huge difference between Immigrant and Illegal Immigrant. Any comparison is only an insult to those that did it properly.
___________________________________________
Why don't you look it up when we were preparing to enter into the war with Germany. Look at the legal Japanese immigrants camps.
No flame just facts.
No substance that correlates to Porky's "observation" either. There is a huge difference between illegal immigrant and legal immigrant. Please stop trying to obfuscate the issue.
I find it somewhat interesting that the lawsuit against HB 1804 hasn't been filed yet even though they have threatened to do so now for over a month. Do you think there is a reason it hasn't been filed yet? Do you think it will ultimately be defeated?
I guess rather than mess with a long fight over #1804 many illegal aliens figure it's cheaper and just as easy to cross over to another state. The illegals don't want to make a home in Oklahoma, and build up a family and secure a job and everything only to risk it all being snatched away and risk living in limbo till a final court ruling on the bill comes down. The Missouri and Arkansas state line is only 100 miles away from Tulsa and Kansas is a less than 100 miles away. In other areas of the state of Okhahoma some illegals will flee to Texas, New Mexico or Colorado. The good news is #1804 is working and doing it's job. All we need is a Federal law like #1804 and the illegals will have no place to go but home. #1804 Rockz![:)]
Found this most interesting:
ACTION ALERT: Charges of Ethnic Cleansing in Tulsa by Latino Leader
In an October 4th Presidential Bulletin, Rev. Miguel Rivera, President of the National Coalition of Latino Clergy and member of President Bush's White House Immigration Reform Coalition, said that within hours a lawsuit to defeat Oklahoma's anti-illegal foreign national law will be filed. He also said the Mexican American Legal Defense Fund will jointly contribute their legal support. In a translated version of the bulletin, Rivera makes the deeply disturbing claim that ethnic cleansing is taking place in Tulsa.
http://ztruth.typepad.com/ztruth/2007/10/charges-of-ethn.html
quote:
Originally posted by sauerkraut
I guess rather than mess with a long fight over #1804 many illegal aliens figure it's cheaper and just as easy to cross over to another state. The illegals don't want to make a home in Oklahoma, and build up a family and secure a job and everything only to risk it all being snatched away and risk living in limbo till a final court ruling on the bill comes down. The Missouri and Arkansas state line is only 100 miles away from Tulsa and Kansas is a less than 100 miles away. In other areas of the state of Okhahoma some illegals will flee to Texas, New Mexico or Colorado. The good news is #1804 is working and doing it's job. All we need is a Federal law like #1804 and the illegals will have no place to go but home. #1804 Rockz![:)]
GOOD people will leave this state... this does NOT solve any problems at all... it only makes Oklahoma LESS COMPETITIVE.
GOOD people do not want to be detained for hours at the DMV or after a simple traffic stop...
We'll lose GOOD PEOPLE to other states... most of whom are here legally... some not, but they've been in this country for years and years... stop treating good people who just want to work like they're some sort of sub-human invasion force...
If there were national laws involved, I'd consider this to be merely draconian and a knee-jerk response to immigration problems... but a law like this in the state of Oklahoma is JUST PLAIN STUPID.
***once again, this thread has gone off course and deserves to moved to politics... hint, hint...
Ok....Ok... Ok already let's discuss this whole "Immigration thing" a little differently...
All right....I want all the "Vatos" to stand on the right..
And let's have all the "Cholos" over here on the left
Ok almost there.....
all the "Mojados" lets have right down here in the center..
Now that we have everyone in their own little category....
Let's see some facts....
The only group of illegal aliens are the "Mojados"..
Crime is far more prevalent among the "Cholos" and the "Vatos" than the "Mojados"....
The "Vatos" and the "Cholos" are here legally.... Should we pass some kind of law, that when we round up all the illegals, we have them take every blood relative they have within our borders back with them....
I like that idea... But I would like to see the scope of that magnified slightly....
Anyone in the United States that is not a legal citizen.... whether they be Asian, European, African, Middle Eastern or far Eastern and anyone that I may have left out..... gone Now.
I guess the first stone to unearth would be all of the descendants of the Pilgrims. They after all were criminals evading justice.
Next any of the Asians that had entered to escape the Communist regime whether it be Mao or the Khmer Rouge....
And then on to the Cubans that attempt to land now During Castro and even when Batiste was the Leader of Cuba...
Little by little we will rid our Nation of the widespread garbage that has been strewn on our shores...!Yes..!
See you later you white devils..... (http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y179/rico2/OfficeofHomelandSecurity.jpg) [}:)]
I haven't read through all of the previous posts, so please forgive me if I am repeating.
In my opinion this isn't an issue of immigration, it's an issue of special treatment.
There are methods by which people of other citizenry can immigrate to the United States and it has been done millions of times. For any group of people to demand special treatment is unfair to the rest of the immigrants who legally entered the United States and is a slap in the face to their hard work required to obtain citizenship.
Solution: enforce the current laws.
Action: Latino Clergy Coalition Believes it Has More Power Than the Citizens of Oklahoma
A so-called Christian group who is working for the "Latino Community" in our country believes it can tell our state what to do. Today they filed a lawsuit to stop our new anti-illegal foreign national law, HB 1804.
"The sheriff of Tulsa County is guilty of ethnic cleansing and I can tell you very clear, that we will continue pursuing to find the reasons why these people have committed these atrocities against our Latino community," said Rev. Miguel Rivera with the National Coalition of Latino Clergy."
http://ztruth.typepad.com/ztruth/2007/10/action-the-sher.html