Let's try a new way of discussing immigration..

[RecycleMichael]

I think UPS (United Parcel Service) has an interesting slogan...

"What can brown do for you?"

[Double A]

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.

[guido911]

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.

[waterboy]

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.

[Conan71]

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? []

[Conan71]

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.

[guido911]

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

[cannon_fodder]

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.

[Wingnut]

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.

[Conan71]

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."

[Wingnut]

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.

[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.

[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.

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...

[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.

[Chicken Little]

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.