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

[Chicken Little]

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.

[pmcalk]

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.

[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.

[Chicken Little]

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.

[sauerkraut]

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.

[sauerkraut]

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.[]

[guido911]

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.

[Double A]

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.

[Wingnut]

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!?!

[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?

[Double A]

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.

[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.

[mspivey]

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?

[restored2x]

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?)

[iplaw]

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.