1804 part 2

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

Same old argument, eh CL?  Why are you bringing it up here?  The discussion isn't about native-born citizens, it's about the ones who migrated here illegally and the government seizing the property of others due to them.

The 14th Amendment was ratified on July 9, 1868.  Yeah, that's pretty old.  What's your point?  This argument most certainly is about denying the rights of citizenship to certain people who were born on US soil.  What's your definition of "native-born"?

[Wrinkle]

quote:Originally posted by rwarn17588

<Wrinkle says:

But, does 'equal protection under the law' extend 'Constitutional Rights' of citizens to anyone here?

<end clip>

Yes.

Next question.

I disagree.

A 'right' and a law are very different.
Though, some rights are indifferent, some are.

You seem to grant citizenship to anyone who shows up.

Next objection.

[Wrinkle]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

There's that 'jurisdiction' word again.

See prior posting.

But, does 'equal protection under the law' extend 'Constitutional Rights' of citizens to anyone here? I think not, though some 'rights' are basic and apply to all, not all of them.

In general, I think the Constitution meant if they are arrested for a crime, or the victim of one, our existing laws will be applied equally.

It does not intend to say they can vote, for example.

The right to vote has nothing to do with it.  Many felons can't vote.  Does this mean that their children aren't citizens?

If you are born here to persons who do not enjoy diplomatic immunity, you are an American citizen.  I'm presuming you are not a naturalized citizen, and so, this is the one and only claim that you yourself have to US citizenship.  It's your birthright...and the birthright of them people (insert euphemism here), too.

You jump to illogical conclusions here.
Because a convicted felon cannot vote has nothing to do with the citizenship of their children.

But, voting is a right of citizenship subject to the jurisdiction of the government.

The government, via the electorate (I presume), determined convicted felons should not be extended the right to vote. And, while I personally disagree with the breadth of this law, it is the current situation.

So, rights are indeed subject to the jurisdiction. In fact, the government can even revoke your citizenship under certain conditions, which means it has the ability to control the conditions of citizenship.

And, the rights of citizens is different than the rights of non-citizens. As you know, non-citizens are not allowed to vote. At least, aren't supposed to be, even though many do.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

Same old argument, eh CL?  Why are you bringing it up here?  The discussion isn't about native-born citizens, it's about the ones who migrated here illegally and the government seizing the property of others due to them.

The 14th Amendment was ratified on July 9, 1868.  Yeah, that's pretty old.  What's your point?  This argument most certainly is about denying the rights of citizenship to certain people who were born on US soil.  What's your definition of "native-born"?

I've already chased your shifting goal post on who is a native U.S. citizen once before, not doing it again.  What was your point in bringing this issue up?  I'll say it again, no one said a thing about native-born U.S. citizens causing other's to lose their property.

14th amendment doesn't apply here because the 14th amendment did not grant automatic citizenship to people who have entered this country illegally.  Those are the people HB 1804 and this latest rumored variant target.

So long as proof-of-citizenship requirements are meted out equally, no single group is discriminated against.

Otherwise it's nothing more than hyperbole that paints scary pictures in peoples heads of OHP cars and TCSD cars with sharp teeth in the grills chasing every hapless "brown" person across the border to Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, Texas, Colorado, or New Mexico.

Unless anyone here is TCSD, OHP, INS, or TPD and cares to admit to profiling, then anyone else's assertions of it is just emotional speculation.

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

I've already chased your shifting goal post on who is a native U.S. citizen once before, not doing it again.  

Why?  Because you lost?  It's not a "shifting" anything.  If you are born here, to parents who are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, then you are a citizen.  That's what the 14th Amendment says...explicitly.  Beyond immunity status, everything else about your parents is immaterial.

quote: ...14th amendment did not grant automatic citizenship to people who have entered this country illegally

Yes, I know.  It grants citizenship to their children born here.  And that's what bothers y'all for some reason.

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

You jump to illogical conclusions here.
Because a convicted felon cannot vote has nothing to do with the citizenship of their children.

I didn't jump anywhere, you did.  And it just so happens that you jumped into a pile of dog doo.  The fact that a child's parents are here illegally at the time of that child's birth has nothing to do with the citizenship of the child.

quote:But, voting is a right of citizenship subject to the jurisdiction of the government.

The government, via the electorate (I presume), determined convicted felons should not be extended the right to vote. And, while I personally disagree with the breadth of this law, it is the current situation.

So, rights are indeed subject to the jurisdiction. In fact, the government can even revoke your citizenship under certain conditions, which means it has the ability to control the conditions of citizenship.

And, the rights of citizens is different than the rights of non-citizens. As you know, non-citizens are not allowed to vote. At least, aren't supposed to be, even though many do.

The 14th Amendment says persons who are subject to the jurisdiction of the US.  Not "voting" or "rights".  

I can see that you are trying to use some form of transitive reasoning, i.e., if A equals B, and B equals C, then A equals C.  But it doesn't even get off the ground.  A person and a right are not the same thing.

[jamesrage]

quote:Originally posted by we vs us

quote:Originally posted by jamesrage

I think those that deliberately/knowingly higher illegals should have their assets and property confiscated as well as serve time behind bars and then when they get out lose any ability to own and or operate a business.

You seem very angry about this.  I'm guessing this is true because of the stylized skull you use for your avatar and the fact that you have the word  "rage" in your handle.  

Please correct me if I'm wrong, though.  I don't want to mistake cold calculation for random unstoppable fury.

My choice of avatar and user name is not the topic of the thread nor does it have any relevance.

[jamesrage]

quote:Originally posted by grahambino



why stop there?
make the punishment fit the crime?

Taking the property and assets from those who knowingly/deliberately hire illegals does fit the crime because they are basically profiting from illegal activities and using money for illegal purposes when they hire illegals.Asset forfeiture/forfeiture and seizure laws should apply to those who hire illegals just as it does to drug dealers and other criminals.

[TeeDub]

quote:Originally posted by jamesrage


Taking the property and assets from those who knowingly/deliberately hire illegals does fit the crime because they are basically profiting from illegal activities and using money for illegal purposes when they hire illegals.Asset forfeiture/forfeiture and seizure laws should apply to those who hire illegals just as it does to drug dealers and other criminals.

Best argument yet.

[Wrinkle]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

You jump to illogical conclusions here.
Because a convicted felon cannot vote has nothing to do with the citizenship of their children.

I didn't jump anywhere, you did.  And it just so happens that you jumped into a pile of dog doo.  The fact that a child's parents are here illegally at the time of that child's birth has nothing to do with the citizenship of the child.

quote:But, voting is a right of citizenship subject to the jurisdiction of the government.

The government, via the electorate (I presume), determined convicted felons should not be extended the right to vote. And, while I personally disagree with the breadth of this law, it is the current situation.

So, rights are indeed subject to the jurisdiction. In fact, the government can even revoke your citizenship under certain conditions, which means it has the ability to control the conditions of citizenship.

And, the rights of citizens is different than the rights of non-citizens. As you know, non-citizens are not allowed to vote. At least, aren't supposed to be, even though many do.

The 14th Amendment says persons who are subject to the jurisdiction of the US.  Not "voting" or "rights".  

I can see that you are trying to use some form of transitive reasoning, i.e., if A equals B, and B equals C, then A equals C.  But it doesn't even get off the ground.  A person and a right are not the same thing.

It says, "all persons born or naturalized".

An argument can be made that naturalization was the alternate to persons born to legal citizens.

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

It says, "all persons born or naturalized".

An argument can be made that naturalization was the alternate to persons born to legal citizens.

If I'm understanding you, then no. Where does it say anywhere that your parents have to here legally?  And "Born or naturalized" refers to the person herself, not the parent of that person.  There's a difference.

And it's not just a difference in language, it's about our values, too.  We don't like criminality.  But what crime has this child committed?

Yesterday, it seemed clearly outrageous that we would punish the child of a convicted felon for the actions of their parent.  You wouldn't deny that child the right to vote, or any rights as a citizen of this country.  

And it's equally outrageous, and also obscene and unamerican, that we would punish an innocent child for the actions of his or her parents by denying them their birthright.  We don't punish people for "sins of the father" anymore.  That went away with debtor's prisons and witch dunking.

[Wrinkle]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

It says, "all persons born or naturalized".

An argument can be made that naturalization was the alternate to persons born to legal citizens.

If I'm understanding you, then no. Where does it say anywhere that your parents have to here legally?  And "Born or naturalized" refers to the person herself, not the parent of that person.  There's a difference.

And it's not just a difference in language, it's about our values, too.  We don't like criminality.  But what crime has this child committed?

Yesterday, it seemed clearly outrageous that we would punish the child of a convicted felon for the actions of their parent.  You wouldn't deny that child the right to vote, or any rights as a citizen of this country.  

And it's equally outrageous, and also obscene and unamerican, that we would punish an innocent child for the actions of his or her parents by denying them their birthright.  We don't punish people for "sins of the father" anymore.  That went away with debtor's prisons and witch dunking.

Since when is it 'punishment' to not allow anyone to be a citizen?

You may view it that way, but it's not, any more than being born of one race or another is 'punishment'.

The entire question is just that, what IS their birthright?

You say it's one thing, others disagree. The Constitution has enough ambiguities that it should be tested. Maybe contested is not the approapriate word, but tested means to feather out.

Let all argue the issue and determine a solution. It's really not that clear. And, appears we've been operating on a batch of assumptions requiring clarification. Another issue is if the Constitution, as written, allows legislative control of these things.

At the root, did Framers anticipate the current situation and properly incorporate remedy into the wording of the Constitution?

As for values, those may be able to be addressed if the legislative issue is resolved. Then, laws can be shaped around values. As it is, values are as variable as people. You and I, for example, have a different value on this issue. It doesn't make either of us wrong/right, just different.

But, I'm pretty sure there's no God-given right to be a U.S. Citizen. Nor is it punishment for one not to be.

[swake]

And, to be clear, illegally entering the United States is not a serious crime. It is a simple misdemeanor, the same class of crime as jaywalking or speeding. Would you also advocate denying citizenship to children of speeders? Or seizing the automobiles of people that park illegally?

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle

Since when is it 'punishment' to not allow anyone to be a citizen?

You may view it that way, but it's not, any more than being born of one race or another is 'punishment'.

The entire question is just that, what IS their birthright?

You say it's one thing, others disagree. The Constitution has enough ambiguities that it should be tested. Maybe contested is not the approapriate word, but tested means to feather out.

Let all argue the issue and determine a solution. It's really not that clear. And, appears we've been operating on a batch of assumptions requiring clarification. Another issue is if the Constitution, as written, allows legislative control of these things.

At the root, did Framers anticipate the current situation and properly incorporate remedy into the wording of the Constitution?

As for values, those may be able to be addressed if the legislative issue is resolved. Then, laws can be shaped around values. As it is, values are as variable as people. You and I, for example, have a different value on this issue. It doesn't make either of us wrong/right, just different.

But, I'm pretty sure there's no God-given right to be a U.S. Citizen. Nor is it punishment for one not to be.

There is a right to be a citizen, and it's granted...explicity...in the 14th Amendment.  Since when is depriving someone of a right a good thing?  The right to citizenship of a child born to foreign parents has already been affirmed...a long time ago in 1897.  Among other findings:

quote: The Court recognized Congress's right to deny citizenship by passing naturalization laws. In cases where birth was the source of citizenship, however, the Court ruled that Congress had no power to remove a right granted by the Constitution.

[Wrinkle]

quote:Originally posted by swake

And, to be clear, illegally entering the United States is not a serious crime. It is a simple misdemeanor, the same class of crime as jaywalking or speeding. Would you also advocate denying citizenship to children of speeders? Or seizing the automobiles of people that park illegally?

The act of entering illegally is not a serious crime, granted. I think in legal terms, it's what's termed an 'enabler' issue.

If all they did was cross the border, ho hum.

But, what we've found is that those who do often create a lifestyle of problematic issues, such as driving without license and insurance, killing and injuring people in accidents who's victims have no renumeration and placing a load on public services which the rest are forced to bear.

Seldom has any action harsher than being deported enforced on someone here illegally, if that's all they are.

I suggest it only you who can relate parking and speeding to birth.