[inthebox]

Hello again, twink:

Proper, as in being BORN here. Yup, the baby is a citizen, and the parents are not. They'll BE split up. Come on, twink. Think about the PEOPLE, not the politics. But, you, like smoothy, want to focus on the few who ARE bad guys - not the many who only want to wash your dishes and burp your child while you're at work.

I do, again, challenge your assertion that illegal aliens commit MORE crime than their proportionate representation in the community.

excon

It is that attitude that is actually harmful to these illegal immigrants:

1] As illegals do they have the protections that citizen workers have?
- are there OSHA regulations, unemployment, disability, mandated breaks during a work day for those illegals doing back breaking labor in the fields to provide fresh vegetables? Are they modern day slaves picking fruit instead of cotton?

2] Does minimum wage apply to nannies and farm labor?

3] If an illegal has been working here for years do they qualify for social security?

4] Do these illegals really fair better under the "coyotes?"

As an aside, tell me what other country deems you a citizen due to your birthplace, despite the fact that your parents are illegal? I don't know the answer, I have not looked it up yet.




G&P

[tomder55]

It is true that an amendment designed to address the citizen status of former slaves and their families has been perverted and is used as a loophole to bypass the legitimate rules established for immigration. (1st paragraph amendment 14)

This actually makes rational reform of the immigration laws more difficult . If illegals knew they couldn't game the system by coming here ,and by having children ,thus making themselve deportation proof ,perhaps there would be less incentive to break the immigration rules.

You make a good point Ex ;clearly we are not in the same world as we were in 1865. There are no more children of slaves alive to concern ourselves about . Perhaps the 14th Amendment itself needs amending .

Like I said in your other posting ;naturalization is not a constitutional issue .We have frequently amended ,loosened and tightened the rules depending on the needs of the country . This 14th amendment requirement impedes our ability to make a rational immigration policy. Illegals know they can game the system because ;as you correctly point out ,we will not break up families . (Quite the opposite... we will consign a newly freed child to a life in the gulag of Cuba rather than separate him from his father )


That issue will be a major factor in any reform that would allow expanding work permits.

[tomder55]

Ps . I also can discuss how article one of the 14th amendment was perverted by the courts

[excon]

Hello again, tom:

It may surprise you that I'm all for getting rid of the anchor baby provision.

excon

[tomder55]

I did some more reseach on it ,and there is no need for amendment IF originalist priciples were applied to the 14th.

The author of the citizenship clause was Sen. Jacob M. Howard (MI).

During the debate he made it clear that it was a provision for the former slaves and their families .

The first amendment is to section one, declaring that all "persons born in the United States and Subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside. I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. 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. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country

Sen. Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee and also author of the Thirteenth Amendment inserted the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" into the clause . He explained his reason for doing so.

[T]he provision is, that 'all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.' That means 'subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.' What do we mean by 'complete jurisdiction thereof?' Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.

Unfortunately the black robed oligarchs in SCOTUS badly mangled their interpretation of the citizenship clause in a series of decisions that are now considered "precedence".

[paraclete]

Get over it, Tom, when you have a statute on the books people will apply it, times change and what you have just admitted is that the sacrosanct constitution needs to change to preserve the liberty of the real americans. Either persons born in the US and eltitled to become President are citizens or they are not and that other pecular rule needs to go too. You have to decide which side you are on, the rights of the native born to life love and liberty and the presidicency or the rights of the "citizens" of convenience

[tomder55]

Get over it, Tom, when you have a statute on the books people will apply it, times change and what you have just admitted is that the sacrosanct constitution needs to change to preserve the liberty of the real americans. Either persons born in the US and eltitled to become President are citizens or they are not and that other pecular rule needs to go too. You have to decide which side you are on, the rights of the native born to life love and liberty and the presidicency or the rights of the "citizens" of convenience

1. I never said I was opposed to amending the constitution when necessary. That is why the founders added the amendment process.

2. The Constitution says that only natural born Americans can be President . It doesn't say that everyone born on our shores are automatically citizens . That is a faulty interpretation by SCOTUS . I just demonstrated that the intent of the authors of the 14th Amendment never meant that the citizenship clause of the amendment applied to everyone born here .

[speechlesstx]

You know ex, it sure looks like Holder can give Alberto Gonzales a run for his money. Actually I think this administration is looking more like the real dufuses. Our illustrious AG, like our Secretary of State and probably the president, has been criticizing a law he hasn't read.

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. who has been critical of Arizona's new immigration law, said Thursday he hasn't yet read the law and is going by what he's read in newspapers or seen on television.

Mr. Holder is conducting a review of the law, at President Obama's request, to see if the federal government should challenge it in court. He said he expects he will read the law by the time his staff briefs him on their conclusions.

"I've just expressed concerns on the basis of what I've heard about the law. But I'm not in a position to say at this point, not having read the law, not having had the chance to interact with people are doing the review, exactly what my position is," Mr. Holder told the House Judiciary Committee.

This weekend Mr. Holder told NBC's "Meet the Press" program that the Arizona law "has the possibility of leading to racial profiling." He had earlier called the law's passage "unfortunate," and questioned whether the law was unconstitutional because it tried to assume powers that may be reserved for the federal government.

Rep. Ted Poe, who had questioned Mr. Holder about the law, wondered how he could have those opinions if he hadn't yet read the legislation.

"It's hard for me to understand how you would have concerns about something being unconstitutional if you haven't even read the law," the Texas Republican told the attorney general.

Let's see, if I've read right the Obama administration's position is the law is racist and unconstitutional, they're not going to cooperate on enforcement and they're going to challenge it in court. But they haven't actually read it yet, they're basing policy on hearsay.

[excon]

You know ex, it sure looks like Holder can give Alberto Gonzales a run for his money.

Hello Steve:

If you're looking for disagreement over here, you ain't going to find any.

excon

[adthern]

I find it interesting that the conversations around immigration usually are either 1) about the pros and cons of "amnesty" or 2) the anchor baby issue. It seems to me that these are secondary issues, the primary issue is securing the borders (all of the borders) against unlawful entry into the US.

Honestly, I'm less concerned by the mexican fruit picker or maid that wants to come and work and make a better life for his/herself and their family than I am about the cartel member, al qaeda operative or general criminal coming across.

Whenever anyone discusses border security it seems the immediate thought is whomever is talking about it is a radical conservative dressed in camo and walking the desert in Arizona with a gun.

It's like a leak in a dyke, forst you plug it with your finger and then you mop up the water--not the otherway round.

I blame the Democrats and the republicans for our lack of border security and I would think that anyone who supports the mexican nationals (who want to come and work here) rights would cast a thought to the poor person in Mexico who can't pay the coyotes (people who transport illegals across the border) the cost of the trip and would rather come legally. Then the anchor baby provision would be less of an issue and ICE could focus on dealing with the problem that exists, without worrying about a tidlewave of new illegals.

[excon]

Whenever anyone discusses border security it seems the immediate thought is whomever is talking about it is a radical conservative dressed in camo and walking the desert in Arizona with a gun.

Hello ad:

You're right. The idea that we have to "secure" the border FIRST before we talk about the people already here, is NUTS. Well, it's not nuts. It's smart, as long as you can hoodwink the other guy into believing you. In fact, it's a great political tactic if you don't want to deal with immigration reform at all.

I say that, because I don't know what "secure" the border means. Do you? Does that mean we wait until NOBODY can get in?? Is that what a secure border is?

That ain't going to happen. If we have to wait for that before we do anything about it, nothing will get done. I don't know why the wingers want that.

excon

[paraclete]

Hello ad:
In fact, it's a great political tactic if you don't want to deal with immigration reform at all.

You're right ex, it is all a political nonsense. There is no reason why you cannot enforce the laws you now have excepting you would come to know what full employment is and this would be very embarrassing for industries that enjoy cheap labour, in fact some industries would have no labour force and of course you would have to have a secure border otherwise you are back where you started. So politically it is better to do nothing, it costs less

[adthern]

Hello ad:

You're right. The idea that we have to "secure" the border FIRST before we talk about the people already here, is NUTS. Well, it's not nuts. It's smart, as long as you can hoodwink the other guy into believing you. In fact, it's a great political tactic if you don't want to deal with immigration reform at all.

I say that, because I don't know what "secure" the border means. Do you? Does that mean we wait until NOBODY can get in???? Is that what a secure border is?

That ain't gonna happen. If we have to wait for that before we do anything about it, nothing will get done. I dunno why the wingers want that.

excon

Actually, I do know what a more secure border is... I mean no one can truly secure the borders completely, but we can do a hell of a lot better job than we do now!

I say, Walls north and south 50-100 feet high and deep woth ground penetrating radar and video and significantly more border agents. Ports, containers and coast guard... 2-3% of shipping containers are actually checked... seriously? That is ridiculous, who thinks that's actually acceptable?

I absolutely think that the borders need to be secured first. Next, a simple immigration system. Step one, you want to come in, Finger print, DNA, Photo, facial recognition on everyone. If you are coming for work, cool, you have to have a job, employer who vouches for you, you receive a temporary work card with a GPS locator in it--random checks by ICE. If you are a tourist, same setup and if you overstay your visa or travel somewhere you aren't cleared for zip your out and banned from reentry.

I know that it may seem draconian, but I don't want to see another plane crash into a building or some slightly smarter guy actually explode a bomb in time square (yes I know he was actually a naturalized citizen--thats a whole other reform discussion).

The Constitution is meant to protect Citizens and arguably those here as guests of the US, not wartime enemies (see Quirin) They certainly do not apply to alien nationals prior to their arrival on US soil so the precautions which would be "violations" of multiple Amendments of the Constitution are not since they are prerequisites to entry. A lot of work for us, yes... but worth it, I think.

[adthern]

you're right ex, it is all a political nonsence. There is no reason why you cannot enforce the laws you now have excepting you would come to know what full employment is and this would be very embarrassing for industries that enjoy cheap labour, in fact some industries would have no labour force and of course you would have to have a secure border otherwise you are back where you started. So politically it is better to do nothing, it costs less

Again, the penalties on businesses are far too lenient to be effective, even when they are enforced. If the fine were, $10,000 per day, per employee... well maybe you would make a dent.

It is a circular argument that the politicians have had us wrapped up in so we wouldn't see the real problem, that we are doing nothing. Republicans cry secure the borders, illegals out... but we can't do that until we agree no amnesty for the illegals here... the Dems say the opposite... and each side is polarized and refuses to work together until the question is answered (which they know it never will be).

There are a few basic issues that people need to suck their emotions out of... abortion, gay marriage, and the other hot button issues.

Abortion is a right, nothing you can do about it, its not going to change... you can't get 2/3rds of the congress and 3/4's of the states to agree to a Constitutional amendment against it, so it will remain a states rights issue.

Gay marriage, against it? Why? If it's a religious issue for you... fine, don't allow them to marry in your church. Don't associate with them. But don't ask the Federal Government to start taking religious law into account, dear Gods please don't do that--What if next time its not your religion the law is from? Law and religion should have nothing whatever to do with each other... I am a man married to a woman and could care less if 2 guys/girls want to marry each other, what I do care about is wasting tons of tax money on discussing and fighting about it.

Once you get past those 2 issues... I think, I think... people can find some common ground... maybe?

Doesn't everyone want to be secure? Have a tax code that makes some kind of sense? Get the budget under some control? Fix the economy? I mean I'm just throwing this stuff out there off the top of my head, but it makes sense to Me anyway.

[paraclete]

Again, the penalties on businesses are far too lenient to be effective, even when they are enforced. If the fine were, $10,000 per day, per employee...well maybe you would make a dent.

It is a circular argument that the politicians have had us wrapped up in so we wouldn't see the real problem, that we are doing nothing. Republicans cry secure the borders, illegals out...but we can't do that until we agree no amnesty for the illegals here....the Dems say the opposite...and each side is polarized and refuses to work together until the question is answered (which they know it never will be).

There are a few basic issues that people need to suck their emotions out of....abortion, gay marriage, and the other hot button issues.

Abortion is a right, nothing you can do about it, its not gonna change...you can't get 2/3rds of the congress and 3/4's of the states to agree to a Constitutional amendment against it, so it will remain a states rights issue.

Gay marriage, against it? why? If its a religious issue for you...fine, don't allow them to marry in your church. Don't associate with them. But don't ask the Federal Government to start taking religious law into account, dear Gods please don't do that--What if next time its not your religion the law is from? Law and religion should have nothing whatever to do with each other...I am a man married to a woman and could care less if 2 guys/girls want to marry each other, what I do care about is wasting tons of tax money on discussing and fighting about it.

Once you get past those 2 issues...I think, I think...people can find some common ground...maybe?

Doesn't everyone want to be secure? Have a tax code that makes some kind of sense? Get the budget under some control? Fix the economy? I mean I'm just throwing this stuff out there off the top of my head, but it makes sense to Me anyway.

This problem needs some lateral thinking, you already have NAFTA so be like Europe and issue a North American citizenship and secure the border south of Mexico and in Canadian ports and allow free access within. Without citzenship, no work, no permanent accommodation. Everyone not entitled to citizensship goes home. Build up your industries within and stop the bleed to China. You conquered Mexico once why you didn't keep it then is beyond me.

As to these other issues these are moral issues

[tomder55]

This problem needs some lateral thinking, you already have NAFTA so be like Europe and issue a North American citizenship and secure the border south of Mexico and in Canadian ports and allow free access within. Without citzenship, no work, no permanent accommodation. Everyone not entitled to citizensship goes home. Build up your industries within and stop the bleed to China.

Yeah that Euro thingy has really worked out well. I think if you asked a German you'ld get a different view of that .
They thought they were all going to get the euro and instead they all got the drachma .

[paraclete]

Yeah that Euro thingy has really worked out well. I think if you asked a German you'ld get a different view of that .
They thought they were all going to get the euro and instead they all got the drachma .

Very droll Tom but in fact they bought Greece for 100 billion, nothing really. Now all they need to do is send the Turks home and employ Greeks.

[speechlesstx]

The Obama administration has taken the new Arizona law on its global apology tour, apologizing to CHINA for the law in talks on human rights.

Are you kidding me?? I agree with Powerline, "this is unfreakingbelievable, even for the Obama administration."

[excon]

Hello again, Steve:

I don't know. I LIKE accountability and truth from my politicians. You don't. S'cool. I like chocolate and I'll bet you like vanilla.

excon

[talaniman]

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed — and hence clamorous to be led to safety — by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." -Henry Louis Mencken

That's my take on the Arizona law. Bred by fear, and a political quick fix, in an election year. Make it so bad, the Governor has signed a new law banning minority optional education,

Arizona schools superintendent pushes ban on ethnic studies,

As breeding hatred, and insurrection against white people.

That's exactly what we need, another over reaction designed to scare people, in an election year.