# "14th Amendment doesn't apply to foreigners."



## JMD_KS (Nov 20, 2007)

Good for him! WAY overdue, IMHO... :goodjob:



> State Rep. Leo Berman ramped up his support today for a proposal that would challenge the concept of birthright citizenship for U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants with the hopes that passage of such a measure would trigger a federal lawsuit.
> 
> Speaking to a group of about 20 members of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps., Berman said if his proposal to prohibit automatic citizenship for U.S.-born children of undocumented immigrants passes it would undoubtedly spark a court fight that he hopes lands in the U.S. Supreme Court.
> 
> "That's exactly what we're looking for," said Berman, R-Tyler. "We want to be sued into federal court where our attorney general can take this all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court."


http://blogs.chron.com/texaspolitics/archives/2009/02/berman_we_want_1.html


----------



## copperkid3 (Mar 18, 2005)

*Berman's argument is based on the notion that the 14th Amendment, 
which says all persons born in the U.S. shall be granted citizenship, does not "apply to foreigners."

"We hope that at some point and time some judge will say 'you're absolutely right. 
It doesn't apply to illegal aliens,'" Berman said. *
************************************
problem. He states that "we hope"......has he considered the possible outcome if that 'hope' 
is dashed and the judge rules against him??? If it went so far as the SCOTUS, would they 
see it differently??? This could potentially backfire and the progressives would have
a substantial new voter base.....which maybe *EXACTLY* the Obamavites are hoping for.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

This is one issue where the language in the constitution is very clear.

_*"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States"*_

I don't see any room at all for interpretation. The only way out of respecting that provision is to change the constitution. I don't see that happening.


----------



## dogrunner (Mar 2, 2009)

That's my take as well. If people want to amend the constitution, there is a process to do that. Move forward with that process if you want. Or is this another instance of constitutionalists not wanting the full constitution to work when it is not convenient for them??


----------



## Guest (Aug 4, 2010)

What is not stated in the constitution is that the family of persons born or naturalized in the United States automatically become citizens also. That is the whole purpose of the anchor baby business, people coming over, having babies, then claiming the whole family has a right to stay. I haven't read about any people being born here then coming back as adults and being denied entry, have you?


----------



## Oggie (May 29, 2003)

zong said:


> What is not stated in the constitution is that the family of persons born or naturalized in the United States automatically become citizens also.


And, that doesn't happen.


----------



## mistletoad (Apr 17, 2003)

zong said:


> What is not stated in the constitution is that the family of persons born or naturalized in the United States automatically become citizens also.


It doesn't say it because it isn't true.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> I don't see any room at all for interpretation. The only way out of respecting that provision is to change the constitution. I don't see that happening.


It wasn't ever meant to apply to "foreigners", and especially those here illegally



> subject to the jurisdiction thereof


Here are the actual words of the man who introduced the amendment, and the INTENT is clear:



> 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.
> 
> ...


http://www.14thamendment.us/articles/anchor_babies_unconstitutionality.html

If the parents are here *illegally*, then THEY are not US citizens. They are citizens of a FOREIGN country, and pass *that citizenship *along to their children, just the same as is the case if a child is born to US citizens in a foreign country.

The amendment has been *misinterpreted *for too long.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Here are the actual words of the man who introduced the amendment, and the INTENT is clear


That language never made it into law. Perhaps the person who introduced the Amendment did intend it to be interpreted that way, but did the rest of congress intend the same thing when they voted for it? If so, why didn't they say so in the Amendment?


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Nevada said:


> This is one issue where the language in the constitution is very clear.
> 
> _*"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States"*_
> 
> I don't see any room at all for interpretation. The only way out of respecting that provision is to change the constitution. I don't see that happening.


By entering the country illegally, they have chosen to NOT be subject to the jurisdiction therof. Only by entering the US legally have they met the requirement of "subject to jurisdiction".

A growing problem is babies born to "birth tourists". Women come to the US legally with the sole purpose of having a baby with US citizenship. I have heard that China is one country that encourages this practice.



> Thousands of legal immigrants, who do not permanently reside in the United States but give birth here, have given their children the gift of citizenship, which the U.S. grants to anyone born on its soil.
> 
> The number of U.S. births to non-resident mothers rose 53 percent between 2000 and 2006, according to the most recent data from the National Center for Health Statistics. Total births rose 5 percent in the same period.
> 
> Among the foreigners who have given birth here, including international travelers passing through and foreign students studying at U.S. universities, are "birth tourists," women who travel to the United States with the explicit purpose of obtaining citizenship for their child.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> If so, why didn't they say so in the Amendment?


They did:



> "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"


Tthey had *common sense *enough to know who it applied to


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

MoonRiver said:


> By entering the country illegally, they have chosen to NOT be subject to the jurisdiction therof. Only by entering the US legally have they met the requirement of "subject to jurisdiction".


We're talking about the baby, not the parents. The baby didn't make any decisions at all.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Because they had *common sense *enough to know who it applied to


Come on, most lawmakers are lawyers. They know better.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> *We're talking about the baby,* not the parents. The baby didn't make any decisions at all


There are no "decisions" to be made BY the baby.
Until they turn 18 they cannot make LEGAL decisions


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Come on, most lawmakers are lawyers. They know better.


Not when the amendment was written.
Many of them were farmers
It's the lawyers who turned it all around


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

The 14th amendment was written to "prevent discriminatory treatment of recently emancipated slaves".



> A. The Fourteenth Amendment Limited
> 
> The central purpose of the Thirteenth (1865), Fourteenth (1868), and Fifteenth(1870) Amendments - sometimes called the "Civil War" or "Reconstruction" amendments - was to prevent discriminatory treatment of the recently emancipated slaves. Within a decade of the Civil War, lawyers nonetheless invoked the expansive phrases of the Fourteenth Amendment to constrain state regulation in business matters. In the slaughter-House Cases - the first decision to construe the amendment - the Court unequivocally refused to use it for this purpose.


The original quote comes from:

The General Principles of Constitutional Law in the United States of America, By Thomas M. Cooley, LL.D., Third Edition, Andrew C. McLaughlin, A.M., L.L B. [Professor of American History, University of Michigan] Little, Brown, and Company *1898*, pp 224-227)


----------



## copperkid3 (Mar 18, 2005)

Nevada said:


> Come on, most lawmakers are lawyers. They know better.


********************************************
They *SHOULD* know better, but they only think they do; 
and of course, far better than anyone else.......:run: 

Obviously, you're reasoning is flawed.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Not when the amendment was written.
> Many of them were farmers
> It's the lawyers who turned it all around


Maybe not...

******
The number of lawyers in public office in our history has been large

The U.S. Congress has long been dominated by lawyer-politicians. "From 1780 to 1930, two thirds of the senators and about half of the House of Representatives were lawyers; the percentage seems to have stayed fairly stable" (Friedman 1985: 647). . . . at the beginning of the 101st Congress in 1989, 184 members (42%) of the U.S. House of Representatives were lawyers (47% of the Democrats and 35 % of the Republicans). Sixty-three senators were lawyers, roughly equally distributed between the two parties (Ornstein, Mann, and Malbin 1990: 20-21, 26-27). At the beginning of the 102nd Congress in January, 1991, 244 of the 535 members of both houses (46%) claimed attorney as their profession.
http://www.legalreform-now.org/menu1_5.htm


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> This is one issue where the language in the constitution is very clear.
> 
> _*"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States"*_
> 
> I don't see any room at all for interpretation. The only way out of respecting that provision is to change the constitution. I don't see that happening.


I think you could be surprised. There is a major ground swell of anti-criminal alien feeling out there. I can easily see an amendment requiring the parents of a child to be in the US legally before citizenship is given to a child born in the US passing.

Simple way to sell it: Why should we be rewarding criminals?


----------



## Gercarson (Nov 2, 2003)

Nevada said:


> We're talking about the baby, not the parents. The baby didn't make any decisions at all.


Right - sure sounds like we're talking about abortions "rights" again - but then, the shoe is on the "other" foot - right?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

watcher said:


> Simple way to sell it: Why should we be rewarding criminals?


Also a simple way to defeat it: Are conservatives willing to give up the Hispanic vote?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Also a simple way to defeat it: Are conservatives willing to give up the Hispanic vote?


Let's see you have a group of people who support criminals and you court their vote. Just what does that make you?

If it means losing the votes of those who support criminals, then yeah I'm willing to give them up. But I don't see it happening. At some point even the Hispanics will see supporting criminals coming back to bit them in the rump. Much as how nations which have supported terrorist have discovered that was a bad idea.


----------



## mistletoad (Apr 17, 2003)

Even illegal aliens are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. People with diplomatic immunity are not within the jurisdiction - I think they are currently the only people who can be within the US but not subject to its jurisdiction.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Are conservatives willing to give up the Hispanic vote?


Most LEGAL Hispanics are against ILLEGAL immigrants
The rest can't vote (legally) anyway


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Most LEGAL Hispanics are against ILLEGAL immigrants
> The rest can't vote (legally) anyway


I think you are mistaken.

******
Latinos are the fastest-growing minority group in the U.S., and their votes could hinge on how the government addresses immigration: A poll released today by the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials Educational Fund finds that immigration has overtaken economic issues, education and health care as the top policy issue for Latino voters in four states. In 2006, a poll released by NALEO found education, the economy and jobs, and the war in Iraq were the top concerns for Latino voters.

*A majority of the 1,600 Latino voters surveyed in California, Colorado, Florida and Texas said they identify as Democrats, with only 16.5 percent identifying as Republicans.*
http://washingtonindependent.com/92093/immigration-is-the-top-issue-for-latino-voters-in-key-states
******

Looks like the Hispanic vote is already a lost cause for republicans. I guess it doesn't really matter at this point. Good luck.


----------



## How Do I (Feb 11, 2008)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Not when the amendment was written.
> Many of them were farmers:umno:
> It's the lawyers who turned it all around


Joint Committee on Reconstruction

_This committee also drafted the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution..._

Thaddeus Stevens - *Lawyer*

Elihu Benjamin Washburne - *Lawyer*

Justin Smith Morrill - Clerk/Agriculture

John Bingham - *Lawyer*

Roscoe Conkling - *Lawyer*

George S. Boutwell - *Lawyer*

Henry Taylor Blow - Lead Mining

Henry Grider - *Lawyer*

Andrew Jackson Rogers - *Lawyer*

William P. Fessenden - *Lawyer*

James W. Grimes - *Lawyer*/Farmer

Jacob M. Howard - *Lawyer
*
George Henry Williams - *Lawyer*

Ira Harris - *Lawyer*

Reverdy Johnson - *Lawyer*

Guess 2 out of 15 ain't bad.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> A majority of the *1,600 *Latino voters surveyed in *California, Colorado, Florida and Texas* said they identify as Democrats, with only 16.5 percent identifying as Republicans


1600 is a pretty small sample from *4 states*.
Not enough to form a valid conclusion


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> I think you are mistaken.


I guess I was. It happens once in a while


----------



## whistler (Apr 20, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> 1600 is a pretty small sample from *4 states*.
> Not enough to form a valid conclusion


Please tell us how you know this? Can you support your statement through a mathematical proof? Or is it an opinion?


----------



## beccachow (Nov 8, 2008)

Now we are worried about the Constitution? Didn't matter when everyone was tearing up and huggnig each other over the abomination that is called a Health Care Act.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

I don't think we should pick and choose what we like about the constitution. Take it all or none. If a child is born in the U.S. it is a citizen. I have seen many complain when others decide to choose what they like about the constitution. I am not saying you have to like it or agree with it. I am saying if each person gets to take out what they don't agree with it is worthless.
Take it or leave it, no choosing.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Nevada said:


> Also a simple way to defeat it: Are conservatives willing to give up the Hispanic vote?


Of course. Conservatives don't view people as a member of a group, but as individuals. We want support from all who support conservatism, regardless of race, color, or religion. We offer no preferential treatment to any group but pledge to all equal opportunity under the law.


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

With the exception of those with diplomatic immunity, everyone in the US is subject to it's jurisdiction, weather they consent to be or not.


----------



## palani (Jun 12, 2005)

NEWS FLASH .... THIS JUST IN .... The Supreme Court has established in 1831 that the several States of the union are FOREIGN to the United States EXCEPT FOR THOSE DOMESTIC RELATIONS ESTABLISHED BY THE CONSTITUTION ... refer to 5 Pet 1 Georgia vs Cherokee Nation for the discussion.

So now the 14th amendment isn't to apply to FOREIGNERS? GET REAL. Foreigner is ALL it was ever intended to have application to.


----------



## palani (Jun 12, 2005)

tinknal said:


> With the exception of those with diplomatic immunity, everyone in the US is subject to it's jurisdiction, weather they consent to be or not.


Precisely. There are 40 stones placed at 1 mile intervals around the United States. It took 2 years to place them there in the 1790's so quite a bit of effort was expended. Here is what they say. You want to be SUBJECT to the Jurisdiction of the United States .... go to the District.

Should you have problems believing things chiseled in stone ... then that might be considered a difficulty separating fiction from reality. I think Moses had a similar problem.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

MoonRiver said:


> We offer no preferential treatment to any group but pledge to all equal opportunity under the law.


Fine. If you don't show preferential treatment to bankers and Wall Street executives, can I get a bailout too? I don't expect anything as large as BofA got, just a few million will do.


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

palani said:


> Precisely. There are 40 stones placed at 1 mile intervals around the United States. It took 2 years to place them there in the 1790's so quite a bit of effort was expended. Here is what they say. You want to be SUBJECT to the Jurisdiction of the United States .... go to the District.
> 
> Should you have problems believing things chiseled in stone ... then that might be considered a difficulty separating fiction from reality. I think Moses had a similar problem.


If there were no jurisdiction outside of DC then there could be no "illegal immigrants" except within the district.

See where circular thinking gets you?


----------



## Oggie (May 29, 2003)

This whole issue could easily be solved by opening the border to an unlimited number of gay undocumented immigrants.


----------



## palani (Jun 12, 2005)

tinknal said:


> If there were no jurisdiction outside of DC then there could be no "illegal immigrants" except within the district.
> 
> See where circular thinking gets you?


What part of FOREIGN do you not understand?

There never has been any classification in law of "illegal alien". There are two classes of alien: friend or enemy. If you have an enemy alien then you have a declaration of war that declares him an enemy.

See how simple life used to be? Everyone you are likely to meet in life is going to be an ALIEN. Thank your stars most of them are friendly because if they were enemies they would be looking to make you a carcass. All this politically correct bull has confused a lot of people.


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

palani said:


> What part of FOREIGN do you not understand?


So where does the word "FOREIGN" appear in the 14th Amendment? :shrug:


----------



## Guest (Aug 5, 2010)

MoonRiver said:


> Of course. Conservatives don't view people as a member of a group, but as individuals. We want support from all who support conservatism, regardless of race, color, or religion. We offer no preferential treatment to any group but pledge to all equal opportunity under the law.


:rock:hearty applause!!!!!!


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

If they made that retroactive I wonder how many citizens we would have left on this forum?


----------



## palani (Jun 12, 2005)

tinknal said:


> So where does the word "FOREIGN" appear in the 14th Amendment? :shrug:


Check out Chapter CCXXLIX ... See if you find the word foreign there

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=015/llsl015.db&recNum=256


This was passed the day before the 14th amendment was enacted. The foreign state described is the one you are in now.


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

palani said:


> Check out Chapter CCXXLIX ... See if you find the word foreign there
> 
> http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=015/llsl015.db&recNum=256
> 
> ...


LMBO! You better read it again. That law concerns _Americans living in *OTHER* countries!_ :baby04::baby04::baby04:


----------



## palani (Jun 12, 2005)

tinknal said:


> LMBO! You better read it again. That law concerns _Americans living in *OTHER* countries!_ :baby04::baby04::baby04:


That is what you are MEANT to think. There is no coincidence that this was passed one day before the 14th went into effect. Just part of the rabbit hole. Read it as the remedy provided by CONGRESS for a MAJOR trespass.

A year or two before this act an Army captain was sent to Ireland to stir up the Irish (Finians) to rebel against the British (a few lollipops handed out on a street corner would have been sufficient motivation at the time ... even now). His ship was intercepted off the coast of Ireland by (guess who?) ... the British. They somehow knew of his plan ahead of time and threw him into a dungeon awaiting trial. HOW DID THE BRITISH KNOW TO INTERCEPT?

A lot of petitions were sent to Congress to protest the British holding this American and CCXXLIX was the result. Quite a dog and pony show to convince everyone that the foreign state Americans needed protection in was Britain when actually the focus was the states of the union (FOREIGN STATES).


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

palani said:


> That is what you are MEANT to think. There is no coincidence that this was passed one day before the 14th went into effect. Just part of the rabbit hole. Read it as the remedy provided by CONGRESS for a MAJOR trespass.
> 
> A year or two before this act an Army captain was sent to Ireland to stir up the Irish (Finians) to rebel against the British (a few lollipops handed out on a street corner would have been sufficient motivation at the time ... even now). His ship was intercepted off the coast of Ireland by (guess who?) ... the British. They somehow knew of his plan ahead of time and threw him into a dungeon awaiting trial. HOW DID THE BRITISH KNOW TO INTERCEPT?
> 
> A lot of petitions were sent to Congress to protest the British holding this American and CCXXLIX was the result. Quite a dog and pony show to convince everyone that the foreign state Americans needed protection in was Britain when actually the focus was the states of the union (FOREIGN STATES).


Your circular reasoning is making you look like a Democrat.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

MoonRiver said:


> Of course. Conservatives don't view people as a member of a group, but as individuals. We want support from all who support conservatism, regardless of race, color, or religion. We offer no preferential treatment to any group but pledge to all equal opportunity under the law.


Actually, conservative (keeping things the way they are) ideas have always drifted from one minority group to another. Women's right to vote was said to be a huge mistake, until it passed and the country didn't melt down. I can remember anti civil rights arguments from when I was in high school, yet we survived civil rights legislation. Both ideas seemed radical at the time, but today we can't imagine it any other way. Likewise, today there's no one who will admit being against those ideas.

Gays are just the latest minority group for conservatives to go after. Like civil rights, conservatives claim that they are doing God's work in maintaining that the gay lifestyle is an abomination. I can remember conservative classmates telling me that God always intended to races to be segregated, but I'm sure that none of them remember that today.

I've been down this road with conservatives more times than I can count over dozens of issues. I swear, sometimes I grow weary of the repeating pattern.

Gay marriage will become the law of the land and we'll think nothing of it from then on. After that, conservatives will swear that they never opposed gay marriage. Then conservatives will find another minority group to do it to and the process will start all over again.


----------



## palani (Jun 12, 2005)

tinknal said:


> Your circular reasoning is making you look like a Democrat.


Really? Well this one ought to convince you then. You see you can only commit TREASON against THEM according to the constitution. THEM refers to THE SEVERAL STATES and not the SINGULAR United States.

Your allegiance is directed at your state and not some third party entity your state entered into an alliance with.

So I don't know Democrat from Republican but I do have a natural sense of what TREASON is and I prefer to avoid it. How about you? Committed any lately?


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

palani said:


> So I don't know Democrat from Republican but I do have a natural sense of what TREASON is and I prefer to avoid it. How about you? Committed any lately?


Yep, you got me, I'm a traitor. I befoul apple pies, burn flags, hate the Yankees, send anthrax to Senators, and squeeze kittens to death. 


Grow up.


----------



## Guest (Aug 5, 2010)

Not fried apple pies??


----------



## palani (Jun 12, 2005)

tinknal said:


> Yep, you got me, I'm a traitor. I befoul apple pies, burn flags, hate the Yankees, send anthrax to Senators, and squeeze kittens to death.
> 
> 
> Grow up.


No. All you have to do is place your federal allegiance above your local allegiance. I have no name for your other habits. You aren't of Swedish origin and celebrate lutefisk do you


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Nevada said:


> I've been down this road with conservatives more times than I can count over dozens of issues. I swear, sometimes I grow weary of the repeating pattern.


You are free to think whatever you want. (Even when it is wrong)


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Foreigner is ALL it was ever intended to have application to


Obviously you didn't read the words of the man who introduced the amendment


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Your circular reasoning is making you look like a Democrat.


I would have used a different term.


----------



## tinknal (May 21, 2004)

palani said:


> . You aren't of Swedish origin and celebrate lutefisk do you


Ummmm, why yes, I am and I do.


----------



## palani (Jun 12, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Obviously you didn't read the words of the man who introduced the amendment


You keep track of words. I will pay attention to effects. Prior to the 14th amendment there existed a republic. Afterward there existed totalitarianism.

But rather than introduce argument where reason should apply I will simply state that the 14th amendment has no place in my government.


----------



## palani (Jun 12, 2005)

tinknal said:


> Ummmm, why yes, I am and I do.


In that case I accept all responsibility for any misunderstanding. :kiss:


----------



## Gercarson (Nov 2, 2003)

Nevada said:


> I've been down this road with conservatives more times than I can count over dozens of issues. I swear, sometimes I grow weary of the repeating pattern.


This is soooooooo funny coming from someone whose own logic is in a perpetual loop. Gagagagagoogoogoo


----------



## NoClue (Jan 22, 2007)

I haven't really decided what I think about this movement yet, but two main points stand out to me:

1. Clearly, a nation has a right to define who is and is not a citizen. This is inherent to the definition of being a nation.

2. Up to this point, with the exception of the eighteenth amendment (prohibition), all changes to the original constitution have been to expand the rights, priviledges, and definition of citizenship. This would be the first change to narrow that definition, and to me seems to represent an ideological turning point in the underlying philosophy that has governed the US, regardless of politics.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

Oggie said:


> This whole issue could easily be solved by opening the border to an unlimited number of gay undocumented immigrants.


That would be Obama.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Obviously you didn't read the words of the man who introduced the amendment


You're either a strict constitutionalist or you're not. There were arguments made of both sides of the issue, but the language that was settled on is clear.


----------



## SquashNut (Sep 25, 2005)

The lawyers do know better, Just like Barbara Boxer knew better about abortion.


----------



## Oggie (May 29, 2003)

Personally, I would like to see the 14th amendment revisited.

I mean, why should anyone automatically be granted citizenship just because they popped out of a womb with an American view?

Perhaps everyone should have to pass a citizenship test at a certain age or prove their worth in some other way in order to be granted full rights.

Most of us didn't have to work at all to become citizens. Many of us have ancestors who were here long before we can remember. And, many of them became citizens merely by crossing the border.

As long as we're going to make citizenship by birth conditional, why not take the bull by the horns and do what is necessary to make America a better place?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Oggie said:


> I mean, why should anyone automatically be granted citizenship just because they popped out of a womb with an American view?


It's a fair question. I suppose that the best answer is that the line has been drawn there (perhaps arbitrarily), so that's what we have.

I saw on the news last night that the government estimates that around 7,000 babies are born each year to non-citizen parents. That's out of about 4 million total births (1 in 570 babies, or only 0.175%). Moreover, those babies have dual citizenship, so many settle in their foreign citizenship country instead of the USA. So the question is whether this is a large enough problem to be worth changing the constitution for.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Nevada said:


> I saw on the news last night that the government estimates that around 7,000 babies are born each year to non-citizen parents.


Wrong. That doesn't include babies born to illegal aliens. The total is over 300,000 a year.



> Eliot is one of an estimated 300,000 children of illegal immigrants born in the United States every year, according to the Pew Hispanic Center. They're given instant citizenship because they are born on U.S. soil, which makes it easier for their parents to become US citizens.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

MoonRiver said:


> Wrong. That doesn't include babies born to illegal aliens. The total is over 300,000 a year.


Wait a minute. You're saying that 1 in 13 babies in this country are born to non-citizens? That seems pretty high to be reasonable.


----------



## Guest (Aug 5, 2010)

Nevada said:


> Wait a minute. You're saying that 1 in 13 babies in this country are born to non-citizens? That seems pretty high to be reasonable.


Looks like, according to his link, CBS News said it.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

zong said:


> Looks like, according to his link, CBS News said it.


_It's unclear how many of the *7,600 births to non-resident mothers* in 2006, the most recent data, were by women who traveled to the U.S. with the sole purpose of obtaining citizenship for their child. The count includes international travelers passing through and foreign students studying at U.S. universities._
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/birt...ators-explore-change/story?id=11313973&page=2
******

Then what's this 7,600 figure?


----------



## Oggie (May 29, 2003)

Nevada said:


> _It's unclear how many of the *7,600 births to non-resident mothers* in 2006, the most recent data, were by women who traveled to the U.S. with the sole purpose of obtaining citizenship for their child. The count includes international travelers passing through and foreign students studying at U.S. universities._
> http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/birt...ators-explore-change/story?id=11313973&page=2
> ******
> 
> Then what's this 7,600 figure?


It's at the top of page two in this article:



> Of the 4,273,225 live births in the United States in 2006, the most recent data gathered by the National Center for Health Statistics, 7,670 were children born to mothers who said they do not live here.
> 
> Many, but not all, of those mothers could be "birth tourists," experts say, although it is difficult to know for sure. The government does not track the reasons non-resident mothers are in the United States at the time of the birth or their citizenship, meaning births to illegal immigrants who live in the United States are counted in the overall total.


http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/birt...s-citizenship-abroad/story?id=10359956&page=2


----------



## Guest (Aug 5, 2010)

(CBS) It was 5 a.m. and CBS News national correspondent Byron Pitts is with a woman who is nine months pregnant. She's rushed to a south Texas hospital to undergo a C-section - a $4,700 medical procedure that won't cost her a dime. She qualifies for emergency Medicaid.

She gave birth to a healthy, 8 1/2 pound baby boy - born in America. His Mexican mother gave him an American name: Eliot.

*Eliot is one of an estimated 300,000 children of illegal immigrants born in the United States every year, according to the Pew Hispanic Center.* They're given instant citizenship because they are born on U.S. soil, which makes it easier for their parents to become U.S. citizens.

That's because those babies can eventually sponsor their parents - when they turn 21 years old.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/07/eveningnews/main4000401.shtml
****************
 Whats this 300,000 figure then??


----------



## mistletoad (Apr 17, 2003)

I think the difference between those disparate figures is that the 260,000 (seems CBS rounded up the Pew Research notes) is the number of children born to illegal immigrant parents who may or may not already live here. 73% of all children born to illegal immigrants were born in the US, so presumably they are not all born to "wet from the river" mothers.

7,600 refers to non-resident mothers - not necessarily illegal immigrants or even immigrants at all. These babies would still have US citizenship.


----------



## ChristyACB (Apr 10, 2008)

Nevada said:


> You're either a strict constitutionalist or you're not. There were arguments made of both sides of the issue, but the language that was settled on is clear.


Nevada, on this issue you are wrong.

There are reams of paper in the archives of notes of the various sessions on this issue. One of the greatest worries of the time was that this would make citizens of visitors against their will.

How you ask?

Because there weren't 747s! Many people visited for months, even years, at a time. A woman could get pregnant on her way here and still not be ready for the ultimate journey home by the time she gave birth.

Sure, the trip isn't that long but the way people traveled was different. It was consideration for the concept of foreigners within our political boundary that this phrase was added: And subject to the jurisdiction thereof. This phrase makes it legally, politically and socially crystal clear. 

We just have mudded all the waters and prefer the text message friendly versions of everything. 

This phrase, is specific and purposeful and isn't just there for fun. Those not subject to the jurisdiction thereof do not qualify. Only those legally within our borders and with the intent to stay here as citizens qualify. Period.

Keep in mind there was still a problem with cross border banditry then, huge problems. This also neatly tied up the problem of their camp followers bearing citizens.

And lest you castigate me for not providing links; go to the archives. Some is available online, other parts will require a foia search and will cost money. Some libraries, like the one at the military post graduate school, have some of that matter already bound. It is a search of days or weeks to riffle through the notes available. All of it by and of the lawmakers who were debating and voting. Not at all ambiguous.


----------



## ChristyACB (Apr 10, 2008)

Here is one place you can read big parts of the debate. I started on the page where they are going over this amendment and the topic of "jurisdiction"

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=11

Also, on page 2897, the middle column...is a very nice description of the jurisdiction issue that is so easy to put in today's context that it is laughable we still argue it. It is by the Honorable Congressman Williams of the 39th congress during the actual decision making regarding that wording.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

ChristyACB said:


> Nevada, on this issue you are wrong.
> 
> There are reams of paper in the archives of notes of the various sessions on this issue. One of the greatest worries of the time was that this would make citizens of visitors against their will.
> 
> ...


I think you are suggesting that we can reinterpret the constitution to fit the times. I don't want to put words in your mouth, so please tell me if I'm interpreting your argument correctly.


----------



## ChristyACB (Apr 10, 2008)

Nevada said:


> I think you are suggesting that we can reinterpret the constitution to fit the times. I don't want to put words in your mouth, so please tell me if I'm interpreting your argument correctly.


Nope..I answered again with a link to the exact debate at the times. Exact. Page 2897. Easy to see...super easy.

Here is the text:
In one sense, all persons born within the geographical limits of the United States are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, but they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States in every sense. Take the child of an embassador. In one sense, that child born in the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, because if that child commits the crime of murder, or commits any other crime against the laws of the country, to a certain extent he is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, but not in every respect; and so with these Indians. All persons living within a judicial district may be said, in one sense, to be subject to the jurisdiction of the court in that district, but they are not in every sense subject to the jurisdiction of the court until they are brought, by proper process, within the reach of the power of the court. I understand the words here, 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,' to mean fully and completely subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.


----------



## Oggie (May 29, 2003)

ChristyACB said:


> Nope..I answered again with a link to the exact debate at the times. Exact. Page 2897. Easy to see...super easy.
> 
> Here is the text:
> In one sense, all persons born within the geographical limits of the United States are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, but they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States in every sense. Take the child of an embassador. In one sense, that child born in the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, because if that child commits the crime of murder, or commits any other crime against the laws of the country, to a certain extent he is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, but not in every respect; and so with these Indians. All persons living within a judicial district may be said, in one sense, to be subject to the jurisdiction of the court in that district, but they are not in every sense subject to the jurisdiction of the court until they are brought, by proper process, within the reach of the power of the court. I understand the words here, 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,' to mean fully and completely subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.


So, by reading this and applying the same principle, should an illegal immigrant commit 37 murders in the United States, the only recourse the government would have is to deport that person and petition that person's home government to exact punishment.


----------



## ChristyACB (Apr 10, 2008)

Oggie said:


> So, by reading this and applying the same principle, should an illegal immigrant commit 37 murders in the United States, the only recourse the government would have is to deport that person and petition that person's home government to exact punishment.


OMG...how is everyone being so obtuse!? It says in today's english....

::Commit a crime; they're subject to the courts. Sure, everyone in a district is subject to the laws of that district, but are they subject in every way? Can they go to jury duty? Can they be a notary? Can they serve for an office so long as they meet all other requirements of age and service? Can they join our military? No, all those things and others they can't do. So they aren't ENTIRELY subject to the United States and may claim loyalties, privileges and rights accorded to them from their own government.::

Is it so hard to go and read the darn link? I just found the entire debate of the 39th congress for you. Go read it! They go over and over this. Yes to crime because the crime is committed AGAINST the US. But are they entirely subject? Nope..because they can be reasonably supposed to have rights other places.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

ChristyACB said:


> Take the child of an embassador. In one sense, that child born in the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, because if that child commits the crime of murder, or commits any other crime against the laws of the country, to a certain extent he is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States


That's not a good example. It's my understanding that an ambassador and his family enjoy diplomatic immunity from prosecution. They can be kicked-out of the country but can't stand trial, even for murder.

It was for that reason that Bush1's henchmen selected an ambassador's daughter to lie to congress under oath about baby incubators in Kuwait.

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/incubatorlie.html?q=incubatorlie.html

They couldn't touch her.


----------



## LaManchaPaul (May 21, 2008)

I agree with Nevada. When one waves the Constitution in anotherâs face, he/she must be ready to accept that Constitution in its entirety. However, some posters on this forum pick and choose which parts to wave; or give a personal spin on the words used, or what was meant when It was written. 

Nevada was also spot-on with his response to MOONRIVERâs post âWe offer no preferential treatment to any group but pledge to all equal opportunity under the law.â Conservatives NEVER prefer equal opportunity to an individual with differing views than the âconservativeâsâ view. And, gay marriage is a current example. A Conservative can (under the law) marry the person he/she loves, but suddenly that equal opportunity is not pledged to a gay. A frustrating point is that MR really believes the above quote, despite all of the evidence to the contrary.

Regardless of how individuals now interpret or wish the meaning of âand subject to the jurisdiction thereof,â the current acceptance is that citizenship is assigned to children born on US soil, even those born of parents who are undocumented. It has happened for years, continues today and will exist with almost no chance of changing. So there! Berman and the likes can just go pound sand.


----------



## ChristyACB (Apr 10, 2008)

Nevada said:


> That's not a good example. It's my understanding that an ambassador and his family enjoy diplomatic immunity from prosecution. They can be kicked-out of the country but can't stand trial, even for murder.
> 
> It was for that reason that Bush1's henchmen selected an ambassador's daughter to lie to congress under oath about baby incubators in Kuwait.
> 
> ...


Nope...you would be understanding WRONG. That is the status today. 

Embassadors...now spelled ambassadors...had special provisions but their staff didn't. In fact, look up the history of that little deal and see how that evolved. And that is just one example...they went over many things and many possibilities: Including the over running of California by chinese, The gypsies of the east (including tinkers that are still a problem) and ....MEXICO. 

The entire debate is interesting and worth a read...really.

And the example of indians is very good. Because the general rule throughout the civilized and parts of the uncivilized world held that a child born shared the status of their parents. France, germany, England...all of them had these provisions in one way or another. 

We also held them but informally. Why? 

Because we didn't have anonymity really. Poor moral character...boot 'em. Not mixing with the neighborhood...ask them to go to Oregon. Whatever...but the 

Indians were different because we acknowledged that they were citizens of a different government and owed principle loyalty to another. Off the reservation and commit a murder meant our law but that didn't negate that they owed loyalty and claimed privilege back on the reservation. That is relevant to today.

Illegal immigrants are not ENTIRELY under the jurisdiction of the US. They can't vote, they can't stand jury duty, they can't become notaries (and if you know of one you should report it), they can't hold office....their children share their status. Like everywhere else, if their parents change their status while they are a child, then they are included under familial changes. If they are over 18, they may decide for themselves and apply as independent agents.

The entire federal immigration set of rules and policies stemmed from the arguments during this debate. In order to maintain a level of new citizen that didn't bring discredit upon the concept of citizenship would be allowed to become new citizens other than those who are born entirely under the jurisdiction of the united states or both of citizens who are abroad on a temporary basis. This is all so easy. 

By usurping the rules that dictate what is acceptable to the "current" policies and laws (they were smart and let that remain policy and law knowing it would change with time) in a prospective citizen of the US, they specifically remove from the citizenry the choice of who will become a fellow citizen and the determination of what immigrants will not bring disgrace and discredit upon our citizenship. Being able to get away with it long enough to vandalize some ranchers back yard to drop your pup is not a free pass to usurp that right of the citizenry.

I urge you, please, read the entire debate. Get a sense and a full understanding of both sides of the argument and get for yourself the truth of their common intent when they signed it.

And fully understand that "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is just that...entirely subject.


----------



## ChristyACB (Apr 10, 2008)

LaManchaPaul said:


> I agree with Nevada. When one waves the Constitution in another&#8217;s face, he/she must be ready to accept that Constitution in its entirety. However, some posters on this forum pick and choose which parts to wave; or give a personal spin on the words used, or what was meant when It was written.
> 
> Nevada was also spot-on with his response to MOONRIVER&#8217;s post &#8220;We offer no preferential treatment to any group but pledge to all equal opportunity under the law.&#8221; Conservatives NEVER prefer equal opportunity to an individual with differing views than the &#8220;conservative&#8217;s&#8221; view. And, gay marriage is a current example. A Conservative can (under the law) marry the person he/she loves, but suddenly that equal opportunity is not pledged to a gay. A frustrating point is that MR really believes the above quote, despite all of the evidence to the contrary.
> 
> Regardless of how individuals now interpret or wish the meaning of &#8220;and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,&#8221; the current acceptance is that citizenship is assigned to children born on US soil, even those born of parents who are undocumented. It has happened for years, continues today and will exist with almost no chance of changing. So there! Berman and the likes can just go pound sand.


That is not accepted, it merely has a precedence set and that is the easiest route to go now. By that same token, the Indian provision, which is the one that actually applies to Illegals, also has precedence for them NOT having citizenship.


----------



## Oggie (May 29, 2003)

ChristyACB said:


> OMG...how is everyone being so obtuse!? It says in today's english....
> 
> ::Commit a crime; they're subject to the courts. Sure, everyone in a district is subject to the laws of that district, but are they subject in every way? Can they go to jury duty? Can they be a notary? Can they serve for an office so long as they meet all other requirements of age and service? Can they join our military? No, all those things and others they can't do. So they aren't ENTIRELY subject to the United States and may claim loyalties, privileges and rights accorded to them from their own government.::
> 
> Is it so hard to go and read the darn link? I just found the entire debate of the 39th congress for you. Go read it! They go over and over this. Yes to crime because the crime is committed AGAINST the US. But are they entirely subject? Nope..because they can be reasonably supposed to have rights other places.


I read the document of the floor debate.

If you are under the jurisdiction of the laws of the United States, you are under its jurisdiction. Many undocuments aliens pay taxes, etc.

Provisions have been made to bring them under the jurisdiction of the United States government. It is long-standing policy.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

LaManchaPaul said:


> And, gay marriage is a current example. A Conservative can (under the law) marry the person he/she loves, but suddenly that equal opportunity is not pledged to a gay. A frustrating point is that MR really believes the above quote, despite all of the evidence to the contrary.
> 
> Regardless of how individuals now interpret or wish the meaning of âand subject to the jurisdiction thereof,â the current acceptance is that citizenship is assigned to children born on US soil, even those born of parents who are undocumented. It has happened for years, continues today and will exist with almost no chance of changing. So there! Berman and the likes can just go pound sand.


What a crock. Most conservatives don't have a problem with civil unions - whether they are between 2 males, 2 females, or a male and a female. 

What we object to is "stealing" the term marriage. For centuries, marriage has been between a man and a woman (or a man and multiple women). The purpose of marriage was to create a family unit to have and raise offspring. In college I studied marriage and the family, and we never studied gay marriage. 

Why not? Because a union between 2 gays is not a marriage in either a sociological or historical perspective. Words mean something and the word marriage means a union between 2 people of the opposite sex. 

Gays are free to call it whatever they want, but the word marriage has already been taken.

So if civil unions are legal and give all the legal protections of marriage, how is that discriminatory? Maybe we could call it a carriage. Get it - *C*ivil union and m*ARRIAGE*.


----------



## LaManchaPaul (May 21, 2008)

ChristyACB said:


> That is not accepted, it merely has a precedence set and that is the easiest route to go now. By that same token, the Indian provision, which is the one that actually applies to Illegals, also has precedence for them NOT having citizenship.


Five years ago I witnessed that *acceptance *as a hospital filed the papers of a little girl who was born a citizen to an undocumented couple. 

It was done long before I saw it happen and I know that it continues to be accepted today by the establishment. Individuals might not accept this, but the government does.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

ChristyACB said:


> Embassadors...now spelled ambassadors...had special provisions but their staff didn't.


Actually an ambassador's administrative & technical staff enjoys diplomatic immunity, but the service staff (maids, etc.) does not. They also can't be subpoenaed to testify and their homes & offices can't be searched. Refer to the table at the bottom of this page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_immunity

But I wasn't talking about the Kuwaiti Ambassador's staff, I was talking about his daughter. As you can see on the table in the far right column, the family members enjoy the same immunity as the family member who sponsors them.


----------



## palani (Jun 12, 2005)

LaManchaPaul said:


> I agree with Nevada. When one waves the Constitution in another&#8217;s face, he/she must be ready to accept that Constitution in its entirety. However, some posters on this forum pick and choose which parts to wave; or give a personal spin on the words used, or what was meant when It was written.


Amendments perform the function of amending. The entire constitution does not apply to 14th amendment citizens. To recognize this all you have to do is ask yourself "Would I prefer civil rights or constitutional rights?". Then recognize that civil rights got expanded greatly in 1964 whereas constitutional rights have been untouched.

So for 14th amendment citizens there is no bill of rights. The parties to the organic constitution were the several states. When the 14th amendment became accepted as law these several paragraphs became virtually the ONLY constitution for U.S. citizens, a status that was largely undefined before 1868. All YOU have a guaranteee of is due process and I would be willing to bet you don't have a clue what that means.

Most people recognize the loss of the bill of rights. They go down and beg the sheriff for permission to carry concealed when if they had constitutional rights they would have 2nd amendment protections. 

I refer to Steve as a 14th amendment president because of the birth certificate issue but also because only whites were members of the select club that formed the organic constitution. Don't shoot me because I am reporting this. I am only reporting the facts as they existed prior to the (un)civil war. If he had any intention of supporting the organic U.S. constitution he would be the first to recognize that he is not qualified for this reason. The maxim goes: False in one thing false in all. If he fails to stand by his oath in this respect then don't expect anything earthshaking from him down the road. His hot button topic is CHANGE and boy, you are going to see some along the way.


----------



## ChristyACB (Apr 10, 2008)

Oggie said:


> I read the document of the floor debate.
> 
> If you are under the jurisdiction of the laws of the United States, you are under its jurisdiction. Many undocuments aliens pay taxes, etc.
> 
> Provisions have been made to bring them under the jurisdiction of the United States government. It is long-standing policy.


No, you're not. You're under the judicial jurisdiction. You are not entirely under the jurisdiction of the United States. There is a big huge honking difference. It is simply that like the words of our everyday language, our words in a political sense are being de-evolved toward simplicity.

There are three main principles of judicial jurisdiction: personal (personam), territorial (locum), and subject matter (subjectam):
Personal jurisdiction is an authority over a person, regardless of their location.
Territorial jurisdiction is an authority confined to a bounded space, including all those present therein, and events which occur there.
Subject-matter jurisdiction is an authority over the subject of the legal questions involved in the case.
Courts may also have jurisdiction that is exclusive, or concurrent (shared). Where a court has exclusive jurisdiction over a territory or a subject matter, it is the only court that is authorized to address that matter. Where a court has concurrent or shared jurisdiction, more than one court can adjudicate the matter. Where a concurrent jurisdiction exists in a civil case, a party may attempt to engage in forum shopping, by bringing the case to a court which it presumes would rule in its favor.

Main Entry: juÂ·risÂ·dicÂ·tion 
Pronunciation: \&#716;ju&#775;r-&#601;s-&#712;dik-sh&#601;n\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English jurisdiccioun, from Anglo-French & Latin; Anglo-French jurisdiction, from Latin jurisdiction-, jurisdictio, from juris + diction-, dictio act of saying â more at diction
Date: 14th century
1 : the power, right, or authority to interpret and apply the law
2 a : the authority of a sovereign power to govern or legislate b : the power or right to exercise authority : control
3 : the limits or territory within which authority may be exercised
synonyms see power

http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/Jurisdiction

Under Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes the same Congress who had adopted the Fourteenth Amendment, confirmed this principle: âAll persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.â

Subject to the jurisdiction thereof
During discussion of whether to pass the 14th Amendment, there was debate over granting citizenship to anyone born in the United States. The author of the 14th Amendment, Senator Jacob M. Howard, stated, in reference to the Amendment, "This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the family of ambassadors, or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons."

In 1873, The United States Attorney General ruled the word "jurisdiction" under the 14th Amendment meant:
"The word 'jurisdiction' must be understood to mean absolute and complete jurisdiction, such as the United States had over its citizens before the adoption of this amendment. Aliens, among whom are persons born here and naturalized abroad, dwelling or being in this country, are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States only to a limited extent. Political and military rights and duties do not pertain to them."

The Citizens Act of 1924 (codified in 8USCS 1401) lists two separate categories of people born in the United States as citizens (a) a person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof; (b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe.


----------



## Oggie (May 29, 2003)

Christy, you are arguing against established law.

To change it would require a Constitutional amendment.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Oggie said:


> Personally, I would like to see the 14th amendment revisited.
> 
> I mean, why should anyone automatically be granted citizenship just because they popped out of a womb with an American view?
> 
> ...


A while back I bought some old books. Inside one of them was the citizenship test taken by a woman from another country. I can't speak for anyone else but I would have failed the test.


----------



## Oggie (May 29, 2003)

pancho said:


> A while back I bought some old books. Inside one of them was the citizenship test taken by a woman from another country. I can't speak for anyone else but I would have failed the test.


Many of us would.

Most of us did nothing to earn our citizenship.

And too many take it for granted without thinking about what it means.


----------



## Ken Scharabok (May 11, 2002)

I didn't recall all of the above but it seem to be mostly applied to 'border babies' to where the month crosses into the U.S. just long enough to bear the baby and then returns. The baby thus has diul'-citizananship, However, as I understand it, the choice must be made no later than their 18th birthday as to of of the countries they select.

We likely have thousands of children of U.S. militry born outside of the U.S. McCane was born in Pamama when it was still a U.S. territory. Same as for President Obama in Hawaii, not yet a state.

Interestingly I have been told childred on U.S. service personnel born to a local woman carries no U.S. citizen rights.


----------



## mistletoad (Apr 17, 2003)

Ken Scharabok said:


> However, as I understand it, the choice must be made no later than their 18th birthday as to of of the countries they select.


Not so. My children all have dual citizenship and are not made to choose. They have the full rights and responsibilities of citizenship in each nation.



Ken Scharabok said:


> Interestingly I have been told childred on U.S. service personnel born to a local woman carries no U.S. citizen rights.


Also not true for legitimate children.


----------



## ChristyACB (Apr 10, 2008)

Ken Scharabok said:


> I didn't recall all of the above but it seem to be mostly applied to 'border babies' to where the month crosses into the U.S. just long enough to bear the baby and then returns. The baby thus has diul'-citizananship, However, as I understand it, the choice must be made no later than their 18th birthday as to of of the countries they select.
> 
> We likely have thousands of children of U.S. militry born outside of the U.S. McCane was born in Pamama when it was still a U.S. territory. Same as for President Obama in Hawaii, not yet a state.
> 
> Interestingly I have been told childred on U.S. service personnel born to a local woman carries no U.S. citizen rights.


Not true, they are explicitly addressed as the same as foreign ambassadors, embassy staff and those on travel. Anyone born of American parents temporarily away from the states who has NOT made an explicit and official statement that they do not want to be American is an American citizen. Lots of vacation babies out there! Some people do it on purpose!


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Nevada said:


> I think you are mistaken.
> 
> ******
> Latinos are the fastest-growing minority group in the U.S., and their votes could hinge on how the government addresses immigration: A poll released today by the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials Educational Fund finds that immigration has overtaken economic issues, education and health care as the top policy issue for Latino voters in four states. In 2006, a poll released by NALEO found education, the economy and jobs, and the war in Iraq were the top concerns for Latino voters.
> ...


How do you explain the latest polls showing a DROP in hispanic support for the community organizer? Since the suing of AZ?


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

LaManchaPaul said:


> I agree with Nevada. When one waves the Constitution in anotherâs face, he/she must be ready to accept that Constitution in its entirety. However, some posters on this forum pick and choose which parts to wave; or give a personal spin on the words used, or what was meant when It was written.
> 
> Nevada was also spot-on with his response to MOONRIVERâs post âWe offer no preferential treatment to any group but pledge to all equal opportunity under the law.â Conservatives NEVER prefer equal opportunity to an individual with differing views than the âconservativeâsâ view. And, gay marriage is a current example. A Conservative can (under the law) marry the person he/she loves, but suddenly that equal opportunity is not pledged to a gay. A frustrating point is that MR really believes the above quote, despite all of the evidence to the contrary.
> 
> Regardless of how individuals now interpret or wish the meaning of âand subject to the jurisdiction thereof,â the current acceptance is that citizenship is assigned to children born on US soil, even those born of parents who are undocumented. It has happened for years, continues today and will exist with almost no chance of changing. So there! Berman and the likes can just go pound sand.


'Conservatives' can (under the law) marry the person he/she loves, just like anyone else. They CANNOT marry someone of the same sex, b/c that would NOT be MARRIAGAE! Why is that so hard to understand? I'm all for gay unions, give 'em all the priveleges of marriage, just name it...somthinelse.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

MoonRiver said:


> What a crock. Most conservatives don't have a problem with civil unions - whether they are between 2 males, 2 females, or a male and a female.
> 
> What we object to is "stealing" the term marriage. For centuries, marriage has been between a man and a woman (or a man and multiple women). The purpose of marriage was to create a family unit to have and raise offspring. In college I studied marriage and the family, and we never studied gay marriage.
> 
> ...


Post of the day award!
I submitted the term: "Garriage" but someone was offended. Didn't say why.


----------



## palani (Jun 12, 2005)

mistletoad said:


> They have the full rights and responsibilities of citizenship in each nation.


They also have the obligations imposed by each nation upon their citizens.

I don't believe I would promote the dual citizenship concept for that reason. Who needs an extra tax load or a charge of treason in time of war should one have to choose one side or the other. Not to mention two separate systems of law.


----------



## Gercarson (Nov 2, 2003)

ChristyACB said:


> Lots of vacation babies out there! Some people do it on purpose!


Yes, I understand it has become an industry - pregnant women come to America to special "resorts" set up to accomodate them and give their babies citizenship.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Is there anyone on this forum that would not do the same for their child if they were in the same situation? If they would not do the same, for their children everywhere, I hope they remain childless.
Everyone wants the best for their children. That is nature.


----------



## TheMartianChick (May 26, 2009)

Having read through this topic, one point seems to have been touched on a bit but not really expanded upon. That is the issue of lumping all Hispanics together into one voting block. 

Spanish speaking people come from many countries and have settled into various pockets across the US. If you think back to the Elian Gonzales case, many Cuban immigrants and descendents felt that the boy should stay in the US with his mother's relatives even though he had a living father in Cuba who was capable of taking him in after the death of his mother. The Cubans were quite angry with Janet Reno over the decision to send him back.

Puerto Ricans in my area of NY felt differently. They felt that the boy should be returned to his father. I'm sure that if I had spoken to Hondurans, they would have had their own take on the situation. As would the Mexicans.

It isn't fair to lump Hispanic voters together and assume that they will vote any one particular way. They do not all come from the same place and they all bring their own personal history to the voting booth, just like the rest of us do. Speaking Spanish doesn't mean that they will all stick together.


----------



## JMD_KS (Nov 20, 2007)

I'm hoping that more states follow Arizona's example & get tough on illegals, since it's been clear for DECADES that the federal govt. aren't going to do a darn thing! Thing is, on other forums w/ MUCH larger numbers of people than the very small numbers of posters here, it seems that it's pretty much agreed on across the board ,from dems to repubs, that we need to get tough. There seems to be only a small amount that don't support tougher laws, most for obvious reasons. Time people looked at it from the view of American Citizens vs. Illegals, rather than right vs. left.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Tricky Grama said:


> They CANNOT marry someone of the same sex, b/c that would NOT be MARRIAGAE! Why is that so hard to understand?


Because Webster's defines "marriage" as including same sex.

******
Main Entry: marÂ·riage
Pronunciation: \&#712;mer-ij, &#712;ma-rij\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
Date: 14th century

1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : *the state of being united to a person of the same sex* in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b : the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3 : an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry â J. T. Shawcross>
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marriage



Tricky Grama said:


> I'm all for gay unions, give 'em all the priveleges of marriage, just name it...somthinelse.


But the "somthinelse" doesn't include the rights & privileges that the government gives to married couples. That's where the discrimination issue comes in.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

TheMartianChick said:


> It isn't fair to lump Hispanic voters together and assume that they will vote any one particular way. They do not all come from the same place and they all bring their own personal history to the voting booth, just like the rest of us do. Speaking Spanish doesn't mean that they will all stick together.


You made it halfway there. You say we shouldn't lump all Hispanics into one group, but then you group them by country of origin. 

Why not just treat them as individuals?


----------



## ChristyACB (Apr 10, 2008)

Gercarson said:


> Yes, I understand it has become an industry - pregnant women come to America to special "resorts" set up to accomodate them and give their babies citizenship.


Actually, I meant US citizens going other places to have babies. Why? Because they can and know that there is no risk of their child losing citizenship. Most are for romantic reasons like having the baby in Paris where they had a honeymoon, for example. Or having their baby in Rome or Israel or what-not. Many are missionaries who simply don't come back to the US to have the baby and are sure to contact the embassy about it long before birth.

People do pretty strange things and this is but one of them.


----------



## Gercarson (Nov 2, 2003)

Nevada said:


> Because Webster's defines "marriage" as including same sex.
> But the "somthinelse" doesn't include the rights & privileges that the government gives to married couples. That's where the discrimination issue comes in.


Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. 2010.
Does define marriage according to the definition given. But, Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary is jumping the gun here. I just went to my three volume Merriam-Webster Dictionary and it is emphatic on the definition as between a man and a woman - doesn't even hint that it could possibly be anything else. So - we're being indoctrinated by our dictionaries now to accept the aberrations of humanity - even "legal" aberrations.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Nevada said:


> Because Webster's defines "marriage" as including same sex.
> 
> ******
> Main Entry: marÂ·riage
> ...


So, if YOU give 'em 'somthinelse' you wouldn't grant the same rights? Why do you hate gays?


----------



## LaManchaPaul (May 21, 2008)

Tricky Grama said:


> *'Conservatives' can (under the law) marry the person he/she loves, *just like *anyone* else. They CANNOT marry someone of the same sex, b/c that would NOT be MARRIAGAE! Why is that so hard to understand? I'm all for gay unions, give 'em all the priveleges of marriage, just name it...somthinelse.


TG, "anyone else" includes gays so your first sentence and your second can marry because they are opposite each other. Also, your post indicates that you believe that no conservative is gay, or that no gay-conservative falls in love with a person of the same sex wishing to marry him or her.

Let's compromise, okkydoky? You don't tell me who my kids can marry and I won't tell you who your kids can marry; deal?

You being all for unions is great, whether they be gay or not. Great - I say! The name change needs to be for the idealistic and unrealistic "marriage" of your dreams. Perhaps a "sanctified marriage" would fit your needs. But then you'd have the problem of deciding which of multiple marriages to call santified. Oh the problems with semantics.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Tricky Grama said:


> So, if YOU give 'em 'somthinelse' you wouldn't grant the same rights? Why do you hate gays?


I have never seen a proposal to grant full marriage right to civil unions.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

pancho said:


> Is there anyone on this forum that would not do the same for their child if they were in the same situation? If they would not do the same, for their children everywhere, I hope they remain childless.
> Everyone wants the best for their children. That is nature.


Of course. Agreed. But doesn't make it right to enter illegally. 
If 'Immigration Reform" truly meant REFORM, TPTB would be striving to amend the # of arabs/muslims that enter legally-maybe to 3 a yr-and increase # of mexicans to thousands. If you're put on a wait list now, it would be about 100 yrs b/4 you get in.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Nevada said:


> I have never seen a proposal to grant full marriage right to civil unions.


Well, that's what should be amended.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

pancho said:


> Is there anyone on this forum that would not do the same for their child if they were in the same situation? If they would not do the same, for their children everywhere, I hope they remain childless.
> Everyone wants the best for their children. That is nature.


Would I break the law so my child could be born in the US and the birth paid for by US citizens? I would hope I have enough integrity to not do it.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Tricky Grama said:


> Of course. Agreed. But doesn't make it right to enter illegally.
> If 'Immigration Reform" truly meant REFORM, TPTB would be striving to amend the # of arabs/muslims that enter legally-maybe to 3 a yr-and increase # of mexicans to thousands. If you're put on a wait list now, it would be about 100 yrs b/4 you get in.


I can agree with that. Just personally but I would rather have several thousand illegal mexicans than 3 legal muslims.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

MoonRiver said:


> Would I break the law so my child could be born in the US and the birth paid for by US citizens? I would hope I have enough integrity to not do it.


I think I might let my integrity take a back seat to the health, life, and future of my child.


----------



## Gercarson (Nov 2, 2003)

pancho said:


> I think I might let my integrity take a back seat to the health, life, and future of my child.


Yes, you're right of course - but I'm thinking this is exactly what the American taxpayer feels too.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

pancho said:


> I think I might let my integrity take a back seat to the health, life, and future of my child.


Would you rob a grocery store to feed that child? Would you cheat a friend to clothe that child? Would you break into someone's home, to house that child?

Millions of families in Latin America are able to raise their families there, so how can you justify you breaking the law for your child when others choose not to?

To me, sneaking across the border illegally has nothing to do with the baby and everything to do with the parents. They are not doing it for the baby, the baby is their excuse. They want to have an anchor baby to make it more difficult for the US to expel them.

Only about 10% of births to illegals are to women in their 1st year in the US. Most births to illegals come after being here more than a year.


----------



## JMD_KS (Nov 20, 2007)

pancho said:


> I can agree with that. Just personally but I would rather have several thousand illegal mexicans than 3 legal muslims.


Glad the majority of the rest of America doesn't feel that way & is starting to *do *something about it. Most of us are sick of watching our tax dollars get sucked dry by criminals who are in our country illegally because they don't have the gumption to fix their own countries.


----------



## LaManchaPaul (May 21, 2008)

JMD_KS said:


> Glad the majority of the rest of America doesn't feel that way & is starting to *do *something about it. Most of us are sick of watching our tax dollars get sucked dry by criminals who are in our country illegally because they don't have the gumption to fix their own countries.


Fine fix your own country is in (and fault can't be laid at the feet of the undocumented or of their children), yet you seem to have plenty of gumption. Or is that just the sound of pulling the nose-ring by L. Graham in an effort to get those mad people into voting R in the fall? Hey man, it is just a ruse.

I so remember how Mr. Bush pulled so many "conservatives" into the polling booths with rhetoric against gays just before an election. Then NEVER introduced a single bill against them. And not to leave out how Mr. Obama did the same with leading independents into the 'change' vote only to muck up the health-care bill. We can expect the same with REAL immigration reform. :stars: Our government / people / companies have enjoyed the fruit of the undocumented laborous endeavers and now we want to beat up on their kids, to the point of "changing the 14th." yea, that! 

Bottom line WE the people are the government yet WE can't/won't close our borders where first line of defense would be.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

MoonRiver said:


> Would you rob a grocery store to feed that child? Would you cheat a friend to clothe that child? Would you break into someone's home, to house that child?
> 
> Millions of families in Latin America are able to raise their families there, so how can you justify you breaking the law for your child when others choose not to?
> 
> ...



If it came to the life of that child, you bet I would do those things, and a few more.

There are millions of Latin Americans that are able to raise their family. There are also many who loose their families each year. We don't see the wealthy coming across the border, we see those who have nothing else to loose.

Everyone has their own opinions. Mine is many are coming across to make a future for their family. We each are free to have our opinion. 

If your figures are correct, and I have no reason to doubt them, these women are already here, no need for an anchor baby. It would seem an anchor baby would be born of a woman only here a month or less. That is what others on this forum have posted. They come across to have their baby then move back to mexico.
Seems like even those who complain can't agree.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

JMD_KS said:


> Glad the majority of the rest of America doesn't feel that way & is starting to *do *something about it. Most of us are sick of watching our tax dollars get sucked dry by criminals who are in our country illegally because they don't have the gumption to fix their own countries.


Tell the truth. If every illegal in the U.S. went back over the border do you think our taxes would go down?

I heard on the radio today coming home from work. We are taxed to an amout of 60%-70% of our paychecks, total taxation. 41% of the money spent by our gov. is borrowed dollars.


----------



## JMD_KS (Nov 20, 2007)

LaManchaPaul said:


> Fine fix your own country is in (and fault can't be laid at the feet of the undocumented or of their children), yet you seem to have plenty of gumption. Or is that just the sound of pulling the nose-ring by L. Graham in an effort to get those mad people into voting R in the fall? Hey man, it is just a ruse.
> 
> I so remember how Mr. Bush pulled so many "conservatives" into the polling booths with rhetoric against gays just before an election. Then NEVER introduced a single bill against them. And not to leave out how Mr. Obama did the same with leading independents into the 'change' vote only to muck up the health-care bill. We can expect the same with REAL immigration reform. :stars: Our government / people / companies have enjoyed the fruit of the undocumented laborous endeavers and now we want to beat up on their kids, to the point of "changing the 14th." yea, that!
> 
> Bottom line WE the people are the government yet WE can't/won't close our borders where first line of defense would be.


Not sure what to do come November, as the problem of the illegals sure as heck didn't start just when we got a democrat president, not by a LONG shot!! 
I sure don't know what you mean by


> Our government / people / companies have enjoyed the fruit of the undocumented laborous endeavers and now we want to beat up on their kids, to the point of "changing the 14th." yea, that!


_ OH yeah._ All the billions of dollars it costs us to give them all free healthcare,welfare, to feed em & clothe em in our prisons,etc etc we've sure been enjoying the fruit of their labors,all right!!  Why don't we just have a free for all, let the entire world pour into the good ol' USA< heck we've got PLENTY of money to take care of the WHOLE WORLD!!!


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

What if 20 Million Illegal Aliens Vacated America? 




I,Tina Griego, journalist for the Denver Rocky Mountain News wrote a column titled, "Mexican Visitor's Lament"- 10/25/07.

It's a good question it deserves an honest answer. Over 80% of Americans demand secured borders and illegal migration stopped. But what would happen if all 20 million or more vacated America? The answers I found may surprise you!

In California, if 3.5 million illegal aliens moved back to Mexico, it would leave an extra $10.2 billion to spend on overloaded school systems, bankrupt hospitals and overrun prisons. It would leave highways cleaner, safer and less congested. Everyone could understand one another as English became the dominant language again.

In Colorado, 500,000 illegal migrants, plus their 300,000 kids and grand-kids would move back 'home', mostly to Mexico. That would save Coloradans an estimated $2 billion (other experts say $7 billion) annually in taxes that pay for schooling, medical, social-services and incarceration costs. It means 12,000 gang members would vanish out of Denver alone.

Colorado would save more than $20 million in prison costs, and the terror that those 7,300 alien criminals set upon local citizens. Denver Officer Don Young and hundreds of Colorado victims would not have suffered death, accidents, rapes and other crimes by illegals.

Denver Public Schools would not suffer a 67% drop-out/flunk-out rate because of thousands of illegal alien students speaking 41 different languages. At least 200,000 vehicles wouldvanish from our gridlocked cities in Colorado. Denver's 4% unemployment rate would vanish as our working poor would gain jobs at a living wage.

In Florida, 1.5 million illegals would return the Sunshine State back to America, the rule of law, and English.

In Chicago, Illinois, 2.1 million illegals would free up hospitals, schools, prisons and highways for a safer, cleaner and more crime-free experience.

If 20 million illegal aliens returned 'home', the U.S. Economy would return to the rule of law. Employers would hire legal American citizens at a living wage. Everyone would pay their fair share of taxes because they wouldn't be working off the books. That would result in an additional $401 Billion in IRS income taxes collected annually, and an equal amount for local, state and city coffers.

No more push '1' for Spanish or '2' for English. No more confusion in American schools that now must contend with over 100 languages that degrade the educational system for American kids. Our over-crowded schools would lose more than two million illegal alien kids at a cost of billions in ESL and free breakfasts and lunches.

We would lose 500,000 illegal criminal alien inmates at a cost of more than $1.6 billion annually. That includes 15,000 MS-13 gang members who distribute $130 billion in drugs annually would vacate our country.

In cities like L.A., 20,000 members of the '18th Street Gang' would vanish from our nation. No more Mexican forgery gangs for ID theft from Americans! No more foreign rapists and child molesters!

Losing more than 20 million people would clear up our crowded highways and gridlock. Cleaner air and less drinking and driving American deaths by illegal aliens! 

America's economy is drained. Taxpayers are harmed. Employers get rich. Over $80 billion annually wouldn't return to the aliens' home countries by cash transfers. Illegal migrants earned half that money untaxed, which further drains America 's economy which currently suffers an $8.7 trillion debt.

400,000 anchor babies would not be born in our country, costing us $109 billion per year per cycle. At least 86 hospitals in California, Georgia and Florida would still be operating instead of being bankrupt out of existence because illegals pay nothing via the EMTOLA Act.

Americans wouldn't suffer thousands of TB and hepatitis cases rampant in our country-brought in by illegals unscreened at our borders.

Our cities would see 20 million less people driving, polluting and grid locking our cities. It would also put the 'progressives' on the horns of a dilemma; illegal aliens and their families cause 11% of ourgreenhouse gases.

Over one million of Mexico's poorest citizens now live inside and along our border from Brownsville, TX to San Diego, CA in what the New York Times called, 'colonias' or new neighborhoods. Trouble is, those living areas resemble Bombay and Calcutta where grinding poverty, filth, diseases, drugs, crimes, no sanitation and worse. They live without sewage, clean water, streets, roads, electricity, or any kind of sanitation.

The New York Times reported them to be America's new 'Third World' inside our own country. Within 20 years, at their current growth rate, they expect 20 million residents of those colonias. 

By enforcing our laws, we could repatriate them back to Mexico. We should invite 20 million aliens to go home, fix their own countries and/or make a better life in Mexico. We already invite a million people into our country legally more than all other countries combined annually. We cannot and must not allow anarchy at our borders, more anarchy within our borders and growing lawlessness at every level in our nation. It's time to stand up for our country, our culture, our civilization and our way of life. That's not including Arizona!!!

Interesting Statistics!

Here are 14 reasons illegal aliens should vacate America-

1. $14 billion to $22 billion dollars are spent each year on welfare to illegal aliens.(that's Billion with a 'B') -http://tinyurl.com/zob77 

2. $2.2 billion are spent each year on food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches for illegal aliens. http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html

3. $7.5 billion are spent each year on Medicaid for illegal aliens. http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html

4. $12 billion are spent each year on primary and secondary school education for children here illegally and they still cannot speak a word of English! http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANscriptS/0604/01/ldt.01.html 

5. $27 billion are spent each year for education for the American-born children of illegal aliens, known as anchor babies. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANscriptS/0604/01/ldt.01.html

6. $3 Million 'PER DAY' is spent to incarcerate illegal aliens. That's $1.2 Billion a year. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANscriptS/0604/01/ldt.01.html

7. 28% percent of all federal prison inmates are illegal aliens.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANscriptS/0604/01/ldt.01.html

8. $190 billion are spent each year on illegal aliens for welfare & social services by the American taxpayers. - http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANscriptS/0610/29/ldt.01.html

9. $200 billion per year in suppressed American wages are caused by the illegal aliens.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANscriptS/0604/01/ldt.01.html

10. The illegal aliens in the United States have a crime rate that's 2 1/2 Xs that of white non-illegal aliens. In particular, their children, are going to make a huge additional crime problem in the US. http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANscriptS/0606/12/ldt.01.html

11. During the year 2005, there were 8 to 10 MILLION illegal aliens that crossed our southern border with as many as 19,500 illegal aliens from other terrorist countries. Over 10,000 of those were middle-eastern terrorists. Millions of pounds of drugs, cocaine, meth, heroine, crack, Guns, and marijuana crossed into the U.S.from the southern border. http://tinyurl.com/t9sht

12. The National Policy Institute, estimates that the total cost of mass deportation would be between $206 and $230 billion, or an average cost of between$41 and $46 billion annually over a five year period and nbsp; -http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute./.org/publications.php?b=deportation

13. In 2006, illegal aliens sent home $65 BILLION in remittances back to their countries of origin, to their families and friends. http://www.rense.com/general75/niht.htm

14. The dark side of illegal immigration: Nearly one million sex crimes are committed by illegal immigrants in the United States! http://www.drdsk.com/articleshtml

Ã Totalcost a whopping$538.3 BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR!


----------



## Gercarson (Nov 2, 2003)

They only want a better life for their children Tricky Grama - at your expense.
They are the "ditch diggers" and "toilet cleaners" doing the jobs that Americans won't do - because they WILL do it for sub-wages.
They only want to make the USA into Notre Mexicana not realizing that if that WERE to happen it would become a trash pit just like Mexico. 
They are NOT coming to better anything - they're criminals and they should be treated like criminals. They will turn our country into a place LIKE their country and we will all be living in their third world excrement.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

TG, do you think even if your figures are right, where do you think the money we would supposedly save go? Think it might go to help us pay the higher prices we would suddenly see? Do you think it would go to all of the businesses that would have to close their doors? Do you think it would go to the business that would see a loss of 20 million customers? 
You think the job situation is bad now, think what it would be if 20 million customers left the U.S. Picking fruit would be the only jobs available.

Hey, you think the politicians would go as far as sticking any money saved in their pockets?


----------



## LaManchaPaul (May 21, 2008)

JMD_KS said:


> Not sure what to do come November, as the problem of the illegals sure as heck didn't start just when we got a democrat president, not by a LONG shot!!


I sure don't know what you mean by 
Quote:
Our government / people / companies have enjoyed the fruit of the undocumented laborous endeavers and now we want to beat up on their kids, to the point of "changing the 14th." yea, that! 

The government enjoys something out of the immigrants' contributions or it would have stopped it long ago, don't you think? the people enjoy eating the fruits and veggies (lawn care, clean hotels,etc.) that could only be on our tables by the hands of the undocumented and their children. Companies profits are up when they get by with less labor costs. Farmers don't pay overtime, etc. keeping down cost of products.

Instead of an effort to identify and document who is here, there is now a clammer to label their kids with nasty names and remove their citizenship papers by changing the 14th Amendment. A few fanatics yell and then the R's cry Yea, that!

I can't help but see this as a buzzzz to get votes in November. AND I have lost hope of a closed border regardless of who controls Congress or who lives on Penn Ave.

I'm visiting your beautiful state and WOW is it ever hot. 106 today Thank goodness for a thunder storm this evening for a cooling down.


----------



## JMD_KS (Nov 20, 2007)

LaManchaPaul said:


> I sure don't know what you mean by
> Quote:
> Our government / people / companies have enjoyed the fruit of the undocumented laborous endeavers and now we want to beat up on their kids, to the point of "changing the 14th." yea, that!
> 
> ...


My way of thinking seems to be different than yours. I don't think it's right to allow illegal immigrants into this country at ANY cost, just to keep a few people profiting from being able to pay slave wages. Why have laws, if we are unwilling to make EVERYONE follow them? Your reasoning that we ALL profit from this is flawed, in my opinion, when you look at the state of our economy today. All the Americans that are out of work, can't find decent jobs, driving up unemployment costs and more $$ going out for welfare. 
If employers weren't allowed to hire illegals at slave wages, & get away w/ giving them NO benefits ( which we Americans have worked long & HARD to fight for!!!) we wouldn't be in the huge mess we are in today!! The reason employers hire the illegals is to EXPLOIT them, & get away w/ paying them the lowest wages possible, to make the biggest profit! Many people see nothing wrong w/ this, because they are the ones PROFITING from it. 

Used to be a time when a person could earn a good wage & take care of his family, & actually be able to MAKE it in the USA. Nowadays, you can't do it if you are a blue-collar worker, as the employers can_ get away w/ paying a pittance to illegals! _ What happened to the OLD USA, when we used to look out for each other, we used to CARE about our fellow Americans? Some may claim to be in favor of "helping" the poor illegals by allowing this to continue, but this is NOT the TRUE American spirit; this is slave labor, and also it is encouraging* criminal behavior. * No wonder so many illegals from Mexico seem to think they are "entitled" to all that the USA offers, w/out actually having to WORK to become Americans, & follow the laws of the land!! 

Obviously, this isn't working out, unless you are one of the employers profiting from illegals. And obviously, from the sorry state that Medicaid & the schools are in, it is costing us dearly. We simply _can't afford _to support a zillion "undocumented workers", just to make a few CEOs rich. The "cheap stuff" we can buy, as others have rambled on about, doesn't in any way nearly offset the cost to our country & our economy. Not only the $$ it is costing us taxpayers, but what about the moral cost to the US? Have we become so greedy that we will allow our own laws to be spit upon, & the very reasons our vets have died to become null & void??

For personally,I think that when it has come to the point that THIS much of our tax dollars are being spent on people who are in the USA that haven't _earned the right
_ then it becomes money that is stolen from us. 

When did the "Melting Pot" become the pot that all the sticky fingers dip into & steal from, w/out contributing to it??? Seems that this is a recent thing, and IMHO I prefer the old ways of the US, where immigrants came here from all over the world to become AMERICANS, and worked together, rather than coming here illegally & demanding that the rest of us support & accommodate them. 

Sorry, rant over. 
:soap:


----------



## JMD_KS (Nov 20, 2007)

Oh yeah, the 105 degree temps dropped to 73 in just a few hours,w/ the wicked lightning storm that moved through. My tomatoes and melons are SOOO happy!! AWESOME!!! :bouncy:


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

LaManchaPaul said:


> I sure don't know what you mean by
> Quote:
> Our government / people / companies have enjoyed the fruit of the undocumented laborous endeavers and now we want to beat up on their kids, to the point of "changing the 14th." yea, that!
> 
> The government enjoys something out of the immigrants' contributions or it would have stopped it long ago, don't you think?


Do you think the gov. might enjoy the money in the Suspense File? No one seems to know much about that even though it is many billions of dollars each year. Mater of fact it is nearly 2% of the total money paid in to the SSA. None of those on here complaining about the illegals not paying taxes have tried to explain the Suspense File, where the money has gone, who controls the money, or anything about it.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

JMD_KS said:


> If employers weren't allowed to hire illegals at slave wages, & get away w/ giving them NO benefits ( which we Americans have worked long & HARD to fight for!!!) we wouldn't be in the huge mess we are in today!! The reason employers hire the illegals is to EXPLOIT them, & get away w/ paying them the lowest wages possible, to make the biggest profit! Many people see nothing wrong w/ this, because they are the ones PROFITING from it.
> 
> For personally,I think that when it has come to the point that THIS much of our tax dollars are being spent on people who are in the USA that haven't _earned the right
> _ then it becomes money that is stolen from us.
> ...


Did you know that by the records of the SSA. themselves, 75% of all illegals pay into SS. Do you know where this money goes and approximately how much it is a year?

According to the SSA. the money paid in by illegals goes into the Suspence File. This is billions of dollars each year. By SSA records it equals nearly 2% of the total amount paid in to the SSA. In one single year it is over $56 billion.

I have been unable to find out what happens to this money. Do you have any idea where it ends up, who has control over it, how it is spent, or is it spent at all? That is a pretty good amount of cash. It would seem like someone knows where it is.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

JMD_KS said:


> My way of thinking seems to be different than yours. I don't think it's right to allow illegal immigrants into this country at ANY cost, just to keep a few people profiting from being able to pay slave wages. Why have laws, if we are unwilling to make EVERYONE follow them? Your reasoning that we ALL profit from this is flawed, in my opinion, when you look at the state of our economy today. All the Americans that are out of work, can't find decent jobs, driving up unemployment costs and more $$ going out for welfare.
> If employers weren't allowed to hire illegals at slave wages, & get away w/ giving them NO benefits ( which we Americans have worked long & HARD to fight for!!!) we wouldn't be in the huge mess we are in today!! The reason employers hire the illegals is to EXPLOIT them, & get away w/ paying them the lowest wages possible, to make the biggest profit! Many people see nothing wrong w/ this, because they are the ones PROFITING from it.
> 
> Used to be a time when a person could earn a good wage & take care of his family, & actually be able to MAKE it in the USA. Nowadays, you can't do it if you are a blue-collar worker, as the employers can_ get away w/ paying a pittance to illegals! _ What happened to the OLD USA, when we used to look out for each other, we used to CARE about our fellow Americans? Some may claim to be in favor of "helping" the poor illegals by allowing this to continue, but this is NOT the TRUE American spirit; this is slave labor, and also it is encouraging* criminal behavior. * No wonder so many illegals from Mexico seem to think they are "entitled" to all that the USA offers, w/out actually having to WORK to become Americans, & follow the laws of the land!!
> ...


Post of the day award.

AND-someone posted a link as to how much goods & services WOULD go up if illegals were gone & it didn't am't to much.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Tricky Grama said:


> Post of the day award.
> 
> AND-someone posted a link as to how much goods & services WOULD go up if illegals were gone & it didn't am't to much.


How is it possible you can tell what prices a company would put on their products if they did not hire illegals?


----------



## Riverdale (Jan 20, 2008)

Nevada said:


> This is one issue where the language in the constitution is very clear.
> 
> _*"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States"*_
> 
> I don't see any room at all for interpretation. The only way out of respecting that provision is to change the constitution. I don't see that happening.


Odd how some (not just you  )pick and choose which ammendments they support.
My belief is that any child *WHOSE PARENTS ARE HERE, LEGALLY*
are citizens. The "anchor babies" (ie children of ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS) are not here legally, therefor NOT subject to this.

I am 8th gen here in the States. My ancestors came intop this country LEGALLY (one of my g-g-g-g aunts never recieved citizenship because she had TB and from Ellis Island was placed in a sanatorium).

THAT is the difference. Going throught the proper channels, tested for diseases (would you advocate granting citizenship to someone with a communacable disease?), then fine.

Sneak acrossed the border in the dead of night to pop out kid #6 so you are a citizen (by default), no.

La Raza, my behind.


----------



## palani (Jun 12, 2005)

Riverdale said:


> My belief is that any child *WHOSE PARENTS ARE HERE, LEGALLY* are citizens.


There is immigration and then there is emigration. To be here LEGALLy an emigrant must receive permission from his government to expatriate as well as requesting LEGAL permission from the country he is immigrating to to enter and begin the process called citizenship.

I will guarantee you that there are very few emigrants who request permission from their own countries, to whom they owe perpetual allegiance, to expatriate. They continue to owe allegiance to their own country at the same time they might choose to seek citizenship here. Technically, not really LEGAL at all. Citizenship is a very sloppy business unless the loose ends are taken care of.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

pancho said:


> How is it possible you can tell what prices a company would put on their products if they did not hire illegals?


I don't really know b/c I don't have that link. But you seemed to b/c you said prices would go up & we wouldn't be able to afford the products/services.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Riverdale said:


> Odd how some (not just you  )pick and choose which ammendments they support.
> My belief is that any child *WHOSE PARENTS ARE HERE, LEGALLY*
> are citizens. The "anchor babies" (ie children of ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS) are not here legally, therefor NOT subject to this.
> 
> ...


I will repeat what I asked another poster.
Who gave your ancestors permission to come to the U.S.?
What gave them the power to grant permission to enter in the first place?


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Tricky Grama said:


> I don't really know b/c I don't have that link. But you seemed to b/c you said prices would go up & we wouldn't be able to afford the products/services.


I don't remember saying we wouldn't be able to afford the products. I did say the price would go up. How much is anyone's guess.
If the illegals work for what some on here say they do I can see the prices doubling.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

palani said:


> There is immigration and then there is emigration. To be here LEGALLy an emigrant must receive permission from his government to expatriate as well as requesting LEGAL permission from the country he is immigrating to to enter and begin the process called citizenship.
> 
> I will guarantee you that there are very few emigrants who request permission from their own countries, to whom they owe perpetual allegiance, to expatriate. They continue to owe allegiance to their own country at the same time they might choose to seek citizenship here. Technically, not really LEGAL at all. Citizenship is a very sloppy business unless the loose ends are taken care of.


Thank you very much. I didn't know this. That does change the whole ball game doesn't it?


----------



## palani (Jun 12, 2005)

pancho said:


> Thank you very much. I didn't know this. That does change the whole ball game doesn't it?


It is the reason some countries will allow you to go back 4 generations to apply for and receive citizenship. Their ancestors never left their home countries in the first place so all you have to do is assert your allegiance and go back home.

This multiple citizenship thing under the right conditions could get you hung, if the country your ancestors came from decided to go to war with your new country, and you chose the losing side (or merely become "captured").


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

palani said:


> It is the reason some countries will allow you to go back 4 generations to apply for and receive citizenship. Their ancestors never left their home countries in the first place so all you have to do is assert your allegiance and go back home.
> 
> This multiple citizenship thing under the right conditions could get you hung, if the country your ancestors came from decided to go to war with your new country, and you chose the losing side (or merely become "captured").


I can see there is a lot more I need to research. It is terrible to not know very much. It is worse to not realize what you don't know.


----------



## Gercarson (Nov 2, 2003)

pancho said:


> I will repeat what I asked another poster.
> Who gave your ancestors permission to come to the U.S.?
> What gave them the power to grant permission to enter in the first place?


Please tell us what laws were broken when "my" ancestors can to this "country"? 
Name the law.
Was it the U.S. at that time? Point out any legal documents or supposed border protection that was evaded when "my" ancestors came to this country?
Then, point out the same permission that the Spaniards had when they ransacked and destroyed ancient civilizations South of here. What gave them the power to rape, steal and plunder in the first place?
This is a liberal dodge that plays on the "tolerance" of idiot Americans while the trash from South of the border blows in the destroy the U.S. like it did Mexico and South America. Now it wants to trash North America like it has everywhere it finds a place to cannibalize. 
Keep asking while not answering - right?


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Gercarson said:


> Please tell us what laws were broken when "my" ancestors can to this "country"?
> Name the law.
> Was it the U.S. at that time? Point out any legal documents or supposed border protection that was evaded when "my" ancestors came to this country?
> Then, point out the same permission that the Spaniards had when they ransacked and destroyed ancient civilizations South of here. What gave them the power to rape, steal and plunder in the first place?
> ...


You will have to give me a little more info.

Who has the authority to allow people to come to the land that is now the U.S? When did they gain that authority. Who gave them the authority?

The Spaniards that ransacked and destroyed ancient civilizations south of here evidentially got their permission from the same place the people did who came into what is now the U.S. to rape, steal, and plunder.
I would very much like to know who that was also.

Again, if I remember my history right the Spanish and Mexicans were already living in the area that was to become the U.S. before it became the U.S. Also I seem to remember their land was taken away from them.


----------



## Gercarson (Nov 2, 2003)

pancho said:


> You will have to give me a little more info.
> 
> Who has the authority to allow people to come to the land that is now the U.S? When did they gain that authority. Who gave them the authority?
> 
> ...


Ah, yes - just like the Spanish and Mexicans the U.S. took the land the same exact way the Spanish and Mexicans did. Live with it - it's now a land of written, but unenforced law. If we can ever get a president who loves our country enough to abide by the consititution. For more information, check out the constitution of the United States of America.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Gercarson said:


> Ah, yes - just like the Spanish and Mexicans the U.S. took the land the same exact way the Spanish and Mexicans did. Live with it - it's now a land of written, but unenforced law. If we can ever get a president who loves our country enough to abide by the consititution. For more information, check out the constitution of the United States of America.


Just one little question. If I steal an item from you then write a permission slip allowing me to do that is it OK?


----------



## Gercarson (Nov 2, 2003)

pancho said:


> Just one little question. If I steal an item from you then write a permission slip allowing me to do that is it OK?


If you're an illegal (criminal) you do that already.


----------



## Riverdale (Jan 20, 2008)

palani said:


> There is immigration and then there is emigration. To be here LEGALLy an emigrant must receive permission from his government to expatriate as well as requesting LEGAL permission from the country he is immigrating to to enter and begin the process called citizenship.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Gercarson said:


> If you're an illegal (criminal) you do that already.


But I am not an illegal. U.S. citizen just the same as millions of others.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Riverdale said:


> palani said:
> 
> 
> > There is immigration and then there is emigration. To be here LEGALLy an emigrant must receive permission from his government to expatriate as well as requesting LEGAL permission from the country he is immigrating to to enter and begin the process called citizenship.
> ...


----------



## LaManchaPaul (May 21, 2008)

JMD_KS said:


> My way of thinking seems to be different than yours.* (1) *I don't think it's right to allow illegal immigrants into this country at ANY cost, just to keep a few people profiting from being able to pay slave wages. Why have laws, if we are unwilling to make EVERYONE follow them? Your reasoning that we ALL profit from this is flawed, in my opinion, when you look at the state of our economy today. All the Americans that are out of work, can't find decent jobs, driving up unemployment costs and more $$ going out for welfare.
> If employers weren't allowed to hire illegals at slave wages, & get away w/ giving them NO benefits ( which we Americans have worked long & HARD to fight for!!!) we wouldn't be in the huge mess we are in today!! The reason employers hire the illegals is to EXPLOIT them, & get away w/ paying them the lowest wages possible, to make the biggest profit! Many people see nothing wrong w/ this, because they are the ones PROFITING from it.
> 
> Used to be a time when a person could earn a good wage & take care of his family, & actually be able to MAKE it in the USA. Nowadays, you can't do it if you are a blue-collar worker, as the employers can_ get away w/ paying a pittance to illegals! _ What happened to the OLD USA, when we used to look out for each other, we used to CARE about our fellow Americans? Some may claim to be in favor of "helping" the poor illegals by allowing this to continue, but this is NOT the TRUE American spirit; this is slave labor, and also it is encouraging* criminal behavior. * No wonder so many illegals from Mexico seem to think they are "entitled" to all that the USA offers, w/out actually having to WORK to become Americans, & follow the laws of the land!!
> ...


JMD, understand that my opinion is just that. I enjoyed your rant and I thank you for reading and responding my post with attacking me.* (1) *Your post is refreshing because you've given it real thought. I fail to see how you and I are of a hugely different mindset. I agree with all that you are saying, just that I think that the profiting is enjoyed by a much larger base. This exploitation is greater than just the employment companies or the fruit/veggie/pinestraw consumers. There is violence far greater than has been highlighted on this forum. For example, fines and fees paid by the undocumented simply because they are undocumented. (right or wrong) They now pay a fee to send money back home. Several states once would issue them driver licenses but now I donât think that a single state will issue without proof of citizenship, residence and competency. When the states stopped that practice, many municipalities and counties raised the fines and fees for a driver without a license / tag / insurance in order to capitalize on this inability of the undocumented to now obtain permission to drive. We all enjoy the added benefits to The System via this additional revenue. Iâm a goat farmer, but observer as well. Perhaps those who know how to find data could look at the skyrocketing of that one fee over the past decade. Also, the undocumented canât open a bank account so they must pay a percentage of their check to turn it into cash. They carry large amounts of cash so they are often targets of robbers. They are afraid to report crimes. Why donât they just go home and avoid these woes? Well that is a much more complicated problem for most undocumented people.

Letâs stretch the idea that We The People are the government of the United States. In that case we are responsible for the presence of the undocumented. We should not heap all of the blame on THOSE ILLEGAL CRIMINALS. The holier-than-thou who froth against the individual undocumented are just as 'at fault' for them being here as the CRIMINALS themselves. Don't we govern ourselves? Aren't we a free nation?

(We are in a situation here that will require a thoughtful and concerted effort to begin to resolve this complex issue) We must not attack their babies with awful name calling and tagging. For this goatherder, that practice is simply unconscionable. 

*(2) *We The People spend our tax dollars in whatever forms our elected officials would have us spend them. If given, then the word stolen canât be used. However, for the undocumented whom I know personally, our tax dollars do not support them. Yes, their kids are, without option, in school; but they pay for what little health care that they get. They pay the same property tax mil that I pay, the same sales tax that I pay, the same IRS income tax rates apply AND they pay etc. Therefore one canât paint all undocumented with the same paint brush. 

The cat is out of the bag so to speak. The workers are here, along with some bad apples. Rather than lamenting about their having citizenship babies, CLOSE the border. Oh, so the question remains â HOW? The âchangeâ that I voted for finally got a few more live bodies at the border, but that isnât the total answer. We must demand real immigration reform, that ends up much different than the (non)health-care reform that the current parties gave to us. Obamacare or not, it is a result of the elected officials - and they are all accountable: as they will be for immigration reform.

I strongly think that we should close the borders, then âdocumentâ the people who wish to live here inside our boundaries. After a strongly worded, well-prepared period of âregistrationâ an undocumented found in any area would become ICE priority. A criminal lawbreaker would be deported after trial but before sent to prison. (as opposed to now having to pay his/her debt to society by a term in jail.)

As difficult as it sounds, We The People must do better at governing than we have in the past. :hammer: I can't see that replacing the replaced with the old guard will be the answer. D's then the R's then the D's then in Nov the R's again.... gaaaawd where does it end?


----------



## LaManchaPaul (May 21, 2008)

palani said:


> There is immigration and then there is emigration. To be here LEGALLy an emigrant must receive permission from his government to expatriate as well as requesting LEGAL permission from the country he is immigrating to to enter and begin the process called citizenship.
> 
> I will guarantee you that there are very few emigrants who request permission from their own countries, to whom they owe perpetual allegiance, to expatriate. They continue to owe allegiance to their own country at the same time they might choose to seek citizenship here. Technically, not really LEGAL at all. Citizenship is a very sloppy business unless the loose ends are taken care of.


You seem well versed in this immigration thing. Thanks. Could you expound on the differences between application for papers from the undocumented as opposed to the 'work-visa' documented?


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

Paul, for a goatherder you speak very well. Since I don't know any other goat herder that may well be how all of them talk.
You can say what I mean in a way others can understand.

One thing I would like to touch on. A couple of months ago several policemen were arrested in the town I work in for stealing money from illegals. They had been doing it for years and another dept. set up a sting. Got them on tape and film stealing money from several groups of illegals. While on duty and using law enforcement equipment.


----------



## LaManchaPaul (May 21, 2008)

AAwww thanks Panchito. There are other dairygoat farmers here. I retired from a real job with a real past. 


There is a lot of corruption. I know of several (first-hand knowledge) stories that I won't bore you with here. 

I have often thought that it would be fun to have a group on this forum made up of posters who are make-believe Mr. Obama and the house and senate leadership members with sole focus on this issue. Theyâd be tasked to formulate a bill. Fun thoughts.


----------



## Txrider (Jun 25, 2010)

LaManchaPaul said:


> Instead of an effort to identify and document who is here, there is now a clammer to label their kids with nasty names and remove their citizenship papers by changing the 14th Amendment. A few fanatics yell and then the R's cry Yea, that!


Harry Reid is a fanatic?


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

LaManchaPaul said:


> AAwww thanks Panchito. There are other dairygoat farmers here. I retired from a real job with a real past.
> 
> 
> There is a lot of corruption. I know of several (first-hand knowledge) stories that I won't bore you with here.
> ...


Probably would end up much like it would in real life. Hard to get any group to agree on just about anything. It might be more civil and would remain on focus a little better though as it would take the money question out of it.


----------



## Txrider (Jun 25, 2010)

In my view politicians don't want to fix immigration because they both desire to pander to latino votes, and the corporations and even small business make too much profit exploiting these illegals.

If they were legal they could demand a better wage, complain about working conditions and so forth.

The real answer is to impose such harsh sanctions on anyone hiring illegals, and enforce it, to the point employers will not risk doing so...

And put in place a method for people from those other countries to come here legally and work easily, so they cannot be exploited due to fear of deportation...

No politician will go for it, because they are cowards more concerned with their own political future than doing whats right and what can be done.


----------



## palani (Jun 12, 2005)

Riverdale said:


> You DARE compare Illegal Immigration to draft evaders?
> 
> SHAME on YOU


You seem to have opened up that topic rather than I.

As you choose to initiate it then I will tell you that many Danes and Germans came to the U.S. in the later half of the 19th century to avoid conscription. That includes some of my ancestors. I presume they believed their chosen field of farming was far superior to that of canon fodder.

As I said legal would seem to be a concept that has more than one side.


----------



## palani (Jun 12, 2005)

LaManchaPaul said:


> You seem well versed in this immigration thing.


 Just a moral perspective. The outrage of "U.S. citizens" is a bit overblown to the point where the vast majority of the population seems to view this status as a title of nobility which places THEM in a position of privilege. 



LaManchaPaul said:


> Could you expound on the differences between application for papers from the undocumented as opposed to the 'work-visa' documented?


Men do not need documentation. The "work-visa" document is commercial paper.


----------



## Gercarson (Nov 2, 2003)

palani said:


> Just a moral perspective. The outrage of "U.S. citizens" is a bit overblown to the point where the vast majority of the population seems to view this status as a title of nobility which places THEM in a position of privilege.


I'm thinking that the "outrage" of U.S. citizens might be a tad "overblown" but not to the extent that we think we have a "noble" status - rather, I think it's because the "vast majority of the population" view themselves "placed" as parasitic hosts.


----------



## palani (Jun 12, 2005)

Gercarson said:


> I think it's because the "vast majority of the population" view themselves "placed" as parasitic hosts.


There are cures to be found for any parasite once identified. 

Saepe viatorim nova non vetus orbita fallit. Often tis the new road, not the old one, which deceives the traveller


----------



## LaManchaPaul (May 21, 2008)

Txrider said:


> In my view politicians don't want to fix immigration because they both desire to pander to latino votes, and the corporations and even small business make too much profit exploiting these illegals.
> 
> *1 If they were legal *they could demand a better wage, complain about working conditions and so forth.
> 
> ...


I understand your post. Thanks for your thoughtful ideas. Here are a few thoughts for you. (1) If they were legal, We The People would know "who" is here amongst us. Wouldn't it be more beneficial to require registration without fear - in order to document each person?

(2)If the undocumented can't get a job, then they can't support their citizen children. That is the problem with this proposition.

(3) "to come here legally" opens a legal avenue for that person to obtain papers. This currently is not a option to the undocumented. So that really isn't a viable solution, because we would in effect offer papers to a larger arena of people without resolving the issue at hand - the undocumented.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

LaManchaPaul said:


> (2)If the undocumented can't get a job, then they can't support their citizen children. That is the problem with this proposition.


So the anchor baby strategy works. Skip across the border, have a baby, and the US will then have to give you papers. 

Parents are responsible for their children - not the state. 

How about all babies born to illegal parents will be taken from them and placed in government orphanages until they are 18. If you think these children are the state's responsibilities, then let's do it right!


----------



## LaManchaPaul (May 21, 2008)

MoonRiver said:


> So the anchor baby strategy works. Skip across the border, have a baby, and the US will then have to give you papers.
> 
> Parents are responsible for their children - not the state.
> 
> How about all babies born to illegal parents will be taken from them and placed in government orphanages until they are 18. If you think these children are the state's responsibilities, then let's do it right!


Pardon me, MR. I mistook your banter for discourse; but I can see from this response that it was banter.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

MoonRiver said:


> So the anchor baby strategy works. Skip across the border, have a baby, and the US will then have to give you papers.
> 
> Parents are responsible for their children - not the state.
> 
> How about all babies born to illegal parents will be taken from them and placed in government orphanages until they are 18. If you think these children are the state's responsibilities, then let's do it right!


Sounds good. Lets go one step farther. How about we take the children away from the mothers recieving welfare. They are the states responsibility also.


----------



## the mama (Mar 1, 2006)

How about freedoms and other 'rights' be given to Americans. Not to everyone in the country. All would of course be under the criminal laws. Anchor babies should be of dual citizenship thus the problem of their parent's country. At age 18, the child could then choose his/her citizenship. I have a friend who has dual citizenship Swiss/ American. Her parents were Swiss and in the process of becoming Americans. All applicants for citizenship should be self supporting. That is the way it is in most countries.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

the mama said:


> How about freedoms and other 'rights' be given to Americans. Not to everyone in the country. All would of course be under the criminal laws. Anchor babies should be of dual citizenship thus the problem of their parent's country. At age 18, the child could then choose his/her citizenship. I have a friend who has dual citizenship Swiss/ American. Her parents were Swiss and in the process of becoming Americans. All applicants for citizenship should be self supporting. That is the way it is in most countries.


Sounds like the best idea yet.


----------



## texican (Oct 4, 2003)

As much as I dislike illegal immigration, I don't think American's who hire them are exploiting them... The illegals I've dealt with make several bucks an hour more than American minimum wage. NO American is going to do backbreaking day labor for cash minimum wage. If the Mini-wage was double, I daresay no American would do backbreaking day labor cash work.

But I'll bite. Let's ban the use of illegal immigrant labor. Chop off the heads of anyone caught doing it... whether it's Uncle Joe getting Juan to clip his grass, or Bill Gates getting Pablo to sweep the floors. And, when the economy starts grinding even further into a hole, and those businesses go out of business, and move to Mexico or Mumbai, those tax dollars they pay will go with them... and soon, there'll be no one to pay for Becky Sue's six illegitimate chilluns.

Mandate work for welfare. Mandate work for unemployment. Mandate work... let's put overweight whales out on fencerows chopping poison ivy down. Let's mandate that young adults who don't graduate high school spend three years digging ditches with a shovel.

Work work work...

Of course, most won't work... admittedly some 'can't', but they're in the minority.... even they can do something... if they're fresh enough to breed more cash calves, they can work.

If we could blink our eyes, and the illegals were gone... we'd be neck deep in a *deleted word you can't say here* creek, with no boat or paddle in sight.

We first need a national shock event... then after a few million die, the survivors will appreciate the joy of a day making salt rimed shirts out in the blazing sun.


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

texican said:


> As much as I dislike illegal immigration, I don't think American's who hire them are exploiting them... The illegals I've dealt with make several bucks an hour more than American minimum wage. NO American is going to do backbreaking day labor for cash minimum wage. If the Mini-wage was double, I daresay no American would do backbreaking day labor cash work.
> 
> But I'll bite. Let's ban the use of illegal immigrant labor. Chop off the heads of anyone caught doing it... whether it's Uncle Joe getting Juan to clip his grass, or Bill Gates getting Pablo to sweep the floors. And, when the economy starts grinding even further into a hole, and those businesses go out of business, and move to Mexico or Mumbai, those tax dollars they pay will go with them... and soon, there'll be no one to pay for Becky Sue's six illegitimate chilluns.
> 
> ...


Texican,

Most people think the way you do. That is the way the world works. There are some people who think if they make enough noise and tell enough wild stories people will listen to them. Sometimes it is true. What usually happens is if people do really listen to them they soon realize just how little they know. One problem we have is very few people take the time to really listen to what the other person is saying. Most conservations consist of one person listening to the other tell lies while they are deciding what lies they can tell when it is their time.

There is a group of people in the U.S. that isn't going to work no matter what the pay is. There are enough gov. programs that will give them food to eat, a place to live, and a little spending money. That is all they need and they have no reason to get a job. Not everyone can start at the top. There has to be a starting place and that is low paying non skilled jobs. 

We have a group of people who think if we raise the pay all of the U.S. citizens will got to work. Somehow they have in their mind that this higher pay will not have any effect on the final cost of the product. Common sense should tell a person better than that but there is a shortage of common sense. So far we haven't found that magical pay scale that will pull the american worker back into some jobs.

There is no one who wants to pay higher cost for an item. We all want the product at the lowest cost. Some people will always say they would gladly pay higher cost if it meant getting rid of the illegals and putting U.S. workers back in the jop market. Again a little common sense is needed. If that was true why don't these people just hire a few U.S. citizens to build what they need and produce what they want.

One group of people want to chop off the head of anyone who will hire an illegal. These same people will glady buy the product though. This group has never tried to run a business. Knows little about the product they are buying, how it was produced, the costs involved, or the skill it takes to produce that product.

We should not foreget the group that always chimes in about the illegals taking jobs away from them. Take a little time to talk to them and really listen. It doesn't take long before you will find they will not go to an area that has jobs, they expect the business to move into their area. Just driving to the next town is too much to ask. They want the jobs located in a place of their choosing. If a company will not do this, and what business would, they will not work. A few complain how could anyone expect them to move for a job that may not be permament. Common sense tells a person that is just an excuse. If a person wants a job they will go to where that job is and work for the pay that is offered.
One thing that most do not want to hear. If you have a complaint about an illegal taking your job, take a good long look in the mirror. That is the person who is at fault.

Like you said, if we could blink our eyes and the illegals would be gone, we would really have something to complain about. Businesses would close, grocery stores would have empty shelves, housing would drop way below what it is now. No houses would be built, we wouldn't even be able to sell what we already have. We wouldn't be able to give them away.
If people think the economy is bad now, just think what it would be like with all the illegals removed.

Common sense. People should try using it more. Some people don't know what common sense is. They have never used it, don't know what it is, and think a person who has it is unamerican.


----------



## LaManchaPaul (May 21, 2008)

pancho said:


> Texican,
> 
> 
> Like you said, if we could blink our eyes and the illegals would be gone, we would really have something to complain about. Businesses would close, grocery stores would have empty shelves, housing would drop way below what it is now. No houses would be built, we wouldn't even be able to sell what we already have. We wouldn't be able to give them away.
> ...


Pancho, you didn't get the post a while ago where there would be no affect on the prices of goods and services if 'the blink' occured? I'm sure some angry poster on here will point it out to you.

"Common sense" is common to individuals in a group on a certain quantity of ideas. One's CS is based on his/her life's experiences. The person does use CS, it is just that the manner in which he/she was taught to rationalize at an early age provides a distinct CS that another person would not possess. When life experiences don't provide additional input to expand one's CS base, the quantity of ideas in CS remain stable. Another's CS is invisible. JMHO


----------



## pancho (Oct 23, 2006)

LaManchaPaul said:


> Pancho, you didn't get the post a while ago where there would be no affect on the prices of goods and services if 'the blink' occured? I'm sure some angry poster on here will point it out to you.
> 
> "Common sense" is common to individuals in a group on a certain quantity of ideas. One's CS is based on his/her life's experiences. The person does use CS, it is just that the manner in which he/she was taught to rationalize at an early age provides a distinct CS that another person would not possess. When life experiences don't provide additional input to expand one's CS base, the quantity of ideas in CS remain stable. Another's CS is invisible. JMHO


No, I must have missed that post. Wonder how that is possible.
Just from what I have read, to get citizens to work with produce will take a higher wage. Just kind of hard for me to think that cost won't be passed on to the consumer.

You may be right about CS. It might be like some other things. You either use it or loose it.


----------



## arnie (Apr 26, 2012)

It should be correct if you are born from ileagle imagrant you should be illeagle not a full fledged citizen this loop hole should be blocked .


----------



## arnie (Apr 26, 2012)

pancho said:


> Texican,
> 
> Most people think the way you do. That is the way the world works. There are some people who think if they make enough noise and tell enough wild stories people will listen to them. Sometimes it is true. What usually happens is if people do really listen to them they soon realize just how little they know. One problem we have is very few people take the time to really listen to what the other person is saying. Most conservations consist of one person listening to the other tell lies while they are deciding what lies they can tell when it is their time.
> 
> ...


Don't worry if you blink and get rid of illegals there will be plenty of legals to get the job done and it would encourage honest people to go through proper chanels to get legal .the huge benifit is that among the few hard working bordercrossers that that the media portrays ilegals as is a hord of drug carryers and other crimanimals who have learned to use loopholes in the welfare system to flurish in the underground where by appearing ignorant and pitaful provides them with free medical and houseing schooling ect. While working for cash at legal or crimanal trades provides cream on top to have tax free and continue to burden the tax payer .let's pray for a blink these ilegal workers don't work for less just tax free


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Nevada said:


> This is one issue where the language in the constitution is very clear.
> 
> _*"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States"*_
> 
> I don't see any room at all for interpretation. The only way out of respecting that provision is to change the constitution. I don't see that happening.


And the language in the 2nd amendment is very clear also, shall not be infringed, is very clear!

Where's that democrat budget at?


----------



## mekasmom (Jan 19, 2010)

Let's look at the real intent about arguing over the 14th anyway.... It is about trying to cut democratic voting numbers because citizens with heritages from other countries vote democratic/liberal in greater numbers. Latinos do vote democratic in greater numbers than they do GOP. It's not about just bad attitude prejudice against latinos or other cultural groups it's about trying to limit voters.


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

mekasmom said:


> Let's look at the real intent about arguing over the 14th anyway.... It is about trying to cut democratic voting numbers because citizens with heritages from other countries vote democratic/liberal in greater numbers. Latinos do vote democratic in greater numbers than they do GOP. It's not about just bad attitude prejudice against latinos or other cultural groups it's about trying to limit voters.


I can't speak for many others, but some and myself.

I don't think it has to do with Dem or Rep votes. I certainly know it doesn't on my part. Knowing as many illegals as I do, I know they will not be pigeonholed. They vote for those who will give them the most. Right now, it's a toss up. They voted overwhelming democrat last election, but a fair amount do vote Republican and last election saw the smallest number voting Republican ever. 

If the children are citizens - as now they are - they can petition for their families to become legal citizens. I don't know if that is happening, but I'd be willing to bet our government has been working overtime for quite a few years, to approve these petitions.

For some of them, their goal is truly to take back the Southwest - the part of the US they feel was taken from them. It's not a joke and it isn't tin foil hat time.

That's what I thought about when I heard Pres. Bush I, talk about a union 'from Canada to the tip of SA, with no borders, people and commerce moving freely). A very doable thing with all those people who have no allegiance to this country getting to vote.

Suppose it came down to voting on the change in the Constitution regarding natural born citizen - how do you think all these people will vote.


----------

