DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: BT on August 04, 2010, 01:33:14 AM
-
Republicans want review of birthright citizenship
By BEN EVANS, Associated Press Writer Ben Evans, Associated Press Writer Tue Aug 3, 6:25 pm ET
WASHINGTON ? Leading Republicans are joining a push to reconsider the constitutional amendment that grants automatic citizenship to people born in the United States.
Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said Tuesday he supports holding hearings on the 14th Amendment right, although he emphasized that Washington's immigration focus should remain on border security.
His comments came as other Republicans in recent days have questioned or challenged birthright citizenship, embracing a cause that had largely been confined to the far right.
The senators include Arizona's John McCain, the party's 2008 presidential nominee; Arizona's Jon Kyl, the Republicans' second-ranking senator; Alabama's Jeff Sessions, the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee, and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a leading negotiator on immigration legislation.
"I'm not sure exactly what the drafters of the (14th) amendment had in mind, but I doubt it was that somebody could fly in from Brazil and have a child and fly back home with that child, and that child is forever an American citizen," Sessions said.
Legal experts say repealing the citizenship right can be done only through constitutional amendment, which would require approval by two-thirds majorities in both chambers of Congress and by three-fourths of the states. Legislation to amend the right, introduced previously in the House, has stalled.
The proposals are sure to appeal to conservative voters as immigration so far is playing a central role in November's elections. They also could carry risks by alienating Hispanic voters and alarming moderates who could view constitutional challenges as extreme. Hispanics have become the largest minority group in the United States, and many are highly driven by the illegal immigrant debate.
McConnell and McCain seemed to recognize the risk by offering guarded statements Tuesday.
McCain, who faces a challenge from the right in his re-election bid, said he supports reviewing citizenship rights. He emphasized, however, that amending the Constitution is a serious matter.
"I believe that the Constitution is a strong, complete and carefully crafted document that has successfully governed our nation for centuries and any proposal to amend the Constitution should receive extensive and thoughtful consideration," he said.
At a news conference, McConnell refused to endorse Graham's suggestion that citizenship rights be repealed for children of illegal immigrants. While refusing to take questions, he suggested instead that he would look narrowly into reports of businesses that help immigrants arrange to have babies in the United States in order to win their children U.S. citizenship.
The 14th Amendment, adopted in 1868 in the aftermath of the Civil War, granted citizenship to "all persons born or naturalized in the United States," including recently freed slaves.
Defenders of the amendment say altering it would weaken a fundamental American value while doing little to deter illegal immigration. They also say it would create bureaucratic hardships for parents giving birth.
Quoting a newspaper columnist, Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada said Republicans were "either taking leave of their senses or their principles" in advocating repeal.
An estimated 10.8 million illegal immigrants were living in the U.S. as of January 2009, according to the Homeland Security Department. The Pew Hispanic Center estimates that as of 2008, there were 3.8 million illegal immigrants in this country whose children are U.S. citizens.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100803/ap_on_go_co/us_republicans_birthright_citizenship/print (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100803/ap_on_go_co/us_republicans_birthright_citizenship/print)
-
<<They also could carry risks by alienating Hispanic voters and alarming moderates who could view constitutional challenges as extreme. Hispanics have become the largest minority group in the United States, and many are highly driven by the illegal immigrant debate.>>
Understatement of the year. The GOP already has the right-wing, racist, anti-immigrant vote locked up. What the hell can they gain with this bullshit other than infuriating moderates and Hispanics whose votes might otherwise be up for grabs?
The automatic citizenship granted to anyone born in the U.S.A. (including my first two grand-children) has no basis in logical fact, but it is a very practical approach. Without it, millions born in the U.S. would have their status put in question depending on the mother's (and possibly even the father's) immigration status at the time of birth. All the arguments against deporting the "illegal" immigrants ("they jumped the line, they didn't play by the rules, they're just law-breakers and criminals" etc., etc., etc.) would become totally irrelevant against these children and their deportation would serve no real purpose at all. Anyone of Hispanic origin would feel inhibited from the free expression of his or her political beliefs because who knows? at any time the U.S. government might decide that he or she has no right, despite a valid U.S. birth certificate, to be in the U.S.A., and deportation proceedings could be launched instantly based on allegations of maternal status at time of birth.
<<Quoting a newspaper columnist, Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada said Republicans were "either taking leave of their senses or their principles" in advocating repeal.>>
It's their senses they're taking leave of, their racist principles will remain intact.
-
Bobby Jindal, the Governor of Louisiana and prominent Republican, was born here while his parents were on student visas.
This is moronic of the GOP, but it will be their downfall, and that is a GOOD thing. The schmucks have no business trying to run this country.
-
The automatic citizenship granted to anyone born in the U.S.A. (including my first two grand-children) has no basis in logical fact, but it is a very practical approach.
Does Canada grant citizenship the same way? Mexico? France? Sweden?
-
It's their senses they're taking leave of, their racist principles will remain intact.
If the change in the amendment would not affect Irish and Eastern European descendants the same way it would affect Hispanics you might have a point, but as far as i can see it would, so you cries of racism reflect more your preference for false demagaoguery than truth.
-
It's their senses they're taking leave of, their racist principles will remain intact.
If the change in the amendment would not affect Irish and Eastern European descendants the same way it would affect Hispanics you might have a point, but as far as i can see it would, so you cries of racism reflect more your preference for false demagaoguery than truth.
Now THERE's the understatement of the year. Careful though Bt. You again, called Tee on his apparent tendency to not remain truthful. You're going to get banned from any futher "debate" with him. I'm surprised you lasted this long ;)
-
If the change in the amendment would not affect Irish and Eastern European descendants the same way it would affect Hispanics you might have a point, but as far as i can see it would, so you cries of racism reflect more your preference for false demagaoguery than truth.
Perhaps. But I have not seen anyone talking about needing to stop Irish immigrants or Eastern European immigrants from coming here to have babies. Pretty much exclusively the argument is made that we need to stop Mexican immigrants and Central and South American immigrants from coming here to have babies. That the effects of the change would be more broad than that does not mean the people pushing for the change are not motivated by irrational prejudice directed at a specific ethnic segment of immigrants.
-
Close.......the arguement is largely that we need to keep stop ILLEGAL Mexican immigrants and ILLEGAL Central and South American immigrants from coming here to have babies.
Legal Mexican, Central & South American immigrants can have all the babies they want. Same holds for legal Irish & Eastern Eropean immigrants that choose to make America their new home
But you knew that
-
Bobby Jindal, the Governor of Louisiana and prominent Republican, was born here while his parents were on student visas.
This is moronic of the GOP, but it will be their downfall, and that is a GOOD thing. The schmucks have no business trying to run this country.
why should guests that come here and have babies get FREE citizenship for the child? I could care less if they are here to see Mt Rushmore, buy drugs, pick veggies, or are here on a student visa. Part of the reason this country is all messed up is because of that stupid interpretation. It is a likely reason why you are here. Anyway, both you and Jindal are not going to be retroactively punished if the law goes into effect. Hell, why would you care anyway? Do you care when a mother aborts her child after 7 months?
-
Polls show a majority of Canadians oppose automatic Canadian citizenship for children born on Canadian soil from non-Canadian parents who are in the country. Canada and the U.S. are two of the very few countries that allow this practice.
-
Polls show a majority of Canadians oppose automatic Canadian citizenship for children born on Canadian soil from non-Canadian parents who are in the country. Canada and the U.S. are two of the very few countries that allow this practice.
It's called "jus soli" and it's a feature of English Common Law. More information about specific other countries is at this link. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli#Specific_national_legislation)
-
Thanks Ami I was pretty sure most of the world does not allow "anchor babies". Almost no European nations grant birthright citizenship. Canada is just about the only developed nation other than the United States that allows such non-sense. No country that allows anchor babies other than the United States has more than 200 million people. Only the United States, Pakistan and Mexico have 50 million or more. It might be surprising to most Americans that automatic citizenship is not at all common in the developed world and we are part of very few that allow such crap!
-
Close.......the arguement is largely that we need to keep stop ILLEGAL Mexican immigrants and ILLEGAL Central and South American immigrants from coming here to have babies.
Legal Mexican, Central & South American immigrants can have all the babies they want. Same holds for legal Irish & Eastern Eropean immigrants that choose to make America their new home
But you knew that
Sirs, you can dance around the issue all you like. I've had it with the whole illegal vs. legal issue. What it comes down to is fear and a desire for control. You can say legal immigrants are welcome all you like, but so long as legal immigration is made expensive and difficult (unless one is famous like David Beckham) and the intent is to tightly control borders, it's not a legal vs. illegal issue. It's an immigration issue. It's about stopping ordinary people from coming here for reasons that have do with old and repeatedly unfounded fear. "Few of their children in the country learn English. The signs in our streets have inscriptions in both languages. . . . Unless the stream of their importation could be turned . . . they will soon so outnumber us that we will not preserve our language, and even our government will become precarious." Benjamin Franklin said that in 1753. He was worried about German immigrants. Even Thomas Jefferson worried about immigrants coming here and ruining everything. This push to control immigration/borders is nothing new, and little good will come of it.
Ultimately, the immigration issue is a distraction. Immigrants make a handy scapegoat. "We can't afford the drain on public resources..." Really? Welfare, Medicaid, et cetera, we've decided cannot touch those problems. So we say immigrants are coming here and unfairly taking advantage of us. "They steal jobs..." Without the laws making immigration difficult there would not be a black market in labor. "They disrespect the sovereignty of our nation/law when the come here illegally..." So? The law is not just. I cannot blame them for breaking it any more than I could have blamed a thirsty black man drinking from a "whites only" water fountain in the 1950s. When laws are unjust is the real problem the lawbreakers or the law?
Is the real problem that people are coming here, legally or illegally, to give birth to children? Is the real problem that people are coming here to work? Or is the problem that we have allowed unfeasible government run social programs to be propped up over and over while we try to keep out of the country people who want little more than to work here? Is the problem that people who are poor and needy want to come here to help themselves and their families stop being quite so poor and needy, or that we want to control the decisions other people make?
And no, I don't mean the decision to come here illegally. I mean the decision to hire people from other countries. I mean the decision of something as non-rights-violating as looking for work where the opportunity is better. We say poor people here can work hard and make money. Poor people can move from state to state to change their situation and look for work. But we say you poor people from outside the nation, too bad, we don't want you here. And if you do live here legally, and you want to hire poor people from Mexico to work for your business, too bad, you shouldn't be allowed to hire them. It's about control and getting in the way of what would otherwise be legal and reasonable agreements between individuals, agreements that should largely be no business of anyone else.
-
we are part of very few that allow such crap!
It's not crap. It's a point of pride. We are not a society of classes based on race or gender or nationality. That is a very good thing.
-
Close.......the arguement is largely that we need to keep stop ILLEGAL Mexican immigrants and ILLEGAL Central and South American immigrants from coming here to have babies.
Legal Mexican, Central & South American immigrants can have all the babies they want. Same holds for legal Irish & Eastern Eropean immigrants that choose to make America their new home
But you knew that
Sirs, you can dance around the issue all you like.
Actually, no dancing involved. It's actually a clear cut issue
I've had it with the whole illegal vs. legal issue.
Ironically, THAT's what makes it a clear cut issue.
What it comes down to is fear and a desire for control.
Close again. Subtract the egregious fear use, and What it comes down is a desire to control who comes into this country. Strangely, it's the same desire nearly every other country on this globe has. Imagine that
You can say legal immigrants are welcome all you like, but so long as legal immigration is made expensive and difficult (unless one is famous like David Beckham) and the intent is to tightly control borders, it's not a legal vs. illegal issue.
Since there are millions who have and do go thru the process, it's PRECISELY the issue
-
Anchor Babies: illegal immigration via the birth canal
By JOHN REINIERS
Special to Hernando Today
About every six months the population of the U.S. increases about as much as the population of Tallahassee. Who are these hundreds of thousands of new citizens? They are newborns, children of illegal aliens born in the United States birthright citizens, "anchor babies" not illegal aliens.
This quirky legal right then allows the mother's parents and siblings to remain, and later a whole bunch of their relatives to immigrate legally. ( see chain immigration at Numbersusa.com - This why they are also known as "Jackpot babies"
Just consider Parkland Memorial Hospital in Dallas, the second busiest maternity ward in the U.S. In 2006, 70 percent of the women giving birth in Parkland were illegal immigrants. That added up to 11,200 babies for which Medicaid kicked in $34.5 million to deliver these babies, the feds another $9.5 million and Dallas taxpayers tossed in $31.3 million.
The average illegal patient is 25 years old and giving birth to her second anchor baby. We could also talk about California, but you get the point. By law, illegal immigrants cannot be denied medical care based on their inability to pay or their immigration status. These women also receive free prenatal care, medication, car seats, bottles, diapers and formula.
The U.S. and a few other countries offer citizenship to anyone born on their soil. The United Kingdom and Australia abandoned this practice in the 1980's after being abused by immigrants for many years.
Why do we allow this to continue? The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the states wherein they reside".
It was added to our Constitution right after the Civil War as part of a package of reforms to prevent any more injustices to African Americans, such as states denying citizenship to native born Blacks. The drafters of the "Citizenship clause" made it clear from their debate, that the clause "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" meant that the status of the parents of a child born within the territory of the U.S. determines whether of not that child is eligible for U.S. citizenship.
There have been surprisingly few Supreme Court opinions construing this clause, the results being a mixed bag of decisions. The lawyer in me wants to go into detail, but let me be mercifully brief: The latest case involved a terrorist who happened to be born in Louisiana, when his father, a native of Mecca, Saudi Arabia was working as an engineer for Exxon. He returned to Saudi Arabia as an infant, took up with al Qaeda as an adult, was captured during a battle in Afghanistan and wound up imprisoned in Guantanamo Bay.
The Supreme Court held that this Saudi, being Louisiana born, had a Due Process right as a citizen to challenge his detention as an enemy combatant. This ruling simply does not comport with any of the text or history surrounding the adoption of the Citizenship Clause. Just being born in the U.S. doesn't cut it, because such an interpretation renders the "subject to the jurisdiction" clause entirely redundant. It is a well settled doctrine of legal interpretation that legal texts most certainly the Constitution are not to be interpreted to make some words altogether redundant.
In other words why didn't the drafters just say, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States "are citizens of the United States" (Imagine two terrorists, man and wife jihadis slipping past border guards into a U.S. city to set up a terrorist cell. The wife then gives birth to a child. Should this budding young terrorist be an instant American citizen?)
Help could be on the way, but don't hold your breath. In 2007 Representative Nathan Deal, R-Ga., introduced H.R. 1940, The Birthright Citizenship Act of 2007, which would end automatic citizenship to babies born in the U.S. to illegal aliens. For those Americans who look to Europe "the cradle of our American civilization" for guidance, Ireland, in 2004 voted to end automatic citizenship.
That was the last member of the European Union to allow pregnant foreigners to gain residence and welfare benefits as a result of just being born there. The political fallout of this bill could be enormous. Take California. Republican Governor Pete Wilson supported Proposition 187 in 1994 which was designed to deny illegal immigrants social services, such as welfare etc.
Latinos marched in protest; the issue wound up in the courts, was appealed, and Wilson?s successor, a Democrat, abandoned the appeal. So it never became law. The media, social liberals and national Latino groups attacked Wilson, a highly successful governor, who got more votes than Ronald Reagan. Well, that was the end of the Republican Party in California. And in 2008 California is even more Latino. (Just consider the multiplier effect of anchor babies.)
California Democrats still make snide remarks about Wilson's insensitivity towards Latinos. Interestingly, Hillary Clinton is courting Latinos in Nevada, just next door even though they are in minority, but a growing slice of the voters in order to influence California Latinos, the big enchilada.
It is estimated that about 1/3rd of California is already Latino, and they should be a majority by 2042.
So the larger issue for the Dems is, if they get behind H.R.1940, it could hurt them in California. But as of this writing, Latinos and Californication has not yet overwhelmed the entire U.S., which they want to win in 2008.
Patriotism is when the love of your own people comes first. Politics, for Democrats, is thinking of the next election, and not what is best the next generation of Americans. With that in mind, illegal aliens and their progeny will continue to be one more group on the list of Democrat constituencies.
-
<<Does Canada grant citizenship the same way? Mexico? France? Sweden?>>
Canada for sure does, and I believe the others do as well, but I don't know for sure.
-
<<If the change in the amendment would not affect Irish and Eastern European descendants the same way it would affect Hispanics you might have a point, but as far as i can see it would, so you cries of racism reflect more your preference for false demagaoguery than truth.>>
If the bulk of illegal immigrants were from Ireland and Eastern Europe, your argument might have a shred of plausibility, but they aren't and it doesn't, and I don't have a preference for false demagoguery, which I leave in the capable hands of the "Islamo-Nazi-Fascist-Let's-Bomb-Iran" DEBKRAP devotees.
-
Mexicans --- "Anchors Aweigh" on US Soil (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_ZnX9JRo5M#)
1 Florida Hospital Testimony video goes National on DC news. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSe3C5vMafM#)
-
If the bulk of illegal immigrants were from Ireland and Eastern Europe, your argument might have a shred of plausibility, but they aren't and it doesn't,
Discrimination is not measured by volume. If you discriminate against one Irishman, one Eastern European, if you treat that one person differently based on race, creed or nation of origin, then the law you base your action upon racist.
What you appear to be saying is that if a person is Hispanic they are not subject to the laws of the land. And that is discriminatory.
-
<<Discrimination is not measured by volume. If you discriminate against one Irishman, one Eastern European, if you treat that one person differently based on race, creed or nation of origin, then the law you base your action upon racist.
<<What you appear to be saying is that if a person is Hispanic they are not subject to the laws of the land. And that is discriminatory.>>
LMFAO. Nice try. Seriously, good effort. Maybe discrimination isn't measured by volume, but politics sure as hell are. The Tea Party couldn't care less about an illegal Irishman here or an illegal Polack there. They're going apeshit over Mexicans and other Latinos coming over the Mexican border and they want to put a stop to it. How many Tea Party vigilantes you see in New York or Boston harbours trying to catch Irish illegals?
-
The Tea Party couldn't care less about an illegal Irishman here or an illegal Polack there.
Do you have evidence of this?
-
Subtract the egregious fear use,
Unfortunately, that isn't up to me.
You can say legal immigrants are welcome all you like, but so long as legal immigration is made expensive and difficult (unless one is famous like David Beckham) and the intent is to tightly control borders, it's not a legal vs. illegal issue.
Since there are millions who have and do go thru the process, it's PRECISELY the issue
AMBE. There are millions who want to come to this country to work, and the policy you support would keep the vast majority of them out because they are poor and/or "unskilled". And a great many of those people who do manage to make it through the process still have to wait years if not decades. And those are the ones who can afford not only the immigration fees but the legal fees necessary for navigating the labyrinthine red tape. That makes it an immigration issue, not a legal vs. illegal issue.
Notably, nothing you said refutes my previous post to you. So the fact that you ignored the bulk of it seems telling.
-
Maybe discrimination isn't measured by volume, but politics sure as hell are.
Isn't this you admitting to the validity of BT's point?
I am trying to remember how I became a citizen......
....Can't do it , I was pretty young when I was born, and I couldn't have been a citizen any more than nine months at the time.
How many of us became citizens by being conceived here? I like that standard better , even though it might be rather hard to provide proof.
I suppose that there has to be a starting point for everyones citizenship , when is a better place to start than birth?
Shouldn't we be gratefull at this gift of youth? Won't we need these guys to be here during their productive years?
Is'nt it a little bit amazeing that so many Mexicans , Central and South Americans, Chineese and Irish , Poles and Etheopians really think that haveing an american citizenship is a good thing for their children?
I see a potential for a win- win solution.
-
AMBE. There are millions who want to come to this country to work, and the policy you support would keep the vast majority of them out because they are poor and/or "unskilled". And a great many of those people who do manage to make it through the process still have to wait years if not decades. .
Why are they better off here?
These are great people , if they had to stay home would they not be usefull and influential in the improvement of their homeland?
-
<<Discrimination is not measured by volume. If you discriminate against one Irishman, one Eastern European, if you treat that one person differently based on race, creed or nation of origin, then the law you base your action upon racist.
<<What you appear to be saying is that if a person is Hispanic they are not subject to the laws of the land. And that is discriminatory.>>
LMFAO. Nice try. Seriously, good effort. Maybe discrimination isn't measured by volume, but politics sure as hell are. The Tea Party couldn't care less about an illegal Irishman here or an illegal Polack there.
Bzzzzzz......wrong. Care to try again? OR, care to DEBATE the issue, and provide examples of this "could care less about illegal Irishmen"??
-
Subtract the egregious fear use,
Unfortunately, that isn't up to me.
That's too bad, since it's never been a fear issue. That's been made up by some, who apparently are trying to remain anonyprince
You can say legal immigrants are welcome all you like, but so long as legal immigration is made expensive and difficult (unless one is famous like David Beckham) and the intent is to tightly control borders, it's not a legal vs. illegal issue.
Since there are millions who have and do go thru the process, it's PRECISELY the issue
AMBE.
No, REALITY
There are millions who want to come to this country to work, and the policy you support would keep the vast majority of them out because they are poor and/or "unskilled".
Go to the end of the line, pay your dues just like every other current American Immigrant, and Welcome to the U.S.A. And guess what, MILLIONS have done just that. If we want to talk about lessening some of the rules, shortening some of the time, I'm open to that, just so long as its applied to anyone wanting to enter this country, LEGALLY.....which ironically keeps reinforcing the point that this is indeed a LEGAL vs ILLEGAL immigrant issue
Notably, nothing you said refutes my previous post to you. So the fact that you ignored the bulk of it seems telling.
Precisely because you're deftly trying to make this about something it isn't. THAT's what's telling
-
Why are they better off here?
These are great people , if they had to stay home would they not be usefull and influential in the improvement of their homeland?
One could ask the same of the skilled folks, the athletes and scientists that we say are perfectly okay to come to this country and often try to recruit.
Why is anyone better off somewhere? Why do people move from one state to another for work within the U.S.? Why do some people move to the big city? Why do some people move to the suburbs? Why do some people move to the coast? Why does anyone leave where they are for somewhere else?
Does it matter if immigrants are better off here by some measurable, objective standard? They believe they are better off here. What's wrong with that?
If the person who wants to be an actor stayed home in Wyoming rather than moving to New York or California, would he not be able to be useful and/or influential in the improvement of Wyoming? If the young architect in Louisiana had to stay home rather than move to Chicago or Seattle or Albuquerque, would he not be able to be useful and/or influential in the improvement of Louisiana? The point isn't what might a person do if he was unable to move somewhere else. The point is, why should he be prevented from going somewhere else?
And many people who want to come here to work want also to go back home. Many are not looking to come here to stay forever. Many who have remained only do so because immigration law makes leaving and coming back if desired is more difficult than simply staying.
So I would say your questions, Plane, are largely irrelevant.
-
The point isn't what might a person do if he was unable to move somewhere else. The point is, why should he be prevented from going somewhere else?
They aren't. They simply need to properly fill out the required paperwork.
-
If the person who wants to be an actor stayed home in Wyoming rather than moving to New York or California, would he not be able to be useful and/or influential in the improvement of Wyoming? If the young architect in Louisiana had to stay home rather than move to Chicago or Seattle or Albuquerque, would he not be able to be useful and/or influential in the improvement of Louisiana? The point isn't what might a person do if he was unable to move somewhere else. The point is, why should he be prevented from going somewhere else?
Interstate travel without visa is an important part of American citizenship.
So the most practical solution must be to expand our southern border to Terra Del Fuego and our northern border to Hudson's bay.
If everyone from every state on the hemisphere should have the practical benefit of citizenship why not sew a dozen more stars on our flag?
Then all of us would have the right to move anywhere on the half planet we wished and work under one law.
Why accept this as a one way street? Why accept the demand of a Venezuelan border guard for a passport?That is just unfair, we should hve the right to wander all the world as all the world has the right to wander our territory.
Adopting and assimilateing every contiguous state on the Hemisphere seems to be the only fair way to accomplish the real fairness for all of us .
-
That's too bad, since it's never been a fear issue.
You're in denial if you believe that.
Go to the end of the line, pay your dues just like every other current American Immigrant, and Welcome to the U.S.A. And guess what, MILLIONS have done just that. If we want to talk about lessening some of the rules, shortening some of the time, I'm open to that, just so long as its applied to anyone wanting to enter this country, LEGALLY.....which ironically keeps reinforcing the point that this is indeed a LEGAL vs ILLEGAL immigrant issue
No, actually, you're reinforcing that it is an immigration issue. No one is saying we should have lots and lots of illegal immigration. If we significantly relaxed immigration restrictions and made immigrating here relatively easy, then the people coming in would be legal immigrants, and likely there would still be some illegal immigrants. Since you don't support significantly relaxed immigration restrictions and making immigrating here relatively easy, clearly the issue is immigration, not legal vs. illegal.
-
The point isn't what might a person do if he was unable to move somewhere else. The point is, why should he be prevented from going somewhere else?
They aren't. They simply need to properly fill out the required paperwork.
Precisely. No one is being prevented from coming to this country. It's simply an arduous process, and painstaking process, and given how great this country is, and the finite resources it has, which includes healthcare, it SHOULD be arduous. It SHOULD be an effort to get in, but simply because its burdensome, doesn't equate to a closed border.
-
That's too bad, since it's never been a fear issue.
You're in denial if you believe that.
Said the pot to the kettle
Go to the end of the line, pay your dues just like every other current American Immigrant, and Welcome to the U.S.A. And guess what, MILLIONS have done just that. If we want to talk about lessening some of the rules, shortening some of the time, I'm open to that, just so long as its applied to anyone wanting to enter this country, LEGALLY.....which ironically keeps reinforcing the point that this is indeed a LEGAL vs ILLEGAL immigrant issue
Since you don't support significantly relaxed immigration restrictions and making immigrating here relatively easy, clearly the issue is immigration, not legal vs. illegal.
And clearly, you're in denial
-
They aren't. They simply need to properly fill out the required paperwork.
Not true. People are denied entry all the time. The notion that it's just a matter of paperwork is a lie. If it were as easy as you claim, we would not be having this discussion.
-
Interstate travel without visa is an important part of American citizenship.
I'm not advocating immigration without visa or passports. All I did was explain why your questions were irrelevant.
-
It SHOULD be an effort to get in, but simply because its burdensome, doesn't equate to a closed border.
No one said it was a closed border.
-
Since you don't support significantly relaxed immigration restrictions and making immigrating here relatively easy, clearly the issue is immigration, not legal vs. illegal.
And clearly, you're in denial
It's simply an arduous process, and painstaking process, and given how great this country is, and the finite resources it has, which includes healthcare, it SHOULD be arduous. It SHOULD be an effort to get in, but simply because its burdensome, doesn't equate to a closed border.
Clearly, I'm not.
-
Interstate travel without visa is an important part of American citizenship.
I'm not advocating immigration without visa or passports. All I did was explain why your questions were irrelevant.
Not successfully
You pointed out that crossing state borders inside the US was done for serious and trivial reasons with little or no regulation.
But you skipped a step somewhere in jumping on twards saying that croissing international borders is equivelent to crossing borders internal to a country.
Skipping that step made it seem exactly as though you were advocating immigration without visa or passports.
-
They aren't. They simply need to properly fill out the required paperwork.
Not true. People are denied entry all the time. The notion that it's just a matter of paperwork is a lie. If it were as easy as you claim, we would not be having this discussion.
Should a person give the government a chance to approve or deny a visa?
Why should a government have any controll over who and what crosses its frontiers?
-
You pointed out that crossing state borders inside the US was done for serious and trivial reasons with little or no regulation.
I am sure I have pointed that out at some time or other. But in responding to you, Plane, in this thread, that is not what I said. My comments about people moving within the U.S. did not mention regulations. What they did was address your questions, "Why are they better off here?" and "These are great people , if they had to stay home would they not be usefull and influential in the improvement of their homeland?" The point being that moving somewhere different to live and work is not about an objective measure of "better" or about what might happen if someone were forced to remain where he was. At no point in my reply to your questions did I bring up visas, or traveling with them or without them.
But you skipped a step somewhere in jumping on twards saying that croissing international borders is equivelent to crossing borders internal to a country.
I did not say that. You have jumped to an erroneous conclusion.
-
The notion that it's just a matter of paperwork is a lie.
The paperwork is not a purchase of an admissions ticket Although i have heard that at some embassies the exchange of fees helps).
It is an application.
And it is required.
Of course some applications are turned down.
But to be turned down, the application at the minimum should be on file.
Thus the need to fill out the required paperwork.
Legal immigrants by virtue of their status did this.
Illegal immigrants by virtue of their status do not.
so much for the lie.
-
Should a person give the government a chance to approve or deny a visa?
Why should a government have any controll over who and what crosses its frontiers?
It's like no one ever remembers anything I say. As I have said before many times, I am fully in favor of government keeping known criminals and diseased people out of the country.
-
Of course some applications are turned down.
So we've put to rest the false notion that no one is being prevented from entering. So much for the lie indeed.
Legal immigrants by virtue of their status did this.
Illegal immigrants by virtue of their status do not.
Again, if it were as simple as filling out paperwork, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Let's see... Which seems more appealing to people who want to come here to work: filling out some paperwork or risking death crossing the desert? Hm... This is a real toughy...
-
It SHOULD be an effort to get in, but simply because its burdensome, doesn't equate to a closed border.
No one said it was a closed border.
Your insinuation of how "difficult" it is, literally "preventing" an unskilled immigrant from coming to this country, is pretty transparent. Your application in the use of not supporting "significantly relaxing" current immigration requirements, is also duely noted
-
Since you don't support significantly relaxed immigration restrictions and making immigrating here relatively easy, clearly the issue is immigration, not legal vs. illegal.
And clearly, you're in denial
It's simply an arduous process, and painstaking process, and given how great this country is, and the finite resources it has, which includes healthcare, it SHOULD be arduous. It SHOULD be an effort to get in, but simply because its burdensome, doesn't equate to a closed border.
Clearly, I'm not.
Clearly, I don't support your version of "significantly relaxed restrictions"
-
So much for the lie indeed.
For it to be a lie i would have had to have said that the required paperwork was automatically approved.
I didn't. Which makes you the liar.
-
Too many otherwise interesting conversations here seem to end with sirs using his favorite word "lie". Everything that sirs does not believe is not an opinion, it is a "lie".
I deem that the XIV Amendment will not be amended, and that attempts to prevent the newborn from becoming citizens without amending it will be ineffective.
This is similar to all the flap about the Republicans wanting to pass an amendment against flag burning.
-
Too many otherwise interesting conversations here seem to end with sirs using his favorite word "lie". Everything that sirs does not believe is not an opinion, it is a "lie".
Examples, please. You do realize you're responding to Bt's post. But by all means, do a quick search here, and provide all these apparent numerous examples of sirs supposed "favorite word"...lest you be the one caught with his hand in the cookie jar
-
SIRS....you better behave youself and just sit you ass down!
You have no rights to ask your country not be turned into Managua, Nicaragua.
The American People should have no say in this matter!
Yes the American People do not approve of this illegal invasion, but so what?
The American People do not approve of the Healthcare Ration or Gay Marriage either...so what?
Why should the American People be able to say they dont want tens of millions of
3rd World, uneducated, non-english speaking invaders breaking into their country?
The American People need to change their freaking laws to accomodate the inavders!
And change a bunch of stuff like signs, gvt forms, ect... to accomodate non-english invaders
Whose country is it? Shouldn't the invaders have a say?
Anyone and everyone should get a FREE PASS in here!
Instead of 30 million poor people, lets up the ante and try and get 100 million!
Yeah boss dats the ticket....pack in the poor!....gonna make America Great!
Oh and dont worry...we're gonna get something called "comprehensive immigration reform"
Ya know what that means? Make all the invaders here legal & then in 20 years do it all again.
100 Million is da goal!
As I drive around & see parts of my city that now look like Guatemala slums...hey it makes me proud!
-
For it to be a lie i would have had to have said that the required paperwork was automatically approved.
I didn't. Which makes you the liar.
I said, "The point is, why should he be prevented from going somewhere else?" To which you replied, "They aren't. They simply need to properly fill out the required paperwork." The "They aren't" certainly appears to indicate the "they", the would-be immigrants, are not prevented from immigrating here. You then explained further by saying, "They simply need to properly fill out the required paperwork." The clear indication being that no one is prevented from immigrating here so long as they fill out the proper paperwork. And as we have established, filling out paperwork is not a guarantee of being allowed to enter. So therefore, your comment was not true, and I have not lied about anything.
-
No one said it was a closed border.
Your insinuation of how "difficult" it is, literally "preventing" an unskilled immigrant from coming to this country, is pretty transparent. Your application in the use of not supporting "significantly relaxing" current immigration requirements, is also duely noted
When get around to noting that I have never said anything about the border being closed, let me know. Better yet, let me know when you're through trying to insist I meant things I never said.
-
You've hit on a couple of really good points, with the sarcastic response Cu4. In particular, how back during Reagan, we were told, just make all the 2-4 million illegal immigrants, legal, and we'll then focus on border enforcement, and enforcing employees to hire only legal citizens/immigrants. Problem largely solved. Problem was, there was next to nothing in the way of enforcement
Now, 20+years, and upwards of 12-20million MORE illegals later, we're told by many, that we just make the illegal immigrants, legal, and they we'll focus on border enforcement, and enforcing employees to hire only legal citizens/immigrants. Problem largely solved
I note a pattern, and it's not one that bodes well for American resources and quality of life, for those who are legally here. And just as bad is the slap in the face of all those millions of immigrants that DID go thru the process, wanting to come to America, that bad, to start a new life
-
Clearly, I don't support your version of "significantly relaxed restrictions"
I repeat: No one is saying we should have lots and lots of illegal immigration. If we significantly relaxed immigration restrictions and made immigrating here relatively easy, then the people coming in would be legal immigrants, and likely there would still be some illegal immigrants. Since you don't support significantly relaxed immigration restrictions and making immigrating here relatively easy, clearly the issue is immigration, not legal vs. illegal.
You haven't said anything that actually contradicts that.
-
No one said it was a closed border.
Your insinuation of how "difficult" it is, literally "preventing" an unskilled immigrant from coming to this country, is pretty transparent.
When get around to noting that I have never said anything about the border being closed, let me know. Better yet, let me know when you're through trying to insist I meant things I never said.
Been there, done that. Never said literally, merely the implication was transparent
-
The American People should have no say in this matter!
No one is arguing that. Nice strawman building skills though. If I ever need an archery target, I'll let you know.
-
Clearly, I don't support your version of "significantly relaxed restrictions"
I repeat: No one is saying we should have lots and lots of illegal immigration. If we significantly relaxed immigration restrictions and made immigrating here relatively easy, ....
And there in lies your problem. I don't support such. However since I don't agree with your version of "significantly relaxed", apparently that translates into me not wanting immigration to even occur, or that I'm against immigration because I make it so hard, despite my having made it clear I do, merely that it indeed should be arduous....BUT LEGAL
I see your point though, just make it so easy, that nearly everyone entering is "legal", problem solved. Problem is, it doesn't
-
However since I don't agree with your version of "significantly relaxed", apparently that translates into me not wanting immigration to even occur, or that I'm against immigration because I make it so hard
Not what I said. What I said was: "If we significantly relaxed immigration restrictions and made immigrating here relatively easy, then the people coming in would be legal immigrants, and likely there would still be some illegal immigrants. Since you don't support significantly relaxed immigration restrictions and making immigrating here relatively easy, clearly the issue is immigration, not legal vs. illegal." No part of that says or implies you do not want immigration to even occur.
I see your point though, just make it so easy, that nearly everyone entering is "legal", problem solved. Problem is, it doesn't
Thus the issue is immigration, not legal vs. illegal.
-
Never said literally, merely the implication was transparent
Ahem. Let me know when you're through trying to insist I meant things I never said.
-
Thus the issue is immigration, not legal vs. illegal.
The issue is two fold.
Immigration
and how to handle those who enter the country illegally.
-
I see your point though, just make it so easy, that nearly everyone entering is "legal", problem solved. Problem is, it doesn't
Thus the issue is immigration, not legal vs. illegal.
No, that still remains the issue. YOUR issue is this need to agree to your version of immigration & its "significantly relaxed" requirements, otherwise one apparently doesn't support immigration
I'll be waiting when you're ready to discuss restricting some of your significant relaxation mandates. Then we can address some of my willingness to lessen the current ones
-
really the issue is not the one's that are here...it sucks but they are here.
i would send 'em back, but realize thats not going to happen
wasted energy to fight that battle
the issue is once they do this bogus reform crap how do you keep millions more
from coming and becoming new "they're already heres"?
we've got in the vicinty of 35 million
do we stop at any freaking number?
60 million
100 million
200 million?
people living in squalor everywhere would love to come & trade squalor for a tiny apt here.
even if they cant find jobs here, "poor" here is better than poor most other places in the world
can we afford unlimited amounts of poor, educated, non-english speaking people flooding in?
the american people in almost all polls think there is a limit to how many we can take
they agree with me
the American People want limits on immigration, not make it easier.
i am just glad i wont be around to see the US as a 3rd World Country because of this insanity
-
The issue is two fold.
Immigration
and how to handle those who enter the country illegally.
Even if, for the sake of argument I accept that, you have to deal with the first before you can address the second.
-
YOUR issue is this need to agree to your version of immigration & its "significantly relaxed" requirements, otherwise one apparently doesn't support immigration
I've never said that. You're apparently unprepared to discuss what I have actually said.
I'll be waiting when you're ready to discuss restricting some of your significant relaxation mandates. Then we can address some of my willingness to lessen the current ones
You'll have to give me a good reason to change my position. I don't change my position just because you say I should. And so far, all I've seen from anyone is "They're going to ruin the country" fear mongering. That isn't a good reason to do anything.
-
Even if, for the sake of argument I accept that, you have to deal with the first before you can address the second.
No you don't.
-
Sorry Prince, not going to play that game of yours today
-
No you don't.
Yeah, you do.
I'm pretty sure you have to have immigration laws before you can have a problem with people breaking the immigration laws. And if the immigration laws are causing a bigger problem than they solve, merely dealing with illegal immigrants essentially isn't going to solve the problem. Maybe you aren't required by the laws of physics to address the immigration issue first, but if you do not deal with the immigration issue before you address the issue of people entering the country illegally, you're not dealing with the root issue. It's sort of like an angry parent trying to force a child to follow lots of very strict rules and then complaining that the child is always unhappy and disobedient. You can scapegoat the illegal immigrants all you like, but until you address the immigration issue, you're just wasting time while the problem gets worse.
-
Sorry Prince, not going to play that game of yours today
Yes, I understand. Coming up with good reasons to want to tightly control immigration is so hard.
-
I'm pretty sure you have to have immigration laws before you can have a problem with people breaking the immigration laws.
We have immigration laws, and we have a process to change them. In the meantime we have an illegals problem, who are entering the country illegally under current law.
What physics has to do with this, i do not know.
-
We have immigration laws, and we have a process to change them. In the meantime we have an illegals problem, who are entering the country illegally under current law.
Yes. So now I will repeat a question I posed earlier in the thread: When laws are unjust is the real problem the lawbreakers or the law?
What physics has to do with this, i do not know.
Don't be dense.
-
Should a person give the government a chance to approve or deny a visa?
Why should a government have any controll over who and what crosses its frontiers?
It's like no one ever remembers anything I say. As I have said before many times, I am fully in favor of government keeping known criminals and diseased people out of the country.
Not unless you are in favor all immagrants submitting a leagal application you are not.
If you don't favor giveing the government a chance to examine the record and health of all immagrants you are not in favor of excludeing the ones who won't submit themselves to examination.
-
Sorry Prince, not going to play that game of yours today
Yes, I understand. Coming up with good reasons to want to tightly control immigration is so hard.
Not the game I'm referring. But nice try
-
We have immigration laws, and we have a process to change them. In the meantime we have an illegals problem, who are entering the country illegally under current law.
Yes. So now I will repeat a question I posed earlier in the thread: When laws are unjust is the real problem the lawbreakers or the law?
That's based on your opinion of being unjust. Your say so, however doesn't make them so. That's why your question isn't addressed to your satisfaction, because those you argue with on this topic, have not accepted your position that they are unjust, in the 1st place. So, since the premice is already flawed, as it relates to immigration, you're never going to accept any answer.
But, if we want to address the question in a generic term, subtracting the immigration component, then you have to have a concensus that the law in question is unjust. And when they are, then yes, the probvlem is the law, & the formula is legislative change, not simply breaking them, because they've been deemed unjust by........X
-
JUSTICE BRENNAN'S FOOTNOTE
SAVE US ANCHOR BABIES
August 4, 2010
Democrats act as if the right to run across the border when you're 8 1/2 months pregnant, give birth in a U.S. hospital and then immediately start collecting welfare was exactly what our forebears had in mind, a sacred constitutional right, as old as the 14th Amendment itself.
The louder liberals talk about some ancient constitutional right, the surer you should be that it was invented in the last few decades.
In fact, this alleged right derives only from a footnote slyly slipped into a Supreme Court opinion by Justice Brennan in 1982. You might say it snuck in when no one was looking, and now we have to let it stay.
The 14th Amendment was added after the Civil War in order to overrule the Supreme Court's Dred Scott decision, which had held that black slaves were not citizens of the United States. The precise purpose of the amendment was to stop sleazy Southern states from denying citizenship rights to newly freed slaves -- many of whom had roots in this country longer than a lot of white people.
The amendment guaranteed that freed slaves would have all the privileges of citizenship by providing: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
The drafters of the 14th amendment had no intention of conferring citizenship on the children of aliens who happened to be born in the U.S. (For my younger readers, back in those days, people cleaned their own houses and raised their own kids.)
Inasmuch as America was not the massive welfare state operating as a magnet for malingerers, frauds and cheats that it is today, it's amazing the drafters even considered the amendment's effect on the children of aliens.
But they did.
The very author of the citizenship clause, Sen. Jacob Howard of Michigan, expressly said: "This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers."
In the 1884 case Elk v. Wilkins, the Supreme Court ruled that the 14th Amendment did not even confer citizenship on Indians -- because they were subject to tribal jurisdiction, not U.S. jurisdiction.
For a hundred years, that was how it stood, with only one case adding the caveat that children born to legal permanent residents of the U.S., gainfully employed, and who were not employed by a foreign government would also be deemed citizens under the 14th Amendment. (United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 1898.)
And then, out of the blue in 1982, Justice Brennan slipped a footnote into his 5-4 opinion in Plyler v. Doe, asserting that "no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment 'jurisdiction' can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful." (Other than the part about one being lawful and the other not.)
Brennan's authority for this lunatic statement was that it appeared in a 1912 book written by Clement L. Bouve. (Yes, the Clement L. Bouve -- the one you've heard so much about over the years.) Bouve was not a senator, not an elected official, certainly not a judge -- just some guy who wrote a book.
So on one hand we have the history, the objective, the author's intent and 100 years of history of the 14th Amendment, which says that the 14th Amendment does not confer citizenship on children born to illegal immigrants.
On the other hand, we have a random outburst by some guy named Clement -- who, I'm guessing, was too cheap to hire an American housekeeper.
Any half-wit, including Clement L. Bouve, could conjure up a raft of such "plausible distinction(s)" before breakfast. Among them: Legal immigrants have been checked for subversive ties, contagious diseases, and have some qualification to be here other than "lives within walking distance."
But most important, Americans have a right to decide, as the people of other countries do, who becomes a citizen.
Combine Justice Brennan's footnote with America's ludicrously generous welfare policies, and you end up with a bankrupt country.
Consider the story of one family of illegal immigrants described in the Spring 2005 Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons:
"Cristobal Silverio came illegally from Oxtotilan, Mexico, in 1997 and brought his wife Felipa, plus three children aged 19, 12 and 8. Felipa ... gave birth to a new daughter, her anchor baby, named Flor. Flor was premature, spent three months in the neonatal incubator, and cost San Joaquin Hospital more than $300,000. Meanwhile, (Felipa's 19-year-old daughter) Lourdes plus her illegal alien husband produced their own anchor baby, Esmeralda. Grandma Felipa created a second anchor baby, Cristian. ... The two Silverio anchor babies generate $1,000 per month in public welfare funding. Flor gets $600 per month for asthma. Healthy Cristian gets $400. Cristobal and Felipa last year earned $18,000 picking fruit. Flor and Cristian were paid $12,000 for being anchor babies."
In the Silverios' munificent new hometown of Stockton, Calif., 70 percent of the 2,300 babies born in 2003 in the San Joaquin General Hospital were anchor babies. As of this month, Stockton is $23 million in the hole.
It's bad enough to be governed by 5-4 decisions written by liberal judicial activists. In the case of "anchor babies," America is being governed by Brennan's 1982 footnote.
-
That's based on your opinion of being unjust.
Oh come on SIRS...lots of murders still happen even with the laws in place...
so golly gee our murder laws must be unjust! I mean think about all the costs
involved every year prosecuting and jailing murderers..in many ways enforcing
our murder laws "causes a bigger problem than they solve" because after-all the
murdered are already dead, so what are you solving with all the costs?
Yep....we need to change our murder laws because they are "unjust"! ::)
ps: the problem is not that our immigration laws are unjust, it's that they
are not enforced...and thats because of an agenda of wanting to change
our country and you cant do it until you get tens of millions of new voters
with zero experience in the American Tradition to run in and change the
whole face of the county in a generation or two. they couldnt do it
at the ballot box...so they are going to get new people to help them
stuff the ballot box so they can carry out their agenda.
-
You know Cu4, it is interesting when this topic comes up and Prince is involved. It's always spirited, passionate, and substantive. I've come to respect Prince, on so many issues, this one included. That said, it is truely engrossing to watch the back & forth. For instance, Prince never said folks like ourselves are for closed borders, yet he opines "the policy you support would keep the vast majority of them out because they are poor and/or "unskilled". And a great many of those people who do manage to make it through the process still have to wait years if not decades. And those are the ones who can afford not only the immigration fees but the legal fees necessary for navigating the labyrinthine red tape."
But no, that's not a policy of a closed border, and since we're not allowed to infer a shorterned version from what he has opined, it's apparently a policy keeping the vast majority of them out because they are poor and/or "unskilled". And a great many of those people who do manage to make it through the process still have to wait years if not decades." Because that's apparently what we want......to keep the vast majority of them out, because we apparently only want the few skilled ones in. That's what you want, right?
But its not a closed border
-
Exactly right SIRS. The US is the last country that will ever have closed borders.
We just don't want tens and tens of millions of people flooding in here legal
or not in too short of period of time. As far as UP I think he is very bright,
but I find him very difficult to communicate with...so thats why I stopped.
I had to give up because it always seemed to me that nothing could be a
"given" with him...the discussion always leads to some off topic tangent
defining words or "he said/she said" non-sense that doesn't amount to a hill
hill of beans in regard to the primary topic....it seems to me it always ends
up being a "define is" situation. But I admire your patience with him and enjoy
ya'lls back and forth discussions. Even-though I watch him try your pateince too.
("Sorry Prince, not going to play that game of yours today")
I think he and I would be fine in person. I am glad UP sticks around because
although I gave up communicating directly with him, I still learn things from him
and many times enjoy his thoughts and posts.
-
As I have said before many times, I am fully in favor of government keeping known criminals and diseased people out of the country.
Not unless you are in favor all immagrants submitting a leagal application you are not.
If you don't favor giveing the government a chance to examine the record and health of all immagrants you are not in favor of excludeing the ones who won't submit themselves to examination.
Have I said I am not in favor of immigrants filling out paperwork or submitting applications? Have I said I am against giving government a change to check the records and health of those who wish to enter the country? No. So why would you assume such was my position?
-
That's based on your opinion of being unjust. Your say so, however doesn't make them so. That's why your question isn't addressed to your satisfaction, because those you argue with on this topic, have not accepted your position that they are unjust, in the 1st place. So, since the premice is already flawed, as it relates to immigration, you're never going to accept any answer.
My premise isn't flawed because you don't accept it. And I have yet to see an argument as to why the current immigration laws are just. So far all anyone seems to be able to muster up is that the law should be obeyed because it's the law. But that simply is not good enough. ("I would agree with St. Augustine that 'an unjust law is no law at all.' (http://abacus.bates.edu/admin/offices/dos/mlk/letter.html)")
But, if we want to address the question in a generic term, subtracting the immigration component, then you have to have a concensus that the law in question is unjust.
I was not aware just and unjust were matters of popular opinion. You seem to have a strange and troubling notion of what makes something just or unjust.
And when they are, then yes, the probvlem is the law, & the formula is legislative change, not simply breaking them, because they've been deemed unjust by........X
As I said before, I cannot blame them for breaking the law any more than I could have blamed a thirsty black man drinking from a "whites only" water fountain in the 1950s.
-
Oh come on SIRS...lots of murders still happen even with the laws in place...
so golly gee our murder laws must be unjust!
That is a totally bogus argument. For one, no one said immigration law is unjust because people disobey it. For another, crossing the border is not a violation of a individual rights, but murder is. Equating the two is misleading and intellectually irresponsible.
-
But no, that's not a policy of a closed border,
No, it isn't. It's a policy of strictly controlled immigration. If I had meant to say it was a policy of a closed border, I would have said so. And I would have been wrong. So since that would have been wrong and since I didn't mean to say it was a policy of a closed border, I therefore did not say that. Come on, guys. This ain't rocket science.
-
The US is the last country that will ever have closed borders.
Good thing then no one here said the U.S. has closed borders, i'n'it?
-
The number of illegal immigrants attempting to come into the United States has continuously increased. In addition, the number of legal immigrants admitted into the country has reached new highs. It is estimated that legal immigration in the 1990s surpassed the levels of the last previous peak of legal immigration from 1901 to 1910. During that time period nearly 9 million legal immigrants were allowed into the United States. From the period of 1968 to 1993, it is estimated that 16.7 million immigrants entered the country legally. Of these 16.7 million legal immigrants, nearly 85% were from developing countries. This percentage is composed of nearly 50% legal immigrants that came from the Caribbean and Latin America and about a third that came from Asia. Throughout the 1980s and 1990s some illegal immigrants in the U.S. have benefited from immigration policies that have granted amnesty, created a system for refugees, and have raised the quotas for the number of legal immigrants allowed. The number of legal immigrants allowed is anywhere from 700,000 to 900,000 on an annual basis.
http://www.usimmigrationsupport.org/immigration-us.html (http://www.usimmigrationsupport.org/immigration-us.html)
Colored drinking fountain, my ass.
-
Colored drinking fountain, my ass.
No thanks.
In any case, that the number of immigrants has increased overall (and is now in decline actually) does nothing to address the nature of the law or the fact that many people still end up waiting years for permission to enter legally. Just as the number of black people in the U.S. has and had nothing to do with the fact that racial segregation laws were unjust.
-
The US legally admits just 5000 unskilled laborers annually. All those who apply must pay fees to apply, and if they are rejected, the fees are not returned. If they reapply, they must pay again. So, if one is an unskilled laborer seeking quick admission to the US, jumping the fence would seem to be the logical way to go.
At least when dodging the Migra, one is in control. One has no control over paper pushers at the consulate.
If one has skills, then that improves one's chances. Experience at teaching Arabic or Chinese or some other language to English speakers would be a useful talent, I would think.A degree in medicine or engineering would be a major help. And of course, if one has loads of money, that is best of all. Rupert Murdock and his Chinese wife had no difficulty whatever, despite their well-earned reputations as a sleazebag and a golddigger, respectively. Rupert's $4 billion made them infinitely desirable, apparently
-
85% of immigrants are from developing countries. 50 % are from the Caribbean and Latin America. 25% from Asia.
The claims that immigration laws are racist or that they are akin to segregation laws or that the demand that laws on the books be enforced is de facto proof of racism is just pure bullshit.
-
Most of those who are rejected for visas are from poor countries, and most of those who are rejected are unskilled workers. Immigration probably would treat an unskilled Mexican bean farmer and an unskilled Indian rickshaw driver the same way. The thing is, the rickshaw driver does not apply, nor does he have any way to even get to the border, since there is a large ocean between Calcutta and the California border.
As I said, the US admits only 5000 unskilled workers per year. The US discriminates against unskilled workers and in favor of billionaires and their wives. This certainly bnefits the country more than if it were the other way around.
The US does not get many German, Swedish, Japanese or Australian unskilled workers to apply. Maybe it gets none. Most workers from those countries have graduated from at least vocational schools, after all.
So when the US rejects 10,000 unskilled Mexicans and only 12 unskilled Swedes, it is functionally racist, but not intentionally so.
-
The claims that immigration laws are racist [...] or that the demand that laws on the books be enforced is de facto proof of racism is just pure bullshit.
You're right. Having laws about immigration is not inherently racist. No one said it was. That does not mean, however, the support for the current system and/or for strictly enforced, highly restrictive immigration law isn't largely motivated by irrational prejudice and/or fear. It also does not mean current U.S. immigration law is just.
or that they are akin to segregation laws
From my perspective, that is sort of like saying there is nothing discriminatory about "separate but equal".
And I find interesting that so far no one is producing any arguments that the current law is just. At best I've seen an effort to say that supporting the current system isn't racist and an effort to equate illegal immigration with murder. Step up your game, fellas.
-
You're right. Having laws about immigration is not inherently racist. No one said it was. That does not mean, however, the support for the current system and/or for strictly enforced, highly restrictive immigration law isn't largely motivated by irrational prejudice and/or fear.
And we know this to be true because.... you say it is true?
But at the same time you have laws on the books that are not inherently racist, wishing for enforcement of those laws is motivated by racism (irrational prejudice and/or fear).
Resolved: Anyone in this country illegally should be deported.
I don't see how that can be deemed racist.
Resolved: illegal Mexican immigrants should be deported. I can see how that would target one group and not the other and under the loose definition of racism be deemed racist.
Resolved: Illegal Mexican immigrants should not be deported.
I can see how that would treat one group differently than another and unbder the loose definition of racism be deemed racist.
Resolved: No one in this country illegally should be deported.
I don't see how that can be deemed racist.
But i do see how that would be contrary to the nation of laws meme.
-
As I have said before many times, I am fully in favor of government keeping known criminals and diseased people out of the country.
Not unless you are in favor all immagrants submitting a leagal application you are not.
If you don't favor giveing the government a chance to examine the record and health of all immagrants you are not in favor of excludeing the ones who won't submit themselves to examination.
Have I said I am not in favor of immigrants filling out paperwork or submitting applications? Have I said I am against giving government a change to check the records and health of those who wish to enter the country? No. So why would you assume such was my position?
So you want the restrictions against border crossing without official permissions to be strictly enforced?
Without a good fence submitting application becomes ,practicly, optional.
-
Resolved: My discussing anything here has devolved into a matter of constantly having to correct people about what I said. If I were to say "the sun rises in the east," someone would surely try to insist I meant that the west is forever in the dark. If I were to say "selling raw milk should not be against the law," someone would eventually draw a comparison between allowing the sale of raw milk and allowing murder. If I were to say someone supports strictly restricting and controlling immigration, someone would try to claim what I really meant is that he wants a closed border.
I'm not saying anyone should make things easy for me. I just wish you all would give me credit for saying what I actually said, rather than this "must read between the lines" nonsense where you infer anything you goddamn please, and then assume and assert that I secretly meant to say whatever inference you have imagined.
I am not talking in code. I am not being obscure or esoteric or obfuscatory or enigmatic. I am (most of the time) trying to be tactful and polite (as best my limited skills in such things allow), but I am not hiding any secret meanings, insults, messages, accusations or codes in my sentences.
I am, however, getting really tired of having to correct people in every post.
For example, BT seems to think what I really meant was "But at the same time you have laws on the books that are not inherently racist, wishing for enforcement of those laws is motivated by racism (irrational prejudice and/or fear)." That is clearly not what I said. You have to really be trying to force your inferred meaning into my sentences to think that I said something like that.
Why should I bother explaining myself when anything I say is going to be only further fodder for this sort of thing? What is the point? You are not really paying attention to what I say because you're so goddamned busy trying to force my words into some preconceived notion of whatever the frak you think it is you think you're arguing against.
BT said, "the demand that laws on the books be enforced is de facto proof of racism is just pure bullshit." In my reply, the first thing I said was "You're right." That is a statement of agreement with BT's assertion that supporting the enforcement of the laws on the book is not racism. I also said, "That does not mean, however, the support for the current system and/or for strictly enforced, highly restrictive immigration law isn't largely motivated by irrational prejudice and/or fear." Going by BT's reply to that, he certainly seems to think my agreement with his statement is a lie. He equated "irrational prejudice and/or fear" with racism. If I had intended to express that it was racism, I would have said "racism". But that is not what I said. And racism is not the only form of irrational prejudice or irrational fear. And a lack of racism does not mean a lack of irrational prejudice. But BT apparently assumes that I cannot have meant anything other than racism.
How am I supposed to engage in a discussion with someone who seems to assume what I mean before I've even said it? Apparently, I don't ever need to say anything here. You all seem very willing and able to assume you know what I "really" mean, and so you argue against that rather than what I say. There are times when I wonder if some of the replies I get are meant for someone else because they seem so completely unrelated to what I said. CU4LG complains that discussing things with me is too difficult because I insist on trying to clearly pin down definitions of terms used. How can I not so insist when this sort thing goes on all the time?
Not that long ago, BT expressed a desire to improve the quality of posts here "by encouraging those who post on the issues and discouraging those who post on personalities." That is certainly a good idea. I submit that another thing to be done to improve the quality of posts, and discussions, here would be to encourage not assuming constantly that the other person is trying to sneak in hidden meanings in his statements. You know, a little trust that the other person meant to say what he said rather whatever you think he might mean. BT also expressed a desire to rebuild a sense of community here. I submit that a little more trust and a lot less of the "must read between the lines" would go along way towards that goal. There is a time to read between the lines, and there is a time to grasp that one's debate opponent is not a sneaky bastard trying to pull one over on you or secretly insult you in front of everyone.
-
So you want the restrictions against border crossing without official permissions to be strictly enforced?
What I want is for restrictions to be reduced to a just and reasonable level so that enforcing them is just, reasonable and manageable. None of which is currently the case.
Without a good fence submitting application becomes ,practicly, optional.
If you make immigration simple and relatively easy with a relatively short waiting time, most of the folks will enter legally rather than break the law and/or risk death by crossing the desert and climbing or cutting fences. So I suggest that without good immigration law, you get what we have now, a fence and border enforcement that are practically useless.
-
Racism is often the end result of irrational prejudice and/ or fear.
Perhaps in the context of immigration specifically from the southern borders you could explain how these irrational prejudices and or fears would produce a different result. What specific irrational prejudices and fears are you referring to?
-
So you want the restrictions against border crossing without official permissions to be strictly enforced?
What I want is for restrictions to be reduced to a just and reasonable level so that enforcing them is just, reasonable and manageable. None of which is currently the case.
On these points I have total agreement with you . I am .... dissapointed.
Without a good fence submitting application becomes ,practicly, optional.
If you make immigration simple and relatively easy with a relatively short waiting time, most of the folks will enter legally rather than break the law and/or risk death by crossing the desert and climbing or cutting fences. So I suggest that without good immigration law, you get what we have now, a fence and border enforcement that are practically useless.
Ahhhh disagreement at last.
I see your understanding to be understanding only half of the situation , the reciprocal of your position is also true.
If we restrict any sort of person or comodity even if only mildly , the restricted element will migrate through any chink in the fence.
Allowing more of the innocent and harmless to cross unimpeded would cause little harm in my opinion.If we only restrict violent criminals and infernal devices of the worst sort , then only the worst sort will cross the remote desert by night. So I certaily see room for improvement , but this improvement will have to include stronger barriers.
-
(http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/mrz080910dAPR20100807124638.jpg)
-
LOL....good one SIRS....if it wasn't soooooooooo sad!
-
Indeed. Also sad, is that any changing of the Constitution, especially on an issue as contentious as this, hasn't a snowball's chance in hell, to occur. It's largely empty rhetoric, merely playing to the base, come election time :-\
-
This is exactly what is going on here: the Republicans have no issues, so they invent this crap about changing the Constitution. This is like the proposed bogus amendment on flag-burning and Olebush visiting flag factories. Pure propaganda & rightwing crap.
-
Not quite, but thanks for the input
-
I see your understanding to be understanding only half of the situation , the reciprocal of your position is also true.
If we restrict any sort of person or comodity even if only mildly , the restricted element will migrate through any chink in the fence.
How, exactly, is that the reciprocal of my position? I ask because it sounds rather like my position. Which makes me wonder if you're paying attention.
-
Racism is often the end result of irrational prejudice and/ or fear.
Perhaps in the context of immigration specifically from the southern borders you could explain how these irrational prejudices and or fears would produce a different result. What specific irrational prejudices and fears are you referring to?
Perhaps I could, but I'm not sure why I should. I am not eager to start "no, that is not what I said" cycle all over again.
-
Perhaps I could, but I'm not sure why I should. I am not eager to start "no, that is not what I said" cycle all over again.
hmmm
-
Your reply doesn't really fill me with confidence, BT. Oh well. This place seems little good beyond frustration these days anyway. Let me know when you get that whole sense of community thing going.
-
Your reply doesn't really fill me with confidence, BT. Oh well. This place seems little good beyond frustration these days anyway. Let me know when you get that whole sense of community thing going.
Actually I'm leaning towards:
1. Pulling the plug on it or
2. Transferring responsibility of the site(s) to someone else. or
3. Repurposing, redesigning and rethinking the flow,format and focus of the site.
Be sure to check in occasionally to see which way it goes.
-
:-\
-
I see your understanding to be understanding only half of the situation , the reciprocal of your position is also true.
If we restrict any sort of person or comodity even if only mildly , the restricted element will migrate through any chink in the fence.
How, exactly, is that the reciprocal of my position? I ask because it sounds rather like my position. Which makes me wonder if you're paying attention.
How frustrating that you adn I have written so much and made clear so little.
What would you really want to change?