American Politics during the Obama Presidency

[url]http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thelookout/14-states-may-target-birthright-citizenship[/url]

Mongers-

I just encountered this article on yahoo news concerning the status of children born to illegal immigrants in the United States. My opinion on this matter is that it is about time that some level of government do something to deal with this clearly out of control situation. Children born to LEGAL immigrants, meaning those holding permanent residency papers should automatically be granted birthright citizenship. Children born to ILLEGAL immigrants or visitors temporarily in the United States on either tourist, work or other non-immigrant visas should absolutely not be given birthright citizenship. If I had just happened to be born in Switzerland while my parents just happened to be working there I would NOT have been granted citizenship. In addition, when foreigners enter US medical facilities they should be required to demonstrate their legal presence in the country (entry stamp on passport, green card, copy of student, work, or other visa etc) OR face automatic arrest and deportation AFTER medical services are administered. In addition, in order to attend public schools, proof of LEGAL residency for non-US citizens should be required. These measures would lessen the incentive for potential illegal immigrants to live, work, and have families in the United States illegally. If the US government were to give amnesty and automatic permanent residency to any illegal immigrants currently in the national territory provided they present proper identity documents and can pass a criminal background check in their home country as well as the USA I would not have a problem with that. But the line has to be drawn somewhere.

Suerte,

Rock Harders

No. Just No.

Completely Unconstitutional and inhumane. The same will happen to this piece of shit " initiative " that happened to Arizona's other failed initiatives. Trust.

[QUOTE=BadMan; 414868]No. Just No.

Completely Unconstitutional and inhumane. The same will happen to this piece of shit " initiative " that happened to Arizona's other failed initiatives. Trust. [/QUOTE]The 11th amendment originally was applied to freed slaves and denied indians (because they owed allegiance to their tribe) and anyone owing full allegiance to another state (I. E. The country you are legally from) citizenship. Read the federalist papers or the writings of the senators that wrote the amendment. They never intended citizenship to be bestowed on anyone because they were born in the country. Jefferson and other founding fathers considered this a carryover from british law that weakened the democratic process.

Balayover, you don't get what Bad Man's saying.

He means that it is "completely Unconstitutional and inhumane" for Arizona to [u]enforce Federal immigration law[/u] on undocumented Democrats.

[QUOTE=Westy; 414879]Balayover, you don't get what Bad Man's saying.

He means that it is "completely Unconstitutional and inhumane" for Arizona to [u]enforce Federal immigration law[/u] On undocumented Democrats. [/QUOTE]I'd like for him to tell us just what makes it unconstitutional, what Supreme Court ruling is he basing his opinion on? Does he practice constitutional law? The being 'inhumane' part is just left wing BS.

I believe Balayover's remarks are based on history and not just opinion.

The best way to deal with the problem is to seal our borders, we can and should do it. We spend who knows how much to protect the borders of other countries but we ignore our own.

RH We tried amnesty in the past, it didn't work then and I see no reason to think it would work now. What would be the benefit other than more 'documented Democrats'?

[QUOTE=Punter 127; 414882]I'd like for him to tell us just what makes it unconstitutional, what Supreme Court ruling is he basing his opinion on? Does he practice constitutional law? The being 'inhumane' part is just left wing BS.

I believe Balayover's remarks are based on history and not just opinion.

The best way to deal with the problem is to seal our borders, we can and should do it. We spend who knows how much to protect the borders of other countries but we ignore our own.

RH We tried amnesty in the past, it didn't work then and I see no reason to think it would work now. What would be the benefit other than more 'documented Democrats'?[/QUOTE]If he meant that it's unconstitutional for a state to try to enforce [i]federal law[/i], then that would be correct. But, it's not unconstitutional for a state to enforce it's own laws unless: (a) its own laws [b]conflict[/b] With a federal law, including the Constitution; or (b) the federal government has "occupied the field" such that no state laws in an area are permitted.

I agree that the "inhumane" stuff is left-wing drivel. But, it's unlikely a state could pass a law that eliminates citizenship for anyone born on USA soil, especially since the citizenship being denied would be that of the United States, not that of a particular state. More likely, some federal court will have to opine whether this is truly the law under the Constitution. If not, then the issue would be ripe for Congress. To my knowledge, the issue hasn't been directly addressed by the Supreme Court under federal law, but I may be wrong about that.

[QUOTE=Rock Harders;414867]If the US government were to give amnesty and automatic permanent residency to any illegal immigrants currently in the national territory provided they present proper identity documents and can pass a criminal background check in their home country as well as the USA I would not have a problem with that. But the line has to be drawn somewhere.[/QUOTE]That was the Democrat's pitch in the same debate 20 years ago during the Clinton administration: Amnesty for 3 million undocumented Democrats currently in the country, in conjunction with a pledge to secure our borders. Unfortunately, the Dems later abandoned their promise to authorize the necessary funds to actually secure the border, and thus the Clinton amnesty only served to encourage the subsequent invasion of an additional 12 million undocumented Democrats, which is where we find ourselves today.

BTW, the Clinton administration's amnesty for 3 million undocumented Democrats is what tilted California into becoming a permanent blue state, and of course exacerbated the state's current slide into bankruptcy.

Anyway, this time, I'm not buying it. Secure the borders FIRST!

I will add, in light of Harry Reid's failed attempt to pass the "Dream Act", that in my opinion, any foreign national who volunteers to join our military and successfully serves a 2 year deployment in a combat zone has earned and should be granted a USA citizenship.

(Actually, the Dream Act didn't really fail, because Reid's last minute promise to [strike]Arizona's[/strike] Nevada's hispanic voters to bring it up for a vote is what secured his re-election.)

Thanks,

Jackson

Jackson-

I don't think Harry Reid gives a rat's ass about what Arizona's Latino voters think since he is only voted for / against by the registered voters of Nevada. Your boy John "hard on for Sarah Palin" McCain was the senator elected this past November from the state of Arizona. Moving on, I would love to hear you or anyone else's plan to round up and deport 11 million illegal aliens. In addition, where would the funding come from to conduct such an expensive and logistically challenging operation? I do not believe that amnesty for qualified illegals is the right thing to do on any humanitarian or sympathetic grounds; granting residency is the only pragmatic approach. Charging qualifying illegal aliens a $3000 USD fee to acquire a green card would more than fund the regularization program and I bet that a very high percentage of qualified illegal aliens would participate in the program. Also, the additional tax revenue in the form of income and payroll taxes collected from the previously non-paying illegal workers would make at least some dent in state and federal budget deficits.

After a regularization program is conducted, then the stringent enforcement of immigration law can actually begin from a practical standpoint, as mentioned in my previous post. If new arriving illegals simply are unable to find work and access government services they will be less likely to come. But the 11 million illegals currently living and working in the US need to be regularized first.

Suerte,

Rock Harders

Sorry, didn't mean to interrupt the frat room chat on illegal immigration (damm, who'll do my tile work?) but this post is for all of us who nearly forgot.
See pic.

[QUOTE=Moveon; 414899]Sorry, didn't mean to interrupt the frat room chat on illegal immigration (damm, who'll do my tile work?) but this post is for all of us who nearly forgot.

See pic. [/QUOTE]How many individual votes the president gets is irrelevant. We have a representative democracy. The founding fathers realized a democracy based on individual votes would not last.

[QUOTE=Rock Harders;414895]I don't think Harry Reid gives a rat's ass about what Arizona's Latino voters think since he is only voted for / against by the registered voters of Nevada.[/QUOTE]Obviously, I mis-wrote.

Thanks,

Jackson

[QUOTE=Moveon;414899]Damm, who'll do my tile work?[/QUOTE]The answer: Legal immigrants who are in the USA on a Guest Worker program.

Thanks,

Jackson

[QUOTE=Rock Harders; 414895]Moving on, I would love to hear you or anyone else's plan to round up and deport 11 million illegal aliens. In addition, where would the funding come from to conduct such an expensive and logistically challenging operation? I do not believe that amnesty for qualified illegals is the right thing to do on any humanitarian or sympathetic grounds; granting residency is the only pragmatic approach. Charging qualifying illegal aliens a $3000 USD fee to acquire a green card would more than fund the regularization program and I bet that a very high percentage of qualified illegal aliens would participate in the program. Also, the additional tax revenue in the form of income and payroll taxes collected from the previously non-paying illegal workers would make at least some dent in state and federal budget deficits.

After a regularization program is conducted, then the stringent enforcement of immigration law can actually begin from a practical standpoint, as mentioned in my previous post. If new arriving illegals simply are unable to find work and access government services they will be less likely to come. But the 11 million illegals currently living and working in the US need to be regularized first.

Suerte,

Rock Harders[/QUOTE]Rock,

You're right, I agree. But this time, I'd like to see the border secured [U]FIRST[/U]. If we grant [U]another[/U] amnesty now without securing the border, 20 years from now we'll be discussing what to do about the 22 million [U]additional[/U] undocumented Democrats in the country.

Thanks,

Jackson

It's the 14th Amendment which deals with birth citizenship not the 11th. Here is the actual amendment as written in 1868 – as one of the 'Reconstruction Amendments' enacted after the Civil War. Section 1 is the part in question regarding 'birth citizenship'

'Section 1. 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. '

That notwithstanding, we should follow the precedent set by every other country in the world, being born within their borders to non-citizen parents does not confer citizenship upon the child, rather the child is a citizen of the country of its parents. In our case the child would be a citizen of Mexico, et. Al.

The amnesty route has been tried at least twice in my lifetime, once by Reagan and once by Clinton, and both have had the effect of only exacerbating the problem of illegal immigrants / aliens. Time to secure the borders and remove the illegal immigrants who are here and no I don't mean all at once, it will have to be a gradual removal by the current means used today. To increase the rapidity of their departure cut off jobs, healthcare, education, and all social support from City, State, and Federal entities.

If you cut it off they will leave.

Jackson-

If you deem it necessary to "secure" the border first, just exactly where will the funds come from to recruit, train, equip and pay all the new border patrol agents that would be necessary to seal the border. The federal government and most state governments are broke. Pragmatically, initiating a regularization program for the qualified illegals FIRST would provide a source of funding to then "secure" the border. However, in my opinion,"securing" the border would be about as successful as the DEA is at "stopping" drugs from entering the national territory. The most effective way to control illegal immigration is to make the employment market and access to social / government services almost completely impenetrable to illegal aliens, which would provide a major deterrent to prospective illegal immigrants. Implementing such a system with the current presence of 11 million illegals aliens with no way to become regularized would be logistically impossible.

Suerte,

Rock Harders