American Politics during the Obama Presidency

[QUOTE=Rock Harders; 414914]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. [/QUOTE]There's a pretty basic solution. It wouldn't necessarily be cheap, but it would be viable: We're going to have hundreds of thousands of troops returning home over the next couple of years into the worst job market in decades. You wouldn't need to allocate all of them to the task of helping to secure the borders, but you certainly could allocate some. Unlike the misguided stimulus money they've already spent or allocated, funds "earmarked" for this could actually accomplish something IF the Feds could stick to a cohesive, coherent program of Immigration control and enforcement.

Personally, I'm not much of an immigration hawk, and I don't ascribe that many problems to illegal immigrants. The vast, vast majority of the USA's problems are of its own making, excluding lax immigration standards and enforcement, in my opinion. But, if you want to begin addressing that problem, we'll have a ready and willing labor pool over the next few years, and it would cost much less than funds allocated to these same troops abroad.

Finally, in terms of citizenship by birth, the cut and paste of the 14th Amendment makes the issue pretty plain: "All persons [i]born[/i] Or naturalized in the United States. . . Are [i]citizens[/i] Of the United States. .."

The folks who sponsored this Amendment may not have contemplated tens of thousands of people trying to sneak across the border to deposit a newborn on this soil. But, the Amendment itself it pretty unambiguous and the original intent is pretty clear: If you're born here, you're a citizen. If anyone wants to change that, it will have to be done via a new Amendment, in my opinion.

LOL.

Nice try though.

[QUOTE=Balayover;414869]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.[/QUOTE][QUOTE=Stan the Man; 414919]Finally, in terms of citizenship by birth, the cut and paste of the 14th Amendment makes the issue pretty plain: "All persons [i]born[/i] Or naturalized in the United States. . . Are [i]citizens[/i] Of the United States.."

The folks who sponsored this Amendment may not have contemplated tens of thousands of people trying to sneak across the border to deposit a newborn on this soil. But, the Amendment itself it pretty unambiguous and the original intent is pretty clear: If you're born here, you're a citizen. If anyone wants to change that, it will have to be done via a new Amendment, in my opinion. [/QUOTE]

How to pay for securing the border is pretty simple, cut off all funding for education, healthcare, welfare and any other payment to illegals by City, State or Federal governments. Hell the saving from healthcare alone will probably cover the cost.

Time to be like every other country on earth, being born within a country's borders to non- citizen parents of said country does not confer citizenship upon the child, rather the child is a citizen of the country of its parents, in our case Mexico et al

[QUOTE=Stan the Man; 414919]There's a pretty basic solution. It wouldn't necessarily be cheap, but it would be viable: We're going to have hundreds of thousands of troops returning home over the next couple of years into the worst job market in decades. You wouldn't need to allocate all of them to the task of helping to secure the borders, but you certainly could allocate some. Unlike the misguided stimulus money they've already spent or allocated, funds "earmarked" for this could actually accomplish something IF the Feds could stick to a cohesive, coherent program of Immigration control and enforcement.

Personally, I'm not much of an immigration hawk, and I don't ascribe that many problems to illegal immigrants. The vast, vast majority of the USA's problems are of its own making, excluding lax immigration standards and enforcement, in my opinion. But, if you want to begin addressing that problem, we'll have a ready and willing labor pool over the next few years, and it would cost much less than funds allocated to these same troops abroad.

Finally, in terms of citizenship by birth, the cut and paste of the 14th Amendment makes the issue pretty plain: "All persons [i]born[/i] or naturalized in the United States. . . Are [i]citizens[/i] Of the United States.."

The folks who sponsored this Amendment may not have contemplated tens of thousands of people trying to sneak across the border to deposit a newborn on this soil. But, the Amendment itself it pretty unambiguous and the original intent is pretty clear: If you're born here, you're a citizen. If anyone wants to change that, it will have to be done via a new Amendment, in my opinion.[/QUOTE]Sorry. Read the entire sentence. The perfunctory clause "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof " was put there for a reason. Jurisdiction meant EXCLUSIVE allegiance to the United States. Senator Howard, the author of the 14th Amendment said " will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, etc". The Civil Rights Act of 1866 asserted " all persons born in the USA AND NOT SUBJECT TO ANY FOREIGN POWER, are declared to be citizens." Since illegal aliens owe no allegiance to the USA and are subject to a foreign power (i.e. their country)they would not be citizens. (Heritage Guide to the Constitution)

[QUOTE=Balayover;414925]The perfunctory clause "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof " was put there for a reason. Jurisdiction meant EXCLUSIVE allegiance to the united states. [/QUOTE]Find me the dictionary where jurisdiction is defined that way. I'm sorry, but that's just not so. In its most basic sense, jurisdiction means subject to the law and rules of a particular government. As an example, Julian Assange is outside the USA's jurisdiction. If he did what he did while on US soil, however, he would be within our jurisdiction, regardless of whether he's an Australian citizen, just as Sweden asserts he is subject to their jurisdiction for conduct that occurred while on their soil. When here, jurisdiction would certainly apply to the newly born, as well as to their parents while on USA soil, unless they're diplomats and enjoy diplomatic immunity.

Finally, the idea that the original drafters of the 14th Amendment may have expressed their private intention differently makes a little difference, but not much. The rules of statutory construction are well-established: When something's clear on its face, you look no further than the text. Even when it's not clear on its face, a preparer's private or public remarks about meaning are unlikely to carry much weight since those who voted to ratify an Amendment likely did not know what these separate thoughts were. Instead, they voted on the actual language in the Amendment, not on the separate remarks.

[QUOTE=Stan the Man; 414928]Find me the dictionary where jurisdiction is defined that way. I'm sorry, but that's just not so. In its most basic sense, jurisdiction means subject to the law and rules of a particular government. As an example, Julian Assange is outside the USA's jurisdiction. If he did what he did while on US soil, however, he would be within our jurisdiction, regardless of whether he's an Australian citizen, just as Sweden asserts he is subject to their jurisdiction for conduct that occurred while on their soil. When here, jurisdiction would certainly apply to the newly born, as well as to their parents while on USA soil, unless they're diplomats and enjoy diplomatic immunity.

Finally, the idea that the original drafters of the 14th Amendment may have expressed their private intention differently makes a little difference, but not much. The rules of statutory construction are well-established: When something's clear on its face, you look no further than the text. Even when it's not clear on its face, a preparer's private or public remarks about meaning are unlikely to carry much weight since those who voted to ratify an Amendment likely did not know what these separate thoughts were. Instead, they voted on the actual language in the Amendment, not on the separate remarks.[/QUOTE]Read Elk vs Wilkins 1884. the amendment was used to ensure freed slaves would be citizens of their states and federal citizens. This is a direct quote from the Civil Rights Act. explain what the wording of the law means when it says "not subject to any foreign power."

I would have to agree with Rock's assessment with regards to the best way to curb the illegal immigration problem in the USA.

[quote]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. [/quote]While the border fence is a nice idea, I believe it is realistically unfeasible over such a large expanse of remote land. The costs are ridiculous and the corruption that has already occurred during the building of its current length is high. It is illogical to take on such a cost at this point in time. Moreover, it has been shown time and time again throughout history that a willing individual can evade border fences.

Securing the illegal labor market has the several benefits including; making illegal immigration much less desirable, lowering domestic unemployment, and raising funds for our immigration services by fining offending employers. Limiting access to governmental services would also have a profound effect, potentially making emigrating to the USA worse than living in one's country of origin, if all services were withheld. Although I believe the chances of that happening is slim, it is definitely something to explore in differing degrees of severity.

Honestly, I've always found it suspicious that most groups fail to include employment enforcement when discussing their illegal immigration positions (with the exception of organized labor {sorry, El Alamo}).

My Brother is stuck in the Korean War. 120 miles to keep out the enemy.

Mexico and USA is what 1500 miles.

You guys most likely do not likely walk more two miles a day.

[QUOTE=Guestrex;414933]Honestly, I've always found it suspicious that most groups fail to include employment enforcement when discussing their illegal immigration positions (with the exception of organized labor).[/QUOTE]While I agree with 90% of the deterrence ideas that Rock has suggested, I don't think it's fair to turn the country's business owners into immigration enforcement agents and then punish them if they don't perform the job perfectly, when in fact it is the responsibility of the Federal Government to stop the illegal immigrants from entering the country in the first place.

What's next? Arrest property owners who rent houses to illegal immigrants? Arrest grocery store owners who sell food to illegal immigrants? Arrest bank clerks who help illegal immigrants transfer money? Perhaps we can arrest home owners who happen to hire an illegal immigrant to cut their lawn?

This is a law enforcement issue which should be enforced by government officials, not private citizens.

Thanks,

Jackson

BTW, of course the unions want "employment enforcement" because they see illegal immigrants as taking jobs away from union members and because unions are predisposed to burden business owners with whatever mandates they can envision.

[quote=-Guestrex]While the border fence is a nice idea, I believe it is realistically unfeasible over such a large expanse of remote land.[/quote]

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69; 414935]My Brother is stuck in the Korean War. 120 miles to keep out the enemy.

Mexico and USA is what 1500 miles.

You guys most likely do not likely walk more two miles a day.[/QUOTE]We built a 50,000 mile interstate highway system reaching every part of the country, thus I am confident that we can build a 3,000 mile fence.

[quote=-Guestrex]Moreover, it has been shown time and time again throughout history that a willing individual can evade border fences.[/quote]So to extend that logic, nobody should build fences anywhere because "[i]a willing individual can evade[/i]" fences, and we shouldn't build border stations because "[i]a willing individual can evade[/i]" border stations, and we shouldn't build airport security checkpoints because "[i]a willing individual can evade[/i]" airport security checkpoints , and...

[quote=-Guestrex]The costs are ridiculous and the corruption that has already occurred during the building of its current length is high. It is illogical to take on such a cost at this point in time.[/quote]The "costs are ridiculous" compared to what? The cost of education, law enforcement, health care and social services for illegal immigrants?

Regarding the alleged "corruption" argument: First, I haven't read any news reports specifically identifying "corruption" in the building of the existing portions of the fence, but for the sake of argument let's assume that there was some measure of "corruption" in the contracting and construction of said fence. Does mean that the Federal Government shouldn't build anything anywhere because of the possibility that there might be some "corruption" in the contracting procedure?

It's not lost on me that liberals always cry "waste and corruption" in their arguments against anything they don't want, but are completely silent on the same issue in regards to their own sacred programs. For example, I've never heard any liberal decry "waste and corruption" as an argument against welfare or any other wealth transfer program, and yet these programs have been repeatedly proven to be rife with fraud and abuse.

Thanks,

Jackson

When I started printing in San Francisco there were over 200 union shops in the city, now there are 4 or 5 left.

Because the Businessmen sent the printing out of the country or hired cheap non union help. With few benefits.

The reason workers have paid vacations is because of the Unions.

The reason there is (sort of) a 40 hour work week is because of the Unions.

The reason there are paid holidays is because of the Unions.

The reason there are child labor laws is because of the Unions.

I could go on, but read your history!

Oh yes, Reagan fucked the Unions.

[QUOTE=Jackson;414940]BTW, of course the unions want "employment enforcement" because they see illegal immigrants as taking jobs away from union members and because unions are predisposed to burden business owners with whatever mandates they can envision.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69; 414935]My Brother is stuck in the Korean War. 120 miles to keep out the enemy.

Mexico and USA is what 1500 miles.

You guys most likely do not likely walk more two miles a day. [/QUOTE]Last time I checked there aren't too many citizens on either side of the DMZ that want to cross. Not to mention the thousands of landmines that are buried in the area. Regardless, if you take as an example some of the kidnappings of South Koreans by the North, I guess you can use that as circumstantial evidence that the DMZ isn't impenetrable. To use a boundary that most people don't want to cross is misleading.

The USSR had far stricter penalties for crossing the Berlin wall than we would ever conceive of using and people still crossed illegally regularly. If people think it will change their lives for the better, they will risk anything.

[QUOTE=Jackson;414940]While I agree with 90% of the deterrence ideas that Rock has suggested, I don't think it's fair to turn the country's business owners into immigration enforcement agents and then punish them if they don't perform the job perfectly, when in fact it is the responsibility of the Federal Government to stop the illegal immigrants from entering the country in the first place.[/quote]I'm not suggesting that business owners do the jobs of immigration agents. They should however check workers for identification when hiring and fine them if they hire illegal immigrants. This is no different then what I have to deal with every day as a bar owner. If I serve someone without identification, I get a hefty fine. If they use a fake I.D. then, it is my responsibility to spot it. If I feel it was impossible to spot, I take it up during an appeal.

[QUOTE=Jackson; 414940]What's next? Arrest property owners who rent houses to illegal immigrants? Arrest grocery store owners who sell food to illegal immigrants? Arrest bank clerks who help illegal immigrants transfer money? Perhaps we can arrest home owners who happen to hire an illegal immigrant to cut their lawn?

This is a law enforcement issue which should be enforced by government officials, not private citizens. [/QUOTE]Honestly I think that if you go after the jobs, there won't be any reason to go after anyone else. All I'm asking is that we do exactly what conservatives have been saying all along. Enforce the laws already on the books (like The Law Against Hiring or Harboring Illegal Aliens). I can never understand why both liberals and conservatives fail to follow through on even their most common talking points and then they wonder why the younger generations are apathetic.

I went to school for a semester in Japan, I liked it so much that I moved back there after graduation. I was unable to sustain myself there because I could not find a job without a working visa. Unlike the USA and Argentina, the Japanese government prosecuted businesses that employed illegals. No one would hire me without the proper documents out of fear of that prosecution.

[QUOTE=Guestrex;414950]I'm not suggesting that business owners do the jobs of immigration agents. They should however check workers for identification when hiring and fine them if they hire illegal immigrants. This is no different then what I have to deal with every day as a bar owner. If I serve someone without identification, I get a hefty fine. If they use a fake I.D. then, it is my responsibility to spot it. If I feel it was impossible to spot, I take it up during an appeal.[/QUOTE]This is very easy for employers to do with e-Verify now. There's no failsafe way to ensure that you're not hiring someone who's illegal. But, at least with this program, my understanding is that employers get a presumption of compliance if: (a) they've run what appears to be a facially valid I'd through that system; and (b) don't get a negative result. It's quick and easy to use. If someone presents you with a sophisticated counterfeit, you (the employer) aren't responsible. The e-verify system does make mistakes (false positives) but when that happens legit employees are usually able to clear up the error pretty quickly.

If you are a business without internet access, this would be difficult. But, if you've got internet access, it's almost too easy to get an instant result. Use of e-Verify is still voluntary, but it's pretty darn easy.

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69; 414945]When I started Printing in San Francisco there were over 200 union shops in the city, now there are 4 or 5 left.

Because the Businessmen sent the printing out of the country or hired cheap non union help. With few benefits.

The reason workers have paid vacations is because of the Unions.

The reason there is (sort of) a 40 hour work week is because of the Unions.

The reason there are paid holidays is because of the Unions.

The reason there are child labor laws is because of the Unions.

I could go on, but read your history!

Oh yes, Reagan fucked the Unions. [/QUOTE]Unions started out great and did great service to the workers. Even non union workers benifited because the employers had to improve conditions or loose all their employees. But unions gradually fucked themselves by making outrageous demands and forcing many employers to go non union to remain competitive. Look at Spain or Greece and what the unions did to them.