Immigration Bill proposed

[roo_ster]

The anchor baby problem can be solved legislatively without an amendment to the COTUS.

Amendment 14 Section 1 reads, in part:

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.

Dont forget the "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof."  That bit is how the children of foreign ambassadors born on American soil, in an American hospital, do not get any sort of American citizenship.  Ambassadors, being citizens of a foreign country, fail the "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" test.

So do illegals.  Congress can address this.

[The Rabbi]

The anchor baby problem can be solved legislatively without an amendment to the COTUS.

Amendment 14 Section 1 reads, in part:

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.

Dont forget the "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof."  That bit is how the children of foreign ambassadors born on American soil, in an American hospital, do not get any sort of American citizenship.  Ambassadors, being citizens of a foreign country, fail the "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" test.

So do illegals.  Congress can address this.

Illegals living here aren't subject to the jurisdiction of the US? In that case they could never be deported.
I suspect that children of ambassadors choose not to take American citizenship.

[Glock Glockler]

Fistful,

If we take that idea to it's logical conclusion then why shouldn't non-citizens be allowed to vote?

[De Selby]

Removing illegals from US jurisdiction would mean you couldn't legally do anything to them.  

It looks like what this boils down to is the chance that Tancredo wins and installs cronies in Congress and the Senate....so again, this is fantasy land.  Tom "Take a Tomahawk to da headz o' dose mexicans" Tancredo is going to get about as much of the vote as David Duke did when he ran for president.

The facts remain:

Building a 2000 mile fence and then maintaining it is a ridiculous idea, and it's never going to happen.

Amending the constitution to restore the Dred Scott rule for citizenship is not going to happen either.

Hence, no workable solution yet proposed by the anti-immigrant crowd

[Manedwolf]

Maned, you've also got a problem with saying that the Constitution only applies to citizens, yet the issue at hand is, who should be a citizen? 

Do you see what I'm saying?

Who should be a citizen? I'd think that'd be the people who come in legally, apply for the proper paperwork, pay the fees, and swear the oath of citizenship?

If someone is willing to follow those rules, I think it's a safer bet they're more willing to follow other rules?

If someone breaks the law to come in as an illegal, they've already shown a complete and utter disregard for our laws. Why would we want them as a citizen, and why wouldn't they then disregard other laws they don't care to follow?

BTW, shootinstudent, it's anti ILLEGAL immigrant, not anti immigrant. That deliberate misnaming to garner sympathy is really getting old. 

[De Selby]

Manedwolf,

And like I said, would you support changing the law so that all those immigrants currently coming would be legal with a health and criminal background check?

Why or why not?

[Manedwolf]

Manedwolf,

And like I said, would you support changing the law so that all those immigrants currently coming would be legal with a health and criminal background check?

Why or why not?

The only immigrants that should be coming in are those who have been waiting in line, when their number is called. There's lots of people waiting to enter legally.

[De Selby]

Manedwolf,

But hey, if we change the law, they won't be illegal.  You said that was your only objection right?

Are you going to stop opposing their presence if we just change the law?

[Perd Hapley]

Who should be a citizen? I'd think that'd be the people who come in legally, apply for the proper paperwork, pay the fees, and swear the oath of citizenship?

That's not the point.  You can't say that anchor babies should not get citizenship by simply saying that the Constitution doesn't apply to them.  If the Fourteenth Amendment says they are citizens, then they will be citizens.  That part of the amendment must be either amended or shown not to apply. 

[Perd Hapley]

Removing illegals from US jurisdiction would mean you couldn't legally do anything to them. 

It looks like what this boils down to is the chance that Tancredo wins and installs cronies in Congress and the Senate....so again, this is fantasy land.  Tom "Take a Tomahawk to da headz o' dose mexicans" Tancredo is going to get about as much of the vote as David Duke did when he ran for president.


The facts remain:

Building a 2000 mile fence and then maintaining it is a ridiculous idea, and it's never going to happen.

Amending the constitution to restore the Dred Scott rule for citizenship is not going to happen either.

Hence, no workable solution yet proposed by the anti-immigrant crowd

Those look like opinions to me, not facts.  And very ignorant opinions, at that. 

[The Rabbi]

Manedwolf,

But hey, if we change the law, they won't be illegal.  You said that was your only objection right?

Are you going to stop opposing their presence if we just change the law?

You won't get a straight answer on this.  The objection isn't that they are here illegally (which can be changed pretty easily, a lot more easily than amending the Constitution).  The objection is that they don't speak English and have different habits and a different culture.  This culture appears threatening since it is pretty pervasive in some parts of the country.
I would be interested to see a history of immigration in this country.  I would bet money much of the rhetoric you see now has been used over and over already.

[The Rabbi]

Removing illegals from US jurisdiction would mean you couldn't legally do anything to them. 

It looks like what this boils down to is the chance that Tancredo wins and installs cronies in Congress and the Senate....so again, this is fantasy land.  Tom "Take a Tomahawk to da headz o' dose mexicans" Tancredo is going to get about as much of the vote as David Duke did when he ran for president.


The facts remain:

Building a 2000 mile fence and then maintaining it is a ridiculous idea, and it's never going to happen.

Amending the constitution to restore the Dred Scott rule for citizenship is not going to happen either.

Hence, no workable solution yet proposed by the anti-immigrant crowd

Those look like opinions to me, not facts.  And very ignorant opinions, at that. 

I dont see anything ignorant here.  I just see things that run counter to your views.
A 2000 mile fence through desert is a non-starter of an idea.  Amending the Constitution to deal with illegal immigration is also a non-starter.  Is there anyone responsible out there pushing this as a serious proposal?  Anyone?

[Manedwolf]

Manedwolf,

But hey, if we change the law, they won't be illegal.  You said that was your only objection right?

Are you going to stop opposing their presence if we just change the law?

You won't get a straight answer on this.  The objection isn't that they are here illegally (which can be changed pretty easily, a lot more easily than amending the Constitution).  The objection is that they don't speak English and have different habits and a different culture.  This culture appears threatening since it is pretty pervasive in some parts of the country.
I would be interested to see a history of immigration in this country.  I would bet money much of the rhetoric you see now has been used over and over already.

What different culture? That people who break laws to come in are more likely to break laws for things like identity theft, driving without a license and such? You bet. The parents of a five year old who already has a busted car loan on her credit report due to illegals using her identity would say the same. Different habits? Like dumping garbage in the street, hitting women, sleeping with underage girls, doing the first-ever driveby in broad daylight on the main street of a nearby city? (All cases with illegals involved.) Yeah, I object to that, too. That mayor in Pennsylvania that's watching his city disintigrate and be overwhelmed by crime while the fed refuses to do anything about illegals tried to do something, and is getting sued by the ACLU over it.

THAT is the "culture" of illegals.

And damn right they should speak English. Vote in English, government business in English, speak English or you don't get to take the oath of citizenship.

I have plenty of people of differerent races and cultures who live near me and work at my workplace. The difference is that they're all successful professionals who worked hard to get there. And they all speak English. I grew up in S. Florida, which had people of EVERY culture. And honestly, the Haitians were the hardest workers of all, and spoke a beautiful King's English. But unlike the Mexicans and Cubans, they ALWAYS get sent back. You want to see racism? There's racism.

Apparently, you're one of the sorts who gets along just fine with the leftists, who thinks that "diversity" means accepting that you now have to lock your doors.

Sorry, but you sound like you're parroting ACLU talking points here.

[CAnnoneer]

Congratulations! Yet again, the tossintaliban has managed to fog up the thread and befuddle you with half-truths, misinformation, and empty lawyerism, while gradually pushing aside the real issues of national interests and policy-making. That's just priceless.

Guess what, if it is good for the country, we should change our laws, including making an amendment to the Constitution to close a loophole that has been more used than a Tijuana whore. We as a society and a nation should decide what is good for us, and keep our eyes on that target. We owe nothing to the outside world; neither are we responsible for its welfare or problems. If we let anyone inside the country, it should only be if and because it is good for us. Importing massive amounts of poverty, criminality, ignorance, and hostile foreign cultural influence is idiotic to the extreme, and only justifiable in the eyes of select few that have their own agendas completely misaligned with ours as a nation.

Those of you who believe in open borders and misguided humanitarianism, run us through a simple scenario. What are you going to do if squatters break into your house through the back door, crap in your living room, demand a portion of your fridge, and tell you to buzz off because they have the right, as human beings, to have food and a roof over their heads. Maybe they will also say that your house is built on a land that belonged to their grandgrandwhateverfather, so they have the right to be in your house. So, let us know what you do then.

Gewehr, I am still waiting for a clear explanation as to why shooting coyotes dead is such a horrible idea. We shoot enemies attacking our troops in Iraq. I am certain our intelligence services have offed quite a few "hostiles" over the years. Coyotes are doing real damage to our national interests, so I do not see why we cannot put them in the same basket. Come to think of it, drug-traffickers should end up with a 9mm aeration port as well - they are killing American citizens by poisoning. Traitors, mind you, are in a different category since they are American citizens, so the parallel does not hold.

Fistful, I am all for trying, convicting, sentencing, and executing traitors. We should start with most folks in Congress, especially on the Dem side.

Rabbi, as a sovereign nation, we have the right and duty to control our borders and choose whom, how many, and when to admit through our front door. If we choose to limit immigrants to English-speakers of a certain educational and property level, then it is our right to do that.

[De Selby]

Lots of talk about rights, duties, sovereignty etc etc....

But in all that, no realistic proposal.

I'm sorry, but pointing out that "shooting all the coyotes", building a 2000 mile fence, and amending the constitution based on illegal immigration are unrealistic is well....realistic.

But by all means, throw your votes away on Tancredo or another "border security" candidate.  I'll be happy to have my vote count that much more.

[Manedwolf]

Lots of talk about rights, duties, sovereignty etc etc....

But in all that, no realistic proposal.

I'm sorry, but pointing out that "shooting all the coyotes", building a 2000 mile fence, and amending the constitution based on illegal immigration are unrealistic is well....realistic.

But by all means, throw your votes away on Tancredo or another "border security" candidate.  I'll be happy to have my vote count that much more.

And you'd be voting for Hillary, then, or Obama?

[De Selby]

I doubt I'll be voting for Hilary or Obama, but who knows what the candidates will be...they conceivably be better than the other guy.

The main point is that I won't be wasting my vote on a guy whose whole platform is building a giant fence in the desert.  It's not a realistic idea.

Do you have anything like a realistic plan for immigration control?

[Manedwolf]

I doubt I'll be voting for Hilary or Obama, but who knows what the candidates will be...they conceivably be better than the other guy.

The main point is that I won't be wasting my vote on a guy whose whole platform is building a giant fence in the desert.  It's not a realistic idea.

Do you have anything like a realistic plan for immigration control?

Not a realistic idea? It sure works for Mexico's southern border.

[De Selby]

Are you serious?

Mexico is full of central Americans, some staying, some on their way to America....and that's with a southern border that is small by comparison.

Who got sold on this idea that Mexico, a country plagued by serious corruption and inability to deliver services in other areas, has some magical ability when it comes to administering a border?  I've seen that claim repeated often, and I find myself confused every time...

[CAnnoneer]

Let's not forget the wall our allies the Israelis built as well. It seems to work far better than our local leftists would like to admit. Just like repeating that law enforcement cannot work does not make it any less effective if actually conducted. Even here in Cali, the short San Diego wall has precipitously decreased the crossings in that area.

The pro-alien demagogues would let us believe that nothing can work and therefore nothing should be done. Barf.

[De Selby]

Oh yeah, there's tons of comparison between Israel (a country not even a tenth of the size) and its wall that's already been breached and the vast desert between Texas and California.

I would like to know a plan, any plan, that will work and is acceptable to anti-immigrant folk.  If it's a wall, let's see at least one realistic proposal for building and maintaining a wall of that size at a reasonable cost. 

[Perd Hapley]

Removing illegals from US jurisdiction would mean you couldn't legally do anything to them. 

It looks like what this boils down to is the chance that Tancredo wins and installs cronies in Congress and the Senate....so again, this is fantasy land.  Tom "Take a Tomahawk to da headz o' dose mexicans" Tancredo is going to get about as much of the vote as David Duke did when he ran for president.


The facts remain:

Building a 2000 mile fence and then maintaining it is a ridiculous idea, and it's never going to happen.

Amending the constitution to restore the Dred Scott rule for citizenship is not going to happen either.

Hence, no workable solution yet proposed by the anti-immigrant crowd

Those look like opinions to me, not facts.  And very ignorant opinions, at that. 

I dont see anything ignorant here.  I just see things that run counter to your views.

You're probably right.  They're either ignorant or dishonest, and I was trying to give shootinhismouthoffstudent the benefit of the doubt.


According To My Views (ATMV), Tom Tancredo has never advised the tomahawking of Mexicans, or anything that warrants his being compared to David Duke.  To say so, one must either be misinformed (ignorant) or lying.  But that's just my view.

ATMV, a great many measures have been proposed, other than building walls or eliminating the anchor baby proviso.  To say otherwise, one must either be misinformed (ignorant) or lying.  But that's just my view.

ATMV, anyone who equates the anti-anchor-baby suggestion with the non-personhood of Blacks according to a Supreme Court ruling that had nothing to do with immigration is either ignorant or lying.  But that's just my view.

ATMV, the slur "anti-immigrant" has been rebuffed so many times that the pro-crime element must know that it is indeed a slur.  Or maybe shootinhismouthoffstudent is just ignorant.  But that's just my view. 

[De Selby]

fistfulofmisunderstanding,

The charge wasn't that no solutions had been offered-it was that no realistic solutions had been offered.

If I said "hey, let's do an ancient egyptian dance praying for the sun god to come wipe out all the illegals", that would be a proposed solution...but not a realistic one.

The problem with your idea of a 2000 mile fence, and changing the constitution, is that neither are going to happen.  They are not even remotely within the foreseeable future...in fact, they're probably even less likely than a Tom Tancredo election in 2008 (and that's down there near impossible on the scale).

Repealing the 14th amendment, would in fact, restore the United States to the pre-Dred Scott rule for citizenship.  Maybe you don't like that this is what it is, but it's a fact.

And of course, when I asked what would be the response if we just changed the law to make all immigration legal....the opposition continued.  "Anti-immigration" is the proper term to describe the belief, because whether it's legal or not, it's opposed.

[Perd Hapley]

The charge wasn't that no solutions had been offered-it was that no realistic solutions had been offered.

Blah, blah, blah.  I know what the charge was.  You decided to pick the items that seem less likely, denounce them, and then declare that the "anti-immigration" side hadn't proposed anything workable.  Quit lying.

The problem with your idea of a 2000 mile fence, and changing the constitution, is that neither are going to happen.  They are not even remotely within the foreseeable future...in fact, they're probably even less likely than a Tom Tancredo election in 2008 (and that's down there near impossible on the scale).

    I'm pulling for Fred Thompson, myself.  Why are you obsessed with these non-solutions?  I haven't said they're realistic, so why do you keep talking as if I did?

Repealing the 14th amendment, would in fact, restore the United States to the pre-Dred Scott rule for citizenship.  Maybe you don't like that this is what it is, but it's a fact.

  You need to learn the difference between a fact and an opinion.  And your opinion is, of course, ignorant.  The "pre-Dred Scott rule for citizenship"?  Before the Dred Scott ruling, slaves sued for their freedom and won.  But Dred Scott lost because the court ruled he had no legal standing, on the basis of his race.  His immigration status never came up.  You may not like that, but it's a fact.

And of course, when I asked what would be the response if we just changed the law to make all immigration legal....the opposition continued.  "Anti-immigration" is the proper term to describe the belief, because whether it's legal or not, it's opposed.

  Blah, blah, blah.  Reasonable people recognize that immigration must be regulated and limited to reasonable numbers.  So, no, simply opening the borders is not a workable solution. 

[roo_ster]

I've dug up the stats and done the math, before.  Folks can do their own homework if they want the hard numbers.

Thing is, tight border control in general, and a border fence in particular are favored by large majorities of US citizens.

Also, building an Israeli-style fence on the border is more do-able by the USA than the West Bank fence is by Israel (when one looks at population, GDP, and miles of fence). 

A viable means of getting a handle on the illegal alien problem attacks supply, demand, and attractions.

Supply
Border controls.  A fence is part of that, as is networked comms, sensors, and conops to take advantage of the new functionality.

Joe Arpaio-style/inspired facilities in the SW to hold captured illegals so that we don't have to play catch & release would be needed, too.

Demand
Most illegals come here because their barbarous, bass-ackwards countries of origin can not manage to get their economic house in order.

Going after the employers of illegals, hammer & tongs, will reduce the demand for illegal alien un/semi-skilled labor.  The current laws on the books are sufficient to this task, given enforcement.  Frankly, I would prefer to see prison time added for these offenses and the offenders perp-walked on the 5PM news.

Make it more expensive and prohibitively risky to employ illegals, and employers will stop hiring the border-hopping criminals.

Attractions
The only social-welfare benefit available to illegals ought to be immediate, life-saving medical treatment.  Legislation addressing the anchor-baby problem, forbidding access by illegals to schools, other-than-emergency care, and the grab-bag of welfare gimmes combined with mandatory reporting of illegals who try to access them to LEOS ought to reduce the attractions of illegally entering America.

So, given time & the attrition effect of the above policy, the illegal alien problem will be severely attenuated.  All the measures are favored by majorities of citizens, do-able financially, and in line with what a sovereign country can and ought to do.