The 14th amendment

[STR]

I think, if you're born here, you should be a citizen automatically. The parents should still have to take the citizenship test, and all that other red tape, but they should be allow to stay as legal immigrants, since their child was born here. *shrug* Just my two cents.

All things being equal, that would be fair. Only problem is that you get people that hop the border (either already pregnant or with intent to conceive at the end of the journey), give birth and use their children as an anchor to stay here. You usually get one of these stories every 6 months or so on the local news here, as they allow the journalist to put whatever slant they want on the story. It's usually a 'heartless bureaucracy vs human interest' sobfest. Don't get me wrong, I feel for the child, they're in an impossible situation. The parent, however, put their child in that awful spot. These stories end in one of three ways: 1) The parent goes back, the child stays with relatives. 2) They both go back. 3) They both TRY to go back, but due to some kind of immigration minutiae, the child is denied entry due to lack of citizenship. That last scenario is called a double cluster####.

Moral of the story: don't #### around with international and immigration law. It is the purview of soulless treaties and calculating diplomats. Monsters be here.

That's not the way it's SUPPOSED to work. The words of the amendment, interpreted through the lens of the legislative intent (after all, who better to tell us what the words mean than those who WROTE them?) is the proper way to interpret amendments.

Just because the modern court has it wrong doesn't make the modern court RIGHT.

Not disagreeing here, but arguments about how things should work, without the will and power to make that reality, are utterly irrelevant.

 

[Kail]

it is hard to see people who wish to void their rights as anything but racist.

I don't see any other way to interpret this.

 

[Misfit Toy]

it is hard to see people who wish to void their rights as anything but racist.

I don't see any other way to interpret this.

So you wish to void your rights?

 

[ThankQ]

To me, it's simple. You want to be a US citizen? Move here and tell someone who matters, "Hey, dude, I want to be a citizen." Then dude says, "Okay, fill out this shit and I'll give you a SSN".

There it is.

To call yourself the "Greatest country in the world", I feel, you know, you should ACT like the greatest country in the world.

But, of course, I don't belive in countries anyway.

 

[Squiggy]

But, of course, I don't belive in countries anyway.

You should. Recent scientific advancements have shown they exist.

 

[ThankQ]

But, of course, I don't belive in countries anyway.

You should. Recent scientific advancements have shown they exist.

Too-shay.

Fuck ferrnier spelling.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

Of course children born here should be citizens. to even question it is absurd. Even if the parents came here illegally the baby broke no law and punishing them for the wrongdoing of another is unjust. Seeing how the only babies people are worried about seem to be hispanic, it is hard to see people who wish to void their rights as anything but racist.

And there it is, I'm a racist because I feel people who break the law, and come here illegally, should not be rewarded by making their children citizens. How is it a punishment not to be made a citizen? Because you can not get a free education on my dime? I don't care what race you are, if you get in the country without documentation, you are BREAKING THE LAW, and deserve no benefits. Come here the right way, register, give up all allegiance to any other country, PAY YOUR TAXES, and I welcome all peoples with open arms.

No one called you a racist. Why not try arguing WITHOUT the strawman?

You need to re-read what Davros posted...it's right there in the last line.

 

[ThankQ]

And there it is, I'm a racist because I feel people who break the law, and come here illegally, should not be rewarded by making their children citizens. How is it a punishment not to be made a citizen? Because you can not get a free education on my dime? I don't care what race you are, if you get in the country without documentation, you are BREAKING THE LAW, and deserve no benefits. Come here the right way, register, give up all allegiance to any other country, PAY YOUR TAXES, and I welcome all peoples with open arms.

No one called you a racist. Why not try arguing WITHOUT the strawman?

You need to re-read what Davros posted...it's right there in the last line.

Okay, fine.

Do you feel it should be simpler to come here legally?

I understand we have to keep the terrorists frum bringin' the war here, that's all well and good...

But shouldn't it be simpler for the Mexican who simply wants a better life, and wants it in the grand old USA?

Isn't that the main thing upon which our country is based?

 

[darkwing_duck1]

Okay, fine.

Do you feel it should be simpler to come here legally?

Yes, the bureaucratic process should be simplified.

I understand we have to keep the terrorists frum bringin' the war here, that's all well and good...

But shouldn't it be simpler for the Mexican who simply wants a better life, and wants it in the grand old USA?

I have three conditions that I feel are MUSTS vis a vis immigration:

• They must do so legally
• They must have skills we need.
• At the time they wish to come, we have room for them.

I do not believe that every person (regardless of nationality) who can walk, crawl, swim or smuggle themselves across our border should be allowed to stay.

Especially when we have `8 million people ALREADY HERE who are having trouble finding work.

There are by most estimates ~20 million illegals in the US. If 2/3 of them are working (a guess for purposes of illustration, the other 1/3 being children), that's 13 million jobs that would be available for those workers, either directly, or by the opening up of other jobs as those workers transitioned over to the new openings.

We would be left with a net deficit of workers by some 4 million. Obviously we would probably not want to go that far then, but just cutting their numbers 30% (~6 million) would make up for most of the jobs lost in the 08 meltdown.

 

[ThankQ]

You and I are just different.

I do not view HUMAN BEINGS as economic entities.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

You and I are just different.

I do not view HUMAN BEINGS as economic entities.

You were the one who said they were "just trying to make a better life for themselves" were you not?

But shouldn't it be simpler for the Mexican who simply wants a better life, and wants it in the grand old USA?

But view them however you like...the fact remains that we have economic realities to face. A nation is like a lifeboat in that it can support only so many people at a time without risking being swamped, and without unduly risking the lives of the passengers as they run out of food and water.

Right now, our "lifeboat" is not only full, but overcrowded and riding low in the water. Who are you to tell those already in the lifeboat that we must continue to pick up each and every swimmer who manages to reach our gunwales?

It's like the classic SF short story "The Cold Equations". Sometimes you just have to deal with the facts at hand rather than wishing for things to be different.

 

[Rush Limborg]

Our problem IS...read carefully, now...

Are you suggesting that there is a time that I haven't read carefully? If you actually have valid points, then you shouldn't require the use of a pejorative in this discussion.

Wasn't talking to you. I was addressing those who use guilt trips and straw men to "defend" their views on this matter.

America is ALSO a nation of LAWS. Laws are laws...they are meant to be followed--not dismissed because you don't "feel" like it.

There is, believe it or not, a process for which would-be immigrants can come into America legally, without fear of arrest or deportation...


Welcome them in with open arms, YES--but also expect and demand that they observe our laws.

And that's my $0.02.

Well, lets be clear then... everyone in the United States has the same rights, whether they are citizens or not. The Constitution applies equally to all.

Thus illegal aliens have the same rights as you or I.

So we are basically back to these people breaking the law, and are therefore only subject to the penalties prescribed by those laws... but just like anyone else who breaks laws in this country, their rights are just as protected.

And if they violate the law...they must be punished in the way the law requires.

And as I said before, only those breaking those laws are subject to those penalties. Their children are not.

Considering how deportation is the punishment, by your argument, the children should not be deported with their families--which means we are therefore back to square one.

Fascinating. You rebuke me for the use of "pejoratives", and yet...

Or we could look at it from a Trek point of view...

Kirk: Look at these three words written larger than the rest... with a special pride never written before or since --
Tall words proudly saying... "We the people".
That which you called Ee'd Plebnista was not written for chiefs or kings or warriors or the rich and powerful... but for all the people!
Down the centuries, you have slurred the meaning of the words "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity... do ordain and establish this constitution".
These words and the words that follow were not written only for the Yangs, but for the Kohms as well!

Cloud William: The Kohms?

Kirk: They must apply to everyone or they mean nothing! Do you understand?
​

Gotta love Star Trek.

Again, no one here--and I mean, no one--is suggesting that we treat these people as if they had no rights. To suggest otherwise is a straw man argument, which, frankly, insults the intelligence of those participating in this debate.

I am a conservative: the concept on individual, inalienable rights is a central element to my political philosophy. I agree wholeheartedly with the words of James T. Kirk in this matter.

(ADD/Asperger's moment: Kirk also engaged in "nation building", as it were--but that's another issue entirely....)

What I, and others lilke me, are suggesting is simply that we must treat them as those who have willfully and knowingly broken the law, despite the penalties for these crimes.

Like it or not, sir, those who sneak across our borders illegaly are guilty of crimes. And those guilty of crimes must be punished to the fullest extent of the law.

You say that rights must apply to everyone, lest they mean nothing? I submit that, in the same way, the law must apply to everyone, lest it in turn means nothing.

Illegal immigrants are not entitled--in any way--to any special exemptions in these matters, any more or less than we are.

 

[Misfit Toy]

And there it is, I'm a racist because I feel people who break the law, and come here illegally, should not be rewarded by making their children citizens. How is it a punishment not to be made a citizen? Because you can not get a free education on my dime? I don't care what race you are, if you get in the country without documentation, you are BREAKING THE LAW, and deserve no benefits. Come here the right way, register, give up all allegiance to any other country, PAY YOUR TAXES, and I welcome all peoples with open arms.

No one called you a racist. Why not try arguing WITHOUT the strawman?

You need to re-read what Davros posted...it's right there in the last line.

No, YOU need to comprehend what he said. Davros did not call Kail a racist.

 

[Shaw]

Wasn't talking to you. I was addressing those who use guilt trips and straw men to "defend" their views on this matter.

Then maybe you shouldn't have quoted me.

Well, lets be clear then... everyone in the United States has the same rights, whether they are citizens or not. The Constitution applies equally to all.

Thus illegal aliens have the same rights as you or I.

So we are basically back to these people breaking the law, and are therefore only subject to the penalties prescribed by those laws... but just like anyone else who breaks laws in this country, their rights are just as protected.

And if they violate the law...they must be punished in the way the law requires.

So you just repeated what I said... Why?

And as I said before, only those breaking those laws are subject to those penalties. Their children are not.

Considering how deportation is the punishment, by your argument, the children should not be deported with their families--which means we are therefore back to square one.

Children staying with their parents isn't a penalty. Denying their citizenship when they are old enough to live on their own is.

Is that too difficult a concept? I'm not sure how to clarify it any more because it seem straight forward and logical. If you could explain which part of this you don't get, it would make it easier to explain.

Fascinating. You rebuke me for the use of "pejoratives", and yet...

... and yet what?

I am a conservative...

So what?

What I, and others lilke me, are suggesting is simply that we must treat them as those who have willfully and knowingly broken the law, despite the penalties for these crimes.

Like it or not, sir, those who sneak across our borders illegaly are guilty of crimes. And those guilty of crimes must be punished to the fullest extent of the law.

You say that rights must apply to everyone, lest they mean nothing? I submit that, in the same way, the law must apply to everyone, lest it in turn means nothing.

Illegal immigrants are not entitled--in any way--to any special exemptions in these matters, any more or less than we are.

Again, why are you restating what I said as if I hadn't already stated it? Isn't that a use of a straw man, the very technique you decried earlier?

In fact, I'm not entirely sure of the point of your last post... other than another excuse to declare that you are a conservative (one more time).

 

[T'Girl]

I have three conditions that I feel are MUSTS vis a vis immigration:

• They must do so legally
• They must have skills we need.
• At the time they wish to come, we have room for them.

You might want to insert a forth criteria, current economic conditions. Take into account the U6 unemployment rate, especially among non-white American citizens.

There's old cleshay about "jobs Americans won't do," well American's want them now.

 

[Squiggy]

• They must have skills we need.

We're a superpower. We "need" people with every skill.

There's old cleshay about "jobs Americans won't do," well American's want them now.

No. American's still don't want to pick spinach for minimum wage. If they did, they'd be doing it. What they want is as swanky job inside with a computer.

And it's cliché.

 

[TheBrew]

• They must have skills we need.

We're a superpower. We "need" people with every skill.

There's old cleshay about "jobs Americans won't do," well American's want them now.

No. American's still don't want to pick spinach for minimum wage. If they did, they'd be doing it. What they want is as swanky job inside with a computer.

And it's cliché.

Hey, I like my swanky job inside with a computer.

 

[Rush Limborg]

Wasn't talking to you. I was addressing those who use guilt trips and straw men to "defend" their views on this matter.

Then maybe you shouldn't have quoted me.

And if they violate the law...they must be punished in the way the law requires.

So you just repeated what I said... Why?

Children staying with their parents isn't a penalty. Denying their citizenship when they are old enough to live on their own is.

Is that too difficult a concept? I'm not sure how to clarify it any more because it seem straight forward and logical. If you could explain which part of this you don't get, it would make it easier to explain.

... and yet what?

I am a conservative...

So what?

What I, and others lilke me, are suggesting is simply that we must treat them as those who have willfully and knowingly broken the law, despite the penalties for these crimes.

Like it or not, sir, those who sneak across our borders illegaly are guilty of crimes. And those guilty of crimes must be punished to the fullest extent of the law.

You say that rights must apply to everyone, lest they mean nothing? I submit that, in the same way, the law must apply to everyone, lest it in turn means nothing.

Illegal immigrants are not entitled--in any way--to any special exemptions in these matters, any more or less than we are.

Again, why are you restating what I said as if I hadn't already stated it? Isn't that a use of a straw man, the very technique you decried earlier?

In fact, I'm not entirely sure of the point of your last post... other than another excuse to declare that you are a conservative (one more time).

The point is...I was using your statement as a lead-in to my argument. That was why I quoted you, sir. Not to debate you, per se, but those who use the "America is a nation of immigrants" argument to justify Illegal Immigrants coming in...well, illegally.

I apologize if I did not make that clear beforehand.

 

[Squiggy]

• They must have skills we need.

We're a superpower. We "need" people with every skill.

There's old cleshay about "jobs Americans won't do," well American's want them now.

No. American's still don't want to pick spinach for minimum wage. If they did, they'd be doing it. What they want is as swanky job inside with a computer.

And it's cliché.

Hey, I like my swanky job inside with a computer.

That's because you hate America.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

I have three conditions that I feel are MUSTS vis a vis immigration:

• They must do so legally
• They must have skills we need.
• At the time they wish to come, we have room for them.

I do not believe that every person (regardless of nationality) who can walk, crawl, swim or smuggle themselves across our border should be allowed to stay.

I'd argue that the fact that they are employed here is proof that they have skills we need. Most people I know have houses and we have the capability to use some of our unused land if we have to if we are concerned about overcrowding. That's two out of three. The first one, to me, strikes me as a symptom of the stonewalling on immigration. If it was as simple as asking to come, then they would (nobody likes the hassle of sneaking here).

As for your statistics, that would solve the problem of unemployment, but we'd have a much greater crisis of underemployment. To solve unemployment, we need to grow the economy and create jobs that support people's lives; not encourage people to work three jobs and 90 hours, plus employ their families working minimum wage.