The 14th amendment

[Davros]

We aren't rounding them up and shipping them back where they came from.

Yes we are. It's just impossible to do it with all of them. That and unfettered would mean without restriction. There are very clear restrictions on immigration.

The Obammasiah wants to issue an amnesty, even.

No he doesn't.

Maybe not, but you assume that each job is static and only affects itself.

No I don't. You sure come up with some silly ideas.

The economy is communal, not individualistic. Higher wages for one sector stimulates demand which improves jobs in other sectors which stimulates MORE demand, and so forth.

And those high paying jobs are the ones that were shipped overseas. We sould focus more on cracking down on those companies that violate labor laws than attempting the impossible task of deporting everybody who is here illegally.

Why shouldn't they? They were born here. We're not going to give them their U.S Citizenship just cause their parents are foreigners?

They wouldn't have been born here if their parents hadn't committed a crime by jumping the border.

Irrelevant since the baby broke no law. Unless you think people should be punished for crimes comitted by other people. Is that what you support, punishing people because they were related to somebody that broke a law? Because that is a pretty messed up belief.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

Yes we are. It's just impossible to do it with all of them.

So we shouldn't even try then...

That and unfettered would mean without restriction. There are very clear restrictions on immigration.

That aren't being enforced.

The Obammasiah wants to issue an amnesty, even.

No he doesn't.

Last I heard he was for amnesty. Has he changed his mind?

And those high paying jobs are the ones that were shipped overseas. We sould focus more on cracking down on those companies that violate labor laws than attempting the impossible task of deporting everybody who is here illegally.

So one class of criminals gets a "by" because there are "bigger" criminals...

Irrelevant since the baby broke no law. Unless you think people should be punished for crimes comitted by other people. Is that what you support, punishing people because they were related to somebody that broke a law? Because that is a pretty messed up belief.

As I said above: being denied citizenship is not a punishment. But if you insist, then we could take the babies for adoption by citizens and THEN deport the parents...

 

[Davros]

So we shouldn't even try then...

I never said anything of the kind.

That aren't being enforced.

Not true.

Last I heard he was for amnesty. Has he changed his mind?

He was never for amnesty. Having to pay fines isn't amnesty. Amnesty means being treated as if no crime had been commited.

So one class of criminals gets a "by" because there are "bigger" criminals...

No, you just spend more effort busting the big criminals.

As I said above: being denied citizenship is not a punishment.

And that was a very silly thing to say since it very obviously is puishment.

But if you insist, then we could take the babies for adoption by citizens and THEN deport the parents...

That would be a stupid thing to do. Why not deport the parents let the kid stay with them, and since the kid is an American it can come back any time it wants to. These issues are nowhere as complicated as you are making it out to be.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

So we shouldn't even try then...

I never said anything of the kind.

That aren't being enforced.

Not true.

There are about 12-20 million reasons why you're wrong. They're called illegal immigrants

He was never for amnesty. Having to pay fines isn't amnesty. Amnesty means being treated as if no crime had been commited.

In the end, they still get to stay instead of being shipped back where they came from.

As I said above: being denied citizenship is not a punishment.

And that was a very silly thing to say.

No, it's a very TRUE thing to say.

But if you insist, then we could take the babies for adoption by citizens and THEN deport the parents...

That would be a stupid thing to do. Why not deport the parents let the kid stay with them, and since the kid is an American it can come back any time it wants to. These issues are nowhere as complicated as you are making it out to be.

You're right. Keep the illegals out and properly apply the 14th Amendment and there WON'T be a problem. Babies of non-citizens won't be citizens.

 

[Davros]

There are about 12-20 million reasons why you're wrong. They're called illegal immigrants

Millions of people drive over the speed limmit, does that mean traffic laws are not being enforced? No, it doesn't.

In the end, they still get to stay instead of being shipped back where they came from.

Still not amnesty.

No, it's a very TRUE thing to say.

No, it's an outright lie.

You're right. Keep the illegals out and properly apply the 14th Amendment and there WON'T be a problem.

We are applying the 14th amendment. That's why the kids ARE citizens. Only the children of diplomats born here do not automatically become citizens. You have tried this argument before and you failed then and you will continue to fail as long as you keep repeating things that are not true.

Babies of non-citizens won't be citizens.

Only if we violate their 14th amendment rights.

 

[RJDiogenes]

Granting citizenship to children born of illegal immigrants is a valid application of the 14th Amendment. It doesn't (and shouldn't) effect the citizenship status of the baby's parents; they're still illegal and should be dealt with appropriately.

 

[Misfit Toy]

They wouldn't have been born here if their parents hadn't committed a crime by jumping the border.

Do you want to punish the children of everyone who breaks a law? Speeders? Tax cheats?

Not being given automatic citizenship is not a punishment.

But let's play it out. It's not hard. Assuming we continue birthright citizenship granted to everyone whose mama makes it over the border, then take the citizen baby for adoption by his/her fellow citizens and deport the parent(s).

Problem solved. The criminals are punished the baby is cared for.

The child's citizenship is LAW. You want to remove that citizenship. That's punishing the child for an infraction made by the parent.

Your other option assumes that there are thousands of families who are willing and able to care for these 'stolen' children. That's incredibly naive on your part.

 

[Zman1]

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.

in theory i'd agree with you, Kail, but in fact I do not. It isn't that simple i know a few people who would love to be here legally would gladly pay taxes in order to be able to vote and get the benefits that come with being a us citizen. but it isnt that easy the fees to file the paperwork are more than i made in the last 3 years combined!

i know one illegal who is MARRIED to a natural born us citizen who's famaly has been here over 5 generations wants to be able to get her paperwork be able to get a job and help her family/husband financially<sp?> but the family making minimum wage cant even afford to think about it because just starting the paperwork means finish it or get deported and be separated from said husband and 2 small kids and sent back to a place that was abusive at best.

so yes in a perfect world hey come here register, give up all allegiance to any other country, PAY YOUR TAXES, and be welcomed with open arms. i'd be all for it the more who want to be here the merrier

my issues is with the americans who don't want to work abuse the system and then bitch about the illeagals working under the table because their not paying taxes to support their welfare.

as far as racist goes the us government is. there are programs for waiving fees but if the person is white they all of a sudden dont apply. hows that for leading by example uncle sam

 

[Alidar Jarok]

You miss my point. Those aren't the jobs we have to worry about at the moment. It's jobs that can employ the middle class that are key. Those jobs are always going to go to the marginalized in society or to the very young who have no other work experience. To give an example, a kitchen at a restaurant. Most of the people in the kitchen are Mexican immigrants, but some are individuals without a college education and probably a criminal record who aren't employed other places. And kitchen work is probably better than field work.What's more of concern are the bigger jobs. Gardening and food preparation aren't going to make the economy grow,

So it's all right that those workers are underpaid and treated poorly because they aren't "middle class" workers. Guess what: poor people DO buy things. Make it possible for them to buy more, and cumulatively they create demand.

Oh, I agree. That's why I advocated that rise in minimum wage a few years ago. But it's not going to increase jobs as much as growing the middle class will. And, in the grand scheme of things, a few fruit pickers, cooks, and maids aren't going to drag down the wages of all low end jobs. Hell, high schoolers also drag down wages, should we prevent them from working to raise the wages of others and have them invest it into the economy? The problem is you just combined two issues. There's the economic issue and the social issue. From a social standpoint, we need to ensure that even are poorest citizens can afford to survive (and that includes both a livable minimum wage and a social net like welfare to help the most destitute). From an economic standpoint, we need to worry about growing salaried jobs to help the economy.

even if they did pay more (all paying more does in a restaurant, for example, is make it even more expensive. Labor is already the number one expense and servers only get paid 2.23 an hour. That is well below minimum wage as well and that has nothing to do with immigrants).

I hate tip labor. Tips are SUPPOSED to be gratuities (which is why they call them that), rewards for superlative service. They shouldn't be a subsidy so the resteraunt can thumb it' nose at the wage laws.

While I'd love that, keep this in mind. Even at such a ridiculously low wage, many restaurants spend 50-60% of their costs in labor (let's not forget food, which spoils, that also adds to their costs). If servers got paid minimum wage, they'd have to dramatically spike the cost of meals (my guess is a meal that currently costs $10 would cost 18-20). It's a shitty situation (especially some other practices, such as not paying a server until they get their first table or not crediting the hours they've worked over 40 so as to not pay them overtime), but it keeps a significant industry viable.

 

[darkwing_duck1]

Do you want to punish the children of everyone who breaks a law? Speeders? Tax cheats?

Not being given automatic citizenship is not a punishment.

But let's play it out. It's not hard. Assuming we continue birthright citizenship granted to everyone whose mama makes it over the border, then take the citizen baby for adoption by his/her fellow citizens and deport the parent(s).

Problem solved. The criminals are punished the baby is cared for.

The child's citizenship is LAW. You want to remove that citizenship. That's punishing the child for an infraction made by the parent.

1) The child's citizenship is a MISINTERPRETATION of law as written by the original legislators.

2) Denial of citizenship is NOT "punishment".

Your other option assumes that there are thousands of families who are willing and able to care for these 'stolen' children. That's incredibly naive on your part.

1) there has been a shortage of adoptable babies in the US for quite some time, which is why overseas adoptions are so popular (thank you Roe v Wade).

2) The children are not "stolen". We would merely be fulfilling the responsibility we have, if they are as you insist citizens, to see to their welfare. Would you rather them be housed in orphanages or adopted by loving US families?

 

[darkwing_duck1]

even if they did pay more (all paying more does in a restaurant, for example, is make it even more expensive. Labor is already the number one expense and servers only get paid 2.23 an hour. That is well below minimum wage as well and that has nothing to do with immigrants).

I hate tip labor. Tips are SUPPOSED to be gratuities (which is why they call them that), rewards for superlative service. They shouldn't be a subsidy so the resteraunt can thumb it' nose at the wage laws.

While I'd love that, keep this in mind. Even at such a ridiculously low wage, many restaurants spend 50-60% of their costs in labor (let's not forget food, which spoils, that also adds to their costs). If servers got paid minimum wage, they'd have to dramatically spike the cost of meals (my guess is a meal that currently costs $10 would cost 18-20). It's a shitty situation (especially some other practices, such as not paying a server until they get their first table or not crediting the hours they've worked over 40 so as to not pay them overtime), but it keeps a significant industry viable.

So the resteraunt industry cannot remain viable by asking that it's customers pay the true cost of it's services? The only way the industry can continue is to demand the workers to be underpaid and treated poorly?

It's damned funny that those who insist to the poor "there is no free lunch" at the same time pitch a fit over having to "pay too much" for their food so that the workers can earn a living.

After all, there's "no free lunch", right?

 

[Kail]

Do you think it's right, that children of illegal immigrants born here are automatically made US citizens? Should we make people US citizens simply because they happen to be born on US soil? Shouldn't there be SOME tie to the US before we bestow US citizenship, and all that goes with it on someone? A woman from anywhere in the world could be visiting the US on vacation, and just happen to deliver her baby here... boom, US citizen, entitled to a free education, welfare, ect. Personally, I think it's nuts. The 14th amendment was created to protect the rights of newly freed slaves, all well and good, but today it is being exploited by people who come here to have their children just so they can reap the benefits and hand outs that us taxpayers provide.

And before you call me a racist, a bigot, or a Nazi, I am all for anyone who really wants to be a US citizen. Anyone who wants to come here legally, and give up all allegiances to their homeland for the US, is welcome in my book.

Why shouldn't they? They were born here. We're not going to give them their U.S Citizenship just cause their parents are foreigners?

No, I think we should deny them US citizenship because their parents are here illegally. They are not suppose to be here, by awarding citizenship to their children, and providing them with all the perks and benefits that go with it, we are rewarding criminal behavior. No one is suppose to profit from an illegal act. Why should I pay taxes to send someones children to school who shouldn't even be here? Why should I pay the hospital bill for someone to have a baby who snuck into the country under a fence, when I had to pay for my own child's birth? It's not fair.

 

[Misfit Toy]

1) The child's citizenship is a MISINTERPRETATION of law as written by the original legislators.

No it isn't. It is settled law.

2) Denial of citizenship is NOT "punishment".

Sure it is.

1) there has been a shortage of adoptable babies in the US for quite some time, which is why overseas adoptions are so popular (thank you Roe v Wade).

There are thousands of adoptable children in the foster care system in this country already.

2) The children are not "stolen". We would merely be fulfilling the responsibility we have, if they are as you insist citizens, to see to their welfare. Would you rather them be housed in orphanages or adopted by loving US families?

Removing the child from a loving home is not "seeing to their welfare". You're really, really off on this one.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

I hate tip labor. Tips are SUPPOSED to be gratuities (which is why they call them that), rewards for superlative service. They shouldn't be a subsidy so the resteraunt can thumb it' nose at the wage laws.

While I'd love that, keep this in mind. Even at such a ridiculously low wage, many restaurants spend 50-60% of their costs in labor (let's not forget food, which spoils, that also adds to their costs). If servers got paid minimum wage, they'd have to dramatically spike the cost of meals (my guess is a meal that currently costs $10 would cost 18-20). It's a shitty situation (especially some other practices, such as not paying a server until they get their first table or not crediting the hours they've worked over 40 so as to not pay them overtime), but it keeps a significant industry viable.

So the resteraunt industry cannot remain viable by asking that it's customers pay the true cost of it's services? The only way the industry can continue is to demand the workers to be underpaid and treated poorly?

It's damned funny that those who insist to the poor "there is no free lunch" at the same time pitch a fit over having to "pay too much" for their food so that the workers can earn a living.

After all, there's "no free lunch", right?

Uh, are you combining tips and food stamps into one issue? Restaurants should not be a staple of poor people's diets. Ideally, fast food shouldn't be either, but that's a whole other issue.

And, yeah, I do believe that the restaurant industry would not stay viable if people paid the true cost of their meal. Then again, I also believe that, if you asked a server if they preferred to be paid minimum wage or server's wage plus tips, they'll probably tell you the second. They'll explain that the expected tip (for quality service) should be higher than what it was in the past, but that's entirely different.

 

[Kail]

Ray Stevens gets it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgOHOHKBEqE

 

[Davros]

1) The child's citizenship is a MISINTERPRETATION of law as written by the original legislators.

No it isn't.

2) Denial of citizenship is NOT "punishment".

Taking away somebodies constitutional rights is a punishment.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Ray Stevens gets it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgOHOHKBEqE

That's crazy, he looks the same as he did 20 years ago!

 

[gturner]

Speaking of the 14th, it now incorporates the 2nd.

The US Supreme Court so ruled today.

PDF of the decision

 

[Kail]

Speaking of the 14th, it now incorporates the 2nd.

The US Supreme Court so ruled today.

PDF of the decision

214 pages!?

 

[SPOCKED]

Speaking of the 14th, it now incorporates the 2nd.

The US Supreme Court so ruled today.

PDF of the decision

214 pages!?

214 pages... of supreme win