# Next... Anchor Babies.



## Nate

Looks like Arizona legislators aren't done yet;


> Arizona's Next Immigration Target: Children of Illegals - Yahoo! News
> 
> Anchor babies" isn't a very endearing term, but in Arizona those are the words being used to tag children born in the U.S. to illegal immigrants. While not new, the term is increasingly part of the local vernacular because the primary authors of the nation's toughest and most controversial immigration law are targeting these tots - the legal weights that anchor many undocumented aliens in the U.S. - for their next move.
> 
> 
> Buoyed by recent public opinion polls suggesting they're on the right track with illegal immigration, Arizona Republicans will likely introduce legislation this fall that would deny birth certificates to children born in Arizona - and thus American citizens according to the U.S. Constitution - to parents who are not legal U.S. citizens. The law largely is the brainchild of state Sen. Russell Pearce, a Republican whose suburban district, Mesa, is considered the conservative bastion of the Phoenix political scene. He is a leading architect of the Arizona law that sparked outrage throughout the country: Senate Bill 1070, which allows law enforcement officers to ask about someone's immigration status during a traffic stop, detainment or arrest if reasonable suspicion exists - things like poor English skills, acting nervous or avoiding eye contact during a traffic stop.



So is Arizona going to far or is this another step in the right direction?


----------



## Nonelitist

What would it take to get this done?  Does it require an amendment or can the state just do it themselves?


----------



## Madeline

American citizenship is the birthright of every child born here.  This is a blatantly unconstitutional bill and one that does Arizona no good.


----------



## Bullfighter

Madeline said:


> American citizenship is the birthright of every child born here.  This is a blatantly unconstitutional bill and one that does Arizona no good.



Wrong. If they are loyal to Mexico, kick em out! There will be a war with Mexico in the near future. You don't want to have to fight front and rear.


----------



## Nate

Nonelitist said:


> What would it take to get this done?  Does it require an amendment or can the state just do it themselves?



They'd basically have to enact a new amendment to repeal the old(14th), like the 18th was repealed by the 21st. Can a State do it themeselves;


> The Supremacy Clause and Federal Preemption
> 
> The preemption doctrine derives from the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution which states that the "Constitution and the laws of the United States...shall be the supreme law of the land...anything in the constitutions or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."  This means of course, that any federal law--even a regulation of a federal agency--trumps any conflicting state law.



Though I disagree that Federal law should be the "supreme law of the land" I am a firm believer that you can't pick and choose laws to abide by.


----------



## Madeline

Bullfighter said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> American citizenship is the birthright of every child born here.  This is a blatantly unconstitutional bill and one that does Arizona no good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. If they are loyal to Mexico, kick em out! There will be a war with Mexico in the near future. You don't want to have to fight front and rear.
Click to expand...


What a horse's ass.  In case you have not noticed, most newborns have no national allegiance.  And WTF thinks we're going to war with Mexico?  We can barely bring ourselves to stop gushing over Calderon.


----------



## Coyote

Basically, Arizona is going to punish children for the sins of their parents.  Way to go Arizona.


----------



## Nate

Madeline said:


> Bullfighter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> American citizenship is the birthright of every child born here.  This is a blatantly unconstitutional bill and one that does Arizona no good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. If they are loyal to Mexico, kick em out! There will be a war with Mexico in the near future. You don't want to have to fight front and rear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What a horse's ass.  In case you have not noticed, most newborns have no national allegiance.  And WTF thinks we're going to war with Mexico?  We can barely bring ourselves to stop gushing over Calderon.
Click to expand...


Though I wish I could disagree with Bullfighter on this one Madeline, I can't. I also think we're on the brink of a war with our Southern invaders. As for Our Government gushing over Calderon, the first shot will not come a soldier on either side but a group of "good" samaritans who are tired by the inaction of our elected officials...


----------



## Madeline

Arizona has the ears of the nation.  It has the opportunity to speak clearly and forcefully about the issues of illegal immigration.  Legislation like this just plays into the hands of those who would like to persuade us that anyone who opposes Amnesty for illegals is a racist creep.

They are pissing away their credibility with this, and the chance to lead the nation away from the abyss.  It's a terrible shame.


----------



## syrenn

Madeline said:


> Bullfighter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> American citizenship is the birthright of every child born here.  This is a blatantly unconstitutional bill and one that does Arizona no good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. If they are loyal to Mexico, kick em out! There will be a war with Mexico in the near future. You don't want to have to fight front and rear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What a horse's ass.  In case you have not noticed, most newborns have no national allegiance.  And WTF thinks we're going to war with Mexico?  We can barely bring ourselves to stop gushing over Calderon.
Click to expand...



Yes most not ALL. Just who do think is doing all the protesting in the state of CA? anchor babies who dont want their illegal parents deported. Anchor babies will vote and do anything to protect their illegal parents status in this country.


----------



## Coyote

"Anchor babies" are American citizens.  Not "anchor babies".  Until the constitution changes, they deserve the same respect and decency as any other American citizen.


----------



## Madeline

Polls have shown that Americans of Mexican dissent are divided on the issue of illegal immigration.  Still, I don't doubt that the children of illegals love their parents and want them to stay.  I fail to see why this natural human emotion is a cause to criticize them....would it be better if Mexican-Americans had no regard for their families?  Do you love your parents?  If their immigration status was challenged, would you help them?

My one uncle is the only "natural" American citizen of his generation.  If my family had emigrated here from Japan or Germany and not Scotland, should we have been hated during WW II?  

Your reasoning is crapola, syrenn, unless you are a Native American.  And even then it's _still _crapola.  It is not immoral to want a decent life for the people you love.


----------



## syrenn

I don't disagree with you about wanting a decent life. Come here legally. Children of illegals are illegal. 

.


----------



## Madeline

Any child born in the US is an American citizen every bit as much as you are, syrenn.  Wishing that were different is not going to change it...and in my opinion, it should not be changed.


----------



## syrenn

Madeline said:


> Any child born in the US is an American citizen every bit as much as you are, syrenn.  Wishing that were different is not going to change it...and in my opinion, it should not be changed.



Agreed and they do deserve all rights, their parents do not. You have a right to your opinion.  I have a differing opinion and think the law needs to be changed.


----------



## Bullfighter

syrenn said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullfighter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. If they are loyal to Mexico, kick em out! There will be a war with Mexico in the near future. You don't want to have to fight front and rear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a horse's ass.  In case you have not noticed, most newborns have no national allegiance.  And WTF thinks we're going to war with Mexico?  We can barely bring ourselves to stop gushing over Calderon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes most not ALL. Just who do think is doing all the protesting in the state of CA? anchor babies who dont want their illegal parents deported. Anchor babies will vote and do anything to protect their illegal parents status in this country.
Click to expand...


If you are not loyal to the American system then OUT!

For those who are not supporting the federal laws of immigration today, maybe I won't support the FEDERAL/STATE/LOCAL INCOME TAX tomorrow.


----------



## tsalkonocii

Nate said:


> Looks like Arizona legislators aren't done yet;
> 
> 
> 
> Arizona's Next Immigration Target: Children of Illegals - Yahoo! News
> 
> Anchor babies" isn't a very endearing term, but in Arizona those are the words being used to tag children born in the U.S. to illegal immigrants. While not new, the term is increasingly part of the local vernacular because the primary authors of the nation's toughest and most controversial immigration law are targeting these tots - the legal weights that anchor many undocumented aliens in the U.S. - for their next move.
> 
> 
> Buoyed by recent public opinion polls suggesting they're on the right track with illegal immigration, Arizona Republicans will likely introduce legislation this fall that would deny birth certificates to children born in Arizona - and thus American citizens according to the U.S. Constitution - to parents who are not legal U.S. citizens. The law largely is the brainchild of state Sen. Russell Pearce, a Republican whose suburban district, Mesa, is considered the conservative bastion of the Phoenix political scene. He is a leading architect of the Arizona law that sparked outrage throughout the country: Senate Bill 1070, which allows law enforcement officers to ask about someone's immigration status during a traffic stop, detainment or arrest if reasonable suspicion exists - things like poor English skills, acting nervous or avoiding eye contact during a traffic stop.
> 
> 
> 
> So is Arizona going to far or is this another step in the right direction?
Click to expand...

When the fed, including scotus, undermines American sovereignty, it;s well within Arizona's right to do what is necessary to do so.


----------



## tsalkonocii

Madeline said:


> American citizenship is the birthright of every child born here.  This is a blatantly unconstitutional bill and one that does Arizona no good.



It's not unconstitutional at all. As children of non-citizens, they are citizens of their parents' country. Thus they are subject to that nation's jurisdiction and not wholly to that of the US. Hence they do not meet the  conditions laid out in the 14th amendment.

What 'Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof' Really Means


----------



## Madeline

Bullfighter said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> What a horse's ass.  In case you have not noticed, most newborns have no national allegiance.  And WTF thinks we're going to war with Mexico?  We can barely bring ourselves to stop gushing over Calderon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes most not ALL. Just who do think is doing all the protesting in the state of CA? anchor babies who dont want their illegal parents deported. Anchor babies will vote and do anything to protect their illegal parents status in this country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you are not loyal to the American system then OUT!
> 
> For those who are not supporting the federal laws of immigration today, maybe I won't support the FEDERAL/STATE/LOCAL INCOME TAX tomorrow.
Click to expand...


WTF does it mean to "be loyal to the American system"?  MY America system allows for freedom of speech and thought....I'm not obligated to bless everything the government does in order to remain here.  And WTF would you deport me to anyway?  Daddy was a Scottish immigrant but we can't even tell where Mommy was from, though my brother thinks she was Dutch.  Gonna cut me in half and ship body parts all over Europe?

Reasonable, patriotic Americans can disagree about immigration just as they can anything else.  If this offends you, move somewhere that group think is prized.  May I suggest China?


----------



## tsalkonocii

Madeline said:


> Bullfighter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> American citizenship is the birthright of every child born here.  This is a blatantly unconstitutional bill and one that does Arizona no good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. If they are loyal to Mexico, kick em out! There will be a war with Mexico in the near future. You don't want to have to fight front and rear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What a horse's ass.  In case you have not noticed, most newborns have no national allegiance.  And WTF thinks we're going to war with Mexico?  We can barely bring ourselves to stop gushing over Calderon.
Click to expand...


When a nation's army crosses national borders and threatens law enforcement, that's not a good sign for international relations.


----------



## tsalkonocii

Coyote said:


> Basically, Arizona is going to punish children for the sins of their parents.  Way to go Arizona.


How is making them get in line or go home and making their parents obey the law punishing them?


----------



## Madeline

tsalkonocii said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> American citizenship is the birthright of every child born here.  This is a blatantly unconstitutional bill and one that does Arizona no good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not unconstitutional at all. As children of non-citizens, they are citizens of their parents' country. Thus they are subject to that nation's jurisdiction and not wholly to that of the US. Hence they do not meet the  conditions laid out in the 14th amendment.
> 
> What 'Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof' Really Means
Click to expand...


Wishful thinking, but wrong.  Born here means citizen; the motives or legal status of the parents are wholly irrelevant.


----------



## tsalkonocii

Madeline said:


> Legislation like this just plays into the hands of those who would like to persuade us that anyone who opposes Amnesty for illegals is a racist creep.




Fuck those people. 

Tel these men they just hate Hispanics and see what response you get:





















Like it or not, there are a lot of Hispanics who love this country and hate those who would undermine its sovereignty. A lot of our Border Patrol agents are Hispanic and a great many, if not most, law-abiding Americans of Hispanic descent wholly approve of Arizona's recent actions.


----------



## Bullfighter

Madeline said:


> Bullfighter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes most not ALL. Just who do think is doing all the protesting in the state of CA? anchor babies who dont want their illegal parents deported. Anchor babies will vote and do anything to protect their illegal parents status in this country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you are not loyal to the American system then OUT!
> 
> For those who are not supporting the federal laws of immigration today, maybe I won't support the FEDERAL/STATE/LOCAL INCOME TAX tomorrow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WTF does it mean to "be loyal to the American system"?  MY America system allows for freedom of speech and thought....I'm not obligated to bless everything the government does in order to remain here.  And WTF would you deport me to anyway?  Daddy was a Scottish immigrant but we can't even tell where Mommy was from, though my brother thinks she was Dutch.  Gonna cut me in half and ship body parts all over Europe?
> 
> Reasonable, patriotic Americans can disagree about immigration just as they can anything else.  If this offends you, move somewhere that group think is prized.  May I suggest China?
Click to expand...


A few Mexicans crossing the border into the US is not an invasion, but when millions do it after the Mexican presidents of several administration PROMISED the American people that they will DO SOMETHING about these MEXICANS WHO VIOLATE AMERICAN SOVEREIGNTY, That IS an invasion with the blessing of the Mexican government.


----------



## tsalkonocii

Coyote said:


> "Anchor babies" are American citizens.  Not "anchor babies".  Until the constitution changes, they deserve the same respect and decency as any other American citizen.


No, they're not. They don't meet the conditions laid out in the 14th


----------



## Madeline

I agree Bullfighter -- but why do they come?  What about traitorous American businesses and employers who hire these people knowing they are illegals?  There's enough blame to lay on everyone, even you and I.


----------



## tsalkonocii

Madeline said:


> Any child born in the US is an American citizen every bit as much as you are, syrenn.  Wishing that were different is not going to change it...and in my opinion, it should not be changed.


Why do you lie? That's not what the constitution says



> 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...



What 'Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof' Really Means


----------



## tsalkonocii

Madeline said:


> I agree Bullfighter -- but why do they come?  What about traitorous American businesses and employers who hire these people knowing they are illegals?  There's enough blame to lay on everyone, even you and I.


You admit to harboring illegals?


----------



## tsalkonocii

Bullfighter said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullfighter said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you are not loyal to the American system then OUT!
> 
> For those who are not supporting the federal laws of immigration today, maybe I won't support the FEDERAL/STATE/LOCAL INCOME TAX tomorrow.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WTF does it mean to "be loyal to the American system"?  MY America system allows for freedom of speech and thought....I'm not obligated to bless everything the government does in order to remain here.  And WTF would you deport me to anyway?  Daddy was a Scottish immigrant but we can't even tell where Mommy was from, though my brother thinks she was Dutch.  Gonna cut me in half and ship body parts all over Europe?
> 
> Reasonable, patriotic Americans can disagree about immigration just as they can anything else.  If this offends you, move somewhere that group think is prized.  May I suggest China?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A few Mexicans crossing the border into the US is not an invasion, but when millions do it after the Mexican presidents of several administration PROMISED the American people that they will DO SOMETHING about these MEXICANS WHO VIOLATE AMERICAN SOVEREIGNTY, That IS an invasion with the blessing of the Mexican government.
Click to expand...

 
*Mexico's president, Felipe Calderon says Mexico extends into U.S.*

FELIPE CALDERON, MEXICAN PRESIDENT (through translator):  I have said  that Mexico doesn't end at the border

CNN.com - Transcripts


----------



## Madeline

tsalkonocii said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Anchor babies" are American citizens.  Not "anchor babies".  Until the constitution changes, they deserve the same respect and decency as any other American citizen.
> 
> 
> 
> No, they're not. They don't meet the conditions laid out in the 14th
Click to expand...


You are 100% WRONG.



> Who is a natural-born citizen? Who, in other words, is a citizen at birth, such that that person can be a President someday?
> 
> The 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way: "*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." But even this does not get specific enough. As usual, the Constitution provides the framework for the law, but it is the law that fills in the gaps. The Constitution authorizes the Congress to do create clarifying legislation in Section 5 of the 14th Amendment; the Constitution, in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4, also allows the Congress to create law regarding naturalization, which includes citizenship.
> 
> Currently, *Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in the gaps left by the Constitution. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:"
> 
> Anyone born inside the United States **
> Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe
> Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
> Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
> Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
> Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
> Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
> A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.
> 
> ** There is an exception in the law  the person must be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. This would exempt the child of a diplomat, for example, from this provision.*
> 
> Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President. These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born, for example.
> 
> Separate sections handle territories that the United States has acquired over time, such as Puerto Rico (8 USC 1402), Alaska (8 USC 1404), Hawaii (8 USC 1405), the U.S. Virgin Islands (8 USC 1406), and Guam (8 USC 1407). Each of these sections confer citizenship on persons living in these territories as of a certain date, and usually confer natural-born status on persons born in those territories after that date. For example, for Puerto Rico, all persons born in Puerto Rico between April 11, 1899, and January 12, 1941, are automatically conferred citizenship as of the date the law was signed by the President (June 27, 1952). Additionally, all persons born in Puerto Rico on or after January 13, 1941, are natural-born citizens of the United States. Note that because of when the law was passed, for some, the natural-born status was retroactive.
> 
> The law contains one other section of historical note, concerning the Panama Canal Zone and the nation of Panama. In 8 USC 1403, the law states that anyone born in the Canal Zone or in Panama itself, on or after February 26, 1904, to a mother and/or father who is a United States citizen, was "declared" to be a United States citizen. Note that the terms "natural-born" or "citizen at birth" are missing from this section.
> 
> In 2008, when Arizona Senator John McCain ran for president on the Republican ticket, some theorized that because McCain was born in the Canal Zone, he was not actually qualified to be president. However, it should be noted that section 1403 was written to apply to a small group of people to whom section 1401 did not apply. McCain is a natural-born citizen under 8 USC 1401(c): "a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person." Not everyone agrees that this section includes McCain  but absent a court ruling either way, we must presume citizenship.



Constitutional Topic: Citizenship - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

The children of illegal immigrants are just as subject to the jurisdiction of the US as your kidlets are.


----------



## tsalkonocii

Thanks for proving me correct again. 





> There is an  exception in the law &#8212; the person must be "subject to the jurisdiction"  of the United States.



http://federalistblog.us/2007/09/revisiting_subject_to_the_jurisdiction.html


----------



## Bullfighter

Madeline said:


> tsalkonocii said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Anchor babies" are American citizens.  Not "anchor babies".  Until the constitution changes, they deserve the same respect and decency as any other American citizen.
> 
> 
> 
> No, they're not. They don't meet the conditions laid out in the 14th
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are 100% WRONG.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is a natural-born citizen? Who, in other words, is a citizen at birth, such that that person can be a President someday?
> 
> The 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way: "*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." But even this does not get specific enough. As usual, the Constitution provides the framework for the law, but it is the law that fills in the gaps. The Constitution authorizes the Congress to do create clarifying legislation in Section 5 of the 14th Amendment; the Constitution, in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4, also allows the Congress to create law regarding naturalization, which includes citizenship.
> 
> Currently, *Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in the gaps left by the Constitution. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:"
> 
> Anyone born inside the United States **
> Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe
> Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
> Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
> Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
> Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
> Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
> A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.
> 
> ** There is an exception in the law  the person must be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. This would exempt the child of a diplomat, for example, from this provision.*
> 
> Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President. These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born, for example.
> 
> Separate sections handle territories that the United States has acquired over time, such as Puerto Rico (8 USC 1402), Alaska (8 USC 1404), Hawaii (8 USC 1405), the U.S. Virgin Islands (8 USC 1406), and Guam (8 USC 1407). Each of these sections confer citizenship on persons living in these territories as of a certain date, and usually confer natural-born status on persons born in those territories after that date. For example, for Puerto Rico, all persons born in Puerto Rico between April 11, 1899, and January 12, 1941, are automatically conferred citizenship as of the date the law was signed by the President (June 27, 1952). Additionally, all persons born in Puerto Rico on or after January 13, 1941, are natural-born citizens of the United States. Note that because of when the law was passed, for some, the natural-born status was retroactive.
> 
> The law contains one other section of historical note, concerning the Panama Canal Zone and the nation of Panama. In 8 USC 1403, the law states that anyone born in the Canal Zone or in Panama itself, on or after February 26, 1904, to a mother and/or father who is a United States citizen, was "declared" to be a United States citizen. Note that the terms "natural-born" or "citizen at birth" are missing from this section.
> 
> In 2008, when Arizona Senator John McCain ran for president on the Republican ticket, some theorized that because McCain was born in the Canal Zone, he was not actually qualified to be president. However, it should be noted that section 1403 was written to apply to a small group of people to whom section 1401 did not apply. McCain is a natural-born citizen under 8 USC 1401(c): "a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person." Not everyone agrees that this section includes McCain  but absent a court ruling either way, we must presume citizenship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Constitutional Topic: Citizenship - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net
> 
> The children of illegal immigrants are just as subject to the jurisdiction of the US as your kidlets are.
Click to expand...


But as loyal Americans, those "Mexican" children should have their undocumented parents thrown out of the country. BUT THEY DON'T THEREFORE SHOWING THEIR LOYALTY TO A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT-MEXICO!


----------



## Madeline

tsalkonocii said:


> Bullfighter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> WTF does it mean to "be loyal to the American system"?  MY America system allows for freedom of speech and thought....I'm not obligated to bless everything the government does in order to remain here.  And WTF would you deport me to anyway?  Daddy was a Scottish immigrant but we can't even tell where Mommy was from, though my brother thinks she was Dutch.  Gonna cut me in half and ship body parts all over Europe?
> 
> Reasonable, patriotic Americans can disagree about immigration just as they can anything else.  If this offends you, move somewhere that group think is prized.  May I suggest China?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A few Mexicans crossing the border into the US is not an invasion, but when millions do it after the Mexican presidents of several administration PROMISED the American people that they will DO SOMETHING about these MEXICANS WHO VIOLATE AMERICAN SOVEREIGNTY, That IS an invasion with the blessing of the Mexican government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Mexico's president, Felipe Calderon says Mexico extends into U.S.*
> 
> FELIPE CALDERON, MEXICAN PRESIDENT (through translator):  I have said  that Mexico doesn't end at the border
> 
> CNN.com - Transcripts
Click to expand...


Felipe Calderon is a puppethead, doubtless completely devoted to the Mexican elite and the status quo.  What do you expect him to say?  If 90% of the poor and criminal of your nation were agitating to leave, would you oppose them?  I'm sure Castro said something similar before the Mariel boat lift -- but that doesn't make either man correct.


----------



## tsalkonocii

Bullfighter said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tsalkonocii said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, they're not. They don't meet the conditions laid out in the 14th
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are 100% WRONG.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is a natural-born citizen? Who, in other words, is a citizen at birth, such that that person can be a President someday?
> 
> The 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way: "*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." But even this does not get specific enough. As usual, the Constitution provides the framework for the law, but it is the law that fills in the gaps. The Constitution authorizes the Congress to do create clarifying legislation in Section 5 of the 14th Amendment; the Constitution, in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4, also allows the Congress to create law regarding naturalization, which includes citizenship.
> 
> Currently, *Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in the gaps left by the Constitution. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:"
> 
> Anyone born inside the United States **
> Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe
> Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
> Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
> Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
> Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
> Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
> A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.
> 
> ** There is an exception in the law &#8212; the person must be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. This would exempt the child of a diplomat, for example, from this provision.*
> 
> Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President. These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born, for example.
> 
> Separate sections handle territories that the United States has acquired over time, such as Puerto Rico (8 USC 1402), Alaska (8 USC 1404), Hawaii (8 USC 1405), the U.S. Virgin Islands (8 USC 1406), and Guam (8 USC 1407). Each of these sections confer citizenship on persons living in these territories as of a certain date, and usually confer natural-born status on persons born in those territories after that date. For example, for Puerto Rico, all persons born in Puerto Rico between April 11, 1899, and January 12, 1941, are automatically conferred citizenship as of the date the law was signed by the President (June 27, 1952). Additionally, all persons born in Puerto Rico on or after January 13, 1941, are natural-born citizens of the United States. Note that because of when the law was passed, for some, the natural-born status was retroactive.
> 
> The law contains one other section of historical note, concerning the Panama Canal Zone and the nation of Panama. In 8 USC 1403, the law states that anyone born in the Canal Zone or in Panama itself, on or after February 26, 1904, to a mother and/or father who is a United States citizen, was "declared" to be a United States citizen. Note that the terms "natural-born" or "citizen at birth" are missing from this section.
> 
> In 2008, when Arizona Senator John McCain ran for president on the Republican ticket, some theorized that because McCain was born in the Canal Zone, he was not actually qualified to be president. However, it should be noted that section 1403 was written to apply to a small group of people to whom section 1401 did not apply. McCain is a natural-born citizen under 8 USC 1401(c): "a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person." Not everyone agrees that this section includes McCain &#8212; but absent a court ruling either way, we must presume citizenship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Constitutional Topic: Citizenship - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net
> 
> The children of illegal immigrants are just as subject to the jurisdiction of the US as your kidlets are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But as loyal Americans, those "Mexican" children should have their undocumented parents thrown out of the country. BUT THEY DON'T THEREFORE SHOWING THEIR LOYALTY TO A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT-MEXICO!
Click to expand...


  They are children of foreign nationals and they are not naturalized ans American nationals, hence not meeting the criteria laid out in the 14th and not being conferred citizenship upon birth

What 'Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof' Really Means


----------



## syrenn

Madeline said:


> I agree Bullfighter -- but why do they come?  What about traitorous American businesses and employers who hire these people knowing they are illegals?  There's enough blame to lay on everyone, even you and I.



It makes no difference WHY they come. If they come illegal they are illegal.

If children of illegals were BY law illegal it would stem the tide of illegals coming and popping out anchor babies the second they get here in order to STAY and receive welfare. 


AND I am not just talking about mexicans, make no mistake, I am talking about ALL illegals from every country in the world. I don't care where they are from illegal is illegal.


----------



## Madeline

> The children of illegal immigrants are just as subject to the jurisdiction of the US as your kidlets are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But as loyal Americans, those "Mexican" children should have their undocumented parents thrown out of the country. BUT THEY DON'T THEREFORE SHOWING THEIR LOYALTY TO A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT-MEXICO!
Click to expand...


There is no legal proceeding for removing any natural born American citizen's citizenship that relies solely on that person's advocacy for a political position.  To my knowledge, an American can lose his citizenship only by accepting citizenship from another nation antagonistic to ours.  You are invested by virtue of the constitution with the inalienable right to agitate for any peculiar or unpopular position you wish without endangering your citizenship.  And I would not care to live here if that ever changed.


----------



## tsalkonocii

why do people like madeline hate the idea of America as a sovereign nation?


----------



## froggy

Madeline said:


> Wishful thinking, but wrong.  Born here means citizen; the motives or legal status of the parents are wholly irrelevant.[/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR]




If you are here illegal and pregnant then the child is also illegal and should be denied citizenship because of the illegal act. that should be the new law to put in force'


----------



## Bullfighter

froggy said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wishful thinking, but wrong.  Born here means citizen; the motives or legal status of the parents are wholly irrelevant.[/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you are here illegal and pregnant then the child is also illegal and should be denied citizenship because of the illegal act. that should be the new law to put in force'
Click to expand...


----------



## tsalkonocii

Madeline said:


> To my knowledge, an American can lose his citizenship only by accepting citizenship from another nation antagonistic to ours.




Actually, it's any nation at all[except Israel]. America does not recognize dual loyalties. With the exception of children, it's all or nothing. Also, your actions can constitute a renunciation of your loyalty to America, as is the case when you serve in foreign armed forces (thereby showing your loyalty to a foreign nation- the Jews are the only exception I know of to this rule; you can fight to kill Arabs in the name of Zionism and still retain your American citizenship).


----------



## Intense

Nate said:


> Looks like Arizona legislators aren't done yet;
> 
> 
> 
> Arizona's Next Immigration Target: Children of Illegals - Yahoo! News
> 
> Anchor babies" isn't a very endearing term, but in Arizona those are the words being used to tag children born in the U.S. to illegal immigrants. While not new, the term is increasingly part of the local vernacular because the primary authors of the nation's toughest and most controversial immigration law are targeting these tots - the legal weights that anchor many undocumented aliens in the U.S. - for their next move.
> 
> 
> Buoyed by recent public opinion polls suggesting they're on the right track with illegal immigration, Arizona Republicans will likely introduce legislation this fall that would deny birth certificates to children born in Arizona - and thus American citizens according to the U.S. Constitution - to parents who are not legal U.S. citizens. The law largely is the brainchild of state Sen. Russell Pearce, a Republican whose suburban district, Mesa, is considered the conservative bastion of the Phoenix political scene. He is a leading architect of the Arizona law that sparked outrage throughout the country: Senate Bill 1070, which allows law enforcement officers to ask about someone's immigration status during a traffic stop, detainment or arrest if reasonable suspicion exists - things like poor English skills, acting nervous or avoiding eye contact during a traffic stop.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So is Arizona going to far or is this another step in the right direction?
Click to expand...


It needs to be addressed at the Federal level through Constitutional Amendment.


----------



## Madeline

syrenn said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree Bullfighter -- but why do they come?  What about traitorous American businesses and employers who hire these people knowing they are illegals?  There's enough blame to lay on everyone, even you and I.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It makes no difference WHY they come. If they come illegal they are illegal.
> 
> If children of illegals were BY law illegal it would stem the tide of illegals coming and popping out anchor babies the second they get here in order to STAY and receive welfare.
> 
> AND I am not just talking about mexicans, make no mistake, I am talking about ALL illegals from every country in the world. I don't care where they are from illegal is illegal.
Click to expand...


Very few illegals receive welfare -- that would expose them to deportation proceedings.  Welfare is extremely hard to get even for a citizen.  I don't really know what sort of test you'd like us to perform on babies after birth to determine their suitability for citizenship, syrenn, but the very thought makes me shudder.


----------



## tsalkonocii

Intense said:


> Nate said:
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like Arizona legislators aren't done yet;
> 
> 
> 
> Arizona's Next Immigration Target: Children of Illegals - Yahoo! News
> 
> Anchor babies" isn't a very endearing term, but in Arizona those are the words being used to tag children born in the U.S. to illegal immigrants. While not new, the term is increasingly part of the local vernacular because the primary authors of the nation's toughest and most controversial immigration law are targeting these tots - the legal weights that anchor many undocumented aliens in the U.S. - for their next move.
> 
> 
> Buoyed by recent public opinion polls suggesting they're on the right track with illegal immigration, Arizona Republicans will likely introduce legislation this fall that would deny birth certificates to children born in Arizona - and thus American citizens according to the U.S. Constitution - to parents who are not legal U.S. citizens. The law largely is the brainchild of state Sen. Russell Pearce, a Republican whose suburban district, Mesa, is considered the conservative bastion of the Phoenix political scene. He is a leading architect of the Arizona law that sparked outrage throughout the country: Senate Bill 1070, which allows law enforcement officers to ask about someone's immigration status during a traffic stop, detainment or arrest if reasonable suspicion exists - things like poor English skills, acting nervous or avoiding eye contact during a traffic stop.
> 
> 
> 
> So is Arizona going to far or is this another step in the right direction?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It needs to be addressed at the Federal level through Constitutional Amendment.
Click to expand...


When the Fed fails, it falls to the member States to act.


----------



## syrenn

tsalkonocii said:


> why do people like madeline hate the idea of America as a sovereign nation?




no i don't believe she does. She has empathy for the state of the conditions of other countries. She doesn't understand that THAT is not our problem or an excuse for illegal immigration and the use of anchor babies to stay here illegally.


----------



## Madeline

tsalkonocii said:


> why do people like madeline hate the idea of America as a sovereign nation?



Why do people like tsalkonocii, who gained by an accident of their birth, wish to deny the benefits of citizenship to a racial group whose parents annoy them?


----------



## tsalkonocii

Madeline said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree Bullfighter -- but why do they come?  What about traitorous American businesses and employers who hire these people knowing they are illegals?  There's enough blame to lay on everyone, even you and I.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It makes no difference WHY they come. If they come illegal they are illegal.
> 
> If children of illegals were BY law illegal it would stem the tide of illegals coming and popping out anchor babies the second they get here in order to STAY and receive welfare.
> 
> AND I am not just talking about mexicans, make no mistake, I am talking about ALL illegals from every country in the world. I don't care where they are from illegal is illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Very few illegals receive welfare -- that would expose them to deportation proceedings.  Welfare is extremely hard to get even for a citizen.  I don't really know what sort of test you'd like us to perform on babies after birth to determine their suitability for citizenship, syrenn, but the very thought makes me shudder.
Click to expand...


They can get residency when their parents do after they've gone through to appropriate legal processes. They can then either receive citizenship as young children when their parents petition for and are granted citizenship or petition for citizenship when they become legal adults.

Plenty of legal immigrants and their families do it all the time.


----------



## Bullfighter

Madeline said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree Bullfighter -- but why do they come?  What about traitorous American businesses and employers who hire these people knowing they are illegals?  There's enough blame to lay on everyone, even you and I.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It makes no difference WHY they come. If they come illegal they are illegal.
> 
> If children of illegals were BY law illegal it would stem the tide of illegals coming and popping out anchor babies the second they get here in order to STAY and receive welfare.
> 
> AND I am not just talking about mexicans, make no mistake, I am talking about ALL illegals from every country in the world. I don't care where they are from illegal is illegal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Very few illegals receive welfare -- that would expose them to deportation proceedings.  Welfare is extremely hard to get even for a citizen.  I don't really know what sort of test you'd like us to perform on babies after birth to determine their suitability for citizenship, syrenn, but the very thought makes me shudder.
Click to expand...


What about those towns that won't hire people unless they are bi-lingual. And I don't mean Polish!


----------



## Intense

froggy said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wishful thinking, but wrong.  Born here means citizen; the motives or legal status of the parents are wholly irrelevant.[/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you are here illegal and pregnant then the child is also illegal and should be denied citizenship because of the illegal act. that should be the new law to put in force'
Click to expand...


Too many big words for the gate keepers froggy. Too complex an issue. Maybe if you could apply the concept to a diagram. Don't bother submitting it before 9:30AM, or after lunch, or on Monday's, Thursdays, Fridays, or within 3 days of any Holiday.


----------



## tsalkonocii

Madeline said:


> tsalkonocii said:
> 
> 
> 
> why do people like madeline hate the idea of America as a sovereign nation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do people like tsalkonocii, who gained by an accident of their birth, wish to deny the benefits of citizenship to a racial group whose parents annoy them?
Click to expand...


Actually, my family immigrated here in accordance with American law at various points in history. Should I ever choose to immigrate elsewhere, I shall do so in accordance with their laws. Anyone coming here is expected to do the same or be shot trying to cross the border (why else are they trying to sneak in undetected, unless they're criminals- drug runners or terrorists?)


----------



## froggy

Intense said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wishful thinking, but wrong.  Born here means citizen; the motives or legal status of the parents are wholly irrelevant.[/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you are here illegal and pregnant then the child is also illegal and should be denied citizenship because of the illegal act. that should be the new law to put in force'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Too many big words for the gate keepers froggy. Too complex an issue. Maybe if you could apply the concept to a diagram. Don't bother submitting it before 9:30AM, or after lunch, or on Monday's, Thursdays, Fridays, or within 3 days of any Holiday.
Click to expand...


I got lost on 52nd and 12th.


----------



## syrenn

Madeline said:


> [FONT="Book Antiqua"[B]]Very few illegals receive welfare [/B]-- that would expose them to deportation proceedings.  Welfare is extremely hard to get even for a citizen.  I don't really know what sort of test you'd like us to perform on babies after birth to determine their suitability for citizenship, syrenn, but the very thought makes me shudder.[/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR][/quote]
> 
> 
> [COLOR="Navy"]But their anchor babies DO receive welfare. For a start,
> 
> Aid to mothers with dependent children?
> WIC?
> Food stamps?
> 
> 
> It is easy Maddie, when you have your child the parent must have legal documentation of citizenship for the issue of a birth certificate. If not the child is a non citizen and just as illegal as its mother. Both should be deported at the time of birth.


----------



## Bullfighter

Intense said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wishful thinking, but wrong.  Born here means citizen; the motives or legal status of the parents are wholly irrelevant.[/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you are here illegal and pregnant then the child is also illegal and should be denied citizenship because of the illegal act. that should be the new law to put in force'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Too many big words for the gate keepers froggy. Too complex an issue. Maybe if you could apply the concept to a diagram. Don't bother submitting it before 9:30AM, or after lunch, or on Monday's, Thursdays, Fridays, or within 3 days of any Holiday.
Click to expand...


HERE"S YOUR LOYAL AMERICANS:


----------



## tsalkonocii

syrenn said:


> tsalkonocii said:
> 
> 
> 
> why do people like madeline hate the idea of America as a sovereign nation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no i don't believe she does. She has empathy for the state of the conditions of other countries. She doesn't understand that THAT is not our problem or an excuse for illegal immigration and the use of anchor babies to stay here illegally.
Click to expand...


Plenty of people come from Mexico and other impoverished nations (Philippines, VietNam, and others) all the time in accordance with our laws. Do likewise or be shot. You get warned once to turn around, Fail and your shot. Get found in the States illegally and get thrown in a  dungeon for 5 years awaiting a hearing to see whether you're to be deported (read: dropped off in the middle of the ocean, 20 miles from shore, still in shackles) or attached to a chain gain during the remainder of your prison sentence- for the rest of your natural life. That's how it should be done. Problem solved.


----------



## Bullfighter

tsalkonocii said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tsalkonocii said:
> 
> 
> 
> why do people like madeline hate the idea of America as a sovereign nation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do people like tsalkonocii, who gained by an accident of their birth, wish to deny the benefits of citizenship to a racial group whose parents annoy them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, my family immigrated here in accordance with American law at various points in history. Should I ever choose to immigrate elsewhere, I shall do so in accordance with their laws. Anyone coming here is expected to do the same or be shot trying to cross the border (why else are they trying to sneak in undetected, unless they're criminals- drug runners or terrorists?)
Click to expand...


----------



## Zoom-boing

I found this last week looking up anchor babies.



> Interpreting the 14th Amendment
> 
> According to the  Constitution's 14th  Amendment, ratified in 1868 to ensure citizenship for the newly emancipated African Americans, "all persons, born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."  The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was intended to exclude from automatic citizenship American-born persons whose allegiance to the United States was incomplete.
> For example, Native Americans were excluded from American citizenship because of their tribal jurisdiction. Also not subject to American jurisdiction were foreign visitors, ambassadors, consuls, and their babies born here. In the case of illegal aliens, their native country has a claim of allegiance on the child.  Therefore, some Constitutional scholars argue that the completeness of the allegiance to the United States is impaired and logically precludes automatic citizenship. However, this issue has never been directly decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.



More at the link

The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR): Anchor Babies: The Children of Illegal Aliens


----------



## Coyote

tsalkonocii said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tsalkonocii said:
> 
> 
> 
> why do people like madeline hate the idea of America as a sovereign nation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do people like tsalkonocii, who gained by an accident of their birth, wish to deny the benefits of citizenship to a racial group whose parents annoy them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, my family immigrated here in accordance with American law at various points in history. Should I ever choose to immigrate elsewhere, I shall do so in accordance with their laws. Anyone coming here is expected to do the same or be shot trying to cross the border (why else are they trying to sneak in undetected, unless they're criminals- drug runners or terrorists?)
Click to expand...


Most aren't drug runners or terroristst.


----------



## Coyote

Bullfighter said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you are here illegal and pregnant then the child is also illegal and should be denied citizenship because of the illegal act. that should be the new law to put in force'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Too many big words for the gate keepers froggy. Too complex an issue. Maybe if you could apply the concept to a diagram. Don't bother submitting it before 9:30AM, or after lunch, or on Monday's, Thursdays, Fridays, or within 3 days of any Holiday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> HERE"S YOUR LOYAL AMERICANS:
Click to expand...


How retarded.

Find a picture depicting a minority sentiment.

Post it.

Proclaim it the majority.


----------



## syrenn

Madeline said:


> tsalkonocii said:
> 
> 
> 
> why do people like madeline hate the idea of America as a sovereign nation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do people like tsalkonocii, who gained by an accident of their birth, wish to deny the benefits of citizenship to a racial group whose parents annoy them?
Click to expand...


No one is denying the benefits of citizenship. You are missing the point of  illegal immigration and how the anchor babies got here in the first place. 

AND why do you think the issue of illegal anchor babies is about ONE group of people only?


----------



## tsalkonocii

Right... I see at least one moron in that crowd who's more Spaniard (or possibly Italian-Sicilian) than native. PLus they forget that most of their (native) ancestors came from further south and never came this north, where the lands were held by a number of of warring tribes.

The only groups that had any valid complaint were the natives who were displaced and had their treaties broken. Of course, many of those groups were there as a result of past wars over territory against other tribes. Of course, those 'nations' which still exist have, to this day, exercise a certain degree of self-governance, although they seem non too eager to declare sovereignty and try to survive on their own- nor, of course, do they wish to surrender their special treatment and become simply Americans and citizens of the States in which they reside.


----------



## tsalkonocii

Coyote said:


> tsalkonocii said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do people like tsalkonocii, who gained by an accident of their birth, wish to deny the benefits of citizenship to a racial group whose parents annoy them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, my family immigrated here in accordance with American law at various points in history. Should I ever choose to immigrate elsewhere, I shall do so in accordance with their laws. Anyone coming here is expected to do the same or be shot trying to cross the border (why else are they trying to sneak in undetected, unless they're criminals- drug runners or terrorists?)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most aren't drug runners or terroristst.
Click to expand...


Really?

All of them are criminals and a great many can't be identified. You must have evidence that the majority have been identified, in order to identify the majority as non-drug runners and non-terrorists.


----------



## Coyote

tsalkonocii said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tsalkonocii said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, my family immigrated here in accordance with American law at various points in history. Should I ever choose to immigrate elsewhere, I shall do so in accordance with their laws. Anyone coming here is expected to do the same or be shot trying to cross the border (why else are they trying to sneak in undetected, unless they're criminals- drug runners or terrorists?)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most aren't drug runners or terroristst.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> All of them are criminals and a great many can't be identified. You must have evidence that the *majority have been identified, in order to identify the majority as non-drug runners and non-terrorists.*
Click to expand...


The same argument applies to your claim.

Considering that most illegals keep a low profile, hold jobs etc etc - it's hard to imagine that they are all terrorists and drug runners.

Maybe you can back up this huge number that are "terrorists" with some numbers?


----------



## hboats

Nate said:


> Looks like Arizona legislators aren't done yet;
> 
> 
> 
> Arizona's Next Immigration Target: Children of Illegals - Yahoo! News
> 
> Anchor babies" isn't a very endearing term, but in Arizona those are the words being used to tag children born in the U.S. to illegal immigrants. While not new, the term is increasingly part of the local vernacular because the primary authors of the nation's toughest and most controversial immigration law are targeting these tots - the legal weights that anchor many undocumented aliens in the U.S. - for their next move.
> 
> 
> Buoyed by recent public opinion polls suggesting they're on the right track with illegal immigration, Arizona Republicans will likely introduce legislation this fall that would deny birth certificates to children born in Arizona - and thus American citizens according to the U.S. Constitution - to parents who are not legal U.S. citizens. The law largely is the brainchild of state Sen. Russell Pearce, a Republican whose suburban district, Mesa, is considered the conservative bastion of the Phoenix political scene. He is a leading architect of the Arizona law that sparked outrage throughout the country: Senate Bill 1070, which allows law enforcement officers to ask about someone's immigration status during a traffic stop, detainment or arrest if reasonable suspicion exists - things like poor English skills, acting nervous or avoiding eye contact during a traffic stop.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So is Arizona going to far or is this another step in the right direction?
Click to expand...


Unless I'm missing something (which I may be because the link won't load for me) from what I've been able to read of this article, this is an opinion piece.  It has not one single quote from any law maker in Arizona.  Sounds to me like someone is just trying to pile on Arizona and is stating their opinion as if it's a foregone conclusion.

Rick


----------



## Bullfighter

Coyote said:


> Bullfighter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> Too many big words for the gate keepers froggy. Too complex an issue. Maybe if you could apply the concept to a diagram. Don't bother submitting it before 9:30AM, or after lunch, or on Monday's, Thursdays, Fridays, or within 3 days of any Holiday.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HERE"S YOUR LOYAL AMERICANS:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How retarded.
> 
> Find a picture depicting a minority sentiment.
> 
> Post it.
> 
> 
> 
> Proclaim it the majority.
Click to expand...


And yet Mexicans represent less than 2% of the world's population.


----------



## Coyote

Bullfighter said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullfighter said:
> 
> 
> 
> HERE"S YOUR LOYAL AMERICANS:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How retarded.
> 
> Find a picture depicting a minority sentiment.
> 
> Post it.
> 
> 
> 
> Proclaim it the majority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet Mexicans represent less than 2% of the world's population.
Click to expand...



What's the point of your pointless comment?


----------



## Coyote

Coyote said:


> Bullfighter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> How retarded.
> 
> Find a picture depicting a minority sentiment.
> 
> Post it.
> 
> 
> 
> Proclaim it the majority.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yet Mexicans represent less than 2% of the world's population.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What's the point of your pointless comment?
Click to expand...


Ah, I see what you are trying to say.

What you are doing is depicting a minority viewpoint - a small group of Mexicans and attempting to use that to represent the majority of Mexican immigrants.


----------



## Bullfighter

Coyote said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullfighter said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet Mexicans represent less than 2% of the world's population.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's the point of your pointless comment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, I see what you are trying to say.
> 
> What you are doing is depicting a minority viewpoint - a small group of Mexicans and attempting to use that to represent the majority of Mexican immigrants.
Click to expand...


No. Do you think Mexicans give a damn about the other 98% of the world?


----------



## Madeline

syrenn said:


> tsalkonocii said:
> 
> 
> 
> why do people like madeline hate the idea of America as a sovereign nation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no i don't believe she does. She has empathy for the state of the conditions of other countries. She doesn't understand that THAT is not our problem or an excuse for illegal immigration and the use of anchor babies to stay here illegally.
Click to expand...


syrenn, it's one hell of an assumption that anyone who does not denigrate the citizenship of a child born here to illegal aliens is somehow less patriotic than you are.  The children do pose serious problems and I don't claim to have all the answers -- except that I think dumping American citizens into a third world country is wrong.

They are citizens, just as you are.  All this bellyaching about what to do about the assault of illegals on Americans CANNOT begin to be debated by selecting "unwanted" American citizens to eject, especially not children.  I'm not overly fond of some of the neighbor's kidlets, but I wouldn't dream of suggesting we deport them.


----------



## Coyote

Bullfighter said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's the point of your pointless comment?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, I see what you are trying to say.
> 
> What you are doing is depicting a minority viewpoint - a small group of Mexicans and attempting to use that to represent the majority of Mexican immigrants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. Do you think Mexicans give a damn about the other 98% of the world?
Click to expand...




What's your point - you claimed the picture represented "loyal Americans".


----------



## Bullfighter

Madeline said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tsalkonocii said:
> 
> 
> 
> why do people like madeline hate the idea of America as a sovereign nation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no i don't believe she does. She has empathy for the state of the conditions of other countries. She doesn't understand that THAT is not our problem or an excuse for illegal immigration and the use of anchor babies to stay here illegally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> syrenn, it's one hell of an assumption that anyone who does not denigrate the citizenship of a child born here to illegal aliens is somehow less patriotic than you are.  The children do pose serious problems and I don't claim to have all the answers -- except that I think dumping American citizens into a third world country is wrong.
> 
> They are citizens, just as you are.  All this bellyaching about what to do about the assault of illegals on Americans CANNOT begin to be debated by selecting "unwanted" American citizens to eject, especially not children.  I'm not overly fond of some of the neighbor's kidlets, but I wouldn't dream of suggesting we deport them.
Click to expand...


Do you think Mexicans cared about how many innocent children were killed during WW2?


----------



## Bullfighter

Coyote said:


> Bullfighter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, I see what you are trying to say.
> 
> What you are doing is depicting a minority viewpoint - a small group of Mexicans and attempting to use that to represent the majority of Mexican immigrants.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. Do you think Mexicans give a damn about the other 98% of the world?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's your point - you claimed the picture represented "loyal Americans".
Click to expand...


That was sarcasm.


----------



## Angelhair

Nate said:


> Looks like Arizona legislators aren't done yet;
> 
> 
> 
> Arizona's Next Immigration Target: Children of Illegals - Yahoo! News
> 
> Anchor babies" isn't a very endearing term, but in Arizona those are the words being used to tag children born in the U.S. to illegal immigrants. While not new, the term is increasingly part of the local vernacular because the primary authors of the nation's toughest and most controversial immigration law are targeting these tots - the legal weights that anchor many undocumented aliens in the U.S. - for their next move.
> 
> 
> Buoyed by recent public opinion polls suggesting they're on the right track with illegal immigration, Arizona Republicans will likely introduce legislation this fall that would deny birth certificates to children born in Arizona - and thus American citizens according to the U.S. Constitution - to parents who are not legal U.S. citizens. The law largely is the brainchild of state Sen. Russell Pearce, a Republican whose suburban district, Mesa, is considered the conservative bastion of the Phoenix political scene. He is a leading architect of the Arizona law that sparked outrage throughout the country: Senate Bill 1070, which allows law enforcement officers to ask about someone's immigration status during a traffic stop, detainment or arrest if reasonable suspicion exists - things like poor English skills, acting nervous or avoiding eye contact during a traffic stop.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So is Arizona going to far or is this another step in the right direction?
Click to expand...


_Again, kudos to AZ!!  It makes NO sense at all to give auto citiizenship to those born here of ILLEGAL parents - no sense at all!_


----------



## Madeline

> syrenn wrote:
> 
> Do you think Mexicans cared about how many innocent children were killed during WW2?



I'm sure this connects in some way, but offhand I cannot see how.


----------



## Madeline

> Angelhair wrote:
> 
> Again, kudos to AZ!! It makes NO sense at all to give auto citiizenship to those born here of ILLEGAL parents - no sense at all!



Shame on Arizona.  It has a platform on which to speak about the issue of illegal immigration and is willing to piss it away, pandering to racists.


----------



## Bullfighter

Madeline said:


> syrenn wrote:
> 
> Do you think Mexicans cared about how many innocent children were killed during WW2?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure this connects in some way, but offhand I cannot see how.
Click to expand...


Simple. A good American should think about all the people in the world that aren't getting the chance to immigrate here because Mexicans are pushing them aside and trying to become the defacto immigrant for the United States. If you can't see that, you are blind!


----------



## tsalkonocii

Coyote said:


> tsalkonocii said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most aren't drug runners or terroristst.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> All of them are criminals and a great many can't be identified. You must have evidence that the *majority have been identified, in order to identify the majority as non-drug runners and non-terrorists.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The same argument applies to your claim.
> 
> Considering that most illegals keep a low profile, hold jobs etc etc - it's hard to imagine that they are all terrorists and drug runners.
> 
> Maybe you can back up this huge number that are "terrorists" with some numbers?
Click to expand...



I'd back up that 'huge number', but I'm not the one who started speaking about numbers and percentages- you are.


----------



## tsalkonocii

Coyote said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullfighter said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet Mexicans represent less than 2% of the world's population.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's the point of your pointless comment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, I see what you are trying to say.
> 
> What you are doing is depicting a minority viewpoint - a small group of Mexicans and attempting to use that to represent the majority of Mexican immigrants.
Click to expand...

It's the view of all illegals. That's why they have no qualms spitting on our sovereignty and violating our borders.


----------



## tsalkonocii

Madeline said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tsalkonocii said:
> 
> 
> 
> why do people like madeline hate the idea of America as a sovereign nation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no i don't believe she does. She has empathy for the state of the conditions of other countries. She doesn't understand that THAT is not our problem or an excuse for illegal immigration and the use of anchor babies to stay here illegally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> syrenn, it's one hell of an assumption that anyone who does not denigrate the citizenship of a child born here to illegal aliens is somehow less patriotic than you are.  The children do pose serious problems and I don't claim to have all the answers -- except that I think dumping American citizens into a third world country is wrong.
> 
> They are citizens, just as you are.  All this bellyaching about what to do about the assault of illegals on Americans CANNOT begin to be debated by selecting "unwanted" American citizens to eject, especially not children.  I'm not overly fond of some of the neighbor's kidlets, but I wouldn't dream of suggesting we deport them.
Click to expand...

They are not American citizens. They do not meet the conditions laid out in the 14th amendment.


----------



## Madeline

You can keep saying that, tsalkonocii.  You'll be wrong even if you write it 1,001 times.


----------



## tsalkonocii

Madeline said:


> Angelhair wrote:
> 
> Again, kudos to AZ!! It makes NO sense at all to give auto citiizenship to those born here of ILLEGAL parents - no sense at all!
> 
> 
> 
> Shame on Arizona.  It has a platform on which to speak about the issue of illegal immigration and is willing to piss it away, pandering to racists.
Click to expand...

Yes, clearly only vile racists who hate brown people want to enforce our borders and preserve our shivering


----------



## tsalkonocii

tsalkonocii said:


> Bullfighter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are 100% WRONG.
> 
> Constitutional Topic: Citizenship - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net
> 
> The children of illegal immigrants are just as subject to the jurisdiction of the US as your kidlets are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But as loyal Americans, those "Mexican" children should have their undocumented parents thrown out of the country. BUT THEY DON'T THEREFORE SHOWING THEIR LOYALTY TO A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT-MEXICO!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are children of foreign nationals and they are not naturalized as American nationals, hence not meeting the criteria laid out in the 14th and not being conferred citizenship upon birth
> 
> What 'Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof' Really Means
Click to expand...






Next...  Anchor Babies.  06-11-2010 03:01 PM   Madeline   Preponderous,  xenophobic, racist bullshit.



So the Constitution is preponderous (?) _bullshit_?


----------



## Madeline

Nice try, but the neg rep is for what YOU posted, tsalkonocii.  I greatly admire the constitution.


----------



## LilOlLady

Coyote said:


> Basically, Arizona is going to punish children for the sins of their parents.  Way to go Arizona.



Isn't that what happen when an American commits a crime and go to prison? Anchor babies parents entered this country illegally and that's a deportable crime. The punishment fits the crime in both instances.
The 14th Amendment separates families and that is good enough reason for it to be repealed. It is not legal to give children of illegal aliens citizenship.


----------



## Bullfighter

tsalkonocii said:


> tsalkonocii said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullfighter said:
> 
> 
> 
> But as loyal Americans, those "Mexican" children should have their undocumented parents thrown out of the country. BUT THEY DON'T THEREFORE SHOWING THEIR LOYALTY TO A FOREIGN GOVERNMENT-MEXICO!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are children of foreign nationals and they are not naturalized as American nationals, hence not meeting the criteria laid out in the 14th and not being conferred citizenship upon birth
> 
> What 'Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof' Really Means
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Next...  Anchor Babies.  06-11-2010 03:01 PM   Madeline   Preponderous,  xenophobic, racist bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> So the Constitution is preponderous (?) _bullshit_?
Click to expand...


Didn't the Mexicans ignore their own constitution when it came to the Americans THEY INVITED TO LIVE IN TEXAS?

How do you spell Mexican: H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-T-E


----------



## Coyote

tsalkonocii said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's the point of your pointless comment?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, I see what you are trying to say.
> 
> What you are doing is depicting a minority viewpoint - a small group of Mexicans and attempting to use that to represent the majority of Mexican immigrants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's the view of all illegals. That's why they have no qualms spitting on our sovereignty and violating our borders.
Click to expand...


I see you've set aside this special time to humiliate yourself in public.


----------



## Coyote

LilOlLady said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Basically, Arizona is going to punish children for the sins of their parents.  Way to go Arizona.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't that what happen when an American commits a crime and go to prison? Anchor babies parents entered this country illegally and that's a deportable crime. The punishment fits the crime in both instances.
> The 14th Amendment separates families and that is good enough reason for it to beS repealed. It is not legal to give children of illegal aliens citizenship.
Click to expand...


So, in other words you agree - Arizona is seeking to punish children for the actions of their parents.

How nice.


----------



## Cecilie1200

Nonelitist said:


> What would it take to get this done?  Does it require an amendment or can the state just do it themselves?



Well, Arizona can't deny them US citizenship - or Arizona citizenship, for that matter - because that's a federal issue.  But no law requires that Arizona issue birth certificates that I'm aware of.


----------



## Cecilie1200

I take that back.  "Equal protection under the law" would probably require that Arizona issue birth certificates to EVERY US citizen born here if it's going to issue them to any citizens.


----------



## tsalkonocii

Madeline said:


> Nice try, but the neg rep is for what YOU posted, tsalkonocii.  I greatly admire the constitution.


you admire the constitution yet attack me for demanding it be followed?


----------



## tsalkonocii

Coyote said:


> tsalkonocii said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, I see what you are trying to say.
> 
> What you are doing is depicting a minority viewpoint - a small group of Mexicans and attempting to use that to represent the majority of Mexican immigrants.
> 
> 
> 
> It's the view of all illegals. That's why they have no qualms spitting on our sovereignty and violating our borders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see you've set aside this special time to humiliate yourself in public.
Click to expand...


if they believed in American sovereignty, they wouldn't spit on it by ignoring our border and spitting on our very existence as a sovereign nation


----------



## Cecilie1200

syrenn said:


> tsalkonocii said:
> 
> 
> 
> why do people like madeline hate the idea of America as a sovereign nation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no i don't believe she does. She has empathy for the state of the conditions of other countries. She doesn't understand that THAT is not our problem or an excuse for illegal immigration and the use of anchor babies to stay here illegally.
Click to expand...


If the US is going to be expected to be responsible for the conditions in Mexico and mitigate them, then we should get the real estate that goes with the people.  If we don't get to run Mexico, then I see no reason to feel responsible for what happens there.


----------



## Cecilie1200

syrenn said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tsalkonocii said:
> 
> 
> 
> why do people like madeline hate the idea of America as a sovereign nation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do people like tsalkonocii, who gained by an accident of their birth, wish to deny the benefits of citizenship to a racial group whose parents annoy them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one is denying the benefits of citizenship. You are missing the point of  illegal immigration and how the anchor babies got here in the first place.
> 
> AND why do you think the issue of illegal anchor babies is about ONE group of people only?
Click to expand...


Because she's a racist.  The people who whip that charge out first thing usually are projecting their own fault onto everyone else.


----------



## Coyote

tsalkonocii said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tsalkonocii said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's the view of all illegals. That's why they have no qualms spitting on our sovereignty and violating our borders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see you've set aside this special time to humiliate yourself in public.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> if they believed in American sovereignty, they wouldn't spit on it by ignoring our border and spitting on our very existence as a sovereign nation
Click to expand...


If it were that simple then the same sentiment applies to every American immigrant that came here and prospered off of broken treaties and stolen lands.

Which, in the end, makes a mockery out of our country.


----------



## tsalkonocii

Cecilie1200 said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tsalkonocii said:
> 
> 
> 
> why do people like madeline hate the idea of America as a sovereign nation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no i don't believe she does. She has empathy for the state of the conditions of other countries. She doesn't understand that THAT is not our problem or an excuse for illegal immigration and the use of anchor babies to stay here illegally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the US is going to be expected to be responsible for the conditions in Mexico and mitigate them, then we should get the real estate that goes with the people.  If we don't get to run Mexico, then I see no reason to feel responsible for what happens there.
Click to expand...

Do they have any natural resources we might want for cheap?


----------



## tsalkonocii

Coyote said:


> tsalkonocii said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see you've set aside this special time to humiliate yourself in public.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if they believed in American sovereignty, they wouldn't spit on it by ignoring our border and spitting on our very existence as a sovereign nation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If it were that simple then the same sentiment applies to every American immigrant that came here and prospered off of broken treaties and stolen lands.
> 
> Which, in the end, makes a mockery out of our country.
Click to expand...


Do they claim to believe in <!--insert indian tribe here--> sovereignty? Did they move to <!--insert name indian nation here-->? Or did they move to the United States and claim to believe in the existence of the United States as a sovereign nation, imperfect as it is and has been.

Now, are you done making a fool of yourself?


----------



## Coyote

tsalkonocii said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tsalkonocii said:
> 
> 
> 
> if they believed in American sovereignty, they wouldn't spit on it by ignoring our border and spitting on our very existence as a sovereign nation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it were that simple then the same sentiment applies to every American immigrant that came here and prospered off of broken treaties and stolen lands.
> 
> Which, in the end, makes a mockery out of our country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do they claim to believe in <!--insert indian tribe here--> sovereignty? Did they move to <!--insert name indian nation here-->? Or did they move to the United States and claim to believe in the existence of the United States as a sovereign nation, imperfect as it is and has been.
> 
> Now, are you done making a fool of yourself?
Click to expand...


You're screwing up your own argument.

Thus far you make no distinction between legal Mexican immigrants, illegal Mexican immigrants, and Mexican nationals in Mexico.

You think illegal immigrants come here for shits and giggles to "spit on our sovereignity"? Do they claim we aren't a sovereign nation (or is that just the spin you like to put on it by posting pictures of radicals and claiming they represent the views of all?)  No, they come here for opportunities and/or freedoms they can't get at home.  Whether right or wrong it seldom has anything to do with how they regard our sovereignity and it's nothing different then what has been going on for several hundred years with different immigrant waves.  Bitch about them coming here illegally - that's accurate, but your sovereignity (and spitting) argument is dishonest.


----------



## Cecilie1200

tsalkonocii said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> no i don't believe she does. She has empathy for the state of the conditions of other countries. She doesn't understand that THAT is not our problem or an excuse for illegal immigration and the use of anchor babies to stay here illegally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the US is going to be expected to be responsible for the conditions in Mexico and mitigate them, then we should get the real estate that goes with the people.  If we don't get to run Mexico, then I see no reason to feel responsible for what happens there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do they have any natural resources we might want for cheap?
Click to expand...


The blue agave they make tequila from grows only in Jalisco, Mexico.  Mexico, of course, has oil fields.  I'd have to look it up for anything else.  It's been many years since I had to memorize the primary exports of countries for geography class.


----------



## tsalkonocii

Coyote said:


> You're screwing up your own argument.
> 
> Thus far you make no distinction between legal Mexican immigrants, illegal Mexican immigrants, and Mexican nationals in Mexico.




Only of you think that those who come here legally are also ignoring our border 



> You think illegal immigrants come here for shits and giggles to "spit on our sovereignity



They spit on our sovereignty by refusing to recognize our sovereignty and our borders and to recognize and respect them. As for why they come ehre- it's because they're drug runners, coyotes [ ], gangbangers, and murderers, rapists, and thieves, who don't want to risk being detected and identified by coming here legally.


> Do they claim we aren't a sovereign nation



Yes. They call the region Atzlan, speak of The Race [La Raza], and refuse to respect our borders and our laws regarding who may cross them and how they are to do so.



> or is that just the spin you like to put on it by posting pictures of radicals



Border patrol agents are radicals?

Those are the only pictures I've posted.





> No, they come here for opportunities and/or freedoms they can't get at home.



Like raping Americans, stealing from our homes, and selling drugs in America. Those who come here to work legally, pay their taxes, and earn an honest life for themselves come here legally- and in rather large numbers. They're called 'immigrants' and they're an entirely different group of persons than those illegals who sneak across the border.


It is you who refuses to distinguish between legal and illegal, between criminals and those who come to earn an honest dollar and better things for themselves and their families.


> Whether right or wrong it seldom has anything to do with how they regard our sovereignity



except for despising it, ignoring it, and speaking of a reconquest

I think I'll not trust a _coyote'_ when it comes to illegal crossings of the border of the motivations of those who do so.


----------



## tsalkonocii

Cecilie1200 said:


> tsalkonocii said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the US is going to be expected to be responsible for the conditions in Mexico and mitigate them, then we should get the real estate that goes with the people.  If we don't get to run Mexico, then I see no reason to feel responsible for what happens there.
> 
> 
> 
> Do they have any natural resources we might want for cheap?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The blue agave they make tequila from grows only in Jalisco, Mexico.  Mexico, of course, has oil fields.  I'd have to look it up for anything else.  It's been many years since I had to memorize the primary exports of countries for geography class.
Click to expand...



If they want assistance, they an offer us rock-bottom prices on the oil, natural gas and *googles* cadmium, lead, copper, gold, and produce. Say 20 points above cost?


----------



## syrenn

Madeline said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tsalkonocii said:
> 
> 
> 
> why do people like madeline hate the idea of America as a sovereign nation?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no i don't believe she does. She has empathy for the state of the conditions of other countries. She doesn't understand that THAT is not our problem or an excuse for illegal immigration and the use of anchor babies to stay here illegally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> syrenn, it's one hell of an assumption that anyone who does not denigrate the citizenship of a child born here to illegal aliens is somehow less patriotic than you are.  The children do pose serious problems and I don't claim to have all the answers -- except that I think dumping American citizens into a third world country is wrong.
> 
> They are citizens, just as you are.  All this bellyaching about what to do about the assault of illegals on Americans CANNOT begin to be debated by selecting "unwanted" American citizens to eject, especially not children.  I'm not overly fond of some of the neighbor's kidlets, but I wouldn't dream of suggesting we deport them.
Click to expand...


I have never made any claims or comments of patriotism about myself or the illegals, where did you get that from?

We are talking about anchor babies. Right now at this time those anchor babies are citizens. I am not suggesting forcing American citizens to leave the country. I am saying the illegal parents need to go, and if they take their  citizen children with them or leave them behind, that is their choice.


----------



## syrenn

Madeline said:


> syrenn wrote:
> 
> Do you think Mexicans cared about how many innocent children were killed during WW2?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure this connects in some way, but offhand I cannot see how.
Click to expand...


*careful whom you are quoting "syrenn" did not write that. *


----------



## Madeline

syrenn said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> no i don't believe she does. She has empathy for the state of the conditions of other countries. She doesn't understand that THAT is not our problem or an excuse for illegal immigration and the use of anchor babies to stay here illegally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn, it's one hell of an assumption that anyone who does not denigrate the citizenship of a child born here to illegal aliens is somehow less patriotic than you are.  The children do pose serious problems and I don't claim to have all the answers -- except that I think dumping American citizens into a third world country is wrong.
> 
> They are citizens, just as you are.  All this bellyaching about what to do about the assault of illegals on Americans CANNOT begin to be debated by selecting "unwanted" American citizens to eject, especially not children.  I'm not overly fond of some of the neighbor's kidlets, but I wouldn't dream of suggesting we deport them.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have never made any claims or comments of patriotism about myself or the illegals, where did you get that from?
> 
> We are talking about anchor babies. Right now at this time those anchor babies are citizens. I am not suggesting forcing American citizens to leave the country. I am saying the illegal parents need to go, and if they take their  citizen children with them or leave them behind, that is their choice.
Click to expand...


It is a hard question, I agree.  That does not excuse us from trying to resolve it in some sort of humane fashion.  And whatever we choose to do, we need to conform our conduct to the constitution and treat the citizen children of illegal aliens no differently than any other American citizen.

BTW, if I misread your post, my apologies.  It certainly was not intentional; I know this is tough stuff and I don't even pretend to be the Answer Lady.


----------



## Madeline

tsalkonocii said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> no i don't believe she does. She has empathy for the state of the conditions of other countries. She doesn't understand that THAT is not our problem or an excuse for illegal immigration and the use of anchor babies to stay here illegally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the US is going to be expected to be responsible for the conditions in Mexico and mitigate them, then we should get the real estate that goes with the people.  If we don't get to run Mexico, then I see no reason to feel responsible for what happens there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do they have any natural resources we might want for cheap?
Click to expand...


Cecille, I don't think the US needs to completely underwrite the government of Mexico.  That nation has resources, a very healthy GDP and (obviously) an abundance of cheap labor.  What it does not have is justice, a middle class or internal security.


----------



## Madeline

> tsalkonocii wrote in part:
> 
> I think I'll not trust a coyote' when it comes to illegal crossings of the border of the motivations of those who do so.



A coyote is a person who smuggles others across the border for an exorbitant fee.  They have been known to kill the passengers by using methods like shipping containers, so that passengers die of heat exhaustion, etc. during the trip.  Anyone who would do this is a depraved animal.

People so desperate to enter the US that they'd turn to a coyote are not necessarially violent criminals themselves, and it's not fair to describe them as such.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Birthright citizens are not going to permit their parents to be rounded up and shipped off.  Birthright citizens will outnumber the nativist wackos within ten to fifteen years.  The immigrant naturalized citizens now equal or outnumber the nativists here.  This subject is a non-issue.


----------



## Intense

JakeStarkey said:


> Birthright citizens are not going to permit their parents to be rounded up and shipped off.  Birthright citizens will outnumber the nativist wackos within ten to fifteen years.  The immigrant naturalized citizens now equal or outnumber the nativists here.  This subject is a non-issue.



It will be as long as we continue to pay a government to do a job it refuses to do. Nice try though.


----------



## Angelhair

_Get rid of the anchor baby perk - it causes way too many problems for the USA._


----------



## Intense

Angelhair said:


> _Get rid of the anchor baby perk - it causes way too many problems for the USA._



That would require reason and independent thought. Do you really think Medicated Nation is still capable of such a feat???   

It would require a Constitutional Amendment, the one thing that the Powers that be are afraid of more than being indicted.


----------



## JakeStarkey

You are right, Intense, that an amendment would be require, and I am right that such an amendment would be wrong.


----------



## Intense

JakeStarkey said:


> You are right, Intense, that an amendment would be require, and I am right that such an amendment would be wrong.



I am not so sure about that??? Sometimes the Super Majority has a point. Anytime it is close to 75% it has the Power to restructure anything and every thing the Government has any power over at all. As hard as you and others try to make people forget where the true power lies within Our Federalist Constitution design, it is fact. The Power lies with the consent of the governed. I hope I didn't make you choke on your coffee. 

Another unaddressed concern regarding criminal negligence at the federal level is counting Aliens, both legal and illegal, in the Census. Is the census used to define Congressional Districts and determine representation in The House of Representatives or not??? If it is you are guilty of perpetuating a fraud and contributing to the corruption of the Legislative Branch of the Federal Government by giving more voice to areas flooded by aliens, stripping other areas of their fair share. Primary obligation of the Census is being ignored, and sold out for kick backs, disproportionately. Why are we paying you to do a job you refuse to do again???


----------



## nraforlife

Nate said:


> Looks like Arizona legislators aren't done yet;
> 
> 
> 
> Arizona's Next Immigration Target: Children of Illegals - Yahoo! News
> 
> Anchor babies" isn't a very endearing term, but in Arizona those are the words being used to tag children born in the U.S. to illegal immigrants. While not new, the term is increasingly part of the local vernacular because the primary authors of the nation's toughest and most controversial immigration law are targeting these tots - the legal weights that anchor many undocumented aliens in the U.S. - for their next move.
> 
> 
> Buoyed by recent public opinion polls suggesting they're on the right track with illegal immigration, Arizona Republicans will likely introduce legislation this fall that would deny birth certificates to children born in Arizona - and thus American citizens according to the U.S. Constitution - to parents who are not legal U.S. citizens. The law largely is the brainchild of state Sen. Russell Pearce, a Republican whose suburban district, Mesa, is considered the conservative bastion of the Phoenix political scene. He is a leading architect of the Arizona law that sparked outrage throughout the country: Senate Bill 1070, which allows law enforcement officers to ask about someone's immigration status during a traffic stop, detainment or arrest if reasonable suspicion exists - things like poor English skills, acting nervous or avoiding eye contact during a traffic stop.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So is Arizona going to far or is this another step in the right direction?
Click to expand...


an excellent next step.


----------



## JakeStarkey

nraforlife said:


> Nate said:
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like Arizona legislators aren't done yet;
> 
> 
> 
> Arizona's Next Immigration Target: Children of Illegals - Yahoo! News
> 
> Anchor babies" isn't a very endearing term, but in Arizona those are the words being used to tag children born in the U.S. to illegal immigrants. While not new, the term is increasingly part of the local vernacular because the primary authors of the nation's toughest and most controversial immigration law are targeting these tots - the legal weights that anchor many undocumented aliens in the U.S. - for their next move.
> 
> 
> Buoyed by recent public opinion polls suggesting they're on the right track with illegal immigration, Arizona Republicans will likely introduce legislation this fall that would deny birth certificates to children born in Arizona - and thus American citizens according to the U.S. Constitution - to parents who are not legal U.S. citizens. The law largely is the brainchild of state Sen. Russell Pearce, a Republican whose suburban district, Mesa, is considered the conservative bastion of the Phoenix political scene. He is a leading architect of the Arizona law that sparked outrage throughout the country: Senate Bill 1070, which allows law enforcement officers to ask about someone's immigration status during a traffic stop, detainment or arrest if reasonable suspicion exists - things like poor English skills, acting nervous or avoiding eye contact during a traffic stop.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So is Arizona going to far or is this another step in the right direction?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> an excellent next step.
Click to expand...


A federal court, upon application, will immediately quash such a law, on the grounds that a state birth document certifies officially the individual, the date, and the location of the birth.  The state law would have to provide an other equally effective method in identifying and verifying such a birth.  If such a law existed, then it would defeat the intent of the proposed law.

Such a law will never survive federal judicial review.

More importantly in political consequences, such a law sponsored by the GOP and endorsed by folks like Bachmann, Palin, McCain, Boehner, McConnell would immediately brand the GOP a nativist party that hates minorities and immigrants.  The GOP would be relegated to minority status forever until it changed its stance.


----------



## Intense

JakeStarkey said:


> nraforlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nate said:
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like Arizona legislators aren't done yet;
> 
> 
> So is Arizona going to far or is this another step in the right direction?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> an excellent next step.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A federal court, upon application, will immediately quash such a law, on the grounds that a state birth document certifies officially the individual, the date, and the location of the birth.  The state law would have to provide an other equally effective method in identifying and verifying such a birth.  If such a law existed, then it would defeat the intent of the proposed law.
> 
> Such a law will never survive federal judicial review.
> 
> More importantly in political consequences, such a law sponsored by the GOP and endorsed by folks like Bachmann, Palin, McCain, Boehner, McConnell would immediately brand the GOP a nativist party that hates minorities and immigrants.  The GOP would be relegated to minority status forever until it changed its stance.
Click to expand...


Never is an awful long time Jake. The truth of the matter is that what you fail to address is   the change of a Constitutional Mandate changes everything. Be honest Jake. You are not all powerful. You may attempt to further deceive and manipulate the masses, stealing power through false claims, but in the end, it's just another scheme, another illusion perpetuated on a Free People, deceiving them into thinking that you have justice on your side. You are not above reproach Jake. Search the Constitution well. The Structure is Not of more value than that which it was constructed to serve. One day this will be taught in schools Jake.  Anything else you want to get paid to not do???? Anything else out there to obstruct and over burden??? Maybe you can construct a scheme to regulate breast milk under Interstate Commerce???


----------



## JakeStarkey

A false assumption by Intense.  I wrote, ". . .  forever until it *changed its stance*."  [my bolded italics]

The great majority of the nation has not indicated any interested whatsoever in the anchor baby argument other than to ask its collective self, "why do the loonies keep talking about this?  It's a non-issue."


----------



## Angelhair

_The USA is the only country that allows those born of illegal parents to be considered U.S. citizens.....what is wrong with this picture?_


----------



## syrenn

Angelhair said:


> _The USA is the only country that allows those born of illegal parents to be considered U.S. citizens.....what is wrong with this picture?_



We are bleeding heart idiots.


----------



## Zoom-boing

Angelhair said:


> _The USA is the only country that allows those born of illegal parents to be considered U.S. citizens.....what is wrong with this picture?_



Everything.


----------



## Intense

JakeStarkey said:


> A false assumption by Intense.  I wrote, ". . .  forever until it *changed its stance*."  [my bolded italics]
> 
> The great majority of the nation has not indicated any interested whatsoever in the anchor baby argument other than to ask its collective self, "why do the loonies keep talking about this?  It's a non-issue."



You project, you imply, you prejudge what is acceptable. You create labels and attempt to project them within your limited scope. Fail. What countries compare to the diversity here in the USA??? Legal Citizens? You keep on labeling Conservatives, Republicans, Any Group in conflict with your agenda, in negative light. The symptom seems more yours than mine Jake. Where would you be without your prejudice? 

When a State law is not in compliance with federal law Jake, two possibilities are that either of the laws could change through due process. The undermining factor could be what is just. I know Justice is a scary word to some but it should underlie method in administering to a free and just society.  We are not here at your pleasure Jake, We are not here to serve your whims. I know it's a shock, but you will some time learn to appreciate your own individual role as a human being outside of your role in society. There is more to life than power and control.


----------



## tsalkonocii

People who think illegals give birth to citizens are morons. Under their argument, if we were at war and enemy female troops gave birth in our borders- the babies would be citizens!


----------



## JakeStarkey

Intense describes himself and his running podjos when he writes, "You project, you imply, you prejudge what is acceptable. You create labels and attempt to project them within your limited scope."

The great majority of the country simply do not care what you think.


----------



## Coyote

tsalkonocii said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're screwing up your own argument.
> 
> Thus far you make no distinction between legal Mexican immigrants, illegal Mexican immigrants, and Mexican nationals in Mexico.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only of you think that those who come here legally are also ignoring our border
Click to expand...


Cuckoo is right.  I don't know what point you are trying to make with your statement vis a vis what I said.



> You think illegal immigrants come here for shits and giggles to "spit on our sovereignity
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They spit on our sovereignty by refusing to recognize our sovereignty and our borders and to recognize and respect them. As for why they come ehre- it's because they're drug runners, coyotes [ ], gangbangers, and murderers, rapists, and thieves, who don't want to risk being detected and identified by coming here legally.
Click to expand...


Bullshit.  In fact in many cases, they seriously risk (and at times lose) their lives and pay large amounts money amounting to extortion to get across the border - and no guarantees.  Seems like a big price to pay to simply "spit on our sovereignity".  Maybe they like what America offers enough to take such risks.

".....it's because they're drug runners, coyotes [ ], gangbangers, and murderers, rapists, and thieves..." - do you have anything to back up this claim or is it just more popcorn farts 




> Yes. They call the region Atzlan, speak of The Race [La Raza], and refuse to respect our borders and our laws regarding who may cross them and how they are to do so.



Who's "they"?  This business of "Atzlan" seems to be a fringe view among hispanics....kind of like the kooky Illuminati conspiracies....



> Border patrol agents are radicals?
> 
> Those are the only pictures I've posted.



True enough.  It was another poster who I had originally responded to, who posted those pictures.



> No, they come here for opportunities and/or freedoms they can't get at home.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like raping Americans, stealing from our homes, and selling drugs in America. Those who come here to work legally, pay their taxes, and earn an honest life for themselves come here legally- and in rather large numbers. They're called 'immigrants' and they're an entirely different group of persons than those illegals who sneak across the border.
Click to expand...


The majority of those who come here illegally come here to work, pay their taxes and earn an honest life for themselves despite the dishonesty of their immigration status.

_"Some of the most violent criminals at large today are illegal aliens." That's the lead sentence of a policy report published by the Center for Immigration Studies, a Washington, DC institute that provides intellectual ammunition to the anti-immigration forces. 

Another CIS study led with a similarly impressionistic assertion about the immigrant-crime link: "In recent years, it has become difficult to avoid perceiving immigrants, legal or not, as overwhelming this country with serious crime." 

CIS is not alone in relying on impressions to form opinions about just how illegal immigrants are. On the basis of fear-mongering stories rather than scientific studies, groups like the Center for Immigration Studies have succeeded in convincing the media and the U.S. public that undocumented immigrants are criminals. A National Opinion Research Center survey found in 2000 that 73% of Americans believed that immigrants were casually related to more crime. 

But, as in other dimensions of the immigration debate, *the facts don't support the alarm*. 

There have been dozens of national studies examining immigration and crime, and they all come to the same conclusion: *immigrants are more law-abiding than citizens*. A 2007 study by the Immigration Policy Center (IPC) found that immigrants, whether legal or illegal, are substantially less likely to commit crimes or to be incarcerated than U.S. citizens. 

Ruben G. Rumbaut, coauthor of "The Myth of Immigrant Criminality" study, said: "The misperception that immigrants, especially illegal immigrants, are responsible for higher crime rates is deeply rooted in American public opinion and is sustained by media anecdotes and popular myth." According to Rumbaut, a sociology professor at the University of California at Irvine, "This perception is not supported empirically. In fact, it is refuted by the preponderance of scientific evidence."​_



> It is you who refuses to distinguish between legal and illegal, between criminals and those who come to earn an honest dollar and better things for themselves and their families.




Umh...where, exactly do I "refuse to distinguish"?  As far as I can tell, I'm not making unsupported claims.



> Whether right or wrong it seldom has anything to do with how they regard our sovereignity
> 
> 
> 
> 
> except for despising it, ignoring it, and speaking of a reconquest
> 
> *I think I'll not trust a coyote' when it comes to illegal crossings* of the border of the motivations of those who do so.
Click to expand...


Cool enough.  Now just click your heels together 3 times and you can return to your fantasy of an America that never was.


----------



## kellyjack

We need an anchor baby law. Just because someone illegally sneaks over the border should'nt make their new born a citizen. Hell, Maybe they will pass a law that says that if they have the baby on your property they are now part of your family.


----------



## ConHog

syrenn said:


> Angelhair said:
> 
> 
> 
> _The USA is the only country that allows those born of illegal parents to be considered U.S. citizens.....what is wrong with this picture?_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are bleeding heart idiots.
Click to expand...


Why would England, or example, consider a baby born in England to be an American??

In actuality most European nations do in fact give citizenship to so called anchor babies. Although admittedly no European nations have the problem we have. Kinda hard to swim the Channel to have a baby and all that.


----------



## tsalkonocii

If they came to earn an honest living, they'd come here honestly. That they come here the dishonest way makes any claim they they're trying to be honest laughable.

They spit on our sovereignty and make it clear that have absolutely no respect for or intent to follow our laws.

Shoot them as they hop the fence.

Come here _legally_ or be shot. It's that simple.


----------



## Bullfighter

Mexicans using their babies to fleece the US out of money should do time for child abuse!


----------



## LuckyDan

Bullfighter said:


> Mexicans using their babies to fleece the US out of money should do time for child abuse!


 
No! Since their kids were born here, they should get to be on "The Price Is Right."


----------



## chanel

ConHog said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Angelhair said:
> 
> 
> 
> _The USA is the only country that allows those born of illegal parents to be considered U.S. citizens.....what is wrong with this picture?_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are bleeding heart idiots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would England, or example, consider a baby born in England to be an American??
> 
> In actuality most European nations do in fact give citizenship to so called anchor babies. Although admittedly no European nations have the problem we have. Kinda hard to swim the Channel to have a baby and all that.
Click to expand...


Wrong.   NO European nation grants birth right citizenship.  Ireland was the only one and they just abolished it.



> With tallying completed in all 34 counting centres, 79.17% of voters wanted to end the automatic citizenship right for all babies born in Ireland.
> 
> The government said change was needed because foreign women were travelling to Ireland* to give birth in order to get an EU passport for their babies.*
> 
> Ireland has been the only EU country to grant such a right.



BBC NEWS | Europe | Ireland votes to end birth right

What an incentive to break the law.  Who can argue that wanting a better life for your children is a bad thing? 

End that; and the illegals will leave and others won't come  Pretty simple plan.


----------



## ConHog

chanel said:


> ConHog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are bleeding heart idiots.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would England, or example, consider a baby born in England to be an American??
> 
> In actuality most European nations do in fact give citizenship to so called anchor babies. Although admittedly no European nations have the problem we have. Kinda hard to swim the Channel to have a baby and all that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.   NO European nation grants birth right citizenship.  Ireland was the only one and they just abolished it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With tallying completed in all 34 counting centres, 79.17% of voters wanted to end the automatic citizenship right for all babies born in Ireland.
> 
> The government said change was needed because foreign women were travelling to Ireland* to give birth in order to get an EU passport for their babies.*
> 
> Ireland has been the only EU country to grant such a right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> BBC NEWS | Europe | Ireland votes to end birth right
> 
> What an incentive to break the law.  Who can argue that wanting a better life for your children is a bad thing?
> 
> End that; and the illegals will leave and others won't come  Pretty simple plan.
Click to expand...


I am pro ending the loophole, it will require a CON amendment though.


----------



## chanel

Yes.  George Will wrote an excellent piece on it.;



> To end the practice of "birthright citizenship," all that is required is to correct the misinterpretation of that amendment's first sentence: "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."
> 
> Writing in the Texas Review of Law and Politics, Graglia says this irrationality is rooted in a misunderstanding of the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof.
> 
> Appropriately, in 1884 the Supreme Court held that children born to Indian parents were not born "subject to" U.S. jurisdiction because, among other reasons, the person so born could not change his status by his "own will without the action or assent of the United States." And "no one can become a citizen of a nation without its consent." Graglia says this decision "seemed to establish" that U.S. citizenship is "a consensual relation, r*equiring the consent of the United States."*
> 
> Graglia seems to establish that there is no constitutional impediment to Congress ending the granting of birthright citizenship to those whose presence here is "not only without the government's consent but in violation of its law."



George F. Will - An argument to be made about immigrant babies and citizenship - washingtonpost.com


----------



## JakeStarkey

Graglia's interpretation reflects poorly on current reality.  If right, which Graglia is not, any such "correction" would have to grandfather those already birthright citizens.  If the GOP introduced such legislation, the citizens would vote it into extinction.


----------



## chanel

I agree. Of course grandfathering would have to be established I'm sure that's what they did in Ireland.

Almost 80 percent approved the ban there. I bet the US would have similar support.  Hell I bet people would be ok with amnesty if they knew the bleeding might stop.


----------



## Intense

JakeStarkey said:


> Intense describes himself and his running podjos when he writes, "You project, you imply, you prejudge what is acceptable. You create labels and attempt to project them within your limited scope."
> 
> The great majority of the country simply do not care what you think.



Just keep selling your crap and disinformation without regard for the truth. That's what you are paid for Jake. That's what you sold out for. Image over substance.


----------



## Intense

JakeStarkey said:


> Graglia's interpretation reflects poorly on current reality.  If right, which Graglia is not, any such "correction" would have to grandfather those already birthright citizens.  If the GOP introduced such legislation, the citizens would vote it into extinction.



Demonizing, demoralizing,  and projection. You should start all your sentences with you can only hope.


----------



## Angelhair

JakeStarkey said:


> Graglia's interpretation reflects poorly on current reality.  If right, which Graglia is not, any such "correction" would have to grandfather those already birthright citizens.  If the GOP introduced such legislation, the citizens would vote it into extinction.



_In other words, amnesty via the back door...._


----------



## ConHog

Angelhair said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Graglia's interpretation reflects poorly on current reality.  If right, which Graglia is not, any such "correction" would have to grandfather those already birthright citizens.  If the GOP introduced such legislation, the citizens would vote it into extinction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _In other words, amnesty via the back door...._
Click to expand...


Amnesty is a misnomer as that would indicate NO penalty of any sort, no one I k now of is suggesting such, they should be required to pay a fine and do community service just as many people who commit crimes on the level of this are. Isn't that a better fairer, more profitable, more logical solution than rounding them all up and dumping them back in Mexico?


----------



## JakeStarkey

chanel said:


> I agree. Of course grandfathering would have to be established I'm sure that's what they did in Ireland.
> 
> Almost 80 percent approved the ban there. I bet the US would have similar support.  Hell I bet people would be ok with amnesty if they knew the bleeding might stop.



Hmmmm . . . that's feasible, isn't it?  Amnesty, sealed borders, grandfathered birthright citizens, and pathway to citizenship.

You are right, Chanel: that would sell.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Intense, I do read and think about what you write.  The fact is this: you are in an incredibly small group that have not and will not have any relevance in this debate nationally.  Get over it: the illegals as a group are not going anywhere.


----------



## Madeline

If they don't go away, what then JakeStakey?


----------



## JakeStarkey

That is exactly where we are at, Madeline, because the support in their behavior outweighs the support for making them go.  Chanel has offered a plan that I think is feasible.


----------



## Madeline

I know it sounds appealing, JakeStakey, but the US cannot absorb 10 to 20 Million new citizens.  It'll break us.  And why should a grant of Amnesty to those here now discourage anyone else from entering?  I'd say it'll have the opposite effect; that Mexicans will believe Amnesty will be granted AGAIN once illegals reach another critical mass.

Deportation and all that it will mean to American lives is painful, but I don't see an alternative.  And as I have said elsewhere, the US has to take an active role to helping Mexico rebuild its middle class.  I think discussing Amnesty as if it were an option is a fairy tale we are telling ourselves so we can postpone yet AGAIN facing up to harsh realities.


----------



## tsalkonocii

ConHog said:


> chanel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConHog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would England, or example, consider a baby born in England to be an American??
> 
> In actuality most European nations do in fact give citizenship to so called anchor babies. Although admittedly no European nations have the problem we have. Kinda hard to swim the Channel to have a baby and all that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.   NO European nation grants birth right citizenship.  Ireland was the only one and they just abolished it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With tallying completed in all 34 counting centres, 79.17% of voters wanted to end the automatic citizenship right for all babies born in Ireland.
> 
> The government said change was needed because foreign women were travelling to Ireland* to give birth in order to get an EU passport for their babies.*
> 
> Ireland has been the only EU country to grant such a right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> BBC NEWS | Europe | Ireland votes to end birth right
> 
> What an incentive to break the law.  Who can argue that wanting a better life for your children is a bad thing?
> 
> End that; and the illegals will leave and others won't come  Pretty simple plan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am pro ending the loophole, it will require a CON amendment though.
Click to expand...


No, it only requires enforcing the constitution

What 'Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof' Really Means


----------



## Coyote

tsalkonocii said:


> If they came to earn an honest living, they'd come here honestly. That they come here the dishonest way makes any claim they they're trying to be honest laughable.
> 
> They spit on our sovereignty and make it clear that have absolutely no respect for or intent to follow our laws.
> 
> Shoot them as they hop the fence.
> 
> Come here _legally_ or be shot. It's that simple.



Nice  see that, in addition to having no supporting facts to your first claim you now advocate out and out murder.


----------



## Coyote

ConHog said:


> Angelhair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Graglia's interpretation reflects poorly on current reality.  If right, which Graglia is not, any such "correction" would have to grandfather those already birthright citizens.  If the GOP introduced such legislation, the citizens would vote it into extinction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _In other words, amnesty via the back door...._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Amnesty is a misnomer as that would indicate NO penalty of any sort, no one I k now of is suggesting such, *they should be required to pay a fine and do community service just as many people who commit crimes on the level of this are.* Isn't that a better fairer, more profitable, more logical solution than rounding them all up and dumping them back in Mexico?
Click to expand...


They definately should do something.  I don't thihk amnesty should be granted without a price and I don't agree with mass deportations.

I also think the entire immigration process needs overhauled and modernized - there shouldn't be such a bottleneck with legal immigration.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Neither Madeline or any of the others "remove them from the country" crowd offer anything of worth here.

Why?  Because they don't have the votes or the political power or the methodology to enforce such a thing.

Of course the U.S. can absorb the illegals.  Why?  Because, I state quietly, they are here, they are working, and I want to turn them into solid taxpayers.

Chanel has offered the only reasonably workable solution.


----------



## tsalkonocii

Coyote said:


> tsalkonocii said:
> 
> 
> 
> If they came to earn an honest living, they'd come here honestly. That they come here the dishonest way makes any claim they they're trying to be honest laughable.
> 
> They spit on our sovereignty and make it clear that have absolutely no respect for or intent to follow our laws.
> 
> Shoot them as they hop the fence.
> 
> Come here _legally_ or be shot. It's that simple.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice  see that, in addition to having no supporting facts to your first claim you now advocate out and out murder.
Click to expand...


Defending the nation against an invading force isn't murder


----------



## JakeStarkey

An "invading force," tsalkonocii?   That crazy talk is exactly why you will never get what you want.


----------



## Coyote

tsalkonocii said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tsalkonocii said:
> 
> 
> 
> If they came to earn an honest living, they'd come here honestly. That they come here the dishonest way makes any claim they they're trying to be honest laughable.
> 
> They spit on our sovereignty and make it clear that have absolutely no respect for or intent to follow our laws.
> 
> Shoot them as they hop the fence.
> 
> Come here _legally_ or be shot. It's that simple.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice  see that, in addition to having no supporting facts to your first claim you now advocate out and out murder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Defending the nation against an invading force isn't murder
Click to expand...


sure....

Most people call it "murder".


----------



## Angelhair

ConHog said:


> Angelhair said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Graglia's interpretation reflects poorly on current reality.  If right, which Graglia is not, any such "correction" would have to grandfather those already birthright citizens.  If the GOP introduced such legislation, the citizens would vote it into extinction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _In other words, amnesty via the back door...._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Amnesty is a misnomer as that would indicate NO penalty of any sort, no one I k now of is suggesting such, they should be required to pay a fine and do community service just as many people who commit crimes on the level of this are. Isn't that a better fairer, more profitable, more logical solution than rounding them all up and dumping them back in Mexico?
Click to expand...


_As is grandfather - no penalties.  Legalization is what you are for.  Granted, nobody who has the authority to send them back to their country of birth has what it takes to do it - but - if legalization is given, then the path to citizenship should be the hardest part of it.  You've seen what some of the naturalized citizens are here for - it seems that is going to be how it's going to go from now in.  Come here, become a citizen, and then conspire to destroy our way of life!_


----------



## Intense

JakeStarkey said:


> Intense, I do read and think about what you write.  The fact is this: you are in an incredibly small group that have not and will not have any relevance in this debate nationally.  Get over it: the illegals as a group are not going anywhere.



Iam a group of one Jake.  The facts are that there have been mass deportations before and there will be again. The facts also show that people go where the better paying jobs are, thanks to the DNC, short of undocumented workers working for federal and state government, soon they will do better outside of the US. Maybe you should give up some of your hours for the cause Jake.


----------



## Intense

JakeStarkey said:


> Neither Madeline or any of the others "remove them from the country" crowd offer anything of worth here.
> 
> Why?  Because they don't have the votes or the political power or the methodology to enforce such a thing.
> 
> Of course the U.S. can absorb the illegals.  Why?  Because, I state quietly, they are here, they are working, and I want to turn them into solid taxpayers.
> 
> Chanel has offered the only reasonably workable solution.



What you smokin Jake??? Who made you the Grand Poo Ba??? What don't you lie about??? 

Secure the borders Jackass or give us back what we paid you. Got it, good. How many decades of incompetence do we need to suffer through???


----------



## JakeStarkey

I call Intense out of his unworkable theories, and I get cursed?    That means that Intense has lost the discussion and knows it.

Buddy, there will be no deportations, there will be no mass round ups.  If there, it would be for the loonies like you who want to make America stink.  Not gonna happen, podjo.


----------



## chanel

Exactly Not gonna happen. We cannot deport 20 million people. That's insane. Prisons are where we need to focus on for deportation. Control the borders and enforce the current laws. Stop birthright citizenship and punish the employers who KNOWINGLY hire and exploit cheap labor. Let the law abiding, English speaking productive citizens stay. That is feasible and humane.


----------



## JakeStarkey

You can also build a bridge into the illegal society that they can cross into legitimacy.  Grandfather the birthright citizens, seal the borders, end birthright citizenship, and create a legitimate immigrant reform system.  The great majority of Americans will support that.


----------



## ConHog

JakeStarkey said:


> You can also build a bridge into the illegal society that they can cross into legitimacy.  *Grandfather the birthright citizens,* seal the borders, end birthright citizenship, and create a legitimate immigrant reform system.  The great majority of Americans will support that.



There is no reason to do so, even if a law were passed tomorrow declaring that all anchor babies are NOT citizens, it doesn't take effect until it is actual law and has no bearing on people who were born prior to said law's citizenship.


----------



## tsalkonocii

JakeStarkey said:


> An "invading force," tsalkonocii?   That crazy talk is exactly why you will never get what you want.



an America that enforces its sovereignty?


----------



## JakeStarkey

tsalkonocii said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> An "invading force," tsalkonocii?   That crazy talk is exactly why you will never get what you want.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> an America that enforces its sovereignty?
Click to expand...


But you don't get to decide what "sovereignty" is, son.    Stop the nonsense, please.


----------



## Bullfighter

JakeStarkey said:


> You can also build a bridge into the illegal society that they can cross into legitimacy.  Grandfather the birthright citizens, seal the borders, end birthright citizenship, and create a legitimate immigrant reform system.  The great majority of Americans will support that.



Do you live in a town overrun with Mexicans? 

Have you been told you'll have to wait a year before you can see a doctor because of all the Mexicans who were ahead of you with their anchor babies get treatment first although your family has lived in that town for over 70 years and paid taxes for that same period of time?

And if you have any children they must be indoctrinated into learning the Mexican version of history or they won't graduate?

What does that sound like to you?


----------



## Angelhair

_If something is not done very, very soon about securing the border, this country is doomed.  Once these people are here, they have the U.S. Constitution on their side and the bleeding heart orgs will fight tooth and nail to protect those who have broken our immigration laws!  Deport most of those who are here illegally, clean house, and then start over - BUT SECURE THE BORDER FIRST!!!  ENFORCE THE LAWS ALREADY IN PLACE!!!_


----------



## Madeline

JakeStarkey said:


> Neither Madeline or any of the others "remove them from the country" crowd offer anything of worth here.
> 
> Why?  Because they don't have the votes or the political power or the methodology to enforce such a thing.
> 
> Of course the U.S. can absorb the illegals.  Why?  Because, I state quietly, they are here, they are working, and I want to turn them into solid taxpayers.
> 
> Chanel has offered the only reasonably workable solution.



Why is deporting them not feasible?  And do you just close your eyes to what Amnesty will do to the US?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Bullfighter said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can also build a bridge into the illegal society that they can cross into legitimacy.  Grandfather the birthright citizens, seal the borders, end birthright citizenship, and create a legitimate immigrant reform system.  The great majority of Americans will support that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you live in a town overrun with Mexicans?
> 
> Have you been told you'll have to wait a year before you can see a doctor because of all the Mexicans who were ahead of you with their anchor babies get treatment first although your family has lived in that town for over 70 years and paid taxes for that same period of time?
> 
> And if you have any children they must be indoctrinated into learning the Mexican version of history or they won't graduate?
> 
> What does that sound like to you?
Click to expand...


Don't be a prick, huh?  I grew up anglo in a mexican-american town, I speak Spanish, I have no hispanic relatives, and you are flat off your rocker.  What you want won't happen.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Madeline said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Neither Madeline or any of the others "remove them from the country" crowd offer anything of worth here.
> 
> Why?  Because they don't have the votes or the political power or the methodology to enforce such a thing.
> 
> Of course the U.S. can absorb the illegals.  Why?  Because, I state quietly, they are here, they are working, and I want to turn them into solid taxpayers.
> 
> Chanel has offered the only reasonably workable solution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is deporting them not feasible?  And do you just close your eyes to what Amnesty will do to the US?
Click to expand...


Because we are not going to become an police state, Mad, and you have no idea what Amnesty will do, either.

Offer solutions that fit into a feasible reality, guys.  I don't want to argue but I do despise stubborness that becomes immoral because you ignore what is real and what is not.


----------



## Intense

JakeStarkey said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Neither Madeline or any of the others "remove them from the country" crowd offer anything of worth here.
> 
> Why?  Because they don't have the votes or the political power or the methodology to enforce such a thing.
> 
> Of course the U.S. can absorb the illegals.  Why?  Because, I state quietly, they are here, they are working, and I want to turn them into solid taxpayers.
> 
> Chanel has offered the only reasonably workable solution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is deporting them not feasible?  And do you just close your eyes to what Amnesty will do to the US?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because we are not going to become an police state, Mad, and you have no idea what Amnesty will do, either.
> 
> Offer solutions that fit into a feasible reality, guys.  I don't want to argue but I do despise stubborness that becomes immoral because you ignore what is real and what is not.
Click to expand...


I think you are the last person that should be lecturing on morality Jake. We know what amnesty will do because it has been done before. If you don't want to do your job,  quit. It's that simple. You just keep trying to sell that kool-aid. 

Do you advocate ignoring all international borders around the world. Do you advocate Americans owning property in Mexico. Hey, let's bring that to the UN!!!!! We don't need no stinking Passports to go where we want, right!!!!! It's troublesome and unrealistic, right????? Income Tax is an unnecessary burden too, right????? Is that what you advocate.  Hey, I want to get paid for not doing my job too!!!!! It's too humid, the sun got in my eyes, I have a head ache, somebody spit on me. Why not go legit and exchange that paycheck for an unemployment check, at least you won't by conspiring against the Constitution.  


How about we all get to pick which laws we don't want to apply to us in our jobs, say one from column A and 2 from Column B.  See I'm thinking like a Federal Employee already. Breaks over, let's say we stop for lunch.


----------



## Claudette

I would like to see them all deported also but have to agree with Jake on this one. 

Its just not realistic. Those that have been here for years have kids, anchor kids, who are recognized as American Citizens. I can just imagine the court battles over that. 

The Constitution needs an ammendment to change that. An ammendment which doesn't give ANYTHING to those born in this country of illegal parents. No Social Services. No nothing.  An Ammendment which doesn't grant citizenship if your born of illegal parents in this country. 

They also need to go after those hiring illegals and enforce the law with these companies. 

The most important thing is to secure our borders. Thats number one in my book.

They also need a guest worker program. Canada has a great one and thats the one we should use. 

No incentives. Thats the ticket in my book.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Thank, Claudette, for realizing that personal perception is not always reality.  Mad and Intense and the others are not offering anything other than what they want, which they have no chance of ever securing.  Why?  (1) The anchor children citizens outnumber the Mads and Intenses, and they won't let anything of such happen to their parents.  (2) Too many illegals exist for a roundup except through a creation of a police state, and that is far more dangerous than having to figure out how to make this work with the citizens than with Mad or Intense running around in brownshirt uniforms with pistols.


----------



## LilOlLady

Madeline said:


> Any child born in the US is an American citizen every bit as much as you are, syrenn. * Wishing *that were different is not going to change it...and in my opinion, it should not be changed.




*Amnesty or a path to citizenship is not constitutional either.*

The 14th Amendment can be amended and it will. Anchor babies are getting check automtically deposited in their parents bank account from the day of birth until 18 and it is killing America and Americans. $300 a month per child in not way is covered by taxes they pay, federal, state or local. 14th Amendment was not in place for children of illegal aliens.
Amendment has been a long time coming and the time is ripe now to make the change.

&#8220;*when international diplomats are here in the US and they have children, they are not given citizenship*.&#8221; 
Among Pearce&#8217;s comments: "I also intend to push for an Arizona bill that would refuse to accept or issue a birth certificate that recognizes citizenship to those born to illegal aliens, unless *one parent is a citizen*


----------



## Intense

Claudette said:


> I would like to see them all deported also but have to agree with Jake on this one.
> 
> Its just not realistic. Those that have been here for years have kids, anchor kids, who are recognized as American Citizens. I can just imagine the court battles over that.
> 
> The Constitution needs an ammendment to change that. An ammendment which doesn't give ANYTHING to those born in this country of illegal parents. No Social Services. No nothing.  An Ammendment which doesn't grant citizenship if your born of illegal parents in this country.
> 
> They also need to go after those hiring illegals and enforce the law with these companies.
> 
> The most important thing is to secure our borders. Thats number one in my book.
> 
> They also need a guest worker program. Canada has a great one and thats the one we should use.
> 
> No incentives. Thats the ticket in my book.



Yeah, lets become Canada. 
Or they could build more factories in Mexico.


----------



## LilOlLady

Madeline said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Neither Madeline or any of the others "remove them from the country" crowd offer anything of worth here.
> 
> Why?  Because they don't have the votes or the political power or the methodology to enforce such a thing.
> 
> Of course the U.S. can absorb the illegals.  Why?  Because, I state quietly, they are here, they are working, and I want to turn them into solid taxpayers.
> 
> Chanel has offered the only reasonably workable solution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is deporting them not feasible?  And do you just close your eyes to what Amnesty will do to the US?
Click to expand...


Those 5 million anchor babies will grow up and have more babies and they will receive welfare checks automatically deposited in their parents bank accound. By that time U.S. will be broke and China will not lend to us. That's Armageddon.


----------



## Intense

JakeStarkey said:


> Thank, Claudette, for realizing that personal perception is not always reality.  Mad and Intense and the others are not offering anything other than what they want, which they have no chance of ever securing.  Why?  (1) The anchor children citizens outnumber the Mads and Intenses, and they won't let anything of such happen to their parents.  (2) Too many illegals exist for a roundup except through a creation of a police state, and that is far more dangerous than having to figure out how to make this work with the citizens than with Mad or Intense running around in brownshirt uniforms with pistols.



Leave the flood gates open long enough Jake and it is not going to matter. Seal the borders Muchacho.    There have always been anchor babies. That too needs to change, first in numbers, second in qualification. Hispanic Americans are in every state. You do not speak for all. Funny how you are so bent on running shotgun for illegal activity Mr. Federale. Thats really sweat.  You just keep trying to score for the other team. How much do we pay you to disenfranchise us Jake????


----------



## JakeStarkey

Intense said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to see them all deported also but have to agree with Jake on this one.
> 
> Its just not realistic. Those that have been here for years have kids, anchor kids, who are recognized as American Citizens. I can just imagine the court battles over that.
> 
> The Constitution needs an ammendment to change that. An ammendment which doesn't give ANYTHING to those born in this country of illegal parents. No Social Services. No nothing.  An Ammendment which doesn't grant citizenship if your born of illegal parents in this country.
> 
> They also need to go after those hiring illegals and enforce the law with these companies.
> 
> The most important thing is to secure our borders. Thats number one in my book.
> 
> They also need a guest worker program. Canada has a great one and thats the one we should use.
> 
> No incentives. Thats the ticket in my book.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, lets become Canada.
> Or they could build more factories in Mexico.
Click to expand...


Then you, and Lil Ol Lady who has no clue at all, need to offer something in reality that can fix this.  Not pipe dreams, but something that realistically can be done.

Before anyone gets started: roundups, mass deportations, police state apparatus, etc, will not happen.  So give us something.


----------



## WillowTree

Have we figured out why Arizona passed this law yet?


----------



## Cecilie1200

WillowTree said:


> Have we figured out why Arizona passed this law yet?



Which law?  SB 1070, or the apocryphal proposal the OP told us was going to be made?


----------



## WillowTree

Cecilie1200 said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have we figured out why Arizona passed this law yet?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which law?  SB 1070, or the apocryphal proposal the OP told us was going to be made?
Click to expand...


The Anchor baby one.


----------



## Cecilie1200

WillowTree said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have we figured out why Arizona passed this law yet?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which law?  SB 1070, or the apocryphal proposal the OP told us was going to be made?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Anchor baby one.
Click to expand...


As far as I know, it hasn't even been proposed, let alone passed.


----------



## WillowTree

Cecilie1200 said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which law?  SB 1070, or the apocryphal proposal the OP told us was going to be made?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Anchor baby one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As far as I know, it hasn't even been proposed, let alone passed.
Click to expand...


okay, let's start over,, why do you think Arizona would propose such a thing?


----------



## Cecilie1200

WillowTree said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Anchor baby one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As far as I know, it hasn't even been proposed, let alone passed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> okay, let's start over,, why do you think Arizona would propose such a thing?
Click to expand...


I don't.  As I said, I don't know that it HAS been proposed, nor do I personally think any legislator in my state is ignorant enough of the law to think such a thing is feasible.


----------



## ConHog

Arizona's first law is perfectly legal, but AZ has NO standing in declaring who is and who isn't a citizen of the USA, that is strictly the province of the federal government.


----------



## WillowTree

Contrary to what Cecille thinks they will do it though. Watch.


----------



## Intense

JakeStarkey said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to see them all deported also but have to agree with Jake on this one.
> 
> Its just not realistic. Those that have been here for years have kids, anchor kids, who are recognized as American Citizens. I can just imagine the court battles over that.
> 
> The Constitution needs an ammendment to change that. An ammendment which doesn't give ANYTHING to those born in this country of illegal parents. No Social Services. No nothing.  An Ammendment which doesn't grant citizenship if your born of illegal parents in this country.
> 
> They also need to go after those hiring illegals and enforce the law with these companies.
> 
> The most important thing is to secure our borders. Thats number one in my book.
> 
> They also need a guest worker program. Canada has a great one and thats the one we should use.
> 
> No incentives. Thats the ticket in my book.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, lets become Canada.
> Or they could build more factories in Mexico.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you, and Lil Ol Lady who has no clue at all, need to offer something in reality that can fix this.  Not pipe dreams, but something that realistically can be done.
> 
> Before anyone gets started: roundups, mass deportations, police state apparatus, etc, will not happen.  So give us something.
Click to expand...


Just sign over your 401K and your pay check and I'll be glad to.  Don't worry about your future, I'll m set you up doing my landscaping.  

Seriously Jake, who are you to set up the do's and don'ts. You have no moral and ethical high ground, you lost it long ago. 

Here is one scenario, let's send all of the bleeding heart statists down to Mexico to fix everything. After you totally destroy what is left of Their economy and destabilize the whole country, the Mexicans here can apply for help as refugees. We trade you for them fair deal. After your Utopia fails, give it a year, we Annex Mexico and break it up into maybe 5 independent districts. We will give you Common Wealth Status, like Puerto Rico.


----------



## Intense

WillowTree said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Anchor baby one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As far as I know, it hasn't even been proposed, let alone passed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> okay, let's start over,, why do you think Arizona would propose such a thing?
Click to expand...


It has to be done at the Federal level. They are making noise to bring the platform for change.


----------



## froggy

If the people would get up the nerve to tell the Govt what they want instead of letting the Govt tell the people what they're going to get, then changes could be made.


----------



## Intense

froggy said:


> If the people would get up the nerve to tell the Govt what they want instead of letting the Govt tell the people what they're going to get, then changes could be made.



That's what I've been telling Jake from the start. It's about the Peoples !!!!! What do the Peoples want?????


----------



## Angelhair

WillowTree said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Anchor baby one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As far as I know, it hasn't even been proposed, let alone passed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> okay, let's start over,, why do you think Arizona would propose such a thing?
Click to expand...


_To bring it to the attention of the rest of the country who have no clue as to what goes on in the border states just as they had no clue about how many problems these states have with so many illegal crossers on any given day......_


----------



## froggy

Intense said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the people would get up the nerve to tell the Govt what they want instead of letting the Govt tell the people what they're going to get, then changes could be made.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's what I've been telling Jake from the start. It's about the Peoples !!!!! What do the Peoples want?????
Click to expand...


The Govt thinks they are above their employers (the people) and some time or another we have got to let them know they're not.


----------



## Intense

froggy said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the people would get up the nerve to tell the Govt what they want instead of letting the Govt tell the people what they're going to get, then changes could be made.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's what I've been telling Jake from the start. It's about the Peoples !!!!! What do the Peoples want?????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Govt thinks they are above their employers (the people) and some time or another we have got to let them know they're not.
Click to expand...


Should we take away their toy's and ground them???


----------



## froggy

Intense said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's what I've been telling Jake from the start. It's about the Peoples !!!!! What do the Peoples want?????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Govt thinks they are above their employers (the people) and some time or another we have got to let them know they're not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Should we take away their toy's and ground them???
Click to expand...


There you go, that's a start


----------



## Claudette

Intense said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to see them all deported also but have to agree with Jake on this one.
> 
> Its just not realistic. Those that have been here for years have kids, anchor kids, who are recognized as American Citizens. I can just imagine the court battles over that.
> 
> The Constitution needs an ammendment to change that. An ammendment which doesn't give ANYTHING to those born in this country of illegal parents. No Social Services. No nothing.  An Ammendment which doesn't grant citizenship if your born of illegal parents in this country.
> 
> They also need to go after those hiring illegals and enforce the law with these companies.
> 
> The most important thing is to secure our borders. Thats number one in my book.
> 
> They also need a guest worker program. Canada has a great one and thats the one we should use.
> 
> No incentives. Thats the ticket in my book.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, lets become Canada.
> Or they could build more factories in Mexico.
Click to expand...


Its not becoming Canada. Its using a system that Canada uses when they need workers. 

The companies let the Canadian Govt know how many workers they need and for how long. 

The Canadian Govt then contacts the Mexican Govt and they put in the request for workers. 

The workers come and do the work and then go home. Period. 

No illegals invading Canada. 

Makes sense to me.


----------



## LilOlLady

froggy said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the people would get up the nerve to tell the Govt what they want instead of letting the Govt tell the people what they're going to get, then changes could be made.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's what I've been telling Jake from the start. It's about the Peoples !!!!! What do the Peoples want?????
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Govt thinks they are above their employers (the people) and some time or another we have got to let them know they're not.
Click to expand...



WE told the twice before when they took up Immigration Reform and we will do it again and three strikes and Immigration Reform is out. DOA


----------



## Coyote

Claudette said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to see them all deported also but have to agree with Jake on this one.
> 
> Its just not realistic. Those that have been here for years have kids, anchor kids, who are recognized as American Citizens. I can just imagine the court battles over that.
> 
> The Constitution needs an ammendment to change that. An ammendment which doesn't give ANYTHING to those born in this country of illegal parents. No Social Services. No nothing.  An Ammendment which doesn't grant citizenship if your born of illegal parents in this country.
> 
> They also need to go after those hiring illegals and enforce the law with these companies.
> 
> The most important thing is to secure our borders. Thats number one in my book.
> 
> They also need a guest worker program. Canada has a great one and thats the one we should use.
> 
> No incentives. Thats the ticket in my book.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, lets become Canada.
> Or they could build more factories in Mexico.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its not becoming Canada. Its using a system that Canada uses when they need workers.
> 
> The companies let the Canadian Govt know how many workers they need and for how long.
> 
> The Canadian Govt then contacts the Mexican Govt and they put in the request for workers.
> 
> The workers come and do the work and then go home. Period.
> 
> *No illegals invading Canada. *
> 
> Makes sense to me.
Click to expand...



Canada is really a different situation.  I agree with you on guest worker programs, but that is not why Canada doesn't have as great a problem - they don't border Mexico.

We border a country that is "Third World", and has a lot of economic and political instability and as a developed nation with a lot of economic opportunities and a low rate of corruption and violence by comparision - we're attractive enough to take substantial risks to enter and we're right on the border.


----------



## LilOlLady

We do not have to pass another law, changing automatic birthright citizenship of for illgal aliens. Just interpret the 14th correctly  as intended.
&#8220;when international diplomats are here in the US and they have children, they are not given citizenship.&#8221; 
There is no statue of limitation on "illegal" Philipino families,etc have been deported after they have been here for 20 year, but very seldom are Mexicans deported.


----------



## Coyote

LilOlLady said:


> We do not have to pass another law, changing automatic birthright citizenship of for illgal aliens. Just interpret the 14th correctly  as intended.
> when international diplomats are here in the US and they have children, they are not given citizenship.
> There is no statue of limitation on "illegal" Philipino families,etc have been deported after they have been here for 20 year, but very seldom are Mexicans deported.



How do you know it was interpreted incorrectly?  It's funny because the side claiming that is typically the side that affirms the most narrow and literal "interpretation" of the Constitution and berates the other for broader interpretations.

At the time it was written America was vast and sparsely settled by colonists. Population means power and expansion.  There were no immigration laws and no such thing as illegal immigrants.  Seems much more likely that it was intended the way it is currently "interpreted".


----------



## GHook93

The legislative intent was to protect the newly freed slaves and their children. Right before the civil war, the _Dred Scott_ case disallowed Slaves from gaining citizenship. The Black Codes after the civil war was intented to enforce this against the newly freed slaves. So its GOAL was simple and direct - PROTECT THE NEWLY FREED SLAVES AND THEIR CHILDREN. Something the Civil Rights Act of 1866 tried to do, but was shot down by the racist (at the time) supreme court. 

The birthright clause was never intended to provide citizenship to criminals (illegal immigration is against the law), foreigner, children of ambassadors, children of legal foreign workers etc. In fact that was specifically what was discussed to excluded (Native Americans also), but they fucked up.

No amendment has ever been interpreted as absolute. Freedom of Speech doesn't allow incitement of violence or yelling fire in a crowded building. No unwarranted search and seizures provides exceptions for the Plain View Doctrine. Freedom of the Press doesn't allow libel or slander. Freedom of Religion doesn't allow human or animal sacrifices. The confrontation clause doesn't allow intimidation of witnesses against you. 

So why in hell does anyone think the birthright clause should be absolute? It should be read according to its legislative intent, which is crystal clear. I hope Arizona passes an anti-anchor baby clause. I hope the Supreme Court rules on it and maybe they will hold to the legislative intent of the 14th amendment and we can finally STOP the INSANITY of allowing the children of criminals to receive automatic citizenship if born in America!


----------



## Cecilie1200

WillowTree said:


> Contrary to what Cecille thinks they will do it though. Watch.



Can't imagine what made you think our legislators are stupid.  They made a great effort to make SB 1070 thoughtful, serious, and Constitutional so that it would actually WORK, as opposed to just being meaningless shock value.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Intense said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, lets become Canada.
> Or they could build more factories in Mexico.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you, and Lil Ol Lady who has no clue at all, need to offer something in reality that can fix this.  Not pipe dreams, but something that realistically can be done.
> 
> Before anyone gets started: roundups, mass deportations, police state apparatus, etc, will not happen.  So give us something.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just sign over your 401K and your pay check and I'll be glad to.  Don't worry about your future, I'll m set you up doing my landscaping.
> 
> Seriously Jake, who are you to set up the do's and don'ts. You have no moral and ethical high ground, you lost it long ago.
> 
> Here is one scenario, let's send all of the bleeding heart statists down to Mexico to fix everything. After you totally destroy what is left of Their economy and destabilize the whole country, the Mexicans here can apply for help as refugees. We trade you for them fair deal. After your Utopia fails, give it a year, we Annex Mexico and break it up into maybe 5 independent districts. We will give you Common Wealth Status, like Puerto Rico.
Click to expand...


I understand you are unhappy.  You have the right to whine.  But you don't have a right to your own reality.  Offer us something reasonable to resolve the problem.  Until you do, everything you write here has no relevance.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Intense said:


> froggy said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the people would get up the nerve to tell the Govt what they want instead of letting the Govt tell the people what they're going to get, then changes could be made.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's what I've been telling Jake from the start. It's about the Peoples !!!!! What do the Peoples want?????
Click to expand...


Overwhelmingly they don't want what you want.


----------



## JakeStarkey

GHook93 said:


> The legislative intent was to protect the newly freed slaves and their children. Right before the civil war, the _Dred Scott_ case disallowed Slaves from gaining citizenship. The Black Codes after the civil war was intented to enforce this against the newly freed slaves. So its GOAL was simple and direct - PROTECT THE NEWLY FREED SLAVES AND THEIR CHILDREN. Something the Civil Rights Act of 1866 tried to do, but was shot down by the racist (at the time) supreme court.
> 
> The birthright clause was never intended to provide citizenship to criminals (illegal immigration is against the law), foreigner, children of ambassadors, children of legal foreign workers etc. In fact that was specifically what was discussed to excluded (Native Americans also), but they fucked up.
> 
> No amendment has ever been interpreted as absolute. Freedom of Speech doesn't allow incitement of violence or yelling fire in a crowded building. No unwarranted search and seizures provides exceptions for the Plain View Doctrine. Freedom of the Press doesn't allow libel or slander. Freedom of Religion doesn't allow human or animal sacrifices. The confrontation clause doesn't allow intimidation of witnesses against you.
> 
> So why in hell does anyone think the birthright clause should be absolute? It should be read according to its legislative intent, which is crystal clear. I hope Arizona passes an anti-anchor baby clause. I hope the Supreme Court rules on it and maybe they will hold to the legislative intent of the 14th amendment and we can finally STOP the INSANITY of allowing the children of criminals to receive automatic citizenship if born in America!



Congressional intent cannot overturn an amendment.  That requires specified behavior by Congress and the states.  Birthright citizenship is here to stay.


----------



## WillowTree

Cecilie1200 said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> Contrary to what Cecille thinks they will do it though. Watch.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can't imagine what made you think our legislators are stupid.  They made a great effort to make SB 1070 thoughtful, serious, and Constitutional so that it would actually WORK, as opposed to just being meaningless shock value.
Click to expand...


I don't think they are stupid. I think they are smart as foxes raiding the hen house. They will do it.


----------



## ConHog

JakeStarkey said:


> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The legislative intent was to protect the newly freed slaves and their children. Right before the civil war, the _Dred Scott_ case disallowed Slaves from gaining citizenship. The Black Codes after the civil war was intented to enforce this against the newly freed slaves. So its GOAL was simple and direct - PROTECT THE NEWLY FREED SLAVES AND THEIR CHILDREN. Something the Civil Rights Act of 1866 tried to do, but was shot down by the racist (at the time) supreme court.
> 
> The birthright clause was never intended to provide citizenship to criminals (illegal immigration is against the law), foreigner, children of ambassadors, children of legal foreign workers etc. In fact that was specifically what was discussed to excluded (Native Americans also), but they fucked up.
> 
> No amendment has ever been interpreted as absolute. Freedom of Speech doesn't allow incitement of violence or yelling fire in a crowded building. No unwarranted search and seizures provides exceptions for the Plain View Doctrine. Freedom of the Press doesn't allow libel or slander. Freedom of Religion doesn't allow human or animal sacrifices. The confrontation clause doesn't allow intimidation of witnesses against you.
> 
> So why in hell does anyone think the birthright clause should be absolute? It should be read according to its legislative intent, which is crystal clear. I hope Arizona passes an anti-anchor baby clause. I hope the Supreme Court rules on it and maybe they will hold to the legislative intent of the 14th amendment and we can finally STOP the INSANITY of allowing the children of criminals to receive automatic citizenship if born in America!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Congressional intent cannot overturn an amendment.  That requires specified behavior by Congress and the states.*  Birthright citizenship is here to stay.*
Click to expand...



Dont be so sure. A simple SCOTUS ruling could legally change EVERYTHING.


----------



## GHook93

JakeStarkey said:


> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The legislative intent was to protect the newly freed slaves and their children. Right before the civil war, the _Dred Scott_ case disallowed Slaves from gaining citizenship. The Black Codes after the civil war was intented to enforce this against the newly freed slaves. So its GOAL was simple and direct - PROTECT THE NEWLY FREED SLAVES AND THEIR CHILDREN. Something the Civil Rights Act of 1866 tried to do, but was shot down by the racist (at the time) supreme court.
> 
> The birthright clause was never intended to provide citizenship to criminals (illegal immigration is against the law), foreigner, children of ambassadors, children of legal foreign workers etc. In fact that was specifically what was discussed to excluded (Native Americans also), but they fucked up.
> 
> No amendment has ever been interpreted as absolute. Freedom of Speech doesn't allow incitement of violence or yelling fire in a crowded building. No unwarranted search and seizures provides exceptions for the Plain View Doctrine. Freedom of the Press doesn't allow libel or slander. Freedom of Religion doesn't allow human or animal sacrifices. The confrontation clause doesn't allow intimidation of witnesses against you.
> 
> So why in hell does anyone think the birthright clause should be absolute? It should be read according to its legislative intent, which is crystal clear. I hope Arizona passes an anti-anchor baby clause. I hope the Supreme Court rules on it and maybe they will hold to the legislative intent of the 14th amendment and we can finally STOP the INSANITY of allowing the children of criminals to receive automatic citizenship if born in America!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Congressional intent cannot overturn an amendment.  That requires specified behavior by Congress and the states.  Birthright citizenship is here to stay.
Click to expand...


No, but LEGISLATIVE INTENT has a baring on how the Supreme Court rules. Like I said before previous, no amendment is ABSOLUTE! Since your a lefty are you for the 2nd amendment being followed literally, meaning us crazy conservatives could carry guns including automatic assault rifles?

See you probably haven't read many cases, I just got out of law school and I saw first hand how legislative intent is taken into consideration in most matters. You can't find it in some many cases its sick!


----------



## JakeStarkey

ConHog said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The legislative intent was to protect the newly freed slaves and their children. Right before the civil war, the _Dred Scott_ case disallowed Slaves from gaining citizenship. The Black Codes after the civil war was intented to enforce this against the newly freed slaves. So its GOAL was simple and direct - PROTECT THE NEWLY FREED SLAVES AND THEIR CHILDREN. Something the Civil Rights Act of 1866 tried to do, but was shot down by the racist (at the time) supreme court.
> 
> The birthright clause was never intended to provide citizenship to criminals (illegal immigration is against the law), foreigner, children of ambassadors, children of legal foreign workers etc. In fact that was specifically what was discussed to excluded (Native Americans also), but they fucked up.
> 
> No amendment has ever been interpreted as absolute. Freedom of Speech doesn't allow incitement of violence or yelling fire in a crowded building. No unwarranted search and seizures provides exceptions for the Plain View Doctrine. Freedom of the Press doesn't allow libel or slander. Freedom of Religion doesn't allow human or animal sacrifices. The confrontation clause doesn't allow intimidation of witnesses against you.
> 
> So why in hell does anyone think the birthright clause should be absolute? It should be read according to its legislative intent, which is crystal clear. I hope Arizona passes an anti-anchor baby clause. I hope the Supreme Court rules on it and maybe they will hold to the legislative intent of the 14th amendment and we can finally STOP the INSANITY of allowing the children of criminals to receive automatic citizenship if born in America!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Congressional intent cannot overturn an amendment.  That requires specified behavior by Congress and the states.*  Birthright citizenship is here to stay.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Dont be so sure. A simple SCOTUS ruling could legally change EVERYTHING.
Click to expand...


SCOTUS would never rule on the legality of an amendment, merely refuse to review.


----------



## JakeStarkey

GHook93 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The legislative intent was to protect the newly freed slaves and their children. Right before the civil war, the _Dred Scott_ case disallowed Slaves from gaining citizenship. The Black Codes after the civil war was intented to enforce this against the newly freed slaves. So its GOAL was simple and direct - PROTECT THE NEWLY FREED SLAVES AND THEIR CHILDREN. Something the Civil Rights Act of 1866 tried to do, but was shot down by the racist (at the time) supreme court.
> 
> The birthright clause was never intended to provide citizenship to criminals (illegal immigration is against the law), foreigner, children of ambassadors, children of legal foreign workers etc. In fact that was specifically what was discussed to excluded (Native Americans also), but they fucked up.
> 
> No amendment has ever been interpreted as absolute. Freedom of Speech doesn't allow incitement of violence or yelling fire in a crowded building. No unwarranted search and seizures provides exceptions for the Plain View Doctrine. Freedom of the Press doesn't allow libel or slander. Freedom of Religion doesn't allow human or animal sacrifices. The confrontation clause doesn't allow intimidation of witnesses against you.
> 
> So why in hell does anyone think the birthright clause should be absolute? It should be read according to its legislative intent, which is crystal clear. I hope Arizona passes an anti-anchor baby clause. I hope the Supreme Court rules on it and maybe they will hold to the legislative intent of the 14th amendment and we can finally STOP the INSANITY of allowing the children of criminals to receive automatic citizenship if born in America!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Congressional intent cannot overturn an amendment.  That requires specified behavior by Congress and the states.  Birthright citizenship is here to stay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, but LEGISLATIVE INTENT has a baring on how the Supreme Court rules. Like I said before previous, no amendment is ABSOLUTE! Since your a lefty are you for the 2nd amendment being followed literally, meaning us crazy conservatives could carry guns including automatic assault rifles?
> 
> See you probably haven't read many cases, I just got out of law school and I saw first hand how legislative intent is taken into consideration in most matters. You can't find it in some many cases its sick!
Click to expand...


I hope you paid better attention in law school than you are giving the impression here.  I am only a lefty because your perception is limited from below the far right horizon.

Find me legal brief, so some shepardizing were the SCOTUS ever ruled on the legislative intent of an amendment and struck part of it down.  That has never happened, and the Roberts court would never review such a motion, simply dismiss it with prejudice.

As you say, all amendments are not absolute, so, no, you don't need an assault rifle.


----------



## GHook93

ConHog said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The legislative intent was to protect the newly freed slaves and their children. Right before the civil war, the _Dred Scott_ case disallowed Slaves from gaining citizenship. The Black Codes after the civil war was intented to enforce this against the newly freed slaves. So its GOAL was simple and direct - PROTECT THE NEWLY FREED SLAVES AND THEIR CHILDREN. Something the Civil Rights Act of 1866 tried to do, but was shot down by the racist (at the time) supreme court.
> 
> The birthright clause was never intended to provide citizenship to criminals (illegal immigration is against the law), foreigner, children of ambassadors, children of legal foreign workers etc. In fact that was specifically what was discussed to excluded (Native Americans also), but they fucked up.
> 
> No amendment has ever been interpreted as absolute. Freedom of Speech doesn't allow incitement of violence or yelling fire in a crowded building. No unwarranted search and seizures provides exceptions for the Plain View Doctrine. Freedom of the Press doesn't allow libel or slander. Freedom of Religion doesn't allow human or animal sacrifices. The confrontation clause doesn't allow intimidation of witnesses against you.
> 
> So why in hell does anyone think the birthright clause should be absolute? It should be read according to its legislative intent, which is crystal clear. I hope Arizona passes an anti-anchor baby clause. I hope the Supreme Court rules on it and maybe they will hold to the legislative intent of the 14th amendment and we can finally STOP the INSANITY of allowing the children of criminals to receive automatic citizenship if born in America!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Congressional intent cannot overturn an amendment.  That requires specified behavior by Congress and the states.*  Birthright citizenship is here to stay.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Dont be so sure. A simple SCOTUS ruling could legally change EVERYTHING.
Click to expand...


They can't overturn the amendment, but they can interpert it according to it legislative intent and set a precedence.


----------



## JakeStarkey

GHook93 said:


> They can't overturn the amendment, but they can interpert it according to it legislative intent and set a precedence.



We are almost there.  Now answer the previous question, "Find me legal brief, so some shepardizing where the SCOTUS ever ruled on the legislative intent of an amendment and struck part of it down. That has never happened, and the Roberts court would never review such a motion, simply dismiss it with prejudice."

Or you can simply say that such has never been done before and most unlikely to be done now.


----------



## GHook93

JakeStarkey said:


> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Congressional intent cannot overturn an amendment.  That requires specified behavior by Congress and the states.  Birthright citizenship is here to stay.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, but LEGISLATIVE INTENT has a baring on how the Supreme Court rules. Like I said before previous, no amendment is ABSOLUTE! Since your a lefty are you for the 2nd amendment being followed literally, meaning us crazy conservatives could carry guns including automatic assault rifles?
> 
> See you probably haven't read many cases, I just got out of law school and I saw first hand how legislative intent is taken into consideration in most matters. You can't find it in some many cases its sick!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I hope you paid better attention in law school than you are giving the impression here.  I am only a lefty because your perception is limited from below the far right horizon.
> 
> Find me legal brief, so some shepardizing were the SCOTUS ever ruled on the legislative intent of an amendment and struck part of it down.  That has never happened, and the Roberts court would never review such a motion, simply dismiss it with prejudice.
> 
> As you say, all amendments are not absolute, so, no, you don't need an assault rifle.
Click to expand...


You are putting words in my mouth I have never stated any part of an amendment can be struck down. Amendment can only be struck down by another amendment (aka prohibition). 

However, amendment aren't absolute and can be interpreted differently! 

But I will agree I don't see the birthright clause going anywhere or getting a narrow interpretation, it will remain boardly applied!


----------



## ConHog

GHook93 said:


> ConHog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Congressional intent cannot overturn an amendment.  That requires specified behavior by Congress and the states.*  Birthright citizenship is here to stay.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dont be so sure. A simple SCOTUS ruling could legally change EVERYTHING.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They can't overturn the amendment, but they can interpert it according to it legislative intent and set a precedence.
Click to expand...


Yes they could, and that precedence COULD go either way.


----------



## Intense

ConHog said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The legislative intent was to protect the newly freed slaves and their children. Right before the civil war, the _Dred Scott_ case disallowed Slaves from gaining citizenship. The Black Codes after the civil war was intented to enforce this against the newly freed slaves. So its GOAL was simple and direct - PROTECT THE NEWLY FREED SLAVES AND THEIR CHILDREN. Something the Civil Rights Act of 1866 tried to do, but was shot down by the racist (at the time) supreme court.
> 
> The birthright clause was never intended to provide citizenship to criminals (illegal immigration is against the law), foreigner, children of ambassadors, children of legal foreign workers etc. In fact that was specifically what was discussed to excluded (Native Americans also), but they fucked up.
> 
> No amendment has ever been interpreted as absolute. Freedom of Speech doesn't allow incitement of violence or yelling fire in a crowded building. No unwarranted search and seizures provides exceptions for the Plain View Doctrine. Freedom of the Press doesn't allow libel or slander. Freedom of Religion doesn't allow human or animal sacrifices. The confrontation clause doesn't allow intimidation of witnesses against you.
> 
> So why in hell does anyone think the birthright clause should be absolute? It should be read according to its legislative intent, which is crystal clear. I hope Arizona passes an anti-anchor baby clause. I hope the Supreme Court rules on it and maybe they will hold to the legislative intent of the 14th amendment and we can finally STOP the INSANITY of allowing the children of criminals to receive automatic citizenship if born in America!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Congressional intent cannot overturn an amendment.  That requires specified behavior by Congress and the states.*  Birthright citizenship is here to stay.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Dont be so sure. A simple SCOTUS ruling could legally change EVERYTHING.
Click to expand...


We need a Constitutional Amendment to make it right.


----------



## ConHog

Intense said:


> ConHog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Congressional intent cannot overturn an amendment.  That requires specified behavior by Congress and the states.*  Birthright citizenship is here to stay.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dont be so sure. A simple SCOTUS ruling could legally change EVERYTHING.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We need a Constitutional Amendment to make it right.
Click to expand...


I happen to agree, because a SCOTUS ruling could always be overturned, but a ruling would at least temporarily settle things and is easier to get than an Amendment is.


----------



## Intense

GHook93 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, but LEGISLATIVE INTENT has a baring on how the Supreme Court rules. Like I said before previous, no amendment is ABSOLUTE! Since your a lefty are you for the 2nd amendment being followed literally, meaning us crazy conservatives could carry guns including automatic assault rifles?
> 
> See you probably haven't read many cases, I just got out of law school and I saw first hand how legislative intent is taken into consideration in most matters. You can't find it in some many cases its sick!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hope you paid better attention in law school than you are giving the impression here.  I am only a lefty because your perception is limited from below the far right horizon.
> 
> Find me legal brief, so some shepardizing were the SCOTUS ever ruled on the legislative intent of an amendment and struck part of it down.  That has never happened, and the Roberts court would never review such a motion, simply dismiss it with prejudice.
> 
> As you say, all amendments are not absolute, so, no, you don't need an assault rifle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are putting words in my mouth I have never stated any part of an amendment can be struck down. Amendment can only be struck down by another amendment (aka prohibition).
> 
> However, amendment aren't absolute and can be interpreted differently!
> 
> But I will agree I don't see the birthright clause going anywhere or getting a narrow interpretation, it will remain boardly applied!
Click to expand...


What is important here is the will of the people, anything over 75% should be taken as last warning. Comply or seek employment elsewhere. You want to be rich and famous, buy a lottery ticket.  Remove all American'ts from Government work.


----------



## Intense

ConHog said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConHog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont be so sure. A simple SCOTUS ruling could legally change EVERYTHING.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We need a Constitutional Amendment to make it right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I happen to agree, because a SCOTUS ruling could always be overturned, but a ruling would at least temporarily settle things and is easier to get than an Amendment is.
Click to expand...


Haven't you learned from Brown V.S. The Board of Education, and Roe V.S. Wade what happens when you try short cuts. They fester like open wounds for decades. Take the high road, Constitutional Amendment, making the course clear and concise. Leave imagination, make believe, and fantasy, out of Constitutional Law.


----------



## JakeStarkey

SCOTUS is the only way, Intense, because you can never get your super majority.  And, as a matter of fact and of law, the doctrine of judicial review has been a done deal for a very long time.  I do believe  _Brown _was exactly right, _Roe _I am not so sure about.  However, your beliefs or mine will not decide anything of worth here.

The simple fact is you don't have the numbers, you don't have the courts, ergo you don't have nuffin.


----------



## Intense

JakeStarkey said:


> SCOTUS is the only way, Intense, because you can never get your super majority.  And, as a matter of fact and of law, the doctrine of judicial review has been a done deal for a very long time.  I do believe  _Brown _was exactly right, _Roe _I am not so sure about.  However, your beliefs or mine will not decide anything of worth here.
> 
> The simple fact is you don't have the numbers, you don't have the courts, ergo you don't have nuffin.



Numbers are always in flux Jake. Never is a really really really long time Jake. Judicial Review is not the problem Jake, the problem is poetic license.  Our Forefathers designed the Amendment process as the primary vehicle of change. I know you are in denial, I accept that. Indoctrination is a hard thing to overcome. In the end, there is no peace without justice Jake. Without balance, fairness, truth, we all lose. Seek first what is right grasshopper. If in doubt, pray for vision and clarity of purpose. The blind make poor guides Jake.


----------

