LilOlLady's Everlasting Gobstopper Illegal Immigration Thread

[JamesInFlorida]

I'm all for ending anchor babies, but what would you put in it's place? How do you determine who becomes a citizen and who doesn't?

I personally would like to see that the only way you're automatically a citizen if you're born here is if one of your parents is already a citizen at the time you're born (even if one is an illegal). Those born to legal immigrants shouldn't automatically become citizens in my opinion-but should have a pathway to citizenship.

 

[LilOlLady]

Forget federal government, we'll build fence ourselves!
Plan makes illegal immigrants pay for states to secure U.S. borderJanuary 30, 2011
By Drew Zahn
© 2011 WorldNetDaily

Mississippi State Sen. Joey Fillingane

A Mississippi legislator has caught on to an idea that if the federal government won't complete a border fence separating the United States from Mexico, the states will – and he's planning on taxing illegal immigrants to fund it.

Republican State Sen. Joey Fillingane has filed S.B. 2255, which would charge a fee on all money transfers wired out of the United States, then count the amount as a credit on Mississippi citizens' tax returns. The result: Only illegal immigrants sending money abroad would ultimately pay the fees, since they cannot file tax returns to receive a refund.



Read more: Forget federal government, we'll build fence ourselves! Forget federal government, we'll build fence ourselves!

 

[Mr Natural]

Of all places, Mississippi should be the least concerned about illegal immigration.

 

[goldcatt]

So I guess Mississippi is going to send volunteers to trespass on private property along the Mexican border and build the fences that the Feds can't because of all the takings issues?

People own that land, ya know. The States aren't going to get any further than the Feds, not without trampling property, grazing and water rights.

 

[LilOlLady]

This isn't the first time this bill has come up. They tried to do this a couple years ago, if I remember correctly. But it would be pointless, the Supreme Court has already long ago established that the 14th amendment declares anyone born in the US a citizen, regardless of the citizenship of the parents.

Supreme Court decisions
The correct interpretation of the 14th Amendment is that an illegal alien mother is subject to the jurisdiction of her native country, as is her baby.

Over a century ago, the Supreme Court appropriately confirmed this restricted interpretation of citizenship in the so-called "Slaughter-House cases" [83 US 36 (1873) and 112 US 94 (1884)]13. In the 1884 Elk v.Wilkins case12, the phrase "subject to its jurisdiction" was interpreted to exclude "children of ministers, consuls, and citizens of foreign states born within the United States." In Elk, the American Indian claimant was considered not an American citizen because the law required him to be "not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance."

The Court essentially stated that the status of the parents determines the citizenship of the child. To qualify children for birthright citizenship, based on the 14th Amendment, parents must owe "direct and immediate allegiance" to the U.S. and be "completely subject" to its jurisdiction. In other words, they must be United States citizens.

Congress subsequently passed a special act to grant full citizenship to American Indians, who were not citizens even through they were born within the borders of the United States. The Citizens Act of 1924, codified in 8USCSß1401, provides that:

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe.

In 1889, the Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court case10,11 once again, in a ruling based strictly on the 14th Amendment, concluded that the status of the parents was crucial in determining the citizenship of the child. The current misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment is based in part upon the presumption that the Wong Kim Ark ruling encompassed illegal aliens. In fact, it did not address the children of illegal aliens and non-immigrant aliens, but rather determined an allegiance for legal immigrant parents based on the meaning of the word domicil(e). Since it is inconceivable that illegal alien parents could have a legal domicile in the United States, the ruling clearly did not extend birthright citizenship to children of illegal alien parents. Indeed, the ruling strengthened the original intent of the 14th Amendment.

The original intent of the 14th Amendment was clearly not to facilitate illegal aliens defying U.S. law and obtaining citizenship for their offspring, nor obtaining benefits at taxpayer expense. Current estimates indicate there may be between 300,000 and 700,000 anchor babies born each year in the U.S., thus causing illegal alien mothers to add more to the U.S. population each year than immigration from all sources in an average year before 1965. (See consequences.)

American citizens must be wary of elected politicians voting to illegally extend our generous social benefits to illegal aliens and other criminals.

The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution - Fourteenth Amendment - anchor babies and birthright citizenship - interpretations and misinterpretations - US Constitution

 

[LilOlLady]

Modern disputeIn the late 1990s opposition arose over the longstanding practice of granting automatic citizenship on a jus soli basis[36] as fears grew in some circles that the existing law encouraged parents-to-be to come to the United States to have children in order to improve the parents' chances of attaining legal residency themselves.[33][37] Some media correspondents[38][39] and public leaders, including former congressman Virgil Goode, have controversially dubbed this the "anchor baby" situation,[40][41] and politicians have proposed legislation on this basis that might alter how birthright citizenship is awarded.

Bills have been introduced from time to time in Congress which have sought to declare U.S.-born children of foreign nationals not to be subject to the "jurisdiction" of the United States, and thus not entitled to citizenship via the 14th Amendment, unless at least one parent were a U.S. citizen or a lawful permanent resident. For example, Representative Nathan Deal (a Republican from Georgia) introduced the "Citizenship Reform Act of 2005" (H.R. 698) in the 109th Congress,[42] the "Birthright Citizenship Act of 2007" (H.R. 1940)[43] in the 110th Congress, and the "Birthright Citizenship Act of 2009" (H.R. 1868)[44] in the 111th Congress. Neither these nor any similar bills, however, have ever been approved by Congress.

Some legislators, unsure whether such acts of Congress would survive court challenges, have proposed that the Citizenship Clause be changed through a constitutional amendment.[45] Senate Joint Resolution 6, introduced on January 16, 2009 in the 111th Congress, proposes such an amendment;[46] however, neither this, nor any other proposed amendment, has yet been approved by Congress for ratification by the states.

The most recent judge to weigh in on the issue as to whether a constitutional amendment would be necessary to change the policy is Judge Richard Posner who remarked in a 2003 case that "Congress would not be flouting the Constitution if it amended the Immigration and Nationality Act to put an end to the nonsense." He explained, "A constitutional amendment may be required to change the rule whereby birth in this country automatically confers U.S. citizenship, but I doubt it." Posner also wrote, that automatic birthright citizenship is a policy that "Congress should rethink" and that the United States "should not be encouraging foreigners to come to the United States solely to enable them to confer U.S. citizenship on their future children."[47]

Professor Edward J. Erler, Professor, California State University, has argued that "Congress began to pass legislation offering citizenship to Indians on a tribe by tribe basis. Finally, in 1923, there was a universal offer to all tribes. Any Indian who consented could become an American citizen. This citizenship was based on reciprocal consent: an offer on the part of the U.S. and acceptance on the part of an individual. Thus Congress used its legislative powers under the Fourteenth Amendment to determine who was within the jurisdiction of the U.S. It could make a similar determination today, based on this legislative precedent, that children born in the U.S. to illegal aliens are not subject to American jurisdiction. A constitutional amendment is no more required now than it was in 1923."[48]

Republicans in the border state of Arizona have indicated an intention to introduce state legislation which would seek to deny U.S. citizenship to Arizona-born children of illegal immigrant parents by prohibiting the issuance of a birth certificate unless at least one parent has legal status.[49][50]

Birthright citizenship in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[goldcatt]

Which wall of wiki text has absolutely nothing to do with the issue of Mississippi wanting to put up a fence at its imaginary border with Mexico.

 

[LilOlLady]

Of all places, Mississippi should be the least concerned about illegal immigration.

Mississippi Must Act on Illegal Immigration
By Keith Burton – Gulf Coast News.com - Editor
Updated 3/14/05 - Illegal Aliens Get Jobs At Nuclear Power PlantUpdated 3/21/05 - Pew Study

What is it going to take to get our elected officials to start paying attention to illegal immigration?

It seems that nothing anyone says or does is enough to warrant enforcement of laws that keep illegal aliens, mostly from Mexico, overrunning our country and yes, our state.
Mississippi Must Act on Illegal Immigration


The Impact of Illegal Immigration on Mississippi;
Cost and Population Trends.

http://www.osa.state.ms.us/documents/performance/illegal-immigration.pdf

I think Mississippi gives a lot of shit about illegal immigration.

 

[manifold]

I think the refundable transaction fee is a pretty good idea.

But where the heck are they gonna build a fence?

 

[LilOlLady]

So I guess Mississippi is going to send volunteers to trespass on private property along the Mexican border and build the fences that the Feds can't because of all the takings issues?

People own that land, ya know. The States aren't going to get any further than the Feds, not without trampling property, grazing and water rights.

Feds Prepare Legal Battle Against Landowners Blocking Border Fence ProjectThursday, January 10, 2008


PrintShareThisWASHINGTON — The government is readying 102 court cases against landowners in Arizona, California and Texas for blocking efforts to select sites for a fence along the Mexican border, a Homeland Security Department official said Wednesday.

With the lawsuits expected soon, the legal action would mark an escalation in the clash between the government and the property owners. The Bush administration wants to build 370 miles of fencing and 300 miles of vehicle barriers by the end of the year.

A number of property owners have granted the government access to their land. But others have refused. The agency sent letters to 135 of them last month, warning they had 30 days to comply or face court action.
Feds Prepare Legal Battle Against Landowners Blocking Border Fence Project - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum - FOXNews.com

Eminent Domain for home land security trumps.
I think those opposed in 08 have finally had a change of heart and begging for a fence, etc

 

[uscitizen]

Of all places, Mississippi should be the least concerned about illegal immigration.

Aww give the guy a break he Watches Fox and probably thinks Miss. borders Mexico.

 

[goldcatt]

I think the refundable transaction fee is a pretty good idea.

But where the heck are they gonna build a fence?

On the beach, I guess. They do call it the Gulf of Mexico....

 

[goldcatt]

So I guess Mississippi is going to send volunteers to trespass on private property along the Mexican border and build the fences that the Feds can't because of all the takings issues?

People own that land, ya know. The States aren't going to get any further than the Feds, not without trampling property, grazing and water rights.

Feds Prepare Legal Battle Against Landowners Blocking Border Fence ProjectThursday, January 10, 2008


PrintShareThisWASHINGTON — The government is readying 102 court cases against landowners in Arizona, California and Texas for blocking efforts to select sites for a fence along the Mexican border, a Homeland Security Department official said Wednesday.

With the lawsuits expected soon, the legal action would mark an escalation in the clash between the government and the property owners. The Bush administration wants to build 370 miles of fencing and 300 miles of vehicle barriers by the end of the year.

A number of property owners have granted the government access to their land. But others have refused. The agency sent letters to 135 of them last month, warning they had 30 days to comply or face court action.
Feds Prepare Legal Battle Against Landowners Blocking Border Fence Project - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum - FOXNews.com

Eminent Domain for home land security trumps.
I think those opposed in 08 have finally had a change of heart and begging for a fence, etc

Yet you can't find anything on this less than 3 years old. Wonder why.

 

[Terral]

Hi Lady:

Forget federal government, we'll build fence ourselves!
Plan makes illegal immigrants pay for states to secure U.S. borderJanuary 30, 2011
By Drew Zahn
© 2011 WorldNetDaily ...

This is the kind of nonsense and stupidity that makes me throw up my hands and conclude that America 'is' worthy of utter destruction off the face of the earth. First of all, building a fence does nothing about the US employers HIRING the 20 million goddamned illegal aliens already here. Secondly, about half of the illegals come here using one kind of visa or another, which a fence is never going to stop. Thirdly, the immigration 'enforcement' problem begins AT THE WORKPLACE and not on the border, which is the smokescreen put up by the Open Border Lobby to keep you looking into the wilderness somewhere.

The idiots running this country need to figure out that enforcement of our perfectly good immigration, employment and document fraud laws AT THE WORKPLACE is the only solution. Period! You cannot even begin to solve this problem, until the EMPLOYERS are put into jail and their licenses to do business are revoked FOR LIFE for hiring the goddamned illegals in the first place. Then you need no fence, because nobody in America is willing to take the chance of hiring the illegals! Then Americans get their jobs back and the consumer/tax bases begin to enlarge again. There is no incentive for Mexican nationals to stay home, when all they must do is find a way around the border security and they are home free! The idiots running our border patrol should have two men on the border and at least one at the workplace making sure everyone working is AMERICAN.

That is too damned easy to figure out, which says the Mississippi idiots coming up with this ridiculous 'fence' solution are part of the problem. Taxing wire transfers will never work against illegals, because they will simply mail the money home via the US Postal Service for deposit in the family bank. The idiot who dreamed up this plan is thinking that only illegals will pay, because everyone else will get a tax break. STUPID IDEA. The reason is that the supposition is that U.S. employers will continue hiring the illegals to give Mississippi their goddamned money! That will give incentives for the Mississippi government to allow more hiring of the goddamned illegals to support their new tax base.

I swear that if you made me king for one day, that all government official heads in this country would roll!!! The entire lot is too damned stupid to figure out that only AMERICANS are supposed to have jobs in the USA, unless 'legal' provisions are made in certain circumstances. Making new laws to tax illegals is helping them stay employed, which is the reason we have high unemployment of US workers from sea to shining sea; because that is what stupid Americans deserve ...

GL,

Terral

 

[Terral]

Jo gek:

It doesn't matter. The constitution does not change with the whims of popular sentiment. The law remains the law until it is changed ...

No. This is the kind of nonsense and stupidity that real Americans and real patriots are trying to show you. The 14th Amendment does not give citizenship to the citizens of other countries who come here illegally. That is how the 14th Amendment has been misinterpreted by the idiots running our government that has caused the problem in the first place. The language says:

Wiki:

Section 1. 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 ...

Illegal aliens crossing our borders 'illegally' to have their anchor babies and drain social services and saddle our children with their DEBT are NOT 'subject to the jurisdiction' of ANY STATE in this union 'thereof,' but in their home country their children are subject to the jurisdiction of MEXICO where their parents 'are' citizens. The illegal aliens MUST find some way to become 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof' LEGALLY, before they can think about passing their citizenship rights to their ILLEGAL offspring.

By contrast, the children of slaves 'were' the subjects of the slave owner who was a citizen of these United States, which means their offspring 'are' covered under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. Blindly handing out US citizenship to illegal aliens is STUPID and not what our forefathers intended, but the idiots in office today simply misinterpret 'AND subject to the jurisdiction thereof' to mean "anybody born here legally or illegally" and the rest of us must pay the bill.

If you do not understand that the 14th Amendment applies to slaves of US Citizen slave owners and NOT illegal aliens, then you would make the perfect candidate to join the current batch of idiots in public office ...

GL,

Terral

 

[Terral]

Hi James:

I'm all for ending anchor babies, but what would you put in it's place? How do you determine who becomes a citizen and who doesn't?

That is simple: US Citizens are born to US Citizens in the USA 'legally.' Period. Anyone born to citizens of other countries here or abroad are citizens of the country where their parents 'are' citizens. Period.

I personally would like to see that the only way you're automatically a citizen if you're born here is if one of your parents is already a citizen at the time you're born (even if one is an illegal).

No. If one of the parents of anyone born here is 'illegal,' that flies in the face of being born here 'legally.' Here is a good lesson for everyone reading these posts: Legal = Legal and Illegal = Illegal.

Those born to legal immigrants shouldn't automatically become citizens in my opinion-but should have a pathway to citizenship.

No. All you are doing is cheapening what it means to be a US Citizen, by allowing someone to be rewarded for engaging in 'illegal' activity. Note the bold type above again. If two Americans run to Canada or Mexico to have their child, that child is subject to the same jurisdiction of his or her parents; i.e., the USA. They should be booted back to the USA with their American child to live happily ever after. The same goes for illegals having their children in the USA. Ship the whole lot back to Mexico where they have the opportunity to get in line and return to the USA using the front door. NEVER give anyone a backdoor pathway to becoming a US Citizen, or your citizenship becomes a very cheap commodity indeed ...

GL,

Terral

 

[Ropey]

Islam has a lot to offer the disenfranchised and disillusioned......

This woman is a convert to Islam that I personally know from the mosque in Texas.

Dr. O'leary has a PhD and teaches neuro science at a university in Austin.

So much for your non sense about Islam attracting the disenfranchised and disillusioned.

So, one against the horde of disenfranchised and disillusioned?

 

[Ropey]

This is my last post on this thread thanks to Ropey's thread wrecking and trolling.

Can't even stand to your own word Sunni Man?

 

[gekaap]

Terrel, you obviously have no knowledge of the subject, and are trying to insert your own desires into the matter, as if they had the weight of authority.j

LilOLady, your source is unfortunately not reliable. Let's go directly to United States v. Wong Kim Ark:

The question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.

[...]

In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that." And he proceeded to resort to the common law as an aid in the construction of this provision. 21 Wall. 167.

In Smith v. Alabama, Mr. Justice Matthews, delivering the judgment of the court, said:

There is no common law of the United States, in the sense of a national customary law, distinct from the common law of England as adopted by the several States each for itself, applied as its local law, and subject to such alteration as may be provided by its own statutes. . . . There is, however, one clear exception to the statement that there is no national common law. The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.

[...]

Lord Chief Justice Cockburn, in the same year, reviewing the whole matter, said:

By the common law of England, every person born within the dominions of the Crown, no matter whether of English or of foreign parents, and, in the latter case, whether the parents were settled or merely temporarily sojourning, in the country, was an English subject, save only the children of foreign ambassadors (who were excepted because their fathers carried their own nationality with them), or a child born to a foreigner during the hostile occupation of any part of the territories of England. No effect appears to have been given to descent as a source of nationality.

[...]

The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.

[...]

Mr. Justice Johnson said: "He was entitled to inherit as a citizen born of the State of New York." 3 Pet. 136. Mr. Justice Story stated the reasons upon this point more at large, referring to Calvin's Case, Blackstone's Commentaries, and Doe v. Jones, above cited, and saying:

Allegiance is nothing more than the tie or duty of obedience of a subject to the sovereign under whose protection he is, and allegiance by birth is that which arises from being born within the dominions and under the protection of a particular sovereign. Two things usually concur to create citizenship: first, birth locally within the dominions of the sovereign, and secondly, birth within the protection and obedience, or, in other words, within the allegiance of the sovereign. That is, the party must be born within a place where the sovereign is at the time in full possession and exercise of his power, and the party must also, at his birth, derive protection from, and consequently owe obedience or allegiance to, the sovereign, as such, de facto.

[...]

There is, therefore, little ground for the theory that, at the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, there as[sic] any settled and definite rule of international law, generally recognized by civilized nations, inconsistent with the ancient rule of citizenship by birth within the dominion.

[...]

The first section of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution [p676] begins with the words,

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of he State wherein they reside.

As appears upon the face of the amendment, as well as from the history of the times, this was not intended to impose any new restrictions upon citizenship, or to prevent any persons from becoming citizens by the fact of birth within the United States who would thereby have become citizens according to the law existing before its adoption. It is declaratory in form, and enabling and extending in effect. Its main purpose doubtless was, as has been often recognized by this court, to establish the citizenship of free negroes, which had been denied in the opinion delivered by Chief Justice Taney in Dred Scott v. Sandford, (1857) 19 How. 393, and to put it beyond doubt that all blacks, as well as whites, born or naturalized within the jurisdiction of the United States are citizens of the United States. The Slaughterhouse Cases (1873), 16 Wall. 36, 73; Strauder v. West Virginia (1879), 100 U.S. 303, 306.; Ex parte Virginia (1879). 100 U.S. 339, 35; Neal v. Delaware (1880), 103 U.S. 370, 386; Elk v. Wilkins (1884), 112 U.S. 94, 101. But the opening words, "All persons born," are general, not to say universal, restricted only by place and jurisdiction, and not by color or race -- as was clearly recognized in all the opinions delivered in The Slaughterhouse Cases, above cited.

[...]

The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens.

The 14th amendment declares anyone born in the US a citizen, regardless of the citizenship of their parents (except for foreign ministers, ambassadors, etc.)

 

[LilOlLady]

Which wall of wiki text has absolutely nothing to do with the issue of Mississippi wanting to put up a fence at its imaginary border with Mexico.

Not only border states are affected by illegal immigration. The border separates Mexico from the United States and Mississippi is a state. Mississippi has an interest in illegal and illegal immigration as much as Ariz. Here in Reno, one would think they are IN Mexico. Shopping center all Hispanic. All neighborhoods Hispanic and schools that are 90% Hispanic.