Illegal Immigration!

[Ponch ®]

You know what, Just build the damn wall and put 220v all around it with plenty of warning. If they still try to cross and get electricuted we'll consider it chlorinating the gene pool. There has already been a ton of money approved to build it. Just go ahead and add enough to go all the way across the border. It would be the cheapest thing we've spent money on in the last 18 months.

that should be the main focus of the immigration debate...how to keep them out in the first place.

[lisiecki1]

You know what, Just build the damn wall and put 220v all around it with plenty of warning. If they still try to cross and get electrocuted we'll consider it chlorinating the gene pool. There has already been a ton of money approved to build it. Just go ahead and add enough to go all the way across the border. It would be the cheapest thing we've spent money on in the last 18 months.

that should be the main focus of the immigration debate...how to keep them out in the first place.

true.

I would like to see the law changed to having at least 1 parent as a citizen to qualify the child as a citizen, however, i haven't fully thought out the possible ramifications of such a change.

[Ponch ®]

You know what, Just build the damn wall and put 220v all around it with plenty of warning. If they still try to cross and get electrocuted we'll consider it chlorinating the gene pool. There has already been a ton of money approved to build it. Just go ahead and add enough to go all the way across the border. It would be the cheapest thing we've spent money on in the last 18 months.

that should be the main focus of the immigration debate...how to keep them out in the first place.

true.

I would like to see the law changed to having at least 1 parent as a citizen to qualify the child as a citizen, however, i haven't fully thought out the possible ramifications of such a change.

most people haven't, and that's part of the problem. They are basing their opinions based on the current furor and emotions about illegal immigration, not really on rational thought.

For example...how do we enforce it? Do we make the parents of EVERY child born bring proof of citizenship to the hospital when the kid is born? And who, exactly, is going to check that? We're gonna need to create yet another government agency just to keep track of that. Woohoo for bureaucracy and bigger government.

But most importantly, as I keep saying, it's pretty dangerous to mess with the Constitution on a whim, just because of the bad precedent it sets. Next thing you know will have to amend the 1st amendment to keep mosques from being built (buh bye freedom of religion and speech), or the 4th amendment in order to find terrorists (to hell with warrants...let the government come into your house), or the 10th amendment so the Federal Government has complete control of all laws, and so on.

Don't forget that the tide of public opinion is pretty fickle. Some day in the not too distant future majority of the public might be supportive of something you don't agree with, and they may demand to have the law changed to suit their position. If we start with this, they can point at this and say "why not...it's been done before" and they  might just get their way. Maybe the only thing we have that keeps us from going the way of the French (they're on what...their "6th Republic"?) or the Nigerians is the fact that we rarely ever change the Constitution....

[lisiecki1]

You know what, Just build the damn wall and put 220v all around it with plenty of warning. If they still try to cross and get electrocuted we'll consider it chlorinating the gene pool. There has already been a ton of money approved to build it. Just go ahead and add enough to go all the way across the border. It would be the cheapest thing we've spent money on in the last 18 months.

that should be the main focus of the immigration debate...how to keep them out in the first place.

true.

I would like to see the law changed to having at least 1 parent as a citizen to qualify the child as a citizen, however, i haven't fully thought out the possible ramifications of such a change.

most people haven't, and that's part of the problem. They are basing their opinions based on the current furor and emotions about illegal immigration, not really on rational thought.

For example...how do we enforce it? Do we make the parents of EVERY child born bring proof of citizenship to the hospital when the kid is born? And who, exactly, is going to check that? We're gonna need to create yet another government agency just to keep track of that. Woohoo for bureaucracy and bigger government.

But most importantly, as I keep saying, it's pretty dangerous to mess with the Constitution on a whim, just because of the bad precedent it sets. Next thing you know will have to amend the 1st amendment to keep mosques from being built (buh bye freedom of religion and speech), or the 4th amendment in order to find terrorists (to hell with warrants...let the government come into your house), or the 10th amendment so the Federal Government has complete control of all laws, and so on.

for my part, the enforcement wouldn't be very difficult.  My wife and I both can provide our birth certificates, social security cards, drivers licences, handgun permits, etc, etc, etc, on demand, but maybe we're just anal about documentation.  I don't think it would have to be at the hospital, but maybe a policy not to release a birth certificate or provide a SS# until citizenship has been verified? Any one not from America who is here legally should have some form of green card, shouldn't they?  (i don't know how this works, as i haven't been illegal)

Something else that would probably help would be if all of these illegal aliens came here to try and make a life in America as Americans.  It seems the majority are here to get away from how bad their country of origin is, and then they want to change America to be more like their country.  I makes no sense to me....if it's so great there, why leave in the first place?  There's also the argument about language.  I don't travel abroad because I don't speak any other languages except for some broken spanish and french.

[Ponch ®]

for my part, the enforcement wouldn't be very difficult.  My wife and I both can provide our birth certificates, social security cards, drivers licences, handgun permits, etc, etc, etc, on demand, but maybe we're just anal about documentation.  I don't think it would have to be at the hospital, but maybe a policy not to release a birth certificate or provide a SS# until citizenship has been verified? Any one not from America who is here legally should have some form of green card, shouldn't they?  (i don't know how this works, as i haven't been illegal)

Even then, that still would need the creation of a bigger bureaucracy just to keep track of who's already turned in their proof of citizenship. But we shouldn't even have to go there in the first place. If you're born here, you're a citizen. Period. Anything else is a form of Apartheid or Segregation...

Something else that would probably help would be if all of these illegal aliens came here to try and make a life in America as Americans.  It seems the majority are here to get away from how bad their country of origin is, and then they want to change America to be more like their country.  I makes no sense to me....if it's so great there, why leave in the first place?  There's also the argument about language.  I don't travel abroad because I don't speak any other languages except for some broken spanish and french.

it's a different issue and we've discussed it before (the threads got locked   ), but there's really nothing we can do to force people to behave a certain way, or to force them to learn English, etc. They should, but if they don't, that's more their own detriment and our annoyance.

[RD]

only 5% huh?  i wonder what all these people are screaming about not letting them illegals come on in? (<--- sarcasm)

considering 5% of 307,006,550 (U.S. population: CLICK HERE) IS "JUST" 15,350,327 and 1/2 people.

Folks, that is roughly 13 MILLION more children being born illegally in the U.S. than are in my home state of Kansas!

ummm read the link again, Hoss. It's 5% of the population that's under 18, not the total population. The number of children born (per year) is closer to 340,000. Still a lot, but certainly not "13 Million".

Don't take this as a shot at you, RD, but this exactly what I mean when I say that "the public" isn't really all that informed. We find a headline, maybe skim through the actual article (if we bother to read it at all), and then make some general affirmation based on that. And of course we should let the public decide whether or not we should mess with the supreme law of the land.  

And those children, whether we like it or not, are still US Citizens like you and me. They didn't do anything wrong. Their parents may have, but that's not the kids' fault. This is isn't India..we don't need to establish a caste system.

not a personal shot, just misread it.. i can handle being corrected its cool.  and i agree, 340,000 is still a shitload of children that are born illegally in the U.S.

yes, they are citizens, but it doesnt mean I like the way in which they became citizens.  I dont despise the children for their birth, I despise their parents for being illegals who are circumventing the system for their own personal gain.  You cannot tell me that they give birth to these children in the U.S. because they hope to never see the kids again and just be thankful that their children will have a chance at a better life.  These parents will undoubtedly expect to be with their children again in the U.S.

No matter how you look at it.. they have officially created another drain on society.

[Ponch ®]

not a personal shot, just misread it.. i can handle being corrected its cool.  and i agree, 340,000 is still a shitload of children that are born illegally in the U.S.

yes, they are citizens, but it doesnt mean I like the way in which they became citizens.  I dont despise the children for their birth, I despise their parents for being illegals who are circumventing the system for their own personal gain.  You cannot tell me that they give birth to these children in the U.S. because they hope to never see the kids again and just be thankful that their children will have a chance at a better life.  These parents will undoubtedly expect to be with their children again in the U.S.

No matter how you look at it.. they have officially created another drain on society.

I agree...but why punish the children? They didn't do anything other than be born. If anything, go after the illegal parents. How? not sure but I'm sure we can come up with something.

Maybe you consider these children to be "drain on society", but so are the children of criminals, drug addicts, welfare lifers, teenage moms, and so on...but we don't punish the kids by sending them to jail from birth or take away the rights that their parents may have forfeited through their irresponsible actions. And by threatening to take way their citizenship, that's basically what we're doing - making them pay for something for which they had no say.

[Mike DC]

 
I agree with Ponch about the kids.  IMHO we need to treat the original problem, not all the symptoms. 

 

[RD]

well i guess we should just tell every illegal to go have sex with each other and come to the U.S. during their 3rd trimester huh?  that will make everything better huh?

the kids can have their U.S. citizenship then go back to their parents country.  When they become of age (and or choose to want to leave) then they can come back.  They just cant have their parents with them until they are legal.  Their parents made the choice for their child not me.  They didnt ask me how I felt when they did what they did, why should I feel any differently about their situation.  they made their bed, they have to lie in it.

[RD]

when its all said and done.. there is no segregation, apartheid, or discrimination going on when it comes to protecting a sovereign's borders from the illegal border crossing of aliens.  that is the law.

so the argument now stands how do we implement a law or re-write an old law to address this without stepping on the "inalienable" rights (oxyfrickenmoron there) of the illegal aliens.  I say, I DONT GIVE A SHIT HOW THEY FEEL.  Why should I?  Their country is not my problem, it is theirs.  If something is wrong with this country, do I go running to another country to have them fix my problems?  Nope... I do what I need to do to enact change.  They have the same capabilities in their own country to enact change, they choose to ignore that choice and run from their countries problems thus creating (or bringing with) problems in this country. 

Then we (I or anyone else who gets the politically correct crap of having to take care of these people) have to sit back and take it in the arse because we live by an ideal?  The ideal is for legal residents and those going the process to become legal residents.  The ideal is not one to be given freely as many have paid for it through blood sweat and tears. 

Pardon my soapbox, but I get sick and tired of being told we have to be careful as to not "tread on our ideals" in regards to this illegal immigration issue.  OR, they are people too, where are their rights?  I am sorry, but people's rights extend only as far as those in power or the government that rules shows any rights to the individuals.  We have rights because the government lays out laws that agree with the majority (or minority) and extends us certain rights as citizens.  Just like we can change those rights (patriot act ring a bell?) if times warrant it.

The illegals do not tread lightly when it comes to our ideals do they?  We want law, order, justice, and freedom.  We belay certain freedoms for the betterment of the whole.  Illegals belay what?  They break the law coming into this land.  That is a terrible precedent to begin a new life on is it not?  They do things specifically to benefit themselves and their own personal interests.  If they did what was best for this country, would they be such a financial drain on those that pay taxes where they pay none?  If they did what was best for this country and not for themselves, would they deliberately break the law of this country by circumventing the immigration policies?  They come here for their own selfish reasons, and then expect us to respect their rights (for which they have no legal rights IMO) as pseudo-U.S. residents.

Simply put, they need to go back to their country and fix it.   Quit coming to ours and creating a larger burden on an already burdened financial system.  I would love to help everyone, but when my bills are getting larger and larger with taxes (yes in Kansas), utilities, health care costs, and other issues during this day and age, I sure as hell will pick my family and our wherewithal over any person (no matter where they come from) who is directly and deliberately creating a larger burden on society.  THIS INCLUDES CITIZENS WHO MILK THE SOCIAL SERVICES PROGRAMS.

Sorry, this argument / debate / discussion is just way over done.  We know what is right and we are choosing to put up with and accept wrong because (1) we have an extremely apologetic voting populace who is gaining in population each year (2) corporate america loves having the opportunity to pay jack crap for illegal workers (3) bleeding heart liberals wanting to put on a facade of empathy and caring to satisfy other bleeding heart liberals who are voters (all the while having internal shouts of NIMBY) and (4) a federal government who is so fracken inept at recognizing the issue and putting forth a plausible solution because they are afraid to lose their ability of getting campaign dollars from corporate america in their next election.

THAT RIGHT THERE IS WHY THERE WILL NEVER BE CHANGE WHERE CHANGE IS NEEDED.

You got two ways to solve this solution.  Make them legal so they can pay for their way OR remove them and not worry about their situation anymore.

[Ponch ®]

well i guess we should just tell every illegal to go have sex with each other and come to the U.S. during their 3rd trimester huh?  that will make everything better huh?

no, but again, the real issue is that we need to keep them from coming to the US in the first place, 3rd trimester or not.

In regards to your dissertation...its not about us being too sensitive and not wanting to tread on our ideals when it comes to illegals. It's the fact that we're treading on our ideals period. Doesn't matter whether we're talking about illegal immigrants or the war on terror or komrad Obama's health care plan. 

[RD]

well i guess we should just tell every illegal to go have sex with each other and come to the U.S. during their 3rd trimester huh?  that will make everything better huh?

no, but again, the real issue is that we need to keep them from coming to the US in the first place, 3rd trimester or not.

In regards to your dissertation...its not about us being too sensitive and not wanting to tread on our ideals when it comes to illegals. It's the fact that we're treading on our ideals period. Doesn't matter whether we're talking about illegal immigrants or the war on terror or komrad Obama's health care plan.  

we are NOT treading on our ideals because whatever law we choose will be directed to those that are NOT citizens of the U.S.  Our ideals have stated and always will state that illegal immigration is ILLEGAL and against the LAW.  By incorporating a rewrite of the 14th Amendment to remove the antiquated and no longer relevant "birth in the U.S." clause will be incorporating our ideals, at least many that agree with my line of thought and processing.  This isnt treading on or trading of, its called reflecting.

[Ponch ®]

well i guess we should just tell every illegal to go have sex with each other and come to the U.S. during their 3rd trimester huh?  that will make everything better huh?

no, but again, the real issue is that we need to keep them from coming to the US in the first place, 3rd trimester or not.

In regards to your dissertation...its not about us being too sensitive and not wanting to tread on our ideals when it comes to illegals. It's the fact that we're treading on our ideals period. Doesn't matter whether we're talking about illegal immigrants or the war on terror or komrad Obama's health care plan.  

we are NOT treading on our ideals because whatever law we choose will be directed to those that are NOT citizens of the U.S.  Our ideals have stated and always will state that illegal immigration is ILLEGAL and against the LAW.  By incorporating a rewrite of the 14th Amendment to remove the antiquated and no longer relevant "birth in the U.S." clause will be incorporating our ideals, at least many that agree with my line of thought and processing.  This isnt treading on or trading of, its called reflecting.

I see what you're saying...but like I said in an earlier post, some day many might agree with a line of thought that contradicts something you feel very strongly about...and itll be way too easy for them to just go and change the constitution. That's the thing that makes me nervous about this recent push to change the 14th amendment. It might open up a can of worms...

[hemi68charger]

I don't see the problem with asking for ID....... I have to do it every time I try to cash a check, order a beer ( oh wait, the last time that happened was 1985  ), go on base, etc... Get my point?

[Mike DC]

  

when its all said and done.. there is no segregation, apartheid, or discrimination going on when it comes to protecting a sovereign's borders from the illegal border crossing of aliens.  that is the law.

Who disagrees with the idea that we have the right to police & control our own borders?  

A few extremists, a bunch of congressmen . . . but no real people.  None that I've ever met, conservative OR liberal.  

   


IMHO the population genuinely disagrees on what to do about the illegals that are already here.  Not about what should be done with the border itself.  

And this is why we make no progress.  Every time the public pushes the issue about the border itself, Washington & the media shift the discussion away from the border and onto the subject of the illegals already here.  Because that will divide the public's opinion again and stop the progress. 

[RD]

I see what you're saying...but like I said in an earlier post, some day many might agree with a line of thought that contradicts something you feel very strongly about...and itll be way too easy for them to just go and change the constitution. That's the thing that makes me nervous about this recent push to change the 14th amendment. It might open up a can of worms...

though the constitution has not been amended in a LONG time, it does not mean that it cannot or should not be amended.  The constitution is a organic document in the sense that it was constructed so that it could be written and re-written to follow along with the public will.  In this case, it may seem at this point anyhow, the public will has entertained the idea of amending the constitution in regards to the 14th amendment.

Let us put this into context as I believe some may believe that amending the 14th amendment may be going against our ideals as a nation.  Why was the 14th Amendment written the way it was in regards to birthplace = citizenship in the U.S.?

Original intent of the 14th Amendment


The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads in part:

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

Babies born to illegal alien mothers within U.S. borders are called anchor babies because under the 1965 immigration Act, they act as an anchor that pulls the illegal alien mother and eventually a host of other relatives into permanent U.S. residency. (Jackpot babies is another term).

The United States did not limit immigration in 1868 when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified. Thus there were, by definition, no illegal immigrants and the issue of citizenship for children of those here in violation of the law was nonexistent. Granting of automatic citizenship to children of illegal alien mothers is a recent and totally inadvertent and unforeseen result of the amendment and the Reconstructionist period in which it was ratified.

Free! Post-Civil War reforms focused on injustices to African Americans. The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 to protect the rights of native-born Black Americans, whose rights were being denied as recently-freed slaves. It was written in a manner so as to prevent state governments from ever denying citizenship to blacks born in the United States. But in 1868, the United States had no formal immigration policy, and the authors therefore saw no need to address immigration explicitly in the amendment.

In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by stating:

"Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."

This understanding was reaffirmed by Senator Edward Cowan, who stated:

"[A foreigner in the United States] has a right to the protection of the laws; but he is not a citizen in the ordinary acceptance of the word..."

The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was intended to exclude American-born persons from automatic citizenship whose allegiance to the United States was not complete. With illegal aliens who are unlawfully in the United States, their native country has a claim of allegiance on the child. Thus, the completeness of their allegiance to the United States is impaired, which therefore precludes automatic citizenship.
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.)

~~last part removed due to political reference, you can view it at the link below~~

http://www.14thamendment.us/birthright_citizenship/original_intent.html

[Mike DC]

though the constitution has not been amended in a LONG time, it does not mean that it cannot or should not be amended.  The constitution is a organic document in the sense that it was constructed so that it could be written and re-written to follow along with the public will.  In this case, it may seem at this point anyhow, the public will has entertained the idea of amending the constitution in regards to the 14th amendment.

Let us put this into context as I believe some may believe that amending the 14th amendment may be going against our ideals as a nation.  Why was the 14th Amendment written the way it was in regards to birthplace = citizenship in the U.S.?

. . .  but if someone proposed amending the Constitution to change its stance on an issue like gun control, abortion, official treatment of religion . . . heh heh heh . . .

[Ponch ®]

though the constitution has not been amended in a LONG time, it does not mean that it cannot or should not be amended.  The constitution is a organic document in the sense that it was constructed so that it could be written and re-written to follow along with the public will.  In this case, it may seem at this point anyhow, the public will has entertained the idea of amending the constitution in regards to the 14th amendment.

Let us put this into context as I believe some may believe that amending the 14th amendment may be going against our ideals as a nation.  Why was the 14th Amendment written the way it was in regards to birthplace = citizenship in the U.S.?

. . .  but if someone proposed amending the Constitution to change its stance on an issue like gun control, abortion, official treatment of religion . . . heh heh heh . . .

hey, if it's the "public will"....

[RD]

though the constitution has not been amended in a LONG time, it does not mean that it cannot or should not be amended.  The constitution is a organic document in the sense that it was constructed so that it could be written and re-written to follow along with the public will.  In this case, it may seem at this point anyhow, the public will has entertained the idea of amending the constitution in regards to the 14th amendment.

Let us put this into context as I believe some may believe that amending the 14th amendment may be going against our ideals as a nation.  Why was the 14th Amendment written the way it was in regards to birthplace = citizenship in the U.S.?

. . .  but if someone proposed amending the Constitution to change its stance on an issue like gun control, abortion, official treatment of religion . . . heh heh heh . . .

they are apples to oranges if you ask me.  those issues are issues that relate to citizens, not non-citizens.  

we are dealing with a proposed constitutional change that would strengthen the ability for us to remove a huge benefit from illegal immigration.  It "IS" a preventative measure to ensure that illegal immigrants are not allowed a "gateway" to legal status through a defunct and antiquated piece of legislative wording.

i would be hard pressed to tell another citizen they cannot have a abortion because my religious beliefs say it is wrong simply because our constitution is written the way it is.  i would be hard pressed to tell another citizen that they really do not need that 50 caliber automatic browning machine gun because there is no way in hell you are going to find anything left of the deer after you shoot it.  i would be hard pressed to tell a citizen that their religion is secondary to mine because our constitution protects them to believe what they want to believe.  we are equal due to our citizenry in regards to laws.

i would NOT be hard pressed to tell some illegal immigrants that what they are doing is right and just by having their baby in the U.S., racking up hospital bills they do not plan on paying for, possibly asking for social assistance to help with pre and post natal care, and all the while breaking the law by just being in this country.  to them, i would say your a leech to the country in which i pay taxes to help exist, i fought for in the army, and continue to fight for to this day (re-up'n in the national guard next week).  To them, I say become a productive member of my country and conform to our requirements before you manipulate our laws for your own selfish desires and wants.

[hemi-hampton]

Who pays for these 4 million babies to be born to illegal aliens parents. The Parents, The Taxpayers, The government, The state there born in. California allready pays millions to house deathrow inmates every year, now millions to these babies. Now you know why California is bankrupt

[Mike DC]

they are apples to oranges if you ask me.  those issues are issues that relate to citizens, not non-citizens. 

we are dealing with a proposed constitutional change that would strengthen the ability for us to remove a huge benefit from illegal immigration.  It "IS" a preventative measure to ensure that illegal immigrants are not allowed a "gateway" to legal status through a defunct and antiquated piece of legislative wording.

i would be hard pressed to tell another citizen they cannot have a abortion because my religious beliefs say it is wrong simply because our constitution is written the way it is.  i would be hard pressed to tell another citizen that they really do not need that 50 caliber automatic browning machine gun because there is no way in hell you are going to find anything left of the deer after you shoot it.  i would be hard pressed to tell a citizen that their religion is secondary to mine because our constitution protects them to believe what they want to believe.  we are equal due to our citizenry in regards to laws.

It's purely hypothetical.  I don't really want to make any amendments on abortion or gun control or religion. 



I'm just pointing out that people are a lot more receptive to changing the Constitution when that change happens to support their personal beliefs. 

But they usually sing a very different tune whenever the proposed amendment conflicts with their desires.  Suddenly that same "living document" becomes a sacred text and it's blasphemy to change anything. 

[Ponch ®]

they are apples to oranges if you ask me.  those issues are issues that relate to citizens, not non-citizens.  

we are dealing with a proposed constitutional change that would strengthen the ability for us to remove a huge benefit from illegal immigration.  It "IS" a preventative measure to ensure that illegal immigrants are not allowed a "gateway" to legal status through a defunct and antiquated piece of legislative wording.

i would be hard pressed to tell another citizen they cannot have a abortion because my religious beliefs say it is wrong simply because our constitution is written the way it is.  i would be hard pressed to tell another citizen that they really do not need that 50 caliber automatic browning machine gun because there is no way in hell you are going to find anything left of the deer after you shoot it.  i would be hard pressed to tell a citizen that their religion is secondary to mine because our constitution protects them to believe what they want to believe.  we are equal due to our citizenry in regards to laws.

It's purely hypothetical.  I don't really want to make any amendments on abortion or gun control or religion.  



I'm just pointing out that people are a lot more receptive to changing the Constitution when that change happens to support their personal beliefs.  

But they usually sing a very different tune whenever the proposed amendment conflicts with their desires.  Suddenly that same "living document" becomes a sacred text and it's blasphemy to change anything.  

that's exactly what my point. RD - just because you would be hardpressed to impose your beliefs on those issues on others, it doesn't mean that someone else wouldn't be, and that some day they can convince enough people to go along with it.  

I bet if you ran a poll among common people in NY right now whether there should be a law or constitutional amendment that would ban building a mosque near Ground Zero, they would probably say yes, merely based upon emotional motives but without considering the ramifications of doing so.

[RD]

that's exactly what my point. RD - just because you would be hardpressed to impose your beliefs on those issues on others, it doesn't mean that someone else wouldn't be, and that some day they can convince enough people to go along with it. 

I bet if you ran a poll among common people in NY right now whether there should be a law or constitutional amendment that would ban building a mosque near Ground Zero, they would probably say yes, merely based upon emotional motives but without considering the ramifications of doing so.

the difference between the "mosque" argument and this argument is clear.  building a mosque near ground zero is NOT against the law.  What these people are doing IS against the law.  Why do you keep making this a blurred concept, when it is clearly black and white.

this isn't an emotional based decision (though for some it could be).  I am thinking about what is best for my country.  Allowing illegal activities to take place that directly affect the safety, financial security, and the overall security of the nation is NOT an option.  We should do whatever we can do stop this activity from happening in the first place.  An amendment to the 14th will clearly allow for a future without "rewarding" illegals from having anchor babies.

I find it difficult for anyone to argue against this to be honest.  Everyone wants to say how the illegal immigrant issue is an issue, but whenever its brought up it seems no ones has the balls to want to come up with a solution, or implement a solution.

Ponch, I like ya man, and I know you have said that this immigration issue is not right.. but i have never heard you say what you would like to be done to remedy it.  I have only heard you say how we should not do this or that.. not what we should do.

What do you think is a good solution to this problem?  because i think we can agree, it is a problem.

should we:

1) just open the borders and let the floods of illegals come on in ( we are doing it at a slow rate anyway, why stop them.. maybe we can get an equilibrium then?)

2) close the borders for good, not allow for incentives for illegal immigrants, and stop it this illegal activity at its core

3) let it be what it is and allow for the taxpaying American public to get continually screwed over and pay for those who dont give a crap about anyone but themselves?

[Ponch ®]

that's exactly what my point. RD - just because you would be hardpressed to impose your beliefs on those issues on others, it doesn't mean that someone else wouldn't be, and that some day they can convince enough people to go along with it.  

I bet if you ran a poll among common people in NY right now whether there should be a law or constitutional amendment that would ban building a mosque near Ground Zero, they would probably say yes, merely based upon emotional motives but without considering the ramifications of doing so.

the difference between the "mosque" argument and this argument is clear.  building a mosque near ground zero is NOT against the law.  What these people are doing IS against the law.  Why do you keep making this a blurred concept, when it is clearly black and white.

this isn't an emotional based decision (though for some it could be).  I am thinking about what is best for my country.  Allowing illegal activities to take place that directly affect the safety, financial security, and the overall security of the nation is NOT an option.  We should do whatever we can do stop this activity from happening in the first place.  An amendment to the 14th will clearly allow for a future without "rewarding" illegals from having anchor babies.

I find it difficult for anyone to argue against this to be honest.  Everyone wants to say how the illegal immigrant issue is an issue, but whenever its brought up it seems no ones has the balls to want to come up with a solution, or implement a solution.

Ponch, I like ya man, and I know you have said that this immigration issue is not right.. but i have never heard you say what you would like to be done to remedy it.  I have only heard you say how we should not do this or that.. not what we should do.

What do you think is a good solution to this problem?  because i think we can agree, it is a problem.

should we:

1) just open the borders and let the floods of illegals come on in ( we are doing it at a slow rate anyway, why stop them.. maybe we can get an equilibrium then?)

2) close the borders for good, not allow for incentives for illegal immigrants, and stop it this illegal activity at its core

3) let it be what it is and allow for the taxpaying American public to get continually screwed over and pay for those who dont give a crap about anyone but themselves?

If we're still talking about the citizenship issue...since when is having a kid or being born against the law? The parents may have broken the laws in crossing the border illegally, but it's not the kid's fault. Having an "anchor" baby may be morally questionable or wrong, just like it's not illegal to build a mosque near Ground Zero, but it's insensitive and in bad taste. it doesn't mean we're gonna run and change the law to make it illegal.

As to how to solve the problem...hell, I don't know. If I did, I'd be running things. We need to secure the borders, both north and south....if we need to build a wall with guard towers and we gotta shoot them when they try to cross, so be it. I honestly wouldn't have a problem with that.  

But let's say we did that and it worked....what do we do with the 11 million that are already here? Round them up and send them back? How do we know who is or isn't illegal without resorting to racial profiling? If the issue is their legal status and NOT the fact that they are Mexican/Salvadorean/what have you and don't speak english...then maybe there should be a path for them to become legal. Not necessarily an amnesty, but something that doesn't put so many hurdles for someone to try to be a legal resident. That way they'll be paying taxes like you and me and won't be a drain on society.
Do you know that it takes years (up to 10) and enough money to buy a decent 2nd gen driver to try to come here legally? That's why people resort to coming here illegally...they just say "F--k it...I aint waiting that long" and head over here. While we don't want to open our borders and let any and all in either, let's make that process less cumbersome as well. Let's face it, we need the cheap labor, unless we want to start paying $20 for a pound of strawberries...

[Mike DC]

I find it difficult for anyone to argue against this to be honest.  Everyone wants to say how the illegal immigrant issue is an issue, but whenever its brought up it seems no ones has the balls to want to come up with a solution, or implement a solution.

Ponch, I like ya man, and I know you have said that this immigration issue is not right.. but i have never heard you say what you would like to be done to remedy it.  I have only heard you say how we should not do this or that.. not what we should do.

I get what you're saying RD.  I agree something needs to be done. 


What about this stuff?

--  Would you agree that locking down & policing the borders (just like any other civilized country on earth does) is a decent first step?  

--  Would you agree that loosening up the LEGAL immigration process to some extent (not wide open, just looser than it is now) is a decent second step?  

--  Would you agree that clamping down on the corporate (ab)use of cheap illegal labor is a decent third step?