PDA

View Full Version : Birthright Citizenship



seaman
12-30-2005, 12:37 PM
А что, вы думаете по поводу предложения изменить закон.
http://business.verizon.net/news/?id=/run_your_business/law_government/immigration/5665124.xml

seaman
12-30-2005, 01:46 PM
В правительстве разгораются страсти по поводу изменения конституции.
Они хотят изменить положение о детях рожденных в <USA>
Сейчас действует закон, что любой ребенок рожденный на теритирии штатов автоматом получает гражданство. Им это не нравится, хотят изменить на получение гражданства только для рожденных от легальных родителей.
Значит надо изменять конституцию. Что, Вы, дорогие форумчане, думаете по этому поводу.

Nec_999
12-30-2005, 01:49 PM
В правительстве разгораются страсти по поводу изменения конституции.
Они хотят изменить положение о детях рожденных в <USA>
Сейчас действует закон, что любой ребенок рожденный на теритирии штатов автоматом получает гражданство. Им это не нравится, хотят изменить на получение гражданства только для рожденных от легальных родителей.
Значит надо изменять конституцию. Что, Вы, дорогие форумчане, думаете по этому поводу.
правильно, давно пора:34:

malutka
12-30-2005, 02:15 PM
А что, вы думаете по поводу предложения изменить закон.
хттп://бусинесс.веризон.нет/нещс/?ид=/рун_ёур_бусинесс/лащ_говернмент/иммигратион/5665124.хмл
сложный вопрос... наверное, закон не следует менять, ведь всегда нужно действовать в интересах детей, думать об их благополучии (здоровье, образование, т.д.)

seaman
12-30-2005, 02:20 PM
правильно, давно пора:34:
Пора, что, конституцию менять. А, Вы, в курсе, сколько раз уже делались изменения?

elfy
12-30-2005, 02:27 PM
the link won't open:confused:

seaman
12-30-2005, 02:35 PM
тхе линк щоньт опен:цонфусед:
А сейчас?
http://business.verizon.net/news/?id=/run_your_business/law_government/immigration/5666843.xml

Фома
12-30-2005, 02:54 PM
А, Вы, в курсе, сколько раз уже делались изменения?

27.
Не так уж и много.

В данном случае, я думаю, что менять не стоит.
Дети не виноваты в том, что они рождены нелегалами.

Если уж менять, то радикально - отказаться совсем от идиотского критерия гражданства по месту рождения, и сделать по-человечески - если хотябы один из родителей гражданин, то и ребенок гражданин, а иначе - нет.

A попытки прикрыть неспособность государтсва добиться выполнения законов "подгоняя" таким образом конституцию, выглядят по меньшей мере наивно, чтобы не сказать глупо.

elfy
12-30-2005, 02:56 PM
А сейчас?
http://business.verizon.net/news/?id=/run_your_business/law_government/immigration/5666843.xml

now it did, thanks
In my opinion, they should pass the law - maybe it sounds cruel, but I am tired of paying taxes to support the welfare of the many children that illegal Mexicans (and not only Mexicans) have:28: :28: people like them have been taking advantage of the current law too much and for too long, that's why the country is going the way it's going now

malutka
12-30-2005, 02:59 PM
нощ ит дид, тханкс
Ин мы опинион, тхеы шоулд пасс тхе лащ - маыбе ит соундс цруел, бут И ам тиред оф паыинг тахес то суппорт тхе щелфаре оф тхе маны чилдрен тхат иллегал Мехицанс (анд нот онлы Мехицанс) хаве:28: :28: пеопле лике тхем хаве беен такинг адвантаге оф тхе цуррент лащ тоо муч анд фор тоо лонг, тхатьс щхы тхе цоунтры ис гоинг тхе щаы итьс гоинг нощ
а разве ты здесь не по студенческой визе?

вопрос заключается в следующем:

если человек поменял здесь J-1 на F-1, а точнее самой визы естественно нет, но статус approved, после того как были отосланы I-20 со всеми сопутствующими документами в USCIS, если теперь поехать в Россию и потом подавать на F-1 уже имея статус, правда ли что виза дается в 99,9% случаев?

elfy
12-30-2005, 03:00 PM
27.
Не так уж и много.

В данном случае, я думаю, что менять не стоит.
Дети не виноваты в том, что они рождены нелегалами.

Если уж менять, то радикально - отказаться совсем от идиотского критерия гражданства по месту рождения, и сделать по-человечески - если хотябы один из родителей гражданин, то и ребенок гражданин, а иначе - нет.

A попытки прикрыть неспособность государтсва добиться выполнения законов "подгоняя" таким образом конституцию, выглядят по меньшей мере наивно, чтобы не сказать глупо.

but without changing the law we are only encouraging these people to get across the border any which way and get pregnant - open your eyes, that's what they've been doing, you can't deny it

elfy
12-30-2005, 03:00 PM
а разве ты здесь не по студенческой визе?

no, I have a green card, about to apply for citizenship

p.s. my questions in the visa section were about somebody else I am helping

Фома
12-30-2005, 03:17 PM
In my opinion, they should pass the law - maybe it sounds cruel, but I am tired of paying taxes

it doesn't sound cruel... it sounds stupid :-)
Illegals should not be here to being with.
If the government is not able to enforce it, making their children non citizens won't help reduce your taxes.
Changing the constituion like this is simply laughable - they just don't know what to do, but try to make it look like they are doing something.

BTW, At the same time, they are trying to make those same children eligible for instate tuition in state colleges. Now THIS, will DIRECTLY affect your taxes. Guess which way ;-)



but without changing the law we are only encouraging these people to get across the border any which way and get pregnant - open your eyes, that's what they've been doing, you can't deny it


I don't think so... It's a myth,
See, they are not entitled to any special treatment just because their baby is a US citizen - not until he is 21 anyway. So, i don't believe they mere purpose when getting here illegaly is to get pregnant and give birth to a US citizen.
They are just coming here because they can, and because we are willing to pay for it, and are not able to stop them, and are not even trying treally, and instead just give them amnesty from time to time. And they will keep coming until THAT changes, whether their kids are citizens or not.

elfy
12-30-2005, 03:22 PM
it doesn't sound cruel... it sounds stupid :-)
Illegals should not be here to being with.


but giving their children all the benifits in case they are born in this country, only encourages them. maybe if the law was passed, and they lost all the benefits they are eligible for now, it would keep some of them, not all, from coming here and having all these children
tuition eligibility is even more rediculous just like the programs that they are trying to push right now in some states, Illinois one of them, to give subsidies to illegals to purchase their homes here:(

Robot
12-30-2005, 03:22 PM
Elfy. Когда я думаю об уплаченных тaксах, я стараюсь представить себе, что они идут на пособие нашим с вами соотечественникам. И мне при этой мысли становится легче.Кстати дети (мексиканские и др.) тоже не самый плохой вариант. Помогать людям - это не так плохо.:34:

elfy
12-30-2005, 03:25 PM
а разве ты здесь не по студенческой визе?

http://forum.russianamerica.com/f/showpost.php?p=253825&postcount=1

Фома
12-30-2005, 03:26 PM
but giving their children all the benifits in case they are born in this country,
only encourages them.


No (I just added this to my previous reply actually).
What encourages them is that we are not trying to stop them from coming, or to arrest and deport them, but instead just give them amnesty from time to time.
That's what encourages them.
And the benefits their kids get do not depend on whether they are citizens or not by the way. :-) We are a humane society after all, and can't just let children starve to death.

elfy
12-30-2005, 03:27 PM
No (I just added this to my previous reply actually).
What encourages them is that we are not trying to stop them from coming, or to deprot them, but instead just give them amnesty from time to time.
That's what encourages them.
And the benefits their kids get do not depend on whether they are citizens or not by the way. :-) We are a humane society after all, and can't just let children starve to death.

when was the last one?

Фома
12-30-2005, 03:29 PM
when was the last one?

don't remember... sometime in the 90s.
They are talking about a new one already.

elfy
12-30-2005, 03:29 PM
Elfy. Когда я думаю об уплаченных тaксах, я стараюсь представить себе, что они идут на пособие нашим с вами соотечественникам. И мне при этой мысли становится легче.Кстати дети (мексиканские и др.) тоже не самый плохой вариант. Помогать людям - это не так плохо.:34:

one thing is to help, give money to charities, or pay your taxes for legitimate purposes. another thing - being taken advantage of.
First and foremost I have MY FAMILY to take care of, and I would prefer if more benefits were paid for (out of my taxes) for them, rather than for some illegals who are spreading like roaches:(

elfy
12-30-2005, 03:32 PM
don't remember... sometime in the 90s.
They are talking about a new one already.

that's just talks
I don't believe in another amnesty coming any time soon
so, amnesty is not something to worry about now

Robot
12-30-2005, 03:37 PM
оне тхинг ис то хелп, гиве монеы то чаритиес, ор паы ёур тахес фор легитимате пурпосес. анотхер тхинг - беинг такен адвантаге оф.
Фирст анд форемост И хаве МЫ ФАМИЛЫ то таке царе оф, анд И щоулд префер иф море бенефитс щере паид фор (оут оф мы тахес) фор тхем, ратхер тхан фор соме иллегалс щхо аре спреадинг лике роачес:(
Но ведь дети остаются детьми. И им тоже надо есть, пить, одеваться...
Поймите меня, я с Вами не спорю. Ваше мнение вполне обоснованно. Я сейчас просто высказываю свое мнение.

Фома
12-30-2005, 03:39 PM
I don't believe in another amnesty coming any time soon
so, amnesty is not something to worry about now

Sure. There is no reason whatsoever to worry about anything elfy doesn't believe in :-)

seaman
12-30-2005, 07:52 PM
no, I have a green card, about to apply for citizenship

p.s. my questions in the visa section were about somebody else I am helping
Good for you. Have a nice life.

elfy
12-30-2005, 10:16 PM
Но ведь дети остаются детьми. И им тоже надо есть, пить, одеваться...
Поймите меня, я с Вами не спорю. Ваше мнение вполне обоснованно. Я сейчас просто высказываю свое мнение.

I am not saying that we should make the children starve to death - there is always a choice - to go back to the country their parents came from together with their parents:34:

elfy
12-30-2005, 10:18 PM
Sure. There is no reason whatsoever to worry about anything elfy doesn't believe in :-)

aga :grum: :34:
but seriously, I can bet you 10 bucks there is no amnesty coming any time soon, I am not talking about the possibility that illegals will get a temporary work visa for 3 years with the requirement to go back to their country after that, I am talking about the real amnesty

elfy
12-30-2005, 10:19 PM
Good for you. Have a nice life.
Thanks. You do the same.

seaman
01-02-2006, 08:30 AM
Лев , а Вы, что, думаете?

Chukcha
01-02-2006, 11:40 AM
А чего думать-то? Отменят это, рано или поздно.

За примером можно к Франции обратиться. Там тоже давали гражданство любому ребёнку, родившемуся на её территории, а заодно разрешали родителям остаться и платили им пособие. Когда чёрные и арабы расплодились на пособиях, то лавочку быстро прикрыли. Теперь во Франции с экономикой проблемы, платить пособия стало тяжело, поэтому чернота и повылазила.

Был я вчера в мексиканском районе, где нелегалы живут. Ой, ну и гадюшник. Дороги хуже чем в России, везде всё обшарпано, люди злые. Побыстрее слинял, пока не побили.

Bumazhka
01-02-2006, 05:11 PM
А причём здесь дети вообще? Голодная смерть? Если введут новшество в закон, тогда и детей так называемых "anchor babies" не будет. И речи о том, кто их кормить будет не будет тогда. Хотят изменить закон, потому что много споров идёт как считается об устаревшей 14-ой поправке, которая была принята только для чёрных освобождённых рабов, чтобы гарантировать соблюдение их прав, как людей родившихся в Америке. А о том, что этой поправкой будут в дальнейшем пользоваться нелегалы им и в голову не приходило тогда. Сейчас, когда этот вопрос актуален они и вернулись к теме. Тем более, что Австралия ввела этот закон недавно.За ней последовала Новая Зеландия(по моему закон вступает в силу в этом году). Вопрос идёт о нелегалах, специально рожающих здесь, чтобы зацепиться и получать пособия.

Chukcha
01-02-2006, 07:54 PM
Дети при том, что их родители не платят ни копейки налогов, но их дети законные граждане и пользуются всеми возможными льготами и пособиями. И их семьи считаются ниже уровня нищеты, ведь официальный заработок их родителей - $0.

Bumazhka
01-02-2006, 09:04 PM
Дети при том, что их родители не платят ни копейки налогов, но их дети законные граждане и пользуются всеми возможными льготами и пособиями. И их семьи считаются ниже уровня нищеты, ведь официальный заработок их родителей - $0.
Да, это и имелось в виду. Просто стали писать, что мол я против этого закона, потому что детишки умрут с голоду.:D Кстати одна из причина почему закон частично не инфорсывается эти детишки и приводятся.Мол мы не можем депортировать родителей граждан США, сидящих на дотациях. Отсюда и желание его изменить. Лишить их как говориться стимула.

Фома
01-03-2006, 09:16 AM
aga :grum: :34:
but seriously, I can bet you 10 bucks there is no amnesty coming any time soon,


Deal :-)



I am not talking about the possibility that illegals will get a temporary work visa for 3 years with the requirement to go back to their country after that, I am talking about the real amnesty


What's "unreal" about even this thing? Sure, they would prefer to just get a GC right away... but this is a great way to reward their total disregard to the laws too, isn't it?
Waaaay better then granting their babies citizenship at birth anyway.

seaman
01-03-2006, 04:26 PM
http://business.verizon.net/news/?id=/run_your_business/law_government/immigration/5728548.xml

Bumazhka
01-03-2006, 05:46 PM
http://business.verizon.net/news/?id=/run_your_business/law_government/immigration/5728548.xml

This article is so ridiculous I don’t even know where to begin… I‘ll start debating some of the points from it. Here’s one:

”Key among these reasons is that doing so simply won't accomplish what the anti-immigrants suppose. Illegal workers will still come to this country. Those here will not leave.”- Oh, it looks now that they are FOR enforcing the immigration laws, right? Then why do they oppose ANY law that would strengthen the border and deport illegals? Better yet, why don’t THEY come up with an enforcement measure they think would be adequate? :confused:

Here’s another:
”They come to work. No matter how draconian the law, they will still come as long as there is work here and not there”- How do you know? We’ve never had draconian laws on the books. Or have we? We already have plenty saying that an illegal should be deported. Are they draconian? According to them, yes. They even opposed the latest enforcement-only bill. It was too draconian in their opinion.

”Effective immigration reform must rise above such punitive sentiments. Denying citizenship to people born here will tell the world that in the never-ending struggle between inclusion and exclusion in this country, intolerance has won.” -Which world (countries) do you exactly have in mind? Some European? Almost all of them don’t have birthright citizenship.
Some others like Ireland whose people ended the birthright law in 2004 by voting it out of their constitution by an overwhelming majority? Or Australia, England, New Zealand who had successfully repealed it themselves?

Фома
01-03-2006, 06:06 PM
”Key among these reasons is that doing so simply won't accomplish what the anti-immigrants suppose. Illegal workers will still come to this country. Those here will not leave.”- Oh, it looks now that they are FOR enforcing the immigration laws, right? Then why do they oppose ANY law that would strengthen the border and deport illegals? Better yet, why don’t THEY come up with an enforcement measure they think would be adequate? :confused:


This seems to be beyond the point though - the fact that some lefties are hypocrites (which I don't debate) does not by itself really invalidate the point you hughlighted, does it? ;-)
I, for one, agree with it - don't see any reason whatsoever why, for example, somebody who is already here illegally all of a sudden would decide to leave, just because he'd get told that if he ever has a baby, (s)he won't be a citizen...

Bumazhka
01-03-2006, 06:22 PM
I, for one, agree with it - don't see any reason whatsoever why, for example, somebody who is already here illegally all of a sudden would decide to leave, just because he'd get told that if he ever has a baby, (s)he won't be a citizen...

Off course the amendment won’t force those who are already here out. But at least it will tarnish the lure of coming here illegally to give birth just to “anchor” themselves, don’t you think? It’s partially to discourage future waves of illegal immigrants is all I am saying..:)

Фома
01-03-2006, 06:33 PM
But at least it will tarnish the lure of coming here illegally to give birth just to ”anchor” themselves, don’t you think?

Not really...
I just don't believe that there really is that large a number of people who come here, intentionally with a sole (or main... or just one of - whatever) purpose of giving birth to a new citizen, and that would not come if it was not possible.

They are coming here simply because the life is so much better here than whereever they are from, and because it is such an easy thing to do, it would almost be stupid not to.
The laws are not enforced, the wages are good (compared to what they make at home), the food is cheap, the schools and hospitals are free, and every few years there is an amnesty, and you get your GC ... why not to come???

Just because your kid won't be a citizen? Who cares!

Bumazhka
01-03-2006, 06:53 PM
Not really...
I just don't believe that there really is that large a number of people who come here, intentionally with a sole (or main... or just one of - whatever) purpose of giving birth to a new citizen, and that would not come if it was not possible.
Then here is what I want you to do…;)
Next time if you happen to come across a person from Mexico(illegal preferably but not necessarily) (s)he just needs to be from Mexico ask if it’s a well known fact down south used by them to come and give birth here. I personally asked one of them. His answer was “o yea”. Not only did they themselves come here illegally and have American citizens in their family now but they’ve actually tried to bring some of their close relatives (who were at the child-bearing age at the time) to stay and procreate on US soil.
In short, ask just for the heck of it to really see the scope of abuse of this amendment.
Mexicans by the way are not alone in this. Wealthy South Koreans too are coming here for the sole purpose of being in labor here.

Фома
01-03-2006, 07:02 PM
That is not the right question to ask though, is it? :-)
You try asking them if they would still come here, even if their babies could not become citizens (or if they were sterile, ot could not give birth ... whatever).

I am not disputing that they know this fact, and like it... I am just saying it is not at all the determining factor in their decision to come and stay.

So, if we were serious to really try and do something about illegal immigration (which I am sure we are not BTW), this citizenship thing should be the last to look at.
We should start with securing the borders, enforcing the employment and tax laws, denying financial benefits to the illegals, including education and medicinem, making it painfully clear, that there will not be any amnesty any more, not even for "guest workers" etc, etc.

If we were serious about improving the situation, we would do that... and then changing the constitution would simply not be necessary... and if it still is, we should change it to completely get rid of the stupid territorial factor - a child of citizen should be a citizen, and that's it!



Wealthy South Koreans too are coming here for the sole purpose of being in labor here.


Illegally? I don't think so...
Besides, what do you think they motive is? I doubt it is to collect welfare, since they are "wealthy"...
It looks like a totally different issue to me.

Bumazhka
01-03-2006, 07:12 PM
I am not disputing that they know this fact, and like it... I am just saying it is not at all the determining factor in their decision to come and stay.

I am also not disputing the fact that people would still try to sneak in even without birthright citizenship. I am only saying about the abuse of this 14th amendment by illegals.

For instance, census figures show that Hispanics are the country's largest minority now. That wouldn’t be at all possible without them coming here illegally and the rate at which they “make” babies. Classic example of abuse!

Bumazhka
01-03-2006, 07:15 PM
Illegally? I don't think so...
Besides, what do you think they motive is? I doubt it is to collect welfare, since they are "wealthy"...
It looks like a totally different issue to me.
No, legally. It's another example of abuse this time from other nationals.

Фома
01-03-2006, 07:21 PM
I am also not disputing the fact that people would still try to sneak in even without birthright citizenship. I am only saying about the abuse of this 14th amendment by illegals.


Well... and my point is, that 14th amendment is abused by whoever can abuse it, not just illegals. :-) It is just outdated, and wrong.

If we were to repeal it completely, I'd be all for it, but trying to tie it to the illegal immigration issue, to make it look like we are doing something about it, is to me, totally hipocrytical.




For instance, census figures show that Hispanics are the country's largest minority now. That wouldn’t be at all possible without them coming here illegally

Well... first, it has nothing to do with 14th amendment - census counts everyone, not just citizens.
And also, there is nothing wrong with the fact tha t hispanics love kids :-) Black people do to by the way...
By 2030 (I think) there will be less than 50% of white people in the US.
And it is not because of the 14th amendment, not even because of Democrats - simply because they do not have enough kids. "Enough" would be 3 kids per family, and an average white family has 1.5 :-(
The white population is shrinking whether you like it or not... but it is all separate issue too :-)

Bumazhka
01-03-2006, 07:32 PM
Well... and my point is, that 14th amendment is abused by whoever can abuse it, not just illegals. :-) It is just outdated, and wrong.

If we were to repeal it completely, I'd be all for it, but trying to tie it to the illegal immigration issue, to make it look like we are doing something about it, is to me, totally hipocrytical.
Especially illegals! Hence the term” anchor babies”



Well... first, it has nothing to do with 14th amendment - census counts everyone, not just citizens.
Sure that's how we know about the babies

And also, there is nothing wrong with the fact tha t hispanics love kids :-) Black people do to by the way...
They can love them at home, legally...They choose to come and love them here.
Do I still believe that something ought to be done about the amendment even if we were enforcing the laws? Yes, I do. Off course enforcing the laws must be a priority like you’ve written. . Just because we don’t enforce them doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t do something we CAN change. This phenomenon called ”anchor babies” could be put an end to easily. It would discourage many pregnant travelers from unnecessary risking their lives in crossing the desert and send a signal to those who decide to break the law while ”not expecting”, knowing that even if they do eventually give birth here there would be no excuse whatsoever not to deport them since their offspring are not citizens.

Bumazhka
01-03-2006, 07:48 PM
The fact that we have a lot of hispanics says not only that whites don't want to have kids as many as hispanics do but rather WHO wants to have them.Namely illegal immigrants. How can whites compete against the catholic background of those who are documented together with those who aren't?

Bumazhka
01-03-2006, 08:00 PM
Foma, your name looks a lot better now!:)

Фома
01-03-2006, 09:30 PM
Off course enforcing the laws must be a priority like you’ve written. .


But the fact of the matter is that it isn't!



Just because we don’t enforce them doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t do something we CAN change.


Sure, it does. We CAN change any law. If anything, it is harder to change the constituion than any other law.
Don't cheat yourself into beliving that we are not doing anything about the illegal immigration because we can't.
We, certainly can - just don't want to.

And the constitution change is not proposed because we want to do something - just because we want it to look like we are doing something.

elfy
01-03-2006, 09:42 PM
I think we kind of digressed...
the main reason why they should abolish the birthright citizenship is if their children are not legal citizens any more, their food, education, and medical will come out not out of your tax money, but out of their parents' money (let it be illegally earned, whatever) - YOU won't carry the burden of providing for them...
yes, the illegals will not stop coming to the USA, but the fact that they are working here illegally is not the main problem. if you think of the jobs they are in - busboys in restaurants, janitors, cleaners, etc. what legal person will take those kind of jobs for the money they pay? if the restaurants were to hire Americans to be busboys, you can be sure, the price of your meal would quadruple..
some of the students in my class brought up this question of illegal workers with our professor of economics, and he agrees that the fact that we have some cheap (yes, illegal, too) workforce, only boosts our economy
the elimination of the birthright citizenship will just ensure that the many children of the illegals live here not at your expense
this should be the first step in the immigration law enforcement process

Фoма
01-04-2006, 09:24 AM
I think we kind of digressed...
the main reason why they should abolish the birthright citizenship is if their children are not legal citizens any more, their food, education, and medical will come out not out of your tax money, but out of their parents' money (let it be illegally earned, whatever) - YOU won't carry the burden of providing for them...


No, that's where you are mistaken.
There is no law that would deny food education or medical care to a child - whether a citizen or not.
So, the constituion change would not affect this at all.



yes, the illegals will not stop coming to the USA, but the fact that they are working here illegally is not the main problem.


Sure, it is!
You are missing the point. Your tax burden comes not from their kids, but from the fact, that they and their employers are not paying taxes, so you have to make up for their portion.
Also, they drag down the wages, making it harder for americans to make a living, and more likely to apply for unemployment and federal poverty benefits, that you have to carry too.

THIS is excatly the problem. Not at all the citizenship of their babies.



if you think of the jobs they are in - busboys in restaurants, janitors, cleaners, etc. what legal person will take those kind of jobs for the money they pay? if the restaurants were to hire Americans to be busboys, you can be sure, the price of your meal would quadruple..


No, it would not. Don't worry.
30 years ago, and before then there were almost no illegals employed anywhere, and the prices were lower then they are now (sure, there is inflation, but even if you take that into account, the prices were still lower...), and the service was a lot better...
And you could even hope, that if you walk into a restaurant in Miami, and speak English, you will be understood :-)

Also, you are mistaken if you think, that all illegals come here to sit quitely and be busboys. People who break laws tend to do it again... and again... especially, when they live in substandard conditions, and have eat food you would not feed your cat with.
They rob banks, form street gangs, stage auto accidents etc., etc....
I'd pay to a busboy in a restaurant I go to myself rather then having to put up with this stuff.



some of the students in my class brought up this question of illegal workers with our professor of economics, and he agrees that the fact that we have some cheap (yes, illegal, too) workforce, only boosts our economy


Well... what can I say... sorry to disappoint you, but your professor is an idiot :-(
What you call "cheap workforce" is the ballast that every middle class person, and even most lower-than-middle class people have to carry.
Could YOU live a decent live on $3 bucks an hour? I bet not?
Ask yourself how can they? The answer is it is your money they live on.

Bumazhka
01-04-2006, 12:48 PM
But the fact of the matter is that it isn't!

Yes, but we are not arguing about that , are we? :) Off course I know that they don’t do enough to enforce the law, otherwise we wouldn’t have so many people breaking it.

This whole argument started because you see no connection between illegals coming to this country and the 14th amendment, right? Illegal immigrants giving birth in this country is now such a widespread phenomenon that it even got a name for it- “anchor babies”. Why anchor? Because no one can deport an American citizen! Since there’s supposed to be someone raising them, that someone happens to be an illegal couple. That’s why politicians turn a blind eye to enforcing the law. It’s draconian!- they cry on the left, especially when they’ve already settled in and raising not one but many Americans. The statistics speaks for itself. You can read all the relevant data how Hispanics have now become a majority. You will see that the main factor is illegal immigration. Why these people were not deported you know yourself but what has made it even more difficult is the 14th amendment. One of the arguments against deporting them that especially “open border” advocates use is the fact that their kids are American citizens! Do you see the connection now?
In short, as long as this stupid amendment is alive it will continue present a formidable obstacle to “deportation proceedings”. It will continue to be used as an “anchor” by any illegal parents. That’s why the amendment to eliminate birthright citizenship was part of that proverbial “HR 4437” that Lev Kobrin was against. That bill was called “enforcement-only” bill and the republicans who sponsored it understood that it would be next to impossible to enforce it if birthright citizenship stays. Unfortunately the Rules committee didn’t allow this amendment to be voted on at that time.
To say that they don’t enforce present laws is fair ,but to say that there’s no connection between the 14th amendment and illegals is very mistaken in my humble opinion.;)

elfy
01-04-2006, 12:51 PM
No, that's where you are mistaken.
There is no law that would deny food education or medical care to a child - whether a citizen or not.
So, the constituion change would not affect this at all.

really? if they are not legal here, no one will pay them wealthfare or foodstamps, while now they are enjoying it being citizens. I wonder if (hypothetical situation) a family with a child from any country comes here, let's say, on a student visa, and then decide to stay after the visa expiration illegally, if THEIR child will be eligible for any benefits - I don't think so. You are right, there is no law that will provide illegal people, be they children or adults, with free money. Children born here, are a different story, so far they are enjoying the free money, and that's where their illegal parents, like you mentioned, make up for their 3 bucks an hours, at my and your expense. and that's why they don't want to leave - the government pays for their life here thanks to their american-born children.




Sure, it is!
You are missing the point. Your tax burden comes not from their kids, but from the fact, that they and their employers are not paying taxes, so you have to make up for their portion.

you are right about the tax part, but again, they would not stay here making that little bit of cash money if they didn't have that supplemental income derived from their babies' status. Who would be able to live in Chicago for $3 an hour? Take the money their kids get, away from them, and their life back in their countries may seem a better option for them.

Фoма
01-04-2006, 01:16 PM
really? if they are not legal here, no one will pay them wealthfare or foodstamps, while now they are enjoying it being citizens.


You are not listenting to me, are you? :-)
yes, they will (and do currently) receive the benefits whether they are citizens or not
We are not going to starve a child to death, are we?

Public schools are full of illegal kids (not citizens) right now. So are welfare and WIC offices.
It is actually illegal to inquire about immigration status in hospitals.

They are already enjoying all these benefits, if those of them who were not born here, and will continue to, whether they are citizens or not.
If anything, the current trend is to give them more benefits, not less. Many states are discussing letting them pay in-state tuition in colleges for example.



I wonder if (hypothetical situation) a family with a child from any country comes here, let's say, on a student visa, and then decide to stay after the visa expiration illegally, if THEIR child will be eligible for any benefits - I don't think so.


He most certainly will be (if it is a minor child we are talking about). Trust me.
Now, the funniest thing of all is that while they are in legal status, they will not be eligible for anything whatsoever :-)
Leaving citizens out of the picture, we almost exclusively provide these benefits to criminals nowadays.



You are right, there is no law that will provide illegal people, be they children or adults, with free money.


I actually said the opposite :-)



you are right about the tax part, but again, they would not stay here making that little bit of cash money if they didn't have that supplemental income derived from their babies' status.


You don't really belive, that all (or most) illegals who are staying here have citizen babies, do you? ;-)

Фoма
01-04-2006, 01:45 PM
Yes, but we are not arguing about that , are we? :)


I think, we are...
Your point was that children of illegals should not gain citizenship at birth as a measure to counter illegal immigration.... and my point is that if we really wanted to counter illegal immigration, we should start with other things, that are lot more logical, and a lot more effective.
The point is that this whole citizenship business is meant to pretend that the lawmakers are concerned about illegal immigration, and are trying to do something about it.

And I am just saying that this is complete hypocracy.



This whole argument started because you see no connection between illegals coming to this country and the 14th amendment, right?


Sort of... yes...
Not that I don't see any connection at all... there is some.
But this is not the deciding factor.

To take this to an extreme... there is, certainly a connection between them coming here, and the quality of life in the USA, right? So, how about just degrading the quality of life to an extent when they don't want to come anymore? :-)

This illustrates my point - I want the laws to be enforced, not the benefits taken away to make it unatractive for criminals to abuse them. See what I am saying?




Because no one can deport an American citizen!


Moot point. Their parents are not citizens, and can be deported.

Bumazhka
01-04-2006, 02:03 PM
I think, we are...
Your point was that children of illegals should not gain citizenship at birth as a measure to counter illegal immigration.... and my point is that if we really wanted to counter illegal immigration, we should start with other things, that are lot more logical, and a lot more effective.
But one of the reason it's not effective is because of the 14th...How can you deport people with their roots already put down?(we seem to be going in circles on this one:) )


The point is that this whole citizenship business is meant to pretend that the lawmakers are concerned about illegal immigration, and are trying to do something about it.. I don't personaly know what their motivation is. But some of the sponsors of the HR4437 bill look like they've had it with illegal immigration.


And I am just saying that this is complete hypocracy.
Well the proposal came from the sponsors of the bill, who've always been concerned with ineffective enforcement.


Sort of... yes...
Not that I don't see any connection at all... there is some.
But this is not the deciding factor.
Nobody is talking here about it being a deciding factor. Only one that makes it impossible to remove the aliens.;)


To take this to an extreme... there is, certainly a connection between them coming here, and the quality of life in the USA, right? So, how about just degrading the quality of life to an extent when they don't want to come anymore? :-).
No comments


This illustrates my point - I want the laws to be enforced, not the benefits taken away to make it unatractive for criminals to abuse them. See what I am saying?
That's where we differ. The benefit of becoming an american citizen leads to the benefits eventually received by the parents in this country illegaly. Why are they recieved? Because of inhumane practice of deporting people whose kids are american citizens.


Moot point. Their parents are not citizens, and can be deported.
Try to argue that with people who say they can't because of the 14th ammendment! See, the circle's now complete.;)

Фoма
01-04-2006, 02:20 PM
But one of the reason it's not effective is because of the 14th...


yeah..... and another reason is our quality of life :-)



How can you deport people with their roots already put down?(we seem to be going in circles on this one:) )


Well... how about stopping letting in the new ones for starters?
How about enforcing the employment and tax laws, and making it impossible for them to work here and evade taxes?
How about stopping providing additional benefits for them (such as in-state tuition for the kids etc)?
How about taking away (most of) existing benefits and priviledges?
How about stopping amnesties?

Perhaps, after all of this is done, you won't need to deprot anyone - they will just stop coming, and the ones, who are already here, will just leave on their own, most of them anyway?

And if after all of these is in place, there are still some left to be deported, frankly, I don't see why not. How does the citizenshiup of their child make a difference to whether or not they "have roots here"?

They have roots here because they have been here for a long time, have a job, an appartment, a car, their kids speak English, and go to school, and have friends... THESE are roots, not a passport with a stamp.
And, yes, these roots will have to be broken. Tough luck. When criminals go to prison, many of them leave roots behind too - it does not make them any less responsible for breaking the law.




The benefit of becoming an american citizen leads to the benefits eventually received by the parents in this country illegaly. Why were they recieved?


I am tired of repeating this - the benefits parents recieve are not tied to their children's citizenship



Because of inhumane practice of deporting people whose kids are american citizens.


Like I said, I don't see anything particulary less humane about deporting of a parent of a citizen then deporting a parent of a non-citizen. Just don't see how it matters at all.



Try to argue that with people who say they can't because of the 14th ammendment! See, the circle's now complete.;)


There is nothing to argue about here. The law is crystal clear on this. They can be deported. And there were instances when it had happened in the past.
There is an army of illegal aliens in this country. There are actually more illegal immigrants than legal ones.
Not all of them (not even most) have US citizen kids, yet, almost noone gets ever deported (generally, a few people a year do)...
Once all (ok, not all, let's just say 70%) of the illegals that do not have citizen kids are deported, you point might start making some sense (even though, I still don't see much of a connection)... but for now, it is moot - it is clear as day that 14th ammendment is not what prevents us from deporting the aliens (if it was, we would be deproting the ones who are not parents of citizens, adn we aren't). And thus, repealing it won't help improve the situation.

Bumazhka
01-04-2006, 02:58 PM
Well... how about stopping letting in the new ones for starters?
How about enforcing the employment and tax laws, and making it impossible for them to work here and evade taxes?
How about stopping providing additional benefits for them (such as in-state tuition for the kids etc)?
How about taking away (most of) existing benefits and priviledges?
How about stopping amnesties?
Perhaps, after all of this is done, you won't need to deprot anyone - they will just stop coming, and the ones, who are already here, will just leave on their own, most of them anyway? All for it! Only to me enforcing these laws and still having a pretty appealing bait of having your child be born american is inconsistant! Just look at the current situation!



And if after all of these is in place, there are still some left to be deported, frankly, I don't see why not. How does the citizenshiup of their child make a difference to whether or not they "have roots here"? It makes all the difference in the world ! Like was said earlier you just can't simply deport them beacuse of other provisions that automatically kick in the moment an "anchor baby" is born, in a way "protecting" the parents from being deported.



They have roots here because they have been here for a long time, have a job, an appartment, a car, their kids speak English, and go to school, and have friends... THESE are roots, not a passport with a stamp.
And, yes, these roots will have to be broken. Tough luck. When criminals go to prison, many of them leave roots behind too - it does not make them any less responsible for breaking the law."
I hope you yourself understand the difference between the two groups.



I am tired of repeating this - the benefits parents recieve are not tied to their children's citizenship Foma, I am sorry but you're just not informed about ALL the benefits that their parents are entitled to cuz of a simple fact that their kids are americans! Please do a little study to see the whole scope of what the 14th leads to...


Like I said, I don't see anything particulary less humane about deporting of a parent of a citizen then deporting a parent of a non-citizen. Just don't see how it matters at all. May be not to you but to a lot of folks it does.Trying to amend the const... comes as a result...


Once all (ok, not all, let's just say 70%) of the illegals that do not have citizen kids are deported, you point might start making some sense (even though, I still don't see much of a connection)... but for now, it is moot - it is clear as day that 14th ammendment is not what prevents us from deporting the aliens (if it was, we would be deproting the ones who are not parents of citizens, adn we aren't). And thus, repealing it won't help improve the situation.
But what I don't understand is why you try to separate the enforcing existing laws from removing the amendment. You wrote that they try to make it appear that they do something about illegals when it's not so... It was PART of the bill that was passed by the House. Since this amendment was withdrawn they will simply return to it to discuss it individually from other bills they're working on. Why be against it?

Bumazhka
01-04-2006, 03:06 PM
Perhaps, after all of this is done, you won't need to deprot anyone - they will just stop coming, and the ones, who are already here, will just leave on their own, most of them anyway?
No, in my opinion they will simply take it as a chalenge. Make it across the border having overcome all the hurdles, have a baby, and you're "safe"!
See, the amendment still needs to be changed to be entirely consistant with our immigration policy.

Фoма
01-04-2006, 03:15 PM
All for it! Only to me enforcing these laws and still having a pretty appealing bait of having your child be born american is inconsistant! Just look at the current situation!


It is no more of a bait, then not risking to get arrested without a warrant, or kidnapped, or robbed and killed, like many of them risk in their own countries.
This is part of our lifestyle, and freedom. Sure, it is appealing.

But I don't think that getting rid of it is a good substitute for making the laws work.

And, no, it is not inconsistent. It is the child, who is granted the citizenship, not the parent. The child did not do anything wrong, and the parent does not benefit from it.

What would be inconsistent is if children of illegals lose this right, while some idiot who comes here on a visa can still give birth to a citizen.

As I mentioned it in the very beginning, I am not particularly fond of the stupid territorial law, and I am all for abolishing it. What I am against is trying to pretend that we are fighting illegal immigration this way.



Like was said earlier you just can't simply deport them beacuse of other provisions that automatically kick in the moment an "anchor baby" is born, in a way "protecting" the parents from being deported.


Did you read my previous message?
Yes, you CAN deprot them. There were incidents in the past. It does happen from time to time. No, there ARE NO "provisions" that "kick".

There are hundreds of thousands of illegals that are not parents of US citizens in this country, yet are not being deported. If that was not the case, your point, while still highly questionable, might be worth discussing, but the way it is now, it simply isn't.




I hope you yourself understand the difference between the two groups.


No, really, I do not.



But what I don't understand is why you try to separate the enforcing existing laws from removing the amendment.


Because removing the amendment is a smoke screen to continue avoiding having to do the real thing.



It was PART of the bill that was passed by the House.


No, can't be. It could have been in the same package, but it's gotta be a separate bill - constitutional ammendments are not same as regular laws.
Either way, it doesn't matter what was part of what. This is definitely meant to have "space to compromise" - so that the good things get rejected while this one passes.
Either that, or whoever put it there is just plain stupid.... But I don't believe that. These people are not stupid at all. They just have their own agenda, quite different from ours.

Фoма
01-04-2006, 03:28 PM
No, in my opinion they will simply take it as a chalenge. Make it across the border having overcome all the hurdles, have a baby, and you're "safe"!
See, the amendment still needs to be changed to be entirely consistant with our immigration policy.

Why not rewrite it completely then, while we are at it? The second part of it also mentions due process... I bet, that appeals to lots of aliens too - they don't have very much of it in Cuba. Why shouldn't we deny that to illegal aliens as well?
The fourth amendment looks like another bait - "unreasonable searches and seizures" - I am sure there is a lot of that going on in Columbia...

There are other places too... Why should we not rewrite those - using your logic, it looks like we should. Otherwise "Make it across the border having overcome all the hurdles ... and you are safe" (from government robberies, from "cruel and unusual panishment", from many-many different things... from poverty even)... don't even need to have a baby.

Bumazhka
01-04-2006, 04:12 PM
And, no, it is not inconsistent. It is the child, who is granted the citizenship, not the parent. The child did not do anything wrong, and the parent does not benefit from it. The Anchors pull their parents in, who in turn bring other relatives in who in turn become eligible to bring others, etc...
A benefit in and of itself! And how about public welfare? Did you know that kids born as american citizens immediately qualify for cash aid which their parents get for them? not a benefit too? Medical?


What would be inconsistent is if children of illegals lose this right, while some idiot who comes here on a visa can still give birth to a citizen.
As I mentioned it in the very beginning, I am not particularly fond of the stupid territorial law, and I am all for abolishing it.
Kindda confused still, are you for it or against it?:)


Did you read my previous message?
Yes, you CAN deprot them. There were incidents in the past. It does happen from time to time. No, there ARE NO "provisions" that "kick".
Did you read mine? How can you deport american citizens to a country in which like some wrote they can starve to death?:(


There are hundreds of thousands of illegals that are not parents of US citizens in this country, yet are not being deported. If that was not the case, your point, while still highly questionable, might be worth discussing, but the way it is now, it simply isn't.
Because the laws are not enforced, we've been through this already.


No, can't be. It could have been in the same package, but it's gotta be a separate bill - constitutional ammendments are not same as regular laws.
Either way, it doesn't matter what was part of what. This is definitely meant to have "space to compromise" - so that the good things get rejected while this one passes.Either that, or whoever put it there is just plain stupid.... But I don't believe that. These people are not stupid at all. They just have their own agenda, quite different from ours.
Sorry, can't argue about the facts, it was part of the bill, and they will certainly debate it later. You can look for yourself.

Bumazhka
01-04-2006, 04:16 PM
Why not rewrite it completely then, while we are at it? The second part of it also mentions due process... I bet, that appeals to lots of aliens too - they don't have very much of it in Cuba. Why shouldn't we deny that to illegal aliens as well? The fourth amendment looks like another bait - "unreasonable searches and seizures" - I am sure there is a lot of that going on in Columbia...
There are other places too... Why should we not rewrite those - using your logic, it looks like we should. Otherwise "Make it across the border having overcome all the hurdles ... and you are safe" (from government robberies, from "cruel and unusual panishment", from many-many different things... from poverty even)... don't even need to have a baby.
If due process, unreasonable searches and seizures, cruel...etc would lead to the immigration as well as other benefits like the ones that come from the 14th amendment then yes let's abolish them all. Though I think you know they have NOTHING in common with the discussion we're having here

Bumazhka
01-04-2006, 04:29 PM
What would be inconsistent is if children of illegals lose this right, while some idiot who comes here on a visa can still give birth to a citizen.
No, again according to the new law anybody born to illegals as well as to tourists will not be deemed american citizens. One of the parents would have to be at least a permanent resident just like in Germany now, the law which they've recently adapted.:)

Фoма
01-04-2006, 04:51 PM
The Anchors pull their parents in, who in turn bring other relatives in who in turn become eligible to bring others, etc...



Oh, come on!
The "anchors" must be 21 years old to "pull anyone in".
So, the effect of this law, if any, will be felt 21 years from now...
I still think we should really concentrate on getting something done a little sooner :-)



And how about public welfare? Did you know that kids born as american citizens immediately qualify for cash aid which their parents get for them? not a benefit too? Medical?


Not only I did know that. I also told you several times, that all children are eligible for that regardless of their citizenship.
Why do you keep ignoring my replies, and bringing up this point over and over?



Kindda confused still, are you for it or against it?:)


I am for changing the law so that only children of american citizens are considered citizens at birth, regardless of where they were born.
This is not the change we are discussing though...



Did you read mine? How can you deport american citizens to a country in which like some wrote they can starve to death?:(


God forbid! Of course not! :-)
I never suggested deporting american citizens to any country.... leave alone those where they can starve to death (what country would that be BTW? :-))
We are talking about deporting illegal aliens to their homecountry. That's it.
If they want to take their child with them, it is their right - they have custody. Nobody's deporting him though...




Because the laws are not enforced, we've been through this already.


Exactly! So, it is the fact that the laws are not being enforced that prevents aliens from being deported, not some constitutional amendment, is it?



If due process, unreasonable searches and seizures, cruel...etc would lead to the immigration as well as other benefits like the ones that come from the 14th amendment then yes let's abolish them all. T


Well, unlike citizenship of a child (that doesn't give you any advantages whatsoever), these ones are real benefits by themselves - I mean, don't you agree, it is benefitial to be sure that some goverment agent won't be able to search your house at will, confiscate your stuff, or kill and torture you?
To me, it looks a lot more beneficial than merely having a child who is a US citizen... way more beneficial.



Though I think you know they have NOTHING in common with the discussion we're having here


Well... no, I don't.
You said, it would be logical to take away all the benefits that appeal to illegal immigrats to cross the border... These are all pretty appealing, aren't they?

The point is the same I tried to make earlier - they are coming here, because this is such a great country to live in. And making it less great in hopes they'll stop coming is definitely not a solution I'd vote for.



No, again according to the new law anybody born to illegals as well as to tourists will not be deemed american citizens.


Oh, is it? I thought, it was only about illegals.... Can you give me a link?
Well.. if that's the case, I might change my mind, if they also took the permanent residents out. I see no reason, why a PR should be an exception.

If the new law says that a child of a US citizen is a citizen, and that's it, I am for it.
But (as I am sure you understand by now) for reasons, totally different from yours. ;-)

Bumazhka
01-04-2006, 05:09 PM
Not only I did know that. I also told you several times, that all children are eligible for that regardless of their citizenship.
Why do you keep ignoring my replies, and bringing up this point over and over?
Because you're wrong.;) To receive public welfare for instance a person should be either a permanent resident or a citizen.


God forbid! Of course not! :-)
We are talking about deporting illegal aliens to their homecountry. That's it.
If they want to take their child with them, it is their right - they have custody. Nobody's deporting him though... ?
That's why they don't touch their illegal parents here.Because they need to bring those kids up...


Exactly! So, it is the fact that the laws are not being enforced that prevents aliens from being deported, not some constitutional amendment, is it?We've already established that.The amendment only makes it difficult to enforce.

Well... no, I don't.
You said, it would be logical to take away all the benefits that appeal to illegal immigrats to cross the border... These are all pretty appealing, aren't they? They don't lead to immigration and other benefits and don't promise a legal status to those who enjoy them even if here illegally.


The point is the same I tried to make earlier - they are coming here, because this is such a great country to live in. And making it less great in hopes they'll stop coming is definitely not a solution I'd vote for. Nobody said it was a solution, I certainly didn't! I said it only compicates the enforcement of deportation proceedings.;)


Oh, is it? I thought, it was only about illegals.... Can you give me a link?
Well.. if that's the case, I might change my mind, if they also took the permanent residents out. I see no reason, why a PR should be an exception.
If the new law says that a child of a US citizen is a citizen, and that's it, I am for it.
But (as I am sure you understand by now) for reasons, totally different from yours. ;-)
You can write your strong-worded letter of disagreement to them in this case.;)

Фoма
01-04-2006, 05:19 PM
To receive public welfare for instance a person should be either a permanent resident or a citizen.



... or have minor children.
Trust me on this one.




That's why they don't touch their illegal parents here.Because they need to bring those kids up...


Oh, Really? And why don't they touch those who don't have kids?
I thought...



We've already established that.


:-)
They are not deporting (almost) anyone at all, not because they are afraid, that somebody will abandon their kids, and they would have to raise them (they'd have to anyway, even if the kid wasn't a citizen BTW), but because... well, we DID already establish why, didn't we? :-)




The amendment only makes it difficult to enforce.


No. It doesn't. If it did, the only illegal aliens remaning in the country would be parents of the US citizens. And that is far from being the case.




They don't lead to immigration and other benefits


What are you saying? You don't believe that feeling secure in your house, not being tortured and killed is a benefit?



and don't promise a legal status to those who enjoy them even if here illegally.


We have had amnestys pretty regularly lately, so... yes, they do.



Nobody said it was a solution, I certainly didn't! I said it only compicates the enforcement of deportation proceedings.;)


Right. And I am saying, that it doesn't :-)
You can't possibly complicate something that doesn't exist :-)



You can write your strong-worded letter of disagreement to them in this case.;)

I know I can :-)

Bumazhka
01-04-2006, 05:42 PM
Really? And why don't they touch those who don't have kids?
I thought...
:-) They are not deporting (almost) anyone at all, not because they are afraid, that somebody will abandon their kids, and they would have to raise them (they'd have to anyway, even if the kid wasn't a citizen BTW), but because... well, we DID already establish why, didn't we? :-)If it did, the only illegal aliens remaning in the country would be parents of the US citizens. And that is far from being the case.
IF...:)


What are you saying? You don't believe that feeling secure in your house, not being tortured and killed is a benefit?
We have had amnestys pretty regularly lately, so... yes, they do.
Well, like I said feeling secure and all that jazz don't lead to REAL immigration benefits. While the effects of having a child here will be felt 21 years from now like you wrote, based simply on the fact that they're americans you can't remove them with ease, just like that...they stay here indefenetely untill that time. The effects from this are felt TODAY. It's a good asset in the arsenal of those for illegal immigration.Why not deprive them of it? In the meantime illegals can wait for an amnesty, and if the amnesty is not coming any time soon...well it's good I've got my babies here with me, right? Again if you talked to a mexican family you will hear them say that having a baby here is a good weapon against getting deported. It's a well known fact amongst them. Idiotic judges have made numerous decisions in the past to allow even some criminal elements to stay because their kids are americans just like some judges long ago interpreted the 14th amendment as applied to EVERYBODY, including illegals when in fact there is good evidence that it was intended for the descendents of SLAVES only.Just because the laws are not enforced timely doesn't mean that the amendment is right.If it's not right it's never too soon to correct the wrong:)
But I guess we will have to agree to disagree then...;)

Фoма
01-04-2006, 06:00 PM
IF...:)
What?



Well, like I said feeling secure and all that jazz don't lead to REAL immigration benefits.


Not immigration benefits. Just benfits. It by itself is a benefit, that is not available in the third world countries and thus attracting illegal immigrants from there.



While the effects of having a child here will be felt 21 years from now like you wrote, based simply on the fact that they're americans you can't remove them with ease,


Yes, you can.



they stay here indefenetely untill that time.


Not just them. Everybody does. Because, as we established the laws are not being enforced, and not because of citizen babies.
Citizen babies are not the reason illegals stay here. Unenforced laws are.



The effects from this are felt TODAY.


Right, the effects of not enforcing the law are.
And to change that, we need to start enforcing it. Now. It is that simple. And has nothing to do with the babies, who will sponsor their parents in 21 years.



It's a good asset in the arsenal of those for illegal immigration.Why not deprive them of it?


For the same reason as due process, and unreasonable searches, and cruel punishments, etc.... Those are al lgreat assets...
This is part of the definition of our country, of who we are.
the fact that our country is great is a good asset, and attracts illegal immigrants, but making the country worth to stop attracting them is not a solution.



In the meantime illegals can wait for an amnesty, and if the amnesty is not coming any time soon...


it is.



Again if you talked to a mexican family you will hear them say that having a baby here is a good weapon against getting deported.


It doesn't matter what a mexican family thinks. If they told you that living near Wal Mart is a good weapon, would you then start pushing to outlaw Wal Marts? :-)
I am telling you, the INS is telling you, the courts are telling you, the law is telling you, that it does not matter, but you choose to ignore all that and listen to a "mexican family"?



It's a well known fact amongst them.


A well known myth



Just because the laws are not enforced timely doesn't mean that the amendment is right.


No, it doesn't. It doesn't mean it's wrong either. Maybe it is right, maybe it is not, but that's not the point.
The point it that it is not the reason why illegals are coming and staying. They are coming and staying because the laws are not enforced. If they were enforced, they would not be coming and staying, regardless of the amendment.
And we both agree that the laws should be enforced. And, once they are, the illegals will not be here. Thus, the amendment doesn't matter.

Bumazhka
01-04-2006, 06:06 PM
Not immigration benefits. Just benfits. It by itself is a benefit, that is not available in the third world countries and thus attracting illegal immigrants from there..
I edited my post a bit. Please read how the 14th amendment is applied by the airhead judges. All other "benefits" like unreasonable searches and the like are never cited in the decisions FOR allowing immigrants to stay.Thus they're simply irrelevant.

Фoма
01-04-2006, 06:17 PM
I edited my post a bit. Please read how the 14th amendment is applied by the airhead judges. All other "benefits" like unreasonable searches and the like are never cited in the decisions FOR allowing immigrants to stay.Thus they're simply irrelevant.

Are you saying, you know of a precedent, when a judge canceled a removal order based on a mere fact that the alien's child was a citizen?
Could I have a reference to the case please?

Bumazhka
01-04-2006, 06:26 PM
Are you saying, you know of a precedent, when a judge canceled a removal order based on a mere fact that the alien's child was a citizen? Could I have a reference to the case please?
But these decisions are not rare at all when somehow some illegals are caught. In fact it's one of the reasons why they want to amend it. That's what I am trying to show you. This fact was featured in the news when all this stink about the amendment came up. That's why while other so called benefits are attractive NO immigrant can cling to them as an excuse to stay.
Here is one decision by O'Connor about whether or not to allow a terrorist the rights of a citizen of the USA. Read this link plese...this terrorist conviniently remembered his birth in America to claim "the rights". See how the 14th again was interpreted...It's so ridiculous it's not even funny!:)
http://www.mnforsustain.org/immg_case_against_birthright_citizenship_hamdi.htm

Фoма
01-04-2006, 06:43 PM
That's why while other so called benefits are attractive NO immigrant can cling to them as an excuse to stay.


Oh, sure they can... and do all the time (unlike their baby's cvitizenship, which, to my knowledge, has never worked yet, not once). They claim that INS did not have right to raid their employer, or that they were arrested without a warrant, or that they were refused a legal representation...
Most of stay/cancellation of removal orders are due to these.



Here is one decision by O'Connor about whether or not to allow a terrorist the rights of a citizen of the USA.


We were talking about how baby citizens prevent illegal aliens from being deported, weren't we?
What the hell does this have to do with it?

This is a totally different issue. If the guy was born to a citizen, or to a PR, would it make him less of a terrorist, or what?
Perhaps, we need a law that would allow us to strip the traitors who fight against US on the enemy side off their citizenship, regardless of where or to whom they were born...
I would be all for such a law... But I don't see anything it has to do with the issue at hand.

Bumazhka
01-04-2006, 06:54 PM
We were talking about how baby citizens prevent illegal aliens from being deported, weren't we?
What the hell does this have to do with it?.

Just to show how the judges apply the amendment even to terrorists that's all. Just like how they apply it to illegal aliens. It's called "cancellation of removal." If you're caught you can use it as a defense. How you can find out yourself. Here is an excerpt from one source :
"Of course, this is only a defense to deportation. The person can still be deported, but a young parent with a child born in the United States has a chance with this defense." http://www.teenparents.org/immigration.html
It's from Teenparents.... This defense is used all the time...

Bumazhka
01-04-2006, 06:58 PM
Perhaps, we need a law that would allow us to strip the traitors who fight against US on the enemy side off their citizenship, regardless of where or to whom they were born... I would be all for such a law... But I don't see anything it has to do with the issue at hand.
What traitor? Nobody betrayed no country here. It just goes to show how insane the amendment is that's all. The guy didn't even live in US and yet they wanted to bring him here JUST because he was born here.

Фoма
01-04-2006, 07:02 PM
What traitor? Nobody betrayed no country here.


Sure, he did. He is a terrorist, right? He is fighting against US on the side of its enemy.
That's treason.



It just goes to show how insane the amendment is that's all. The guy didn't even live in US and yet they wanted to bring him here JUST because he was born here.

But how would it be different if his father happened to have a GC at the time he was born?

Bumazhka
01-04-2006, 07:06 PM
Sure, he did. He is a terrorist, right? He is fighting against US on the side of its enemy.
That's treason.
Nope, treason is when you betray. He didn't betray anything. He just happend to have been born here.

Фoма
01-04-2006, 07:10 PM
Just to show how the judges apply the amendment even to terrorists that's all.


Not just thjis amendment though. The judges apply ALL THE LAWS to all people, including terrorists. You are not saying that because of that we should get rid of all the laws, are you? ;-)



It's called "cancellation of removal."


Cancellation of removal is just a judges decision to reverse a previous order to deport an alien. As such, it has nothing to do with the 14th amendment or whatever else.

In fact, as I said before, to my knowlege, there has not yet been issued a single cancellation of removal order based on the mere fact that the alien's baby was a citizen.

There are indeed tons of other reasons why these orders get canceled, but I never heard about this particular defense being successful.



Here is an excerpt from one source :


Nah... doesn't work. It says "you can use it as a defense" ... well, you can use almost anything as a defense....
But who says it will work. Find me a precedent - that would be a different story.

But even if you did ... think about it... hunderds of thousands of illegals, hunderds (0.1%!) of deportation orders, maybe tens, of attempts to appeal based on the citizen kid, let's say one successful, ok, two. BIG DEAL.

Фoма
01-04-2006, 07:11 PM
Nope, treason is when you betray. He didn't betray anything. He just happend to have been born here.

What do you think "betray" means?
Fighting at war against your country perfectly qualifies.

Bumazhka
01-04-2006, 07:12 PM
But how would it be different if his father happened to have a GC at the time he was born? He would have been born from a legal alien. Then dispute all you want about what rights he does or doesn't have:confused:

Bumazhka
01-04-2006, 07:13 PM
What do you think "betray" means?
Fighting at war against your country perfectly qualifies.
But it wasn't HIS country. He was just born here...:confused:

Фoма
01-04-2006, 07:15 PM
He would have been born from a legal alien. Then dispute all you want about what rights he does or doesn't have:confused:

That's what I am saying... being born from a legal alien would not make him less of a terrorist or less of a traitor for that matter.

It's a different issue, as I said, perhaps we should be able to strip traitors or terrorists or whatever from their rights or their citizenship... I just don't see what it has to do with how or where they were born.


But it wasn't HIS country. He was just born here...:confused:


If he claims to be a citizen, it is.
That's what citizenship means.

Фoма
01-04-2006, 07:15 PM
duplicate. See last page

Bumazhka
01-04-2006, 07:23 PM
If he claims to be a citizen, it is.
That's what citizenship means.
But it simply proves my point, don't you think? The guy never lived in US, was cought fighting against it, was declared an "enemy combatant",sent to prison with no rights, then remembers about his birth and "claims" citizenship through the 14th. The judge upheld his request. Moronic...

Фoма
01-04-2006, 08:45 PM
But it simply proves my point, don't you think?


No, I don't. Your point was that citizenship should depend on the slegal status of your parents at the time of your birth, and I don't see how the immigration status your father had 30 years ago can make you any more or less of an enenemy or a terrorist. Much less what it has to do with illegal immigration actually... or have we moved on already? :-)



The guy never lived in US, was cought fighting against it, was declared an "enemy combatant",sent to prison with no rights, then remembers about his birth and "claims" citizenship through the 14th. The judge upheld his request. Moronic...

That was the right decision. Judges do not make laws. They can only watch them being enforced. The law says the guy is a citizen - what do you expect to happen.
Even if they repealed the amendment, it would not affect this case, because he is ALREADY a citizen.

So, this bill is useless for cases like this. What would make sense is, like I said, a law allowing to strip of citizenship rights for treason. That would be something a judge could use in this case.

Bumazhka
01-05-2006, 02:54 PM
or have we moved on already? :-)
That was the right decision. Judges do not make laws. They can only watch them being enforced. The law says the guy is a citizen - what do you expect to happen. Even if they repealed the amendment, it would not affect this case, because he is ALREADY a citizen.
So, this bill is useless for cases like this. What would make sense is, like I said, a law allowing to strip of citizenship rights for treason. That would be something a judge could use in this case.
1) All I got from this is that you don’t see any connection between illegal immigration and the amendment. Nothing prevents you from doing a little research on how this law ”defends” illegal parents. Right from the beginning…What this amendment was supposed to mean and how over the years it was misinterpreted.

2)If you read my post carefully the point about judges I wanted to make is to show how ridiculous this law is precisely because of them…They’ve even applied it to a terrorist disregarding others like” anyone who takes up arms against the US renounce his citizenship by such action”, so what rights were they talking about? It goes for anyone who’s lived here all his life and all the more so for anyone who though born here has never spend a day in the US. The same kinds of judges have come to apply the 14th against removal. That’s why people are so eager to have babies here! Anybody who thinks that they can just deport them with or without kids in my opinion is disconnected from reality. I myself can not even picture how it would at all be possible to ”uproot” them unless it’s Nazi Germany. Even assuming they sealed the border and made it more challenging for them to sneak into the country..once they’re here and give birth the ”circus” would go on.

In my ”moving on” conclusion, I myself am for doing away with this amendment not because of illegals only just like you. If there was a topic why citizenship should be enjoyed only by those born to us citizens you would see me making an argument for that just as much. But the issue is illegal immigration and how the amendment is used in this issue.
I don’t see how ”not enforcing” laws makes the amendment ”the last thing” to be messed with, considering how deeply flawed it is on all levels. So I guess if the issue of this amendment resurfaces again either in the senate or the house in conjunction with illegal immigration and not with your ”other” reasons for abolishing it I can easily picture you giving it a ”NO” vote as a politician. ;) Am I right? I will give you the last word…:)

Фoма
01-05-2006, 04:41 PM
1) All I got from this is that you don’t see any connection between illegal immigration and the amendment.


I see some connection... But not much more than a connection of illegal immigration with other pieces of the Constitution.



Nothing prevents you from doing a little research on how this law ”defends” illegal parents. Right from the beginning…What this amendment was supposed to mean and how over the years it was misinterpreted.


That is great. Now you want ME to do a research to prove a point that you can't? :-)
That's nice :-)
So, after I have told you that the law does not defend "illegal parents", you kept insisting that it does... When I told you that there are no precedents whatsoever to indicate that, you are telling me "to do research"?
No, thank you. I have done my research before. The what I am telling you is based on it.
If you have something other than emotion to back your opinion - like a case reference, a statute, a precendent - anything, where the law would take side of an illegal immigrant based on their citizen child - you are welcome to point me to it.
But it doesn't look like that is the case now... so you are asking ME to do the research for you to find those facts?
Well, I am telling you - the research is done - there simply aren't any!
How is that?



2)If you read my post carefully the point about judges I wanted to make is to show how ridiculous this law is precisely because of them…


First, I don't really seee the ridicule - I tried explaining it to you, but you keep ducking the question how the immigration status his father had several decades ago makes the guy any more or less of a terrorist.

And second, the judges did not make this law, so, even if it was ridiculous, it would not be because of them.



They’ve even applied it to a terrorist disregarding others like” anyone who takes up arms against the US renounce his citizenship by such action”,


There is no law like this. Perhaps, we should have it. As I said, I'd be all for having it.
Perhaps, this is the one that the Congress should really be dicussing, not the amendment, that has really nothing to do with the terrorism or treason?
That would make sense... wouldn't it?



Anybody who thinks that they can just deport them with or without kids in my opinion is disconnected from reality.


That's exactly right! "With or without kids" - exactly my point.
The problem has nothing to do with the kids leave alone their citizenship - it is simply unwilingness to enforce the immigration laws.
That's just what I was trying to tell you all along.
And "anybody who thinks that they can just deport them ... " if only the 14th amendment was not in the way "... is disconnected from reality. "
:-)



In my ”moving on” conclusion, I myself am for doing away with this amendment not because of illegals only just like you. If there was a topic why citizenship should be enjoyed only by those born to us citizens you would see me making an argument for that just as much.
But the issue is illegal immigration and how the amendment is used in this issue.


Right. And the fact of the matter is that it isn't :-)



I don’t see how ”not enforcing” laws makes the amendment ”the last thing” to be messed with, considering how deeply flawed it is on all levels.'


There is simply no point in messing with it, because it won't help anything anyway as long as the laws are not enforced.



So I guess if the issue of this amendment resurfaces again either in the senate or the house in conjunction with illegal immigration and not with your ”other” reasons for abolishing it I can easily picture you giving it a ”NO” vote as a politician. ;) Am I right? I will give you the last word…:)

Yes, you are right on this one.

Bumazhka
01-05-2006, 07:58 PM
That is great. Now you want ME to do a research to prove a point that you can't? :-) Because it doesn’t look like you’ve done any. If you want me to prove you wrong by writing articles on what’s already been written? sorry…time constraints you see…
For the last time…since you haven’t evidently read the history of the amendment like I sincerely advised you to I will quote, ok?

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

"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."

The original intent of the 14th Amendment was clearly not to facilitate illegal aliens defying U.S. law at taxpayer expense.
Over a century ago, the Supreme Court correctly confirmed this restricted interpretation of citizenship in the so-called 'Slaughter-House cases' [83 US 36 (1873)] and in [112 US 94 (1884)]. In Elk v.Wilkins, the phrase 'subject to its jurisdiction' excluded from its operation '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.'

Now did you notice what year it was? 1873 and 1884. As you see well after the 14th amendment was adapted. I wonder what all the fuss was all about then. Didn’t they clearly see what the amendment was saying? Oh, right… like I quoted before the words of Senator Jacob Howard the supreme court then clearly understood the meaning of the 14th and didn’t make just anybody born on US soil its citizens. And that poor Indian guy! Why on earth didn’t they apply the amendment to him back then?

"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 8USCS&#223;1401, 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."

Was it really necessary if they were already citizens under the 14th? This act is also called the Indian citizenship act.


First, I don't really seee the ridicule - I tried explaining it to you, but you keep ducking the question how the immigration status his father had several decades ago makes the guy any more or less of a terrorist..
I already answered that. This time I will quote myself… "It goes for anyone who’s lived here all his life and all the more so for anyone who though born here has never spend a day in the US".


And second, the judges did not make this law, so, even if it was ridiculous, it would not be because of them. O really? Who then?
"Why does the United States continue to allow a practice subject to widespread abuse? The answer lies in how American courts have interpreted the 14th Amendment to the Constitution."
If courts here don’t imply judges then yes, you’re right! Have you heard of ”case law”?


There is no law like this. Perhaps, we should have it. As I said, I'd be all for having it.Perhaps, this is the one that the Congress should really be dicussing, not the amendment, that has really nothing to do with the terrorism or treason? Please..."Possible Loss of U.S. Citizenship and Dual Nationality"-(7) conviction for an act of treason (Sec. 349 (a) (7) INA).
You see, all it takes is to convict the guy!


There is simply no point in messing with it, because it won't help anything anyway as long as the laws are not enforced. Off course if there was no connection, yes, no point messing with it whatsoever. But the truth is if you type in google"anchor babies" the 14th amen-t will pop up right alongside it! "The United Kingdom and Australia repealed their birthright law in the 80's after witnessing abuses similar to those plaguing the U.S. today".

How come those countries saw a direct parallel with illegals and entirely amended their constitution which unambiguously stated that anyone born is a citizen?The fact is the 14th amendment has EVERYTHING to do with illegals because it's APPLIED TO THEIR KIDS, how can you not see it?:confused:

All these politicians want to do now is to restore the original meaning of the abused amendment. Every time the issue of illegal immigration comes up the amendment comes right up with it because we are talking about their kids enjoying their status UNDER THIS AMENDMENT.

So if the amendment wasn't intended to be applied to foreigners, especially to illegal aliens giving birth in the US but is wrongly applied now we need to change it so that any foreigner, legal or illegal wouldn't come under it. Still no connection?


Yes, you are right on this one.And it would make you another liberal politician on top of so many who are so reluctant to enforce immigration laws.:-)

Фoма
01-05-2006, 09:48 PM
If you want me to prove you wrong by writing articles on what’s already been written? sorry…time constraints you see…


Not at all! To the contrary! I am not at all interested in your writing (not on this matter anyway) - I am asking you to give me a refenrece to something NOT written by you that would remotely confirm your point.



For the last time…since you haven’t evidently read the history of the amendment like I sincerely advised you to I will quote, ok?


Who cares about the history? The history is irrelevant to the question we were discussing - of whether or not the repeal of the amendment would help stop illegal immigration. Why do you keep changing the topic?




I already answered that. This time I will quote myself… "It goes for anyone who’s lived here all his life and all the more so for anyone who though born here has never spend a day in the US".


I have no idea what you are saying by this, sorry.
Try rephrasing.
The question was how is an immigration status th eguy's father had thirty years ago makes him any more or less of a terrorist.
WHAT "goes for anyone"? WHERE does "it" go?
WHO "lived here all his life"?
WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?



O really? Who then?


Who what?
You don't know who makes laws in the US?



"Why does the United States continue to allow a practice subject to widespread abuse? The answer lies in how American courts have interpreted the 14th Amendment to the Constitution."


It is a bad taste to quote without referecing the source.
You seem to think, that enclosing some nonsense in quotes all of a sudden gives it more weight.
There is nothing to interpret there - the language is crystal clear as it is - "all persons born in the United States..."...
If the intent of whoever wrote this was not to mean "really all persons", that guy must have been an idiot...
There is no way in hell, this phrase can be interpreted any differently.



Have you heard of ”case law”?


Sure. I have been asking you for a refernce to those cases for a long time (remember on what matter?)... but you keep ignoring me...
I thought, maybe you did not know what the case law was... turns out, it's not the reason though... I am wonderring what is it then... Ah, yes, I get it - you want me to do research, right? :-)



Please..."Possible Loss of U.S. Citizenship and Dual Nationality"-(7) conviction for an act of treason (Sec. 349 (a) (7) INA).
You see, all it takes is to convict the guy!


Yes. So, as soon as he is convicted, he'll loose his citizenship. But until then, he is still a citizen.
What part of this do you not understand?



Off course if there was no connection, yes, no point messing with it whatsoever.


Forget connection. Try reading again what I said:

There is simply no point in messing with it, because it won't help anything anyway as long as the laws are not enforced.


Remember, this was an answer to your question: " how ”not enforcing” laws makes the amendment ”the last thing” to be messed with"

Nobody mentioned any "'connection".





But the truth is if you type in google"anchor babies" the 14th amen-t will pop up right alongside it!


ok. Great point...
Did you know that if you type "unable to follow directions" in MS Word thesaurus, the suggestion you'll get is :unable to have an erection"?



And it would make you another liberal politician on top of so many who are so reluctant to enforce immigration laws.:-)

What the hell are you talking about?
You know that I am not a liberal, and this is not an immigration law, and the matter has nothing to do with enforcment (which I fully support, BTW, as you well know too).
I am wonderring, what was your goal in making that statement?
Do you often say things on purpose you know are false? Or was it a glitch?

elfy
01-05-2006, 10:26 PM
Foma, sorry for off top, but why have you registered one more time? (just curious):rolleyes:

Bumazhka
01-06-2006, 02:17 AM
Not at all! To the contrary! I am not at all interested in your writing (not on this matter anyway) - I am asking you to give me a refenrece to something NOT written by you that would remotely confirm your point? I would, but you see it would be ME doing all the research, not you. But I can certainly give a piece of advice-try typing something like ”history of the 14th amendment”. Oops, sorry …forgot you are not interested at all in history...of this particular amendment...


Who cares about the history? The history is irrelevant to the question we were discussing - of whether or not the repeal of the amendment would help stop illegal immigration. Why do you keep changing the topic?
Well, let me repeat myself again. Nobody here is talking about the repeal stopping the flow of illegals. The issue here is about the connection which you don’t see (and now I doubt will ever) and abuse of it by illegals.


I have no idea what you are saying by this, sorry.
WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?Wow! I must have really wound you up, sorry man.:( Just take a deep breath, will you.. and then read my posts in their context. Maybe that’ll help.


Who what? You don't know who makes laws in the US?
You don’t know who interprets them?


It is a bad taste to quote without referecing the source.
You seem to think, that enclosing some nonsense in quotes all of a sudden gives it more weight.Why give references to the"nonsense", right?


There is nothing to interpret there - the language is crystal clear as it is - "all persons born in the United States..."...
Yea only for some reason it wasn’t crystal clear to the supreme court in 1873 and 1884. Oops.. have I just brought up history again? Sorry..:-(


If the intent of whoever wrote this was not to mean "really all persons", that guy must have been an idiot...There is no way in hell, this phrase can be interpreted any differently.See again the decision of the Supreme court long ago. Must have been idiots.

I am wonderring what is it then... Ah, yes, I get it - you want me to do research, right? :-)Phhew, that was easy...:D


Yes. So, as soon as he is convicted, he'll loose his citizenship. But until then, he is still a citizen.What part of this do you not understand?
The part where you said there was no such law. But again all it takes is for you to type something like” how to loose citizenship” or something…and then again look up my words in the context.The guy was not stripped of his citizenship.


Forget connection. Try reading again what I said:
There is simply no point in messing with it, because it won't help anything anyway as long as the laws are not enforced.
What do you mean forget the connection? Excuse me... Some people want to change the amendment because it’s been abused to such an extent that they want to restore what was supposed to be meant by it. Abused by whom? By American kids born into American families? No. By illegals. Otherwise it wouldn’t be called ”abuse”. But again you see no connection. Why don’t YOU forget your ”enforcing the law”… may be it’ll help you see it.


ok. Great point... Did you know that if you type "unable to follow directions" in MS Word thesaurus, the suggestion you'll get is :unable to have an erection"?
Typed it.Didn't see it. Must be another outburst of your emotions, "clouding" the connection.

What the hell are you talking about?
You know that I am not a liberal, and this is not an immigration law, and the matter has nothing to do with enforcment (which I fully support, BTW, as you well know too). I am wonderring, what was your goal in making that statement?
Sorry if it was really offensive to you :( but you yourself said you would vote ”No” because of the non-enforcement of laws , didn’t you? People who know what the 14th was intended for and how it’s abused today by illegals will vote ”yes”. It has nothing to do with ”enforcing” in the sense that it’s a separate issue, though will greatly help in enforcing laws nonetheless…It’s about illegals abusing what was never intended for them to abuse in the first place. Restoring the fairness of this amendment by taking it away from them is what this is all about.
Trying to vote ”no” just because you don’t like the way laws are enforced today only muddles the issue and greatly satisfies the liberals.
Calling you a conservative would do them(conservatives) no justice..cuz they’re on the opposite side of you.
Opposing it in the house just because laws are not enforced while supporting it in a ”different wrapping” reminds me of ” I voted for the war before I voted against it”.

Besides, to me and I am sure to others, there is no stronger rationale to abolish it than because of it being abused by illegals and future terrorists. Agreeing on the fact that it’s abused and voting no to keep it to me is incompatible thinking.That's what sets liberals apart from conservatives. Inconsistency...

What other motive could be stronger?

It didn’t pass in 2004, if it doesn’t pass in this year it won’t be passed under any other provision. That is off course if they don’t find out that Osama Bin Laden was accidentally born in the US…Well, who knows may be not even then…

Фoма
01-06-2006, 02:19 AM
Foma, sorry for off top, but why have you registered one more time? (just curious):rolleyes:

Because of this
http://forum.russianamerica.com/f/showpost.php?p=932882&postcount=115
:-)

Фoма
01-06-2006, 02:52 AM
I would, but you see it would be ME doing all the research, not you.


Yes, exactly.
If what you are saying was backed by a minimal research, it would have a lot more weight, don't you think?



But I can certainly give a piece of advice-try typing something like ”history of the 14th amendment”.


I can offer some advice to you too - avoid hoping to substitute arguments with "advice". It doesn't make you look very good...



Well, let me repeat myself again. Nobody here is talking about the repeal stopping the flow of illegals. The issue here is about the connection which you don’t see (and now I doubt will ever) and abuse of it by illegals.


No. The issue is not about the connection.
It is about the effect or lack thereof of repealing this law on the volume of illegal immigration.



Wow! I must have really wound you up, sorry man.:( Just take a deep breath, will you.. and then read my posts in their context. Maybe that’ll help.


ok... Let's try.
The context.
My Question:
"how is an immigration status the guy's father had thirty years ago makes him any more or less of a terrorist?
Your Answer:
"It goes for anyone who’s lived here all his life and all the more so for anyone who though born here has never spend a day in the US"

Me:
WHAT "goes for anyone"? WHERE does "it" go?
WHO "lived here all his life"?
I have no idea what you are saying by this, sorry.
Try rephrasing.

You:
:
take a deep breath, will you.. and then read my posts in their context.


Let me se... hmmmm.... nope, still don't see what the hell your answer has to do with the question. :-(




You don’t know who interprets them?



Yes, I do. But try taking a breath... and remembering the context:
- I said the judges do not make laws
- You asked who does
- That surprised me, and I asked if you don't know yourself
- Now you are asking me who interprets them...
Why?



Why give references to the"nonsense", right?


Exactly. Is that why you are not giving me any? ;-)




Yea only for some reason it wasn’t crystal clear to the supreme court in 1873 and 1884.


I guess, not. Can't speak for others... whatever that reason was...
Maybe "all" did not mean "all" back then...or, maybe "persons" meant something different from what it means now (after all, we all know that "men" in "all mean are created equal" was really meant to be "white male", don't we? :-) ) ...or, perhaps, you (intentionally or not) misreading or misinterpreting those decisions... maybe you don't know what "jurisdiction" is... maybe, you really think that an alien baby in the US is not subject to US jurisdiction... I don't know.

It definitely is clear now... "all persons born in the US subject to US jurisdiction"
How in the world are you suggesting to "intepret" this???
The aliens are not persons? not subject to jurisduction? What???



The part where you said there was no such law.


I said, there was no law that would alllow a court to strip somebody off his citizenship bazed on the fact of him being an enemy combatant - isn't that what we were talking about?
In response, you recited the INA about the citizenship being renounced after a conviction of treason.
As usual, nothing to do with the topic - the guys is not convicted.



The guy was not stripped of his citizenship.


That's right. Because there is no way within the law to do that (before he is convicted, which he still isn't).
And that's the problem.
NOT that he got he citizenship when he was born (it won't help this case anyway if the next baby doesn't get it), but the fact that it cannot be taken away from it.
It has nothing to do with the 14th amendment.



What do you mean forget the connection?


I mean take a breath, and pay attention to the context:

You
how ”not enforcing” laws makes the amendment ”the last thing” to be messed with

Me:

There is simply no point in messing with it, because it won't help anything anyway as long as the laws are not enforced.
You:
Off course if there was no connection...


Did you notice, that nobody is talking about any "connection" here until you suddenly brind it up?



Some people want to change the amendment because it’s been abused to such an extent that they want to restore what was supposed to be meant by it.


Not true. The correct statement should sound "... because they think it's been abused..."
well... they are wrong. that's the point.



Sorry if it was really offensive to you :(


It wasn't offensive at all... It's just plain weird.

Bumazhka
01-06-2006, 11:30 AM
If what you are saying was backed by a minimal research, it would have a lot more weight, don't you think?.No. The issue is not about the connection.
It is about the effect or lack thereof of repealing this law on the volume of illegal immigration

All this time it was me who actually bothered to come up with quotes, not you. When I said to type "anchor" babies online to see OTHER people, not me, who've written articles about it to see it(connection) you missed that.Read information on the left, on the right and in the middle.The advice stands.


ok... Let's try.
The context.
My Question:
"how is an immigration status the guy's father had thirty years ago makes him any more or less of a terrorist?
Your Answer:
"It goes for anyone who’s lived here all his life and all the more so for anyone who though born here has never spend a day in the US"

I told you to look up my words in their original context. It looks like you're skipping my replies. Don't you know what a context is?



I guess, not. Can't speak for others... whatever that reason was...
Maybe "all" did not mean "all" back then...or, maybe "persons" meant something different from what it means now (after all, we all know that "men" in "all mean are created equal" was really meant to be "white male", don't we? :-) ) ...or, perhaps, you (intentionally or not) misreading or misinterpreting those decisions... maybe you don't know what "jurisdiction" is... maybe, you really think that an alien baby in the US is not subject to US jurisdiction... I don't know.
I already answered that.While you're at it why not throw"the pursuit of happiness includes the illegals and nobody can deport them" into the mix? You got it ,it's subject to the jurisdiction of their parent's country..


It definitely is clear now... "all persons born in the US subject to US jurisdiction"
Good for you!:D


I said, there was no law that would alllow a court to strip somebody off his citizenship bazed on the fact of him being an enemy combatant - isn't that what we were talking about?In response, you recited the INA about the citizenship being renounced after a conviction of treason.
As usual, nothing to do with the topic - the guys is not convicted.
Look at the context!


I mean take a breath, and pay attention to the context:

You[i]
how ”not enforcing” laws makes the amendment ”the last thing” to be messed with

Me:

There is simply no point in messing with it, because it won't help anything anyway as long as the laws are not enforced.
You:
There is simply no point in messing with it, because it won't help anything anyway as long as the laws are not enforced

Me: What's enforcment have to do with the amendment?



Did you notice, that nobody is talking about any "connection" here until you suddenly brind it up? The topic here is the amendment and its application to the illegals.


well... they are wrong. that's the point. Oh, not you? Okey...:confused:


It wasn't offensive at all... It's just plain weird.
Likewise...:cool:

Фoма
01-06-2006, 12:00 PM
All this time it was me who actually bothered to come up with quotes, not you.


I did not ask you for quotes. I asked you for case references.
You said (well... implied) you knew what case law was - if so, you should understand the difference.



When I said to type "anchor" babies online to see OTHER people, not me, who've written articles about it


I do not have any reason to trust "other people" any more than I trust you.
If anything, I'd be inclined to trust you a little more, since I know you (somewhat) better then them.
That's why I am not asking you for just any qoute - it has no value to me. Any idiot can write an article, and throw it on the web. Big deal.

If you are telling me, that having a citizen child can be successfully used as a defence from deportation, give me references to real cases, where that happened, not a link, to some other guys article, who happens to have the same illusions you do.




I told you to look up my words in their original context. It looks like you're skipping my replies. Don't you know what a context is?


Yes, I know what the context is.
I asked you a question, and you did not give me an answer.
I asked it again, and you still did not.
I asked it once more, and you started blaming me for ignoring :-)
THAT's the context.




I already answered that.


No, you did not.



While you're at it why not throw"the pursuit of happiness includes the illegals and nobody can deport them" into the mix?


Because, it is not mentioned in any law. Do you know what "law" is? ;-)



You got it ,it's subject to the jurisdiction of their parent's country..


Do you know what "judrisdiction" is?
Could you please tell me what you think this word means?



You:
There is simply no point in messing with it, because it won't help anything anyway as long as the laws are not enforced

Me: What's enforcment have to do with the amendment?


Nothing. That's exactly my point. It has nothing to do with the amendment. You got it!

elfy
01-06-2006, 12:58 PM
Because of this
http://forum.russianamerica.com/f/showpost.php?p=932882&postcount=115
:-)

and you were not that foma?

Bumazhka
01-06-2006, 01:02 PM
Yes, I know what the context is.
I asked you a question, and you did not give me an answer.
I asked it again, and you still did not.
I asked it once more, and you started blaming me for ignoring :-)
THAT's the context. Sorry I don't think you do since you can't seem to see my answers. Justice Scolia was another idiot who argued that Hamdi is not to be considered a citizen under the 14th amendment. Go back, read it, try to understand it.


Do you know what "judrisdiction" is?
Could you please tell me what you think this word means?
You can find out that yourself and at the same time how this term was understood by those who actually wrote something about it dated as back as 1800's...which of course you won't do.In this case try reading my quotes carefully, you may actually find it there! Sorry, I forgot you don't give a dime about what others wrote....Then type this word in a dictionary(if you don't have anything against dictionaries that is)


Nothing. That's exactly my point. It has nothing to do with the amendment. You got it!
Then we're talking about different things, sorry. Other countries (which ones, you can find out on your own again)changed their birthright citizenship laws precisely because of illegals, though their enforcement of laws left a lot to be desired, even now AFTER they had adapted it. You can do a little research on your own again, whether or not it reduced the number of illegals,it's beside the point though. The point is they changed it, because it was abused. The enforcement has absolutely NOTHING to do with it, you answered correctly!

Фoма
01-06-2006, 01:13 PM
Sorry I don't think you do since you can't seem to see my answers.


I have no idea how you expect me to see something that doesn't exist.


Justice Scolia was another idiot who argued that Hamdi is not to be considered a citizen under the 14th amendment. Go back, read it, try to understand it.


He was simply looking for a way around it because he did not want to grant his request (as any normal person would)... but that failed for obvious reasons.



You can find out that yourself


Nope, I cannot. You misunderstood the question.
I was not asking you what "jusrisdiction" means.
The question is what you think it means.
How do you envision me finding that out other than from you?

Фoма
01-06-2006, 01:16 PM
and you were not that foma?

Sure, I was.
All three nicks are me.

She screwed the first one up (imposed cencorship on it) because I was saying something she did not like hearing here:
http://forum.russianamerica.com/f/showthread.php?t=18121&page=7
(scroll the page down to see the goodies).

So, I had to become 'foma'... she figured it out, and screwed it too...
I don't know, that woman must be on a mission or just has nothing better in life then the goal of shutting me up :-)
Must be the highest stage of denial I have ever seen yet :-)

So, I had to change it again.
That's the story.

Bumazhka
01-07-2006, 01:43 AM
Nope, I cannot. You misunderstood the question.I was not asking you what "jusrisdiction" means.The question is what you think it means.
How do you envision me finding that out other than from you?

Foma, your” jurisdiction thereof” will simply prove my point. Namely, that the 14th amendment was never designed for granting citizenship to foreigners. But I am tired of starting another debate, really. I will answer one last time, okey?

What do I think it means? - Exactly what it meant 140 years ago. But please, Foma, read me carefully. Here’s the amendment:

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.–United States Constitution, Amendment XIV, Section 1, clause 1

In other words, all people born in the US and subject to the jurisdiction thereof will be citizens. It doesn’t even say ”people born in the US will be subject to the jurisdiction thereof”. It implies that for people to be considered citizens they must be subject to "the jurisdiction thereof" at the time of their birth. And all people who meet this criterion will not be denied citizenship. You can’t interpret it any other way.

What does the word jurisdiction means here?

Complete allegiance to the US only. Not owing it to anybody else.

That’s how it was understood from the very beginning.

One of the decisions of the Supreme Court for example denied an Indian guy his citizenship even though he was born here. That judge basically said that since he wasn’t subject to the jurisdiction of the US he couldn’t be considered citizen even though he was born here. In other words he didn’t owe complete allegiance to the US In fact they had to even adapt a separate law called” the Indian citizenship act” in 1924.

In conclusion, as you see, from the beginning the purpose of this amendment wasn’t to grant citizenship just to anybody who happens to be born here. How else can be explained the decisions of the Supreme Court shortly after the amendment was adapted? For 30 year the Court adhered to the original meaning.

It proves beyond any reasonable doubt that the original intent of the amendment was not to grant citizenship to everybody born here. The court wouldn’t have contradicted it.

In time the amendment came to be interpreted differently. How, you can look up yourself. A lot of people don’t know this. How anybody could read the words of the amendment and not see the original meaning?

There is a lot of pieces of evidence that point to the fact that the amendment was designed to grant citizenship only to people subject to the jurisdiction thereof (US). There are a lot of people who don’t know that. Today people born to foreigners become citizens because this second part ”to the jurisdiction thereof ”of the amendment is omitted.

It would be proper to say that kids of foreigners’ become American citizens by birth NOT because of the 14 th amendment for it’s original meaning was clear but because ”to the jurisdiction thereof” is conveniently disregarded especially by those politicians who want to keep the corrupted” version of it.


P.S. You can find information on "Jurisdiction" and it's meaning as intended by the writers of the amendment itself online. Please, take care! ;)

Фoма
01-07-2006, 03:48 AM
What do I think it means?
...

What does the word jurisdiction means here?
...
Complete allegiance to the US only. Not owing it to anybody else.


Ок. Finally, an answer.
Complete nonsense though :-(.
Ever heard of dual citizenship? How about double citizenship?
You yourself have Russian passport. Accroding to your definition, you are not subject to jurisdiction then, and your children, if/when born in the US should not be citizens.

Now, look what this word really means:
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/jurisdiction
the power or right to exercise authority

Looks like we have finally found the source of your disconnect from the reality. :-)



One of the decisions of the Supreme Court for example denied an Indian guy his citizenship even though he was born here.


That is correct - Indians are indeed not subject to US jurisdiction - they are goverened by their autonomous and sovereign tribes.
They are therefore not entitled to the citizenship by letter of the 14th amendment.
Their citizenship is covered by a special law.

Bumazhka
01-07-2006, 07:50 PM
Every time is my last time, eh ?


Ок. Finally, an answer.
Complete nonsense though :-(.
And what’s your nonsense based on, I wonder?:)


Ever heard of dual citizenship? How about double citizenship? Accroding to your definition, you are not subject to jurisdiction then, and your children, if/when born in the US should not be citizens.
Yes, According to the intent of the amendment you couldn’t be a US citizen if owing allegiance to any foreign state, what’s not to understand?


Now, look what this word really means:
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/jurisdiction
the power or right to exercise authority .
So you looked in the dictionary like I told you after all? :)


Looks like we have finally found the source of your disconnect from the reality. :-) Don't see how...:confused:

Bumazhka
01-07-2006, 07:56 PM
That is correct - Indians are indeed not subject to US jurisdiction - they are goverened by their autonomous and sovereign tribes.
They are therefore not entitled to the citizenship by letter of the 14th amendment.
You crack me up, Foma!:D So I take it you agree with it…

If kids born to the Indian parents, wishing to acquire US citizenship and who had been here for centuries were not subject to the US jurisdiction then how foreigners from other countries are made subject to it?

Here’s the statement explaining the decision of 1884:

The jurisdiction requirement “put it beyond doubt that all persons, white or black, and whether formerly slaves or not, born or naturalized in the United States, and owing no allegiance to any alien power, should be citizens of the United States... The evident meaning of [the jurisdiction requirement] is, 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.”

This justice simply held close to the same interpretation of another case of 1873. Notice how the term “jurisdiction “ excluded foreigners in 1873: “the jurisdiction requirement was intended to exclude from [the Citizenship Clause’s] operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign states born within the United States.”

The Hamdi case gave hope to some that sooner or later the original intent of the amendment will be restored through the “court” since at least two justices didn’t agree with the opinion of O’Connor.

That’s why now when she’s retiring it’s important for them to put more conservative judges.

But off course many think that even better than having it restored through courts would be a “change” clause to the amendment. It would leave no room for ambiguities for future courts and put an end to “citizenship entitlement by birth” once and for all.

Фoма
01-07-2006, 09:51 PM
If kids born to the Indian parents, wishing to acquire US citizenship and who had been here for centuries were not subject to the US jurisdiction then how foreigners from other countries are made subject to it?


How they are subject to it? Did you read the definition?
Jurisdiction is the power to exercize authority. They can be arrested, put on trial, their property can be confiscated, they are obligated to pay taxes etc... this is jurisdicition.
And yes, they are subject to it.

The indians on the other hand were specifically excluded from the US jurisdiction, they have status similar to foreign diplomats, who, as you know, are not under US jurisdiction either.

Bumazhka
01-08-2006, 03:30 AM
You see Foma now we're getting closer to the truth, aren't we?;)


Maybe "all" did not mean "all" back then...or, maybe "persons" meant something different from what it means now (after all, we all know that "men" in "all mean are created equal" was really meant to be "white male", don't we? )
So then the 14th amendment by saying "ALL" didn't really mean all after all?
As hopefully you can see now the amendment by "ALL" wasn't supposed to include poor indians, right?
Only the ones subject to "the jurisdiction thereof".


How they are subject to it? Did you read the definition?
The indians on the other hand were specifically excluded from the US jurisdiction, they have status similar to foreign diplomats, who, as you know, are not under US jurisdiction either.

...The phrase 'subject to its jurisdiction' excluded from its operation 'children of ministers, consuls, and citizens of foreign states born within the United States.'

The only thing I don't understand here is how come foreign diplomats are listed here as "specifically excluded" and not under the amendment and indians aren't?

Let's see how the judge here interprets the 14th amendment, shall we?

"...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.'

You see by this judge, it's according to the 14th amendment that indians are excluded from citizenship just like diplomats and foreigners. :-)

Bumazhka
01-08-2006, 03:41 AM
didn't mean to post here, sorry...:-)

Фoма
01-08-2006, 11:12 AM
So then the 14th amendment by saying "ALL" didn't really mean all after all?


I was being sarcastic. Of course "all" means "all"... unless you are from some kind of alternate reality, with inverteg logic



As hopefully you can see now the amendment by "ALL" wasn't supposed to include poor indians, right?
Only the ones subject to "the jurisdiction thereof".


Right. All, subject to judirsdiction.
Exactly.



The only thing I don't understand here is how come foreign diplomats are listed here as "specifically excluded" and not under the amendment and indians aren't?


I have no idia what it is you are citing, and cannot speak for the author of that quote. I have no idea why you are asking me for the reasons why somebody esle wrote what they wrote.
I can only guess, that they did not intend to list all possible classes of people not subject to jursdiction, but rather just provided some examples.

Anyway... if you insist on your interpretation of the word "jurisdiction", you must agree then that you children born in the US should no become citizens.
Do you agree with that or not?