AZ Initiative Targets "Anchor Babies"
By Nicole Belle Sunday Dec 23, 2007 8:32amInteresting that as a recent poll showed, 60% support a pathway to citizenship, yet an Arizona legislator has decided to throw more obstacles in the path, and choose to make distinctions along gender lines.
Arizona voters may be asked to decide whether to prohibit the state from issuing birth certificates to children of non-U.S. citizens and require hospitals to check the citizenship of parents of newborns.[..]
Della Montgomery, the woman who filed the proposed initiative with the Secretary of State's Office, did not immediately return a call for comment Monday, but the proposed "Birthright Citizenship Alignment Act" appears to be aimed at illegal immigration.
"They are awarding the full privileges of United States citizenship of all persons born in the state without regard for the clear and equal requirements of federal law that a person born in the United States, shall citizenship be bestowed, shall not be subject to any foreign power and owe direct and immediate allegiance to the United States," the proposed initiative's declaration of purpose states.[..]
While generally banning issuance of birth certificates to non-citizens, the measure would permit one to be issued to a child whose mother is a foreign citizen and whose father is a U.S. citizen if the father formally acknowledges parentage and agrees in writing to financially support the child until adulthood.
Denying certificates to children born of an American mother and a foreign father? But not vice versa? And only if the father acknowledges paternity? Wow.
Login or Register to post comments.
Foist!
Geeezus H.W. Schmidt!
That's some fucked up legislation there.
Merry Humbug everyone.
I suspect this is illegal.
If a state were to deny someone a birth certificate in order to deny that person the rights of citizenship (and what other reason could there be?) that would seem to be a violation of the person's civil rights.
You misunderstand. No one is speaking of denying certificates to the children of American mothers. The child would be automatically given a certificate in that case. But you have to specify special procedures in the case where the right to citizenship is claimed through the father because parentage is much less obvious. "Momma's baby. Daddy's maybe."
I think it sounds like a good idea assuming you can get back to the original intent of the 14th Amendment. If neither of the parents is in the country legally, arrangements should be made for the child to get citizenship in one of his/her parent's countries.
Rethinking Birthright Citizenship by Ron Paul
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul346.html
A recent article in the Houston Chronicle discusses the problem of so-called anchor babies, children born in U.S. hospitals to illegal immigrant parents. These children automatically become citizens, and thus serve as an anchor for their parents to remain in the country. Our immigration authorities understandably are reluctant to break up families by deporting parents of young babies. But birthright citizenship, originating in the 14th amendment, has become a serious cultural and economic dilemma for our nation.
In some Houston hospitals, administrators estimate that 70 or 80% of the babies born have parents who are in the country illegally. As an obstetrician in south Texas for several decades, I can attest to the severity of the problem. It’s the same story in California, Arizona, and New Mexico. And the truth is most illegal immigrants who have babies in U.S. hospitals do not have health insurance and do not pay their hospital bills.
This obviously cannot be sustained, either by the hospitals involved or the taxpayers who end up paying the bills.
No other wealthy, western nations grant automatic citizenship to those who simply happen to be born within their borders to non-citizens. These nations recognize that citizenship involves more than the physical location of one’s birth; it also involves some measure of cultural connection and allegiance. In most cases this means the parents must be citizens of a nation in order for their newborn children to receive automatic citizenship.
Make no mistake, Americans are happy to welcome immigrants who follow our immigration laws and seek a better life here. America is far more welcoming and tolerant of newcomers than virtually any nation on earth. But our modern welfare state creates perverse incentives for immigrants, incentives that cloud the issue of why people choose to come here. The real problem is not immigration, but rather the welfare state magnet.
Hospitals bear the costs when illegal immigrants enter the country for the express purpose of giving birth. But illegal immigrants also use emergency rooms, public roads, and public schools. In many cases they are able to obtain Medicaid, food stamps, public housing, and even unemployment benefits. Some have fraudulently collected Social Security benefits.
Of course many American citizens also use or abuse the welfare system. But we cannot afford to open our pocketbooks to the rest of the world. We must end the perverse incentives that encourage immigrants to come here illegally, including the anchor baby incentive.
I’ve introduced legislation that would amend the Constitution and end automatic birthright citizenship. The 14th amendment was ratified in 1868, on the heels of the Civil War. The country, especially the western territories, was wide open and ripe for homesteading. There was no welfare state to exploit, and the modern problems associated with immigration could not have been imagined.
Our founders knew that unforeseen problems with our system of government would arise, and that’s precisely why they gave us a method for amending the Constitution. It’s time to rethink birthright citizenship by amending the 14th amendment.
You're born here, you're a citizen. Its in our constitution - the 14th Amendment.
"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
So that referendum, proposed by Della, would seem to be unconstitutional.
Gee, once again the xenophobic,misogynistic, RACIST repugnant-clan wingnuts o da west figure a lil ol thing (or to quote our war criminal in chief "that Gawd Damnd piece of paper")like The Constitution and Bill of Rights of the United States of America doesn't apply to them. According to the Constitution, all persons BORN in the United States A-R-E citizens of the United States. Gee, it must REALLY suck to be so box o hammers stupid and have it glaringly pointed out at every turn don't it.
Well, thank goodness that the father can simply deny parentage. Its been getting to nasty lately what with blood tests and paternity tests.... harder and harder to duck out of paying for your children.
But this is great! The little brat will get exported from his country of birth, along with their mother, and neither will ever get back into the USA to file a lawsuit!
(snark, of course...)
Yeah those fuckers are here for our welfare! Er- wait, isn't welfare a microscopic portion of the annual budget? Those damned illegals might cut into our Military Industrial Complex spending! This shall not stand!
GTFO with your unconstitutional garbage, AZ...yeesh.
Well, of course this measure just makes sense.
If you're a misogynistic talibangelical whose brain is ate up with stage four Lou Dobb's Disease.
Chris @ 6:
Ah, but that's the rub. The law wouldn't say they aren't citizens - a state cannot do that. The law would say that the state would deny them documentation to prove that they were citizens. A somewhat subtle distinction.
justabill @ 10:
Talibangelical!? Awesome!! Can I steal that word? ;)
liberalNmoderation @ 12:
I must confess that talibangelical did not originate with me, but I can't remember where I borrowed it from.
My daughter was born in Germany but isn't a German citizen, since she would have had to have one parent who was already a German citizen. Most other Western countries do not recognize that simply being born within their borders confers citizenship. However, having said that, the Constitution is clear. The only way to change that is to through and Amendment. It is something we should as a country consider. As for this law, I am shocked that a man may declare he isn't the father and deny the child citizenship. IF the father denies the child, citizenship should be based upon a DNA test. We do it all the time to determine paternity. This is a poorly thought out and written law.
There is a Republican legislator here in Oklahoma that is writing the same piece of legislation. According to our State Attorney General, if passed, it will be found unconstitutional because the U.S. Constitution is clear about children born in this country to foreign parents. This is just an example of a struggling Republican Party trying to use a wedge issue. Gay marriage cannot be used anymore so they have to try something to energize their constituents.
On the surface, this proposed plan might not seem to be PC, and, perhaps, even constitutionally challengable.
On the other hand, as so many keep reminding us, we are a 'Christian Nation', and this is a very 'Christian' plan.
Fathers are the unquestioned rulers of the family, so it's obvious that fathers should be the determining factor in whether an illegal alien child should be permitted citizenship. Just ask the US 'Christian' authority, Waldo Huckabee.
Since men, in the 'Christian' scheme of things, rightfully earn much more money than women, they should be the ones to determine whether their tax dollars are wasted on providing health care and food and education on illegal alien infants, and that's that.
Just ask Waldo Huckabee, the US 'Christian' authority.
Also, women are devious creatures, who plot to take advantage of men, irrespective of the laws of man and 'god', so they often attempt to trap men into fathering illegal alien tots, and frequently succeed, sometimes even fraudulently attributing parentage to a man who is not the father. This is a well-known fact of life, and men should not have to pay part of their future incomes to support such fraudulent illegal alien children.
Just ask our US 'Christian' authority, Waldo Huckabee.
So, all things considered, the Arizona proposals will meet with approval by the only valid authority, the 'Christian' 'god'.
Just ask Waldo.
Swashbuckler @ 3:
Arizona (or some Senator within it) thinks that it can simply ignore the 14th Amendment? Interesting . . .
Amendment XIV Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
But, gee, Karl did it whenever he felt like it. Why can't we? WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!
It goes without saying that this would be unconstitutional.
By the 14th Amendment, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States...". Furthremore, the court held in Plyler v. Doe that the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" does not distinguish between persons whose parents are resident aliens and persons whose parents who entered unlawfully.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plyler_v._Doe
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol...
Denying a US Citizen a birth certificate would violate the Due Process protections of the 14th Amendment.
My apologies for this post being "off topic" but take a look at this "new police tactic" happening right now in Green Bay and soon to be coming to a city, town, or village near you:
Police Begin Fingerprinting on Traffic Stops
Source: WBAY-TV Green Bay
If you're ticketed by Green Bay police, you'll get more than a fine. You'll get fingerprinted, too. It's a new way police are cracking down on crime.
"If you're caught speeding or playing your music too loud, or other crimes for which you might receive a citation, Green Bay police officers will ask for your drivers license and your finger. You'll be fingerprinted right there on the spot. The fingerprint appears right next to the amount of the fine."
Naturally, Police say it's meant to protect you! And by the way, if you think this outrageous behaviour by the police violates your constitutional rights, you're probably right! BUT REMEMBER it's the SUPREME COURT who would have to make the final decision - Does anyone really want to "Roll the Dice" with THIS Supreme Court?? Or better yet, with the Supreme Court or what's left of it IF a Republican is our next President.
What do you expect?
The Advent of the Culti is upon us".
Merry Bobmas Everyone.
Swashbuckler @ 11:
Hmmm yes kind of like ...
You need special government issued ID to vote but we are only going to give you that in exchange for a $100 fee so if you are poor just STFU and don't even think about voting.
I shake my head everyday at the innovation involved in denying people their rights.
The invading Mexican army is making new plans, holding a heavy schedule of conferences, even during this holiday season, to determine a strategy to overcome the impending Arizona restrictions, scheduled to take effect January 1st.
General 'Berto Gonzales cried, wringing his brown hands, 'If we are no longer able to sneak our soldiers into the US hidden in the wombs of pregnant women, what shall we do?'
The army's plans are not yet finalized, but an inside leaker has hinted that the US border patrol should keep a sharp lookout for fat sheep and cattle crossing the Rio Grande.
"Anchor Babies" is a myth and a lie, promulgated by racist websites such as VDARE, FAIR, and American Resistance. The term has its roots in Nineteenth-century anti-Irish and anti-Italian immigration, and its simply being applied these days to Mexican immigrants.
Additionally, there are NO actual statistics about "anchor babies," only right-wing echo-chamber statistics originally manufactured out of whole cloth by the bigots at VDARE et al. A quick Google of the "estimates" show that they range from 150,000 and quickly inflate to half a million. However, a simple analysis of what few statistics do exist - of births to Hispanic women (citizenship status is not recorded) - make it clear that EVERY BABY born to an Hispanic woman in a southwestern state would have to be an anchor baby in order for the bigoted claims to be true.
If we had an actual progressive (much less Democratic) press, they would challenge these made-up numbers, and they would present the history of the term "anchor baby" and the lying bigots who employ it. Instead they post the numbers, unchallenged, in large-type headlines, and credulously ask "what can we do about this threat?"
The reason why it applies to an American mother and foreign father, but not vice versa is cuz we gotsta protect our white wimmen from dem darkies... tell yew whut.
ProDem @ 20:
I guess means we have Arrived (at Fahrenheit 451)
Swashbuckler @ 3:
Yup, and denying the child its inalienable rights also facilitates a civil liberties legal challenge as well.
The bigots need to crawl back under their rocks. Della Montgomery obviously has nothing better to do because Consuela's daughter won't be joining her mother to work for Della as a maid, but is being sent off to MIT to get a good education and a good job.
What does Michelle Malkin say about this??? LOL!
Swashbuckler @ 11:
Denying a US Citizen essential documentation of that citizenship would be a violation of the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment.
ConcernedCanuck @ 28:
Does it mean her kids get deported if Jesse denies he's their father?
And Della got mad at Consuela, because Consuela's sending her child off to college, instead of making her toil for Della, so Della gets it into her pea-sized brain to introduce this stupid initiative on the ballot for '08.
I hope she's not depending on Domenici and Heather Wilson to get the job done - they're toast...
I hope this doesn't become law and isn't retro-active...I'm 1st generation German, my dad is not a US citizen...Wow, I could be deported! ;) I've always wanted visit my dads hometown anyway.
The Mexican government is taking a not-so-innovative, in fact, a tried-and-true, approach to the impending border crisis with the US.
Petro, Mexico's oil company, has applied for a grant, and foreign aid, from the US, to 'Improve and modernize the infrastructure of Petro's oil producing and refining capabilities in order to provide the capacity to increase exports to the US by as much as 50% in the event the US shall lose access to it's historic suppliers in the Middle East and Venezuela'.
As you can imagine, this proposal is being welcomed with open arms in the White House and the Halls of Congress.
Insiders report that the proposal contains enough of a bloated estimate to provide one million Mexicans with $1,000 each to bribe the US border guards to allow passage into the US each year.
Ain't no problem can't be solved.
There is no way this law, if passed, is constitutional. States do not have the ability to grant US citizenship.
I don't agree with this policy at all. Putting children in the middle is the WRONG answer, whatever your other opinions on the matter.
But I can see the difference here. Women bear children. Men don't. Pretty simple; there really ARE some differences between the sexes, you know. Having a male cross the border illegally to knock up the first woman he sees in hopes of becoming a citizen... well, that isn't going to play well with the locals. A pregnant woman crossing the border to have baby on U.S. soil just doesn't sound as bad to most people. Not equal, but technically neither is the "value" of a man or woman to society on the most basic level (the Chinese have it backwards). UG! ME MAN PROTECT YOU WOMAN!
And the truth is in-between... anchor babies happen, just not to the degree expressed in these hyped up propaganda pieces. Answer: Fix Mexico Already.
Preacher Boob @ 23:
Here's a plan the neocons should like:
We invade Mexico on some pretext and then annex the northern half of the country.
Oh, wait, we already did that.
If this law passes mustard and makes it retroactive to say 1900, Alberto Gonzales would be considered a illegal alien. He never could prove whether or not, his grandparents came here legally or not, at the turn of the 20th Century!
It disgusts me how the illegal immigration issue gained any traction at. Guess you can't underestimate the hatred lurking in the dark underbelly of the US. It also puzzles me how many businesses privately admit (and sometimes publicly) that their industries, agriculture, construction, hospitality, etc, would suffer without illegal labor. Maybe they love the idea that cranking up the heat with threats of new immigration law and deportation makes it easier to exploit a work force.
Della Montgomery is oblivious to the fact that she must amend the Constitution of the United States of America in order to deny citizenship to anyone born in the U.S.
Denying the children of American women citizenship? Nothing spells American women are scumbags and garbage like a Della Montgomery Act.
The father has to prove he sired the child and agree to pay for the child or what? Montgomery is going to toss the baby into the trash can and the father is going to be imprisoned?
I'm wondering what Della Montgomery is going to do when the hospitals all get back logged with mothers and babies waiting to get through the legal mess she is creating, maybe toss them on the streets or into holding cells.
There are way too many legislators like Montgomery who do not ever actually think. They pull things out of their asses and wave it around like a shiny trinket.
i just came from the agonist site and one of the last pieces i read there was of somewhat of a related note -and ProDem's comment here at #20 also comes to mind:
Papez Pleez
Cops in Scottsdale, Ariz., Now Routinely Ask Suspects for Proof of Citizenship
http://www.rawstory.com/news/mochila/Ariz_city_cops_ask_citizenship_proo...
http://agonist.org/ww/20071223/papez_pleez
It's funny in an odd sort of way, but this is similar to the [deleted by site monitor] code. My father was [deleted by site monitor] but my mother wasn't and I've grown up with people looking down their nose at me, especially when I lived in Los Angeles. I've never even been asked if I converted, just treated like a bastard child. Which I assure you, I wasn't.
Which makes me wonder, is the US a country or a religion?
myiq2xu @ 35:
If at first you don't succeed,..........................
Zuma @ 39:
This is sure gonna cut down on the number of people dressing up and wandering around in brownface
.
This law sounds good. We all here agree that Bush should follow the rule of law yet some here are just fine with illegal immigrants not following the rule of law. You can't make exceptions the law is the law for the president or anyone else. Complaining about this is just too far out there.
The problem to me is that we're creating two age old classes, the indentured and the slave class.
Mexican and Central Americans can end up owing so much for their border crossing they become indentured servants make a low wage and sending it back.
Prison labor makes a dollar or two an hour and makes their corporate sponsors a fortune. Which means corporate bought politicians have no incentive to repeal minimum sentence times for non-violent crimes.
Pretty soon, Catholic priests in Arizona will be required to ask for proof of citizenship of the kids they are molesting.
filipurr @ 43:
Uhh... This proposed law is unconstitutional. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. So, in what sense does this law sound good if you value the rule of law?
DonsBlog @ 40:
OK, dammit, I have NO idea what you are saying. I am sorry, however, that apparently your father was deleted by the sitemonitor. It doesn't look like you were trolling but since the overzealous sitemonitor deleted all the meaning out of your post through censorship, we'll never know.
Donsblog did his own editing. There was no censorship. ~sitemonitor
(I apologize if my statistics links have been somehow multiply posted - for some reason nothing I've posted since my first comment is appearing in the comment list after I hit submit. I'm quite confused.)
Oh sure, THAT shows up!
Here's a look at how transparently fake the "anchor babies" estimates are...
165,000
http://www.americanpatrol.com/REFERENCE/anchorbaby_FAIR.html
200,000
http://www.topix.com/forum/state/az/TG9P3UBISVLDOSOEG
300,000
http://www.redpills.org/index.php?s=anchor+babies&submit=Search
400,000
http://www.voiceforvoters.com/?cat=3
500,000
http://www.vdare.com/guzzardi/050325_birthright.htm
800,000
http://www.congress.org/congressorg/bio/userletter/?id=594&letter_id=160...
Oh sure, THAT shows up. It must be the links...
Yup. The filters pick up any post with more than five links. Next time, try to break it up to multiple posts. ~sitemonitor
My question is, after we deport all illegals - who is the Party of Hate going to latch on to next?
1st it's the immigrants who serve as the designated scapegoats. who will be next?
No insult intended site monitor, just using a generic term. Does it matter which religion? And some people are sensitive to the way Jews are brought up in a subject.
It's just that we're coming to hold US citizenship to be like being part of a cult where you're either born into it and have full rights or you're not and you're pond scum.
This bill proposes that people born here can't be US citizens now unless they're born of the blood of a US citizen, and it has to be a certain parent on top of it. Like the Jewish Orthodoxy, where membership to the Jewish community can only be handed down through the mother.
If a person born here doesn't have true citizenship then there are some that attempt to strip away rights of habeas corpus, right to not be tortured, right to hold a job....
swarmofkillermonkeys @ 47:
This is illegal. The state can't pass a law that is in violation of Federal Immigration laws. It's that simple. What are they smoking down in AZ? Xenophobe cigars?
The constitutional provision was enacted after the Civil War and was meant to apply to former slaves, said Rep. Russell Pearce, R-Mesa. "It has nothing to do with aliens."
Rep. Pearce is highly mistaken. Precedent proves his contention wrong. Should we strip the citizenship of all those who were born in American Embassies and Consulates during the Cold War? Whatever the "intent" of the writers of any portion of the U.S. Constitution, the wording is pretty clear. All persons born on U.S. soil, its properties, territories and protectorates are deemed U.S. Citizens and any attempt to circumvent this right, is unconstitutional.
I am waiting for the day when Rep. Pearce is voted out of office so as he can't use his office for these unconstitutional games.
Michelle Malkin better not travel to Arizona. She might find herself deported to the Philippines.
justabill @ 13:
Too late. I'm going to use it....errrr borrow it. (Is that OK?).
DonsBlog @ 53:
Well, I guess in a way (I won't claim it was intentional, and thanks for the clarification sm.) this may prove that context DOES matter. :)
I agree the danger is when children (who cannot choose their context) or ethnicity are involved, you have a dangerous and self-defeating problem. I guess I'd heard of that system of Jewish Orthodoxy a while ago, but had forgotten and didn't connect the dots. But I think immigration control through natural birth is of a far more practical nature.
For example, America (whether it admits it or not) is very aware of just how much of it's greatness has come from accepting those born in other lands. It is VITAL. However, reality dictates that we cannot accept all the people, all the time. It just isn't practical anymore (overpopulation of the planet).
But the only reason America is a superpower now, is that our German Jews that we stole were better than the ones the Russians got. Really, the enormity of that contribution seems to be overlooked to me. I honestly cannot picture today's America that had turned away the Jewish exodus from Germany/Europe as well as the "Nazi" scientists. I'm not even sure it would still be a country. I'm sure similar things happen on a daily basis even today (perhaps on a smaller scale) with Russia, India, Pakistan, and emerging African countries. Even Mexico.
But the practical needs to "patch the boat before all climb aboard and sink it" is still a valid concern, no matter how much the Lou Dobbs and racist nativists would abuse the concept. There will always be the need to screen based on nationality, until we either make more resources (not going to happen) or make less people (a grim answer).
ProDem @ 20:
The Maricopa County Sheriff's Department, under the wonderful leadership of the fine and upstanding Sheriff Joe Arpaio , has been fingerprinting motorists who are charged with felony traffic violations, but are not hauled off to jail. Sheriff Arpaio claims this is to fight "identity theft" by proving that the person is really who they say they are. In reality, it is aimed at those are DWB (Driving While Brown) here in Arizona. Its rather shameful in all honesty.
justabill @ 13:
The word dates back to 2006, with this post: http://waitingforcicero.blogspot.com/2006/11/note-to-crew-from-rapid.html
liberalNmoderation @ 31:
You might want to try and get that German citizenship. The way things are going in this country, it doesn't hurt to have an EU passport.
I am really tired of local and state governments acting in unconstitutional manners. They attempt to usurp the rights of citizens and all those who are within our borders and they attempt to deal with an issue that the state's are not allowed to deal with.
Of course, it would be nice if those on the federal level would want to deal with the issue (by passing the comprehensive immigration reform plan), but instead, it looks like those on the far right would rather have illegal immigration as an issue for 2008 and beyond than actually try and solve the issue.
filipurr @ 43:
Ummmm..WHAT? Are you reading the same article we are? DO YOU COMPREHEND the fact that it's unconstitutional?
I ran into a talibangelical the other day, and he told me they are antagonistic to the evanfundafascists, because they wear their rags on their feet.
Chris @ 6:
Yep. Unfortunately, you're right.
See, this is why I hate bringing up a particular culture.
If you believe in the intellectual superiority of Ashkenazi Jews then this would be true. That would also imply other people have inferior intellect. I don't believe in inferior and superior groups, i think different groups have different specialties.
I believe in parallel invention, things are invented because their time has come.
I also believe that those that are risk takers in migrating also risk takers in business and science. Hence Silicon Valley.
There also is no overpopulation problem, just different rates of assimilation and a misappropriate disbursement of resources. Do away with consumerism and we'd have plenty for everybody. In the world. We're just less likely to invent new things.
No, I don't want the criminals of society like Cuba sent us. But the illegal immmigrants I've met are great workers and fantastic citizens. And if they're willing to risk their lives to get here then they are going to place more value in US citizenship than the fat cats that were born here.
swarmofkillermonkeys @ 58:
That's not what I was getting from Swarm's post. I think what they meant was that to turn away an outsider because one is a xenophobe could have dire consequences of which one would unaware.
Amongst any group of people there are a range of talents and some of those talents might be nuclear physicis, or high level math. Some of those talents might be good technique for sustaining manual labor. It's wrong to place any judgement on either set of talents. There is room for people of all kinds, like you said, if we as a culture would stop devaluing and dehumanizing the ditch digger. Clearly we need the ditches or nobody would be paid to dig them.
DonsBlog @ 66:
I suspect this is unconstitutional but I would support a change in the constitution that altered this outrageous giveaway... Just because you can sneak across the border and have a baby in an emergency room that American taxpayers pay for shouldn't make the offspring of these criminals a citizen and provide these criminals a foothold in the USA. The 60% surveyed in the parent post were probably in southern california. I agree that most americans support legal immigration but they don't support rewarding people who violated the law (immigration or otherwise) with the greatest gifts this country can bestow...
If this site is any indication on how america feels about illegal immigration or rewarding illegals with citizenship then the breakdown is more like 80/20 in favor or increased border security and forcing those who came here illegally back to where they came from.
JustaBill...do you perchance recal seeing it over a taylor marsh's site? As in THAT'S MY LINE and I WANT my residuals and copyright fees!!! Here's another UUUUUberchristofacistictalibangelical pretty much covers these republitards don't it?
"they don't support those who violated the law" Oh, you mean like the racist, xenophobes who are trying to get this unconstitutional crap passed? Listen up skippy, or "vexed" As my Grandfather would say to the palefaced wannabe indians at the powows "if ya don't speak lakota with a native accent, ya oughta go back where ya came from."
Um....while I don't want to get into the details of whether this is Constitutional or not (which it's probably not) I would have to say that the 60% of Arizona residents who support amnesty for illegals are...illegal, or have family who is/was. I live here, and I don't know of a single person (and I work in public service so I see/know a lot) who actually supports amnesty. Anchor babies are a REAL phenomenon. Go to any hospital in Southern Arizona and listen at the labor/delivery lobby, or do a public records request, and look at the names/citizenship on the birth certificates.
I used to live in Bisbee...mothers would come across the border in active labor from Agua Prieta in order to have their babies in Douglas or Bisbee every day of the week, because then they could stay. How do I know that? Saw it for myself on a number of occasions, talked extensively with doctors/nurses in the area.
My grandparents emigrated here. They paid the price, they did their time, they came legally and jumped the hoops they needed to jump to get citizenship.
Bringing up the fact that this is a country of immigrants does nothing to change the now. When those immigrants came here in 1800's and early 1900's there were no social welfare programs; you worked and made a life or you died. There was no free healthcare because hospitals were not required to accept anyone and everyone who came through their doors; that was what the charity hospitals were for. People had very strong motivation to learn the language and be fluent because there wasn't anyone mandating that there be translators available.
Re-reading a few times I understand what you mean ShouldBeWorking . I was reading natural born differently.
I don't think it matters what we want, whether this law is constitional or not. The corporatists have said they want cheap labor and both federal Democrats and Republicans have shown no willingness to execute whatever laws are on the books now. Like the medical marijuana bills, the states can pass any bill they want and then the federal government will do what they want. All they have to do is seize any state truck trying to deliver illegals over the border and assist them in returning 'home'.
Or they'll pass bills allowing Mexican truck drivers to drive across a check point with no check for 'wink wink nod nod' live cargo.
As a resident of Az, I wont defend morons.
However, it is critical to understand - and I know you live in the GREATEST nation on earth, a nation that EVERYONE wants to be a citizen of (sarcasm) - but the main problem is the ABSENCE of a guest working program. Believe it or not, not everyone wants citizenship. The overwhelming majority DO want a job. That is why they are here. Pat yourself on the back if you want and believe they are all seeking the american dream - but your dillusion is in fact the dream.
They are here for jobs for the most part. Create a guest worker program and stop subjecting them to slavery. This isnt illegal immigration - its undocumented working.
I could outline a program, but honestly I am not convinced you read this stuff in anycase.
P.S.
In case you hadnt notice, we have immigration systems. Many Mexicans have and do avail themselves of these systems. The issue isnt immigration its legal guest workers.
Why would a Mexican not want to be a Mexican. Some in the US consider the very word Mexican akin to (sorry) the word nigger. A dear friend of mine born in Jalisco and raised in L.A. could give you a very long lecture on this very point.
Not All Mexican want to be americans - quite the contrary.
Paul B. @ 15:
The foreign parentage does not equal illegally in the country. If a Canadian, for example, were in the country legally and has a kid that is one thing, but when a Canadian purposely comes to the country illegally to have a kid hoping to stay because of the kid being an anchor baby - do not think so.
Go Arizona!
DonsBlog @ 66:
I don't believe any such thing as the "intellectual superiority" of any given people! In fact, we are making stride on PROOVING that great intelligence arises spontaneously in nearly EVERY group -- access to training and cultural norms are the only barriers. That is your (incorrect) inference, although now that I think of it, I am reminded that that is something of a self important meme in some communities. I think I even read a piece that though a little "tongue-in-cheek" claimed some sort of genetic superiority of a sect (on slate.com or salon.com), so I guess I can't blame you for the assumption. Disturbing, and untrue, in my opinion. It appears we agree completely on this.
What I meant by bringing up that particular example is that even in one of the most despised and unpopular places on earth -- Nazi Germany -- the immigrants accepted from that country proved a great bounty for the entire free world. Not because they were Jewish or Austrian, or whatever, but because they became great believers in the American experiment. There are people of great worth that America would be foolish to turn away in EVERY culture, or society.
However, your ideas of predestination (things being invented not by human intelligence and diligence, but spontaneously created according to a divine timeline) or obliviousness to the concept of finite resources, infinite reproductive capacity I STRONGLY disagree with. You can't just say, "oh, breed away with abandon, everything will be just fine". No, it won't. That has NEVER been the case with humans or any other living creature. It isn't just an unscientific concept, it's completely contrary to every single example in nature. The only thing that NATURALLY solves unrestricted expansion without predation of a species is a VIOLENT, MASS DEATH. Now, personally, I think we should use our gift of human intelligence to avoid this disaster and just maybe do a little family planning, don't you?
Resources. Are. Finite. Believe it. Truly, it is mind boggling how many otherwise sane people just cover their eyes and stick their fingers in their ears on this concept. Technology is great. I love it. I work in the field, and am addicted to reading about it -- current implementations and speculative fiction consume all of my free time. But you know what? Technology doesn't CREATE resources. It is the field of tools that allows us better access to resources, more efficient use or distribution of existing resources. We cannot create where there was nothing before, however. Religious or not, that seems to be the hard truth at this point.
Consumer culture may have turned destructive, and currently be out of control, but it is a distraction. Eliminating Wal-Mart will do nothing on the grand scale, if overpopulation continues. In fact, you could argue that U.S. consumers failing to live within their means, and global scale of populations failing to live within THEIR means (populations that can subsist on regional sustainable organic agriculture WITHOUT overtaxing the land/water supply) as two sides of the same coin.
People's reluctance to talk reasonably about realistic immigration controls pales in comparison to how uncomfortable they get when talking about population control. It's a tough subject, with no easy answers, so instead we pretend it isn't a problem period. That will hurt us in the end -- sooner rather than later, as these religions are banning family planning and birth control, and trying to out breed each other.
Della Montgomery came from immigrant background, it's time to take away her (birthright) citizenship and ship her out of the country. maybe we can send her to gitmo as a possible enemy combatant. she certainly is working against US citizens and our constitution.
Blue Buddha @ 25:
Well, I see what you are saying. What would have the reichwingers going mental would be my very white foreign husband being married to black me.
Hospital staff are not immigration officers. It's none of anyone's fucking business who's on the birth certificate. Find another place to practice your bigotry.
I don't know where you come up with that 60% favor amnesty for 30-40 million illegal hispanics. If that were true, the amnesty bill would have gone through, but Congress got so many e-mails and phone calls protesting letting these people stay here, they had to abandon the bill.
enforcing our laws is not bigotry or racism, it's the reason we pay billions for a border patrol. If you want to help the corporatist neoCons, then support amnesty for anyone who can figure out how to get into the country illegally and stay here.
Of course, once these people become citizens, they'll lose their jobs because the corps will have to observe their legal rights and stop exploiting them. Then, the corps will just find another population of deprived, destitute third world people to import illegally and all the citizens who are working will have to support all the unemployed hispanics who were amnestied to please the corps. And, of course, some of the unemployed minority will turn to crime to support themselves ( we haven't had enough of that apparently) and other Americans will get to be their victims. Sounds like a great little society, don't you think?
Birthright citizenship is retarded. That itself is the problem. Time to move with the centuries I think, and stop it. The reasons we started it have now vanished.
And prosecute employers who employ illegal people, and put the military, all half a trillion a year of it's funded ass on the border to finally protect our soveriengty. Problem solved. I can put up with a rise in food prices. Food is disgustingly cheap in the first place.
Susan @ 71:
The real point is: this issue is not about immigrants, it's about ILLEGAL ENTRANTS. they're not a few desperate people looking for work. ONe third of the total population of Mexico is now living illegally in the U. S. and nothing is being done to curb the flow. That's what Americans are upset about. If we wanted to live in Mexico, we'd go down and take over Acapulco. Get it?
liberalNmoderation @ 2:
You go, AZ! Maybe the rest of the states will catch on.
jr @ 5:
If this is in the 14th Amendment, then it was intended to convey citizenship on slaves born in the U. S. to counter Roger Taney's opinion in Dred Scott that slaves had no rights because they were not citizens (and not even persons). The hispanic organizations in the U. S. are waging a war with Americans to posit the rights inherently claimed by freed slaves (people who were kidnapped and forced to work in the U. S.) on illegal hispanics who have forced their way into this country and have chosen to work in near slave conditions. Not the same thing at all, but La Raza has a lot of liberals sucked in so that they're willing to work against their own self preservation.
Read "What's Wrong With Kansas?" Well, the same thing is wrong with liberals on this issue.
secularhumanizinevoluter @ 70:
I guess that would include Mexicans and Guatamalans who can't speak English at all?
Albatross @ 24:
This is not a myth, although the "threat" and "illegal alien" aspects of it have clearly been blown out of all proportion. Most of it happens with people who are in the country legally, but are not citizens. I have seen it happen. Here is how it works:
Daughter of poor family in Country X uses the Internet to hook up with some lonely Joe in the states who doesn't know any better. He flies her over. They get married. She gets pregnant as quickly as possible. 9 months later, the kid is born a citizen. 3 months after that, the mother takes her citizen child and returns home, abandoning her husband. When the child is older (and after the marriage has been dissolved because of abandonment, with no obligations on the mother), the child returns to the states as a citizen and proceeds to work on bringing over the rest of the family.
Strange, but true. I saw it happen to a pathetic coworker. Twice (he was a moron)...
Of course, this isn't some epidemic that threatens the Republic. It's just another wedge to get poor people to vote for conservatives. But it does happen. There is a cottage industry for it.
And there is another issue of women who are brought here as modern-day "mail-order brides" who wind up abandoning their husbands and getting sold into near-slavery (either sweatshop labor or worse) by crime syndicates (this situation may have improved since I first read about it, but I somehow doubt it). It's sort of a less legal variation on the Abramoff/DeLay "model of capitalism" on Saipan. Young Chinese women were, IIRC, the most exploited. But this doesn't fall into the same bucket as the Anchor Baby nonsense. I only mention it because both schemes begin with the Internet and some poor sap who can't get a regular date.
Slinky the Wonder Ferret @ 84:
Not only that, but in all the Mexican border towns along the US border, certain rooms in the whorehouses are designated 'breeding rooms', where the girls are encouraged to get pregnant, the government pays for their expenses and gives them a modest stipend to make up for their 'lost income'. When the girls are about to give birth, they are sneaked across the border, have their babies in the US, and then leave them with Mexican 'breeder mothers' who raise many of these babies at once., in 'breeding houses'. The girls are free and encouraged to return to Mexico and breed again
Libertas @ 60:
A simple google search turns up older mentions of "talibangelical" on the first page.
secularhumanizinevoluter @ 69:
OK, providing you can prove it, I'll hereby agree that you can have 90% of all the money I've made off of the use of the term. (.90 x 0 =)
YellowSnow @ 85:
The sad thing is, someone will take you seriously. Still, just because you can take things to a ludicrous extreme doesn't mean slinky is without a point...
There is a simple answer of course:
For Preventing The Children of Poor People in Mexico
From Being A Burden to Their Parents or Country, and
For Making Them Beneficial to The Public
All this talk about unconstitutionality is moot
Arizona already has a companion bill offered that will provide for it's secession from the Union, and moving the state to the Bahamas, as soon as they cleanse the population of the illegal aliens.
Susan @ 71:
Racism.
The good ole days .... were terrible.
Tell you what maam, stop eating fruits and vegetables and do a careful records check and discover that your home was probably in part built by CHEAP mexican labor. If so, sell it and move.
swarmofkillermonkeys @ 88:
Yeah, Swarm, but much as I dislike the current situation, I really don't think cannibalism is a viable solution.
Yes, let's start using Europeans countries immigration and naturalization policies that keep legal and illegal immigrants from intrgirating into the european countries - it has worked so well for them
There's another possible solution for this problem. Unfortunately, it's not immediate, but it does hold hope for the near future.
Tancredo and Huckabee have joined with several of Inhofe's top scientists, and they have already had some success processing illegal aliens to convert them to an acceptable substitute for gasoline and diesel fuel. Of course it's not economically viable yet, but one of the ironies is, that preliminary studies prove that many more illegal aliens than are now available will be needed for economic success.
And won't that be a typically American twist, in order to not have to give up our automobiles, we will have to encourage many more illegals to violate our borders.
A bit scattered but that's what happens after four hours of sleep.
I don't believe in predestination. It's kind of a rising tide raises all ships. There was a really good series on (probably British) that showed how one invention led to another led to another. But often one invention would have proliferated in many places before the next one occured. Allowing for the same next invention in many places.
Although I think we agree on the importance of immigrants, I disagree with the facts of your example. The Germans had a great education system and had invested in heavy water and rockets. I believe many immigrated before the war, like Einstein. Yet now days, some physicists regard Einstein as a bit of a simpleton in the math world. Another PBS series. My favorite physicist these days is a black man that for a while at least had his own show on PBS. While I think the german scientists and mathemeticians were important, I think it was their experience and not their heritage that made them successful. By screening them based on several factors we got extremely valuable researchers. But we would have come up with the same discoveries eventually with or without them.
I believe that allowing people to immigrate is important because the very same characteristics that make them immigrants also make them vital to the growth of the US.
I wouldn't let just anyone in, but I believe they should be admitted in on the tradition of assimilation rates which are set for each countries quotas.
The populations in most advanced economies are actually declining. Japan is having a terrible time finding enough workers, there's talk of Italy disappearing, and immigrant minorities are exceeding domestic caucasians.
Muslims and latinos seem to be increasing, caucasians and some asians decreasing.
We have plenty of resources. I've seen the amount of food hotels in Las Vegas throw out. I'd just like some of those resources to go to third world countries. Problem is that the ruling juntas in those countries control the flow for political gain. That's something we're not going to overcome for a while. So I don't think our economy is all that threatened by incoming immigrants at the current rate. In fact, I'd guess ROI is a net plus at the moment. If that will continue when the NPP opens the flood gates I don't know.
Trying to create a law based on one particular birth parent seems to be a bad way to screen or award rights. Rejecting people because neither parent is a citizen and both have violated the law does seem like a good way to award citizenship. Which might allow children of legal immigrants to claim citizenship. Since that person's parents are here legally, I have no problem with that child being awarded citizenship.
But basing citizenship on one parent just seems to be more like a cult or Roman citizen.
swarmofkillermonkeys @ 74:
So the voters get to decide on a State law which may be in conflict with Federal law and it passed, will challenged in the courts.
Swarm, this is weird, I had no idea your link was to Jonathan Swift, I made my 'cannabilism' comment off the top of my head.
YellowSnow @ 91:
Not politically viable, you mean. It would definitely solve the problem. But then some damn liberal would complain that "children are people too" and have a "God-given right not to be eaten" or some crap like that. You know how whiny those libs can be... always getting in the way of an efficient solution.
But the problem with the European model is "multiculturalism". As in, "let's import just enough poor brown people to have cheap toilet-cleaning labor". Then once people showed up, they have multi-cultures. As in, "you brown people have your own culture over there in that slum, and us white people will run the country and control all the money and nice property".
America's melting pot might be a bitch with the supposedly HUGE burden of having to learn English or participate in our ONE court system or citizenship testing, instead of getting your own separate sharia courts, but I like it just fine. It sure works better to require a LITTLE assimilation and common understanding (then you can do whatever in your free time).
Just ask those that rioted in Paris, because they are always kept at arms length because of their NAME of all things. Or hell, just ask the Gypsies (Roma) that are continually screwed for hundreds of years -- and are today! You don't hear about it because no one gives a damn in Europe: "Oh, yeah, those are just gypsies. They are all criminals and their children are all retarded. Don't encourage them." But they don't have rich lobbiests in D.C. like certain other minority groups, so they are forgotten.
On the other hand, they ARE opening up inter-EU borders. At a time when the U.S. is starting to fingerprint every driver they pull over (seriously), almost all of Europe just went passport-free last week. So I don't think we should copy the way they do things there but it is complicated. Immigration quotas aren't really what is responsible for the screwups there, In My Humble Opinion.
YellowSnow @ 96:
LOL! Hmm... subliminal programming of the that subtitle? If nothing else, your unconscious has a better memory than my conscious!
Soylent Green, Soylent Green! :)
swarmofkillermonkeys @ 97:
DonsBlog @ 94:
Oh yeah, I loved that show -- way back when I had a TV... "Connections" with James... Burke(?)... something like that. Good show.
Eh, I wouldn't call Einstien a "simpleton". Over-hyped, sure. His popularity had much to do with other things, in addition to his work. He was certainly wrong in some details (as he was, in fact, human) but it is notable that somehow we always end up back somewhere close to him, after years of trying to tear him down with so many fancy unified theories. Not that it is bad to try, that's how progress is made. And in a way the point that the Germans were unhealthily obsessed with (even unethical) science, promoting many well educated folks that later ended up on the U.S. plays into my larger point. We took these people and made great pains to keep them happy, healthy, and working in America. Not so with many less educated, less fortunate in Europe, that lived many hard years after the war. We had to choose, so we chose in our best interest. Of course. And you are right that as I recall, von Braun and the Nazi rocketry program was inspired by the work of the American Robert Goddard in the '30s.
I don't know the other show you speak of. Perhaps Neil deGrasse Tyson? He's the closest thing to Sagan that we have now, but unfortunately dumbs things down too much on MOST televised appearances I've seen. He shouldn't do that, kids are smarter than that, but he is an animated speaker and shares his passion for science well. He also happens to be black.
If you see the value of SOME sort of immigration restriction, then perhaps we are just talking past each other. Speaking of Japan, there were cultural reasons why plundering Japan for scientists never really worked out quite the same way. Xenophobia cuts both ways.
But as for as populations decreasing... you mean of certain ethic groups? Because overall, we still have population growth, and yes, too many people even by today's numbers to be sustainable over the next few hundred years. Petroleum fertilizers and fuel for harvesting, desertification, over-worked land, depleted aquifers, less snowfall, rising temperatures... we cannot sustain the current population responsibly much less growth. Temporarily, sure, we can limp by, as we are now. That that shouldn't be the goal in and of itself. Spreading wealth and the yuppie consumer culture to other countries is the surest way to slow population growth, outside of drastic action. But unrestricted immigration policies is not really a way to do that.
Actually, I think most food "waste" from Las Vegas buffets goes to pig farms outside of town. It's a pretty good idea, really. Beside the point though...
But there is fundamentally something wrong with a population that lives in a desert with no possible means of growing crops, and almost no water that breeds 12 children per family in the name of religion and tries to immigrate to another country. "Irresponsible" is far too soft a word. Unfortunately, I must agree with the crazy border zealots on this point. Those of us that ARE managing our growth shouldn't have to pick up the slack for those countries that know better, have money to do better, yet still try to cheat the planet anyway. I don't mind population dynamics shifting between skin colors or ethnicities, that's natural, and good. This is different. I could care less if the population of Earth in 2070 had skin of brown, gray, or teal, as long as there would be LESS humans plowing, burning, polluting, and mining than in 1990 in total. We simply displace far to much of the REST of the ecosystem. You know, life? We must rebuild a semblance of balance.
There are many populations that would LOVE to be responsible in controlling their own growth, but child mortality, sanctioned rape, and sadly, even official U.S. foreign policy that bans birth control and sex education keeps these people down. Overburdened with too many people, and helpless to stop the growth these situations invite "ethnic cleansing" and violent troubles as people fight for resources. Slowly, the information is spreading, and this is changing, but not nearly quickly enough.
One last thing is I'd like to make clear that I think we should also avoid the opposite. I don't really get that banning based on one parent is makes it a "club" (though wrong as above). But it reminds me that we could err on the other side. Many 2nd generation Americans that succeeded fantastically were not the children of the elite, or well educated. The were children of coal miners or laborers, shop keepers and farmers.
Perhaps the best thing to do is take a few people from every country (as long as they'd like to come here), saving aside a few slots for the exceptional, and even more slots for the inevitable natural or political disaster victims that have no where else to turn and are welcome here. That doesn't leave much left over if we are serious about zero population growth, hence my concern about the idea of complete abandonment of a managed immigration policy. This benefits only the exploiters, at the expense of everyone else.
No one likes it when you cut in line, no matter how bad things are back at home. Why don't we fix those things at home together instead?
Hey, apart from what Arizona is doing there is some more good news on the illegal immigration front... The illegal aliens are starting to self-deport!
http://www.reuters.com/article/inDepthNews/idUSN2126758320071224?feedTyp...
If the feds were doing their job on immigration, laws like this would not be neccessary..the fact is that we can no longer afford to import hoardes of poor people who may have a strong work ethic but don't particularly value education or intellectual achievement. We don't need more Wal Mart workers and we don't need more underachievers in our schools and we don't need more gangs. These anchor babies become gangsters at an alarming rate. Their parents who come here are fine but the kids have no respect for their parents hardships.
If the feds were doing their job on immigration, laws like this would not be neccessary..the fact is that we can no longer afford to import hoardes of poor people who may have a strong work ethic but don't particularly value education or intellectual achievement. We don't need more Wal Mart workers and we don't need more underachievers in our schools and we don't need more gangs. These anchor babies become gangsters at an alarming rate. Their parents who come here are fine but the kids have no respect for their parents hardships.
Ahhhh, I just spent a half hour replying and of course my browser crashed on the last paste of a blockquote.
A couple of things. I think we're both believe in some control, the how is the question.
"Consider the possibilities for Italy, currently the country with the world's lowest fertility level. If Italy's current regimen is extended for two generations, almost three-fifths of the nation's children will have no siblings, cousins, aunts or uncles; they will have only parents, grandparents, and perhaps great-grandparents. Under those same assumptions, less than 5% of such a future Italy's children would have both siblings and cousins."
This means populations are decreasing in advanced economies. Japan is even offering cash rewards for children.
I don't think anyone will be able to stop immigration as long as it benefits corporations to bring them over.
We do set quotas per country based on how quickly their citizens assimilate. Normally. The southern border is different.
On the other hand I've asked some professionals about the NAPP North American Prosperity Plan and they're hearing rumors of bringing in Mexicans to subsidize retiring baby boomers too.
Amendment XIV (1868)
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. yes and abortion people and there life begins at conception, if you had sex in America on your honey moon, America would have to give citizenship to that person. reason he begaln life in America
As someone from Arizona I will make the prediction that this initiative will easily get enough signatures to make it on the ballot, it will likely be approved probably by a wide margin and then it will be overturned on some grounds. From the wording and the comments here I would guess as a violation of the 14th Amendment. I think voters will approve it no matter how poorly written or how illegal is it. Simply for the fact of it's a way to express outrage over the illegal immigration mess. Take at look at the anti illegal immigration propositions from the 2006 ballot in Arizona. IIRC there were 5 and all passed with at least 65-70%. I think on election day it will come down to the disgust people feel about the situation and the feeling of being able to take a stand. The initial election results are perhaps more important than if the law ever goes into effect for a lot of those people.
states don't have any authority over this. they are superceeded by U.S. law. Overseas, the state dept. handles all this and you don't need any state-side birth certificate.
Preacher Boob @ 23:
Preecher Boob,
I really hope you jest otherwise this is the most racist vile I have heard here.
swarmofkillermonkeys @ 98:
It's the Plutocrats who live in gated communities around the nation, and the 'Cottages' in Newport who ultimately benefit from the cheap labor they arrange to allow to migrate illegally to the US.
It would therefore seem only fair that we open their gated communities and estate grounds for the creation of tent cities to house the illegal aliens we round up on their way to repatriation.
And perhaps use their limousines for transportation.
swarmofkillermonkeys @ 98:
It's the Plutocrats who live in gated communities across the nation and in the 'cottages' in Newport that ultimately profit form the illegal import of cheap labor which they conveniently arrange, or at least permit. Therefore, it would seem only fair that we require them to open their gated lawns and estate grounds for the pitching of tent cities which can be used to house the illegal aliens as they are rounded up and prepared for repatriation.
And perhaps use their limousines for transportation to the border.
does this mean we can finally kick that bitch malkin out of the country??
btw, the 14th amendment was created to deal with freed slaves, i dont think the founders ever considered foreign nationals coming to the country to have kids who would be covered under a plethora of social programs
in fact, one isnt supposed to be able to immigrate unless they are sponsered and self sufficient
in any case....kick malkin out.....and i bet man coulter is an illegal too....kick her ass out too
So a father can deny parentage and the child and mother would be deported? Man I bet alot of 'half mexican babies' won't be bothering your family because you can just get the 'spic' deported. The males will have a field day when they can deport their mistresses upon impregnation.
Wow. Totally racist and asinine.
btw, the 14th amendment was created to deal with freed slaves, i dont think the founders ever considered foreign nationals coming to the country to have kids who would be covered under a plethora of social programs
in fact, one isnt supposed to be able to immigrate unless they are sponsered and self sufficient
in any case….kick malkin out…..and i bet man coulter is an illegal too….kick her ass out too
---?
Plethora of social programs? You have those left? I would have been thinking that the Fuher Herr Bush would have put up "Work is Freedom" signs around the new prisons they call cities in America.
You're "kinda free". You only have to worry about Cops tazering you, Maniacs with Guns, getting sick, The government killing you, the corps polluting you and the whole government lying after one warcrime after another.
Well as long as you fear brown skinned terrorists more then I guess you can do whatever you want..
The place of birth in birth certificates is important. Chief Justice Melville Fuller dissenting in U.S. v Wong Kim Ark (1898) said:
“Thus the fourteenth amendment is held to be merely declaratory, except that it brings all persons, irrespective of color, within the scope of the alleged rule, and puts that rule beyond the control of the legislative power.
“If the conclusion of the majority opinion is correct, then the children of citizens of the United States, who have been born abroad since July 28, 1868, when the [fourteenth] amendment was declared ratified, were and are aliens, unless they have or shall, on attaining majority, become citizens by naturalization in the United States; and no statutory provision to the contrary is of any force or effect.”
So, having been “born abroad” in Panama Canal Zone (an unincorporated U.S. territory that was definitely outside of the 50 States of the United States), does the birth certificate of Senator John McCain show that he is natural-born or an alien?
kaT @ 81:
Of course I get it, I live here and I deal with it every day!!!! If you actually READ my post, you would have understood that....my grandparents did what they needed to do to be here legally. If they can, so can everyone else. Period.
Ok, Ok, let's stop all this bickering.
There's an obvious way to:
Solve the illegal alien problem,
Reduce Global Warming,
Rid the US of it's dependence on foreign oil,
Eliminate the fear that the automobile is obsolete, and
Almost eliminate the horrific toll of casualties from traffic accidents.
My company has designed, developed, and is now in initial production of a line of harnesses which will permit the employment of two, four, six or more 'Transportation Specialists', who will be hooked up to automobiles and provide the power, eliminating the need to use the engines and waste the fuel and exude the contaminants.
Here's a wonderful opportunity to use the skills of the illegal aliens, in an economically, environmentally-friendly, manner, that will be a win/win/win solution for all concerned.
We will switch from trying to figure out how to export 12 million illegal aliens, to asking them to invite their friends and relatives to join them here in the wonderful US of A.
With an automotive population of 200 million+, we'll need a minimum of 400 million 'Transportation Specialists'. It's bonanza time!
Happy days are here again!
Ain't no problema can't be solved
Albatross @ 24:
Excellent post and observation, Albatross. And from my research on the matter: accurate.
VDARE, FAIR (not the press oversight group), NumbersUSA, Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) and about ten others are the creation, initially, of John Tanton: a hateful man whose goals for the US are:
(1) Population reduced to 150 million
(2) White, and NOT Catholic.
(3) Zero population growth
(4) Zero immigration
And this is who Tancredo and Lou Dobbs jumped into bed with.
anon @ 73:
Agree, Anon.
kaT @ 81:
The real point is: this issue is not about immigrants, it's about ILLEGAL ENTRANTS. they're not a few desperate people looking for work. ONe third of the total population of Mexico is now living illegally in the U. S. and nothing is being done to curb the flow. That's what Americans are upset about. If we wanted to live in Mexico, we'd go down and take over Acapulco. Get it?
Incorrectamundo. According to this CIA site, the total population of Mexico is 108.7 million.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/print/mx.html
The total number of illegal Mexicans out of the total 12 million illegals is 6.75 or 7 million.
That's 6.5% of the population, not 33.3%. You've inflated the numbers 500%.
Albatross @ 24:
Watch this video...
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4094926727128068265
then come on back and try to spin it into a Racist thing.
Good Luck!
As stated before, a state cannot deny citizenship to a child of undocumented workers AND the state also cannot deny a citizen a birth certificate proving their citizenship... that would be prohibited by the Privileges and Immunities clause of the 14th Amendment. These people are just crazy!
Swashbuckler @ 11:
Susan @ 116:
Yeah, and when your grandparents came into the country, they probably didn't need to enter legally, other than pay the boat fare and get off the boat. It wasn't really until the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1953 that the severe restrictions were imposed. So, your grandparents had it easy and everyone else can suck it, right?
It strikes me that if the mother is a citizen then there is no question that the baby is also. The mother is THERE are the birth--how could she be elsewhere--to provide proof of citizenship. The father's status is not at issue because a mother who is a citizen would not have her baby denied citizenship in the first place. It is only when the mother is NOT a citizen and the father IS that there's a problem with the baby being denied his/her rights. It's not discrimination because with the mother is a citizen, it's simply not a problem in the first place.
Though granted, I would like to see citizenship granted if paternity can be proved (via medical test), not only if the father declares it. Just because a man "accepts" offspring, does not mean they are his, but by the same token, a man denying a child is his doesn't mean it isn't.
Big John @ 121:
Oh, that was easy....
"It's a racist thing!"
Just 'cause it's dressed like an economist doesn't mean it's not a bigot.
The fact is, America will be stronger in the 21st century exactly BECAUSE of immigration.
And it will be weaker because of the cynical angry frightened white men running it presently.
(spoken as a white male, albeit one with a bit of courage)
Albatross @ 125:
Here's an example of how Illegal Aliens are going to make America stronger.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIW-BZ8oLrk&search=minutemen%20illegal%20...
Login or Register to post comments.