Thread: Arizona's Next Immigration Target: Children of Illegals

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 36
  1. #21  
    Power CUer NJCardFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    15,314
    Quote Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei View Post
    I REALLY hope the Tea Party gets loud and vocal about this one, after all, they are all about being consistent and holding true to their principles. WHERE DOES IT SPECIFICALLY SAY IN THE CONSTITUTION THAT CHILDREN BORN IN THE UNITED STATES ARE NOT CITIZENS?!
    You're an asshole plain and simple. Answer me this dick head, where does it say that they are. Where does it say that children born to people here illegally are allowed citizenship. You are free to comment once you start paying taxes. Until then, shut your little mealy mouth.
    "Inequality is a false notion propagated by those who are made to feel guilty for what they have by those who are jealous for what they don't"-Former MTV Host Kennedy
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #22  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    2,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei View Post
    Exactly.
    I don't know if you are confusing me with a conservative, because I really don't consider myself one (although, your average poster on DU probably considers me one). The older I get, the less I think anything means anything, especially labels.

    Personally, I think the Bill of Rights and the original constitution are more sacred than amendments added later. This is just my opinion. The 14th was not created to make a class of anchor babies - it was created to prevent backdoor slavery by states denying individuals born on this soil the full rights and opportunities afforded everyone else. The difference is slaves from Africa and the Caribbean came here against their will. I don't know if we need a 14th anymore that has Civil War relevant language built into it. It wasn't really a problem until Hernadez v Texas, but I'm fairly certain the justices at the time didn't see the implications of their ruling. The real problem is that much of our Constitution is built around the concept of race, and later the protection of races, and I think that does more harm than good when what we really want is to eliminate the notion of race from a legal evaluation of a person.

    The problem isn't that we are being flooded with Mexicans, the problem is that we are being flooded with aliens who don't want to be American, or that they want to change what American means into their nationality. It's not about race at all, but because the 14th exists it must be viewed through the legal glasses of racial equality. And that's the problem. Nobody is complaining about the 1.5 million Korean Americans, or that 3 million Chinese Americans. They come over here and assimilate, and in a couple generations they are simply Americans that have their own treasured cultural identity just like everyone else. It's worth noting that Chinese get smuggled into this country illegally just like Mexicans, and they form street gangs just like Mexicans, but it's not a national problem. Why do you think that is? Racism?

    I think the problem with the 14th is that by virtue of its legal language and the precedent set by subsequent rules, it turns something that isn't about race at all, into something that cannot be talked about without mentioning race.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #23  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Virginia, birthplace of Presidents, mostly good ones.
    Posts
    1,165
    Quote Originally Posted by PoliCon View Post
    I see no reason to extend citizenship to the progeny of an invading force.
    i am with you on this. It is self destructive.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #24  
    Zoomie djones520's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    St. Louis
    Posts
    10,049
    Quote Originally Posted by NJCardFan View Post
    You're an asshole plain and simple. Answer me this dick head, where does it say that they are. Where does it say that children born to people here illegally are allowed citizenship. You are free to comment once you start paying taxes. Until then, shut your little mealy mouth.
    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.
    Seems pretty clear cut to me.

    This will not end well IMO. I hope Arizona will be smart about this one, and nuke it.

    Oh wait... guess I should shut up. I don't pay taxes.
    Last edited by djones520; 06-13-2010 at 09:53 AM.
    In most sports, cold-cocking an opposing player repeatedly in the face with a series of gigantic Slovakian uppercuts would get you a multi-game suspension without pay.

    In hockey, it means you have to sit in the penalty box for five minutes.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #25  
    Best Bounty Hunter in the Forums fettpett's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Southwest Michigan (in Exile)
    Posts
    8,757
    Quote Originally Posted by djones520 View Post
    Seems pretty clear cut to me.

    This will not end well IMO. I hope Arizona will be smart about this one, and nuke it.

    Oh wait... guess I should shut up. I don't pay taxes.
    I was just going to post it. On this stance, Arizona is in the wrong. It's great they want to take a stance, but this is Unconstitutional and the Supreme Court has ruled several times on the idea that anyone BORN in the US or US territories, regardless of parental legal status, the Child is a US Citizen and can not be denied the rights there of.

    Read United States vs Wong Kim Ark, the US claimed that Children were subject to the citizenship laws governing of their Parents country of origin. Wong claimed that he was an American Citizen based on his birth in the US and not subject to Chinese Citizenship.

    In a 6-2 decision, the Court held that under the Fourteenth Amendment, a child born in the United States of parents of foreign descent who, at the time of the child's birth are subjects of a foreign power but who have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States and are carrying on business in the United States, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under a foreign power, and are not members of foreign forces in hostile occupation of United States territory, becomes a citizen of the United States at the time of birth.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...._Wong_Kim_Ark
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #26  
    Best Bounty Hunter in the Forums fettpett's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Southwest Michigan (in Exile)
    Posts
    8,757
    Quote Originally Posted by m00 View Post
    Personally, I think the Bill of Rights and the original constitution are more sacred than amendments added later. This is just my opinion.
    yes, your Opinion, but to say that would mean that:

    • only a white male would be able to vote (15th and 19th)
    • your rights could be violated by the State, just not the Federal Government (14th which extends the Bill of Rights to cover the states)
    • Slavery would still be legal (13th)
    • Voting rights could be denied after 18 due to age (26th)
    • Those in DC still disenfranchised (23rd)

    The framers of the Constitution purposefully gave a means to change the Constitution as they knew that it might need to be (ie Slavery) plus it was a way to get it passed as they would need the Bill of Rights added in order for the Constitution to get passed. They did make it hard and need the consent of a "super-majority" (3/4) of the States to get one passed, but still gave it some flexibility.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #27  
    LTC Member Odysseus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    FT Belvoir, VA
    Posts
    15,639
    Quote Originally Posted by Wei Wu Wei View Post
    I REALLY hope the Tea Party gets loud and vocal about this one, after all, they are all about being consistent and holding true to their principles. WHERE DOES IT SPECIFICALLY SAY IN THE CONSTITUTION THAT CHILDREN BORN IN THE UNITED STATES ARE NOT CITIZENS?!
    It doesn't. But it also doesn't guarantee residence to parents of citizens if they are here illegally. This leads to an obvious, if cold-blooded, solution: Citizen infants born to illegal parents are wards of the state, and can be taken away from their parents and put into foster care when the parents are deported. It's an ugly solution, but then, the use of children as a means of bypassing our immigration laws is ugly, as well.
    --Odysseus
    Sic Hacer Pace, Para Bellum.

    Before you can do things for people, you must be the kind of man who can get things done. But to get things done, you must love the doing, not the people!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #28  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    2,838
    Quote Originally Posted by fettpett View Post
    yes, your Opinion, but to say that would mean that:

    • only a white male would be able to vote (15th and 19th)
    • your rights could be violated by the State, just not the Federal Government (14th which extends the Bill of Rights to cover the states)
    • Slavery would still be legal (13th)
    • Voting rights could be denied after 18 due to age (26th)
    • Those in DC still disenfranchised (23rd)
    I never said subsequent amendments weren't important. I just find them to be less sacred than the Bill of Rights, and I don't have a deep gut reaction when somebody suggests changing amendments the more recent they get (generally speaking). Obviously, it would depend on what it gets changed to.
    Last edited by m00; 06-13-2010 at 03:17 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #29  
    Best Bounty Hunter in the Forums fettpett's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Southwest Michigan (in Exile)
    Posts
    8,757
    Quote Originally Posted by m00 View Post
    I never said subsequent amendments weren't important. I just find them to be less sacred than the Bill of Rights, and I don't have a deep gut reaction when somebody suggests changing amendments the more recent they get (generally speaking). Obviously, it would depend on what it gets changed to.

    Most of the recent ones are more procedural than anything, How senators are elected, succession after the President, etc. so yes, I get that, but when you get into the middle amendments, they start giving those Rights to Individuals and telling the States they can't infringe on them anymore than the Federal Government can. That might infringe on the States right to make laws, but protects the individual. In your argument that should be held with just as much sacredness as the original 10 Amendments.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #30  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    2,838
    Quote Originally Posted by fettpett View Post
    Most of the recent ones are more procedural than anything, How senators are elected, succession after the President, etc. so yes, I get that, but when you get into the middle amendments, they start giving those Rights to Individuals and telling the States they can't infringe on them anymore than the Federal Government can. That might infringe on the States right to make laws, but protects the individual. In your argument that should be held with just as much sacredness as the original 10 Amendments.
    I wasn't aware I was making an argument. Just stating my opinion on a message-board. For what it's worth, there's several amendments I wish would be repealed, starting with the 16th. But nothing in the original constitution or Bill of Rights, although I would prefer if we closed some loopholes like the Interstate Commerce Clause. But this all came about because Wei was trying to do a "gotcha" on the sanctity of the constitution, and I just felt like calling him on it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •