Next... Anchor Babies.

[Angelhair]

The Anchor baby one.

As far as I know, it hasn't even been proposed, let alone passed.

okay, let's start over,, why do you think Arizona would propose such a thing?

To bring it to the attention of the rest of the country who have no clue as to what goes on in the border states just as they had no clue about how many problems these states have with so many illegal crossers on any given day......

 

[froggy]

If the people would get up the nerve to tell the Govt what they want instead of letting the Govt tell the people what they're going to get, then changes could be made.

That's what I've been telling Jake from the start. It's about the Peoples !!!!! What do the Peoples want?????

The Govt thinks they are above their employers (the people) and some time or another we have got to let them know they're not.

 

[Intense]

If the people would get up the nerve to tell the Govt what they want instead of letting the Govt tell the people what they're going to get, then changes could be made.

That's what I've been telling Jake from the start. It's about the Peoples !!!!! What do the Peoples want?????

The Govt thinks they are above their employers (the people) and some time or another we have got to let them know they're not.

Should we take away their toy's and ground them???

 

[froggy]

That's what I've been telling Jake from the start. It's about the Peoples !!!!! What do the Peoples want?????

The Govt thinks they are above their employers (the people) and some time or another we have got to let them know they're not.

Should we take away their toy's and ground them???

There you go, that's a start

 

[Claudette]

I would like to see them all deported also but have to agree with Jake on this one.

Its just not realistic. Those that have been here for years have kids, anchor kids, who are recognized as American Citizens. I can just imagine the court battles over that.

The Constitution needs an ammendment to change that. An ammendment which doesn't give ANYTHING to those born in this country of illegal parents. No Social Services. No nothing. An Ammendment which doesn't grant citizenship if your born of illegal parents in this country.

They also need to go after those hiring illegals and enforce the law with these companies.

The most important thing is to secure our borders. Thats number one in my book.

They also need a guest worker program. Canada has a great one and thats the one we should use.

No incentives. Thats the ticket in my book.

Yeah, lets become Canada.
Or they could build more factories in Mexico.

Its not becoming Canada. Its using a system that Canada uses when they need workers.

The companies let the Canadian Govt know how many workers they need and for how long.

The Canadian Govt then contacts the Mexican Govt and they put in the request for workers.

The workers come and do the work and then go home. Period.

No illegals invading Canada.

Makes sense to me.

 

[LilOlLady]

If the people would get up the nerve to tell the Govt what they want instead of letting the Govt tell the people what they're going to get, then changes could be made.

That's what I've been telling Jake from the start. It's about the Peoples !!!!! What do the Peoples want?????

The Govt thinks they are above their employers (the people) and some time or another we have got to let them know they're not.

WE told the twice before when they took up Immigration Reform and we will do it again and three strikes and Immigration Reform is out. DOA

 

[Coyote]

I would like to see them all deported also but have to agree with Jake on this one.

Its just not realistic. Those that have been here for years have kids, anchor kids, who are recognized as American Citizens. I can just imagine the court battles over that.

The Constitution needs an ammendment to change that. An ammendment which doesn't give ANYTHING to those born in this country of illegal parents. No Social Services. No nothing. An Ammendment which doesn't grant citizenship if your born of illegal parents in this country.

They also need to go after those hiring illegals and enforce the law with these companies.

The most important thing is to secure our borders. Thats number one in my book.

They also need a guest worker program. Canada has a great one and thats the one we should use.

No incentives. Thats the ticket in my book.

Yeah, lets become Canada.
Or they could build more factories in Mexico.

Its not becoming Canada. Its using a system that Canada uses when they need workers.

The companies let the Canadian Govt know how many workers they need and for how long.

The Canadian Govt then contacts the Mexican Govt and they put in the request for workers.

The workers come and do the work and then go home. Period.

No illegals invading Canada.

Makes sense to me.

Canada is really a different situation. I agree with you on guest worker programs, but that is not why Canada doesn't have as great a problem - they don't border Mexico.

We border a country that is "Third World", and has a lot of economic and political instability and as a developed nation with a lot of economic opportunities and a low rate of corruption and violence by comparision - we're attractive enough to take substantial risks to enter and we're right on the border.

 

[LilOlLady]

We do not have to pass another law, changing automatic birthright citizenship of for illgal aliens. Just interpret the 14th correctly as intended.
“when international diplomats are here in the US and they have children, they are not given citizenship.”
There is no statue of limitation on "illegal" Philipino families,etc have been deported after they have been here for 20 year, but very seldom are Mexicans deported.

 

[Coyote]

We do not have to pass another law, changing automatic birthright citizenship of for illgal aliens. Just interpret the 14th correctly as intended.
“when international diplomats are here in the US and they have children, they are not given citizenship.”
There is no statue of limitation on "illegal" Philipino families,etc have been deported after they have been here for 20 year, but very seldom are Mexicans deported.

How do you know it was interpreted incorrectly? It's funny because the side claiming that is typically the side that affirms the most narrow and literal "interpretation" of the Constitution and berates the other for broader interpretations.

At the time it was written America was vast and sparsely settled by colonists. Population means power and expansion. There were no immigration laws and no such thing as illegal immigrants. Seems much more likely that it was intended the way it is currently "interpreted".

 

[GHook93]

The legislative intent was to protect the newly freed slaves and their children. Right before the civil war, the Dred Scott case disallowed Slaves from gaining citizenship. The Black Codes after the civil war was intented to enforce this against the newly freed slaves. So its GOAL was simple and direct - PROTECT THE NEWLY FREED SLAVES AND THEIR CHILDREN. Something the Civil Rights Act of 1866 tried to do, but was shot down by the racist (at the time) supreme court.

The birthright clause was never intended to provide citizenship to criminals (illegal immigration is against the law), foreigner, children of ambassadors, children of legal foreign workers etc. In fact that was specifically what was discussed to excluded (Native Americans also), but they fucked up.

No amendment has ever been interpreted as absolute. Freedom of Speech doesn't allow incitement of violence or yelling fire in a crowded building. No unwarranted search and seizures provides exceptions for the Plain View Doctrine. Freedom of the Press doesn't allow libel or slander. Freedom of Religion doesn't allow human or animal sacrifices. The confrontation clause doesn't allow intimidation of witnesses against you.

So why in hell does anyone think the birthright clause should be absolute? It should be read according to its legislative intent, which is crystal clear. I hope Arizona passes an anti-anchor baby clause. I hope the Supreme Court rules on it and maybe they will hold to the legislative intent of the 14th amendment and we can finally STOP the INSANITY of allowing the children of criminals to receive automatic citizenship if born in America!

 

[Cecilie1200]

Contrary to what Cecille thinks they will do it though. Watch.

Can't imagine what made you think our legislators are stupid. They made a great effort to make SB 1070 thoughtful, serious, and Constitutional so that it would actually WORK, as opposed to just being meaningless shock value.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yeah, lets become Canada.
Or they could build more factories in Mexico.

Then you, and Lil Ol Lady who has no clue at all, need to offer something in reality that can fix this. Not pipe dreams, but something that realistically can be done.

Before anyone gets started: roundups, mass deportations, police state apparatus, etc, will not happen. So give us something.

Just sign over your 401K and your pay check and I'll be glad to. Don't worry about your future, I'll m set you up doing my landscaping.

Seriously Jake, who are you to set up the do's and don'ts. You have no moral and ethical high ground, you lost it long ago.

Here is one scenario, let's send all of the bleeding heart statists down to Mexico to fix everything. After you totally destroy what is left of Their economy and destabilize the whole country, the Mexicans here can apply for help as refugees. We trade you for them fair deal. After your Utopia fails, give it a year, we Annex Mexico and break it up into maybe 5 independent districts. We will give you Common Wealth Status, like Puerto Rico.

I understand you are unhappy. You have the right to whine. But you don't have a right to your own reality. Offer us something reasonable to resolve the problem. Until you do, everything you write here has no relevance.

 

[JakeStarkey]

If the people would get up the nerve to tell the Govt what they want instead of letting the Govt tell the people what they're going to get, then changes could be made.

That's what I've been telling Jake from the start. It's about the Peoples !!!!! What do the Peoples want?????

Overwhelmingly they don't want what you want.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The legislative intent was to protect the newly freed slaves and their children. Right before the civil war, the Dred Scott case disallowed Slaves from gaining citizenship. The Black Codes after the civil war was intented to enforce this against the newly freed slaves. So its GOAL was simple and direct - PROTECT THE NEWLY FREED SLAVES AND THEIR CHILDREN. Something the Civil Rights Act of 1866 tried to do, but was shot down by the racist (at the time) supreme court.

The birthright clause was never intended to provide citizenship to criminals (illegal immigration is against the law), foreigner, children of ambassadors, children of legal foreign workers etc. In fact that was specifically what was discussed to excluded (Native Americans also), but they fucked up.

No amendment has ever been interpreted as absolute. Freedom of Speech doesn't allow incitement of violence or yelling fire in a crowded building. No unwarranted search and seizures provides exceptions for the Plain View Doctrine. Freedom of the Press doesn't allow libel or slander. Freedom of Religion doesn't allow human or animal sacrifices. The confrontation clause doesn't allow intimidation of witnesses against you.

So why in hell does anyone think the birthright clause should be absolute? It should be read according to its legislative intent, which is crystal clear. I hope Arizona passes an anti-anchor baby clause. I hope the Supreme Court rules on it and maybe they will hold to the legislative intent of the 14th amendment and we can finally STOP the INSANITY of allowing the children of criminals to receive automatic citizenship if born in America!

Congressional intent cannot overturn an amendment. That requires specified behavior by Congress and the states. Birthright citizenship is here to stay.

 

[WillowTree]

Contrary to what Cecille thinks they will do it though. Watch.

Can't imagine what made you think our legislators are stupid. They made a great effort to make SB 1070 thoughtful, serious, and Constitutional so that it would actually WORK, as opposed to just being meaningless shock value.

I don't think they are stupid. I think they are smart as foxes raiding the hen house. They will do it.

 

[ConHog]

The legislative intent was to protect the newly freed slaves and their children. Right before the civil war, the Dred Scott case disallowed Slaves from gaining citizenship. The Black Codes after the civil war was intented to enforce this against the newly freed slaves. So its GOAL was simple and direct - PROTECT THE NEWLY FREED SLAVES AND THEIR CHILDREN. Something the Civil Rights Act of 1866 tried to do, but was shot down by the racist (at the time) supreme court.

The birthright clause was never intended to provide citizenship to criminals (illegal immigration is against the law), foreigner, children of ambassadors, children of legal foreign workers etc. In fact that was specifically what was discussed to excluded (Native Americans also), but they fucked up.

No amendment has ever been interpreted as absolute. Freedom of Speech doesn't allow incitement of violence or yelling fire in a crowded building. No unwarranted search and seizures provides exceptions for the Plain View Doctrine. Freedom of the Press doesn't allow libel or slander. Freedom of Religion doesn't allow human or animal sacrifices. The confrontation clause doesn't allow intimidation of witnesses against you.

So why in hell does anyone think the birthright clause should be absolute? It should be read according to its legislative intent, which is crystal clear. I hope Arizona passes an anti-anchor baby clause. I hope the Supreme Court rules on it and maybe they will hold to the legislative intent of the 14th amendment and we can finally STOP the INSANITY of allowing the children of criminals to receive automatic citizenship if born in America!

Congressional intent cannot overturn an amendment. That requires specified behavior by Congress and the states. Birthright citizenship is here to stay.

Dont be so sure. A simple SCOTUS ruling could legally change EVERYTHING.

 

[GHook93]

The legislative intent was to protect the newly freed slaves and their children. Right before the civil war, the Dred Scott case disallowed Slaves from gaining citizenship. The Black Codes after the civil war was intented to enforce this against the newly freed slaves. So its GOAL was simple and direct - PROTECT THE NEWLY FREED SLAVES AND THEIR CHILDREN. Something the Civil Rights Act of 1866 tried to do, but was shot down by the racist (at the time) supreme court.

The birthright clause was never intended to provide citizenship to criminals (illegal immigration is against the law), foreigner, children of ambassadors, children of legal foreign workers etc. In fact that was specifically what was discussed to excluded (Native Americans also), but they fucked up.

No amendment has ever been interpreted as absolute. Freedom of Speech doesn't allow incitement of violence or yelling fire in a crowded building. No unwarranted search and seizures provides exceptions for the Plain View Doctrine. Freedom of the Press doesn't allow libel or slander. Freedom of Religion doesn't allow human or animal sacrifices. The confrontation clause doesn't allow intimidation of witnesses against you.

So why in hell does anyone think the birthright clause should be absolute? It should be read according to its legislative intent, which is crystal clear. I hope Arizona passes an anti-anchor baby clause. I hope the Supreme Court rules on it and maybe they will hold to the legislative intent of the 14th amendment and we can finally STOP the INSANITY of allowing the children of criminals to receive automatic citizenship if born in America!

Congressional intent cannot overturn an amendment. That requires specified behavior by Congress and the states. Birthright citizenship is here to stay.

No, but LEGISLATIVE INTENT has a baring on how the Supreme Court rules. Like I said before previous, no amendment is ABSOLUTE! Since your a lefty are you for the 2nd amendment being followed literally, meaning us crazy conservatives could carry guns including automatic assault rifles?

See you probably haven't read many cases, I just got out of law school and I saw first hand how legislative intent is taken into consideration in most matters. You can't find it in some many cases its sick!

 

[JakeStarkey]

The legislative intent was to protect the newly freed slaves and their children. Right before the civil war, the Dred Scott case disallowed Slaves from gaining citizenship. The Black Codes after the civil war was intented to enforce this against the newly freed slaves. So its GOAL was simple and direct - PROTECT THE NEWLY FREED SLAVES AND THEIR CHILDREN. Something the Civil Rights Act of 1866 tried to do, but was shot down by the racist (at the time) supreme court.

The birthright clause was never intended to provide citizenship to criminals (illegal immigration is against the law), foreigner, children of ambassadors, children of legal foreign workers etc. In fact that was specifically what was discussed to excluded (Native Americans also), but they fucked up.

No amendment has ever been interpreted as absolute. Freedom of Speech doesn't allow incitement of violence or yelling fire in a crowded building. No unwarranted search and seizures provides exceptions for the Plain View Doctrine. Freedom of the Press doesn't allow libel or slander. Freedom of Religion doesn't allow human or animal sacrifices. The confrontation clause doesn't allow intimidation of witnesses against you.

So why in hell does anyone think the birthright clause should be absolute? It should be read according to its legislative intent, which is crystal clear. I hope Arizona passes an anti-anchor baby clause. I hope the Supreme Court rules on it and maybe they will hold to the legislative intent of the 14th amendment and we can finally STOP the INSANITY of allowing the children of criminals to receive automatic citizenship if born in America!

Congressional intent cannot overturn an amendment. That requires specified behavior by Congress and the states. Birthright citizenship is here to stay.

Dont be so sure. A simple SCOTUS ruling could legally change EVERYTHING.

SCOTUS would never rule on the legality of an amendment, merely refuse to review.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The legislative intent was to protect the newly freed slaves and their children. Right before the civil war, the Dred Scott case disallowed Slaves from gaining citizenship. The Black Codes after the civil war was intented to enforce this against the newly freed slaves. So its GOAL was simple and direct - PROTECT THE NEWLY FREED SLAVES AND THEIR CHILDREN. Something the Civil Rights Act of 1866 tried to do, but was shot down by the racist (at the time) supreme court.

The birthright clause was never intended to provide citizenship to criminals (illegal immigration is against the law), foreigner, children of ambassadors, children of legal foreign workers etc. In fact that was specifically what was discussed to excluded (Native Americans also), but they fucked up.

No amendment has ever been interpreted as absolute. Freedom of Speech doesn't allow incitement of violence or yelling fire in a crowded building. No unwarranted search and seizures provides exceptions for the Plain View Doctrine. Freedom of the Press doesn't allow libel or slander. Freedom of Religion doesn't allow human or animal sacrifices. The confrontation clause doesn't allow intimidation of witnesses against you.

So why in hell does anyone think the birthright clause should be absolute? It should be read according to its legislative intent, which is crystal clear. I hope Arizona passes an anti-anchor baby clause. I hope the Supreme Court rules on it and maybe they will hold to the legislative intent of the 14th amendment and we can finally STOP the INSANITY of allowing the children of criminals to receive automatic citizenship if born in America!

Congressional intent cannot overturn an amendment. That requires specified behavior by Congress and the states. Birthright citizenship is here to stay.

No, but LEGISLATIVE INTENT has a baring on how the Supreme Court rules. Like I said before previous, no amendment is ABSOLUTE! Since your a lefty are you for the 2nd amendment being followed literally, meaning us crazy conservatives could carry guns including automatic assault rifles?

See you probably haven't read many cases, I just got out of law school and I saw first hand how legislative intent is taken into consideration in most matters. You can't find it in some many cases its sick!

I hope you paid better attention in law school than you are giving the impression here. I am only a lefty because your perception is limited from below the far right horizon.

Find me legal brief, so some shepardizing were the SCOTUS ever ruled on the legislative intent of an amendment and struck part of it down. That has never happened, and the Roberts court would never review such a motion, simply dismiss it with prejudice.

As you say, all amendments are not absolute, so, no, you don't need an assault rifle.

 

[GHook93]

The legislative intent was to protect the newly freed slaves and their children. Right before the civil war, the Dred Scott case disallowed Slaves from gaining citizenship. The Black Codes after the civil war was intented to enforce this against the newly freed slaves. So its GOAL was simple and direct - PROTECT THE NEWLY FREED SLAVES AND THEIR CHILDREN. Something the Civil Rights Act of 1866 tried to do, but was shot down by the racist (at the time) supreme court.

The birthright clause was never intended to provide citizenship to criminals (illegal immigration is against the law), foreigner, children of ambassadors, children of legal foreign workers etc. In fact that was specifically what was discussed to excluded (Native Americans also), but they fucked up.

No amendment has ever been interpreted as absolute. Freedom of Speech doesn't allow incitement of violence or yelling fire in a crowded building. No unwarranted search and seizures provides exceptions for the Plain View Doctrine. Freedom of the Press doesn't allow libel or slander. Freedom of Religion doesn't allow human or animal sacrifices. The confrontation clause doesn't allow intimidation of witnesses against you.

So why in hell does anyone think the birthright clause should be absolute? It should be read according to its legislative intent, which is crystal clear. I hope Arizona passes an anti-anchor baby clause. I hope the Supreme Court rules on it and maybe they will hold to the legislative intent of the 14th amendment and we can finally STOP the INSANITY of allowing the children of criminals to receive automatic citizenship if born in America!

Congressional intent cannot overturn an amendment. That requires specified behavior by Congress and the states. Birthright citizenship is here to stay.

Dont be so sure. A simple SCOTUS ruling could legally change EVERYTHING.

They can't overturn the amendment, but they can interpert it according to it legislative intent and set a precedence.