|
Post by tonynatuzzi on Dec 30, 2005 0:44:06 GMT -5
Anodyne have you ever debated with a Mexican over this issue and if so do they call you a sell out if they find out you have a Spanish last name because they assume if you have Spanish ancestry that you must automatically be on the side of the illegal Mexicans because they are your Hispanic "brothers" viva la raza homes. ;D Naw I am just messing with you man.
|
|
|
Post by anodyne on Dec 30, 2005 0:57:34 GMT -5
Anodyne have you ever debated with a Mexican over this issue and if so do they call you a sell out if they find out you have a Spanish last name because they assume if you have Spanish ancestry that you must automatically be on the side of the illegal Mexicans because they are your Hispanic "brothers" viva la raza homes. ;D Naw I am just messing with you man. I avoid talking politics with people, for the most part. Just at Dodona since I don't have to deal with anyone here in the "real world." People think my last name is Italian. Although, 95% of people with my surname live in the same province and the other 5% live in Madrid, Barcelona or Cuba. And I've seen the hamlet where my surname is derived. But it appears Italian to people who don't know any better. Nor do I expect them to know any better. Most Latin Americans I come across here aren't overly zealous about being "latino." The few that I've known who were consider me the enemy, lol
|
|
|
Post by Crimson Guard on Dec 30, 2005 3:31:43 GMT -5
Yeah some kinda Glitch happened,weird,do me a favor and delete that.
Thanks Duke!
|
|
|
Post by nockwasright on Dec 30, 2005 4:52:14 GMT -5
Nock, I agree with you regarding limiting immigration, I am not contesting that. I am contesting something that is a constitutionally sanctioned right: 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. Wouldnt any action taken to revoke US-born babies to illegal immigrants go against the 14th amendment? Actually what is the point of debating something they know will just stirr up already rampant anti-immigrant sentiments? I see no other point, wouldn't this require a constitutional amendment (or repeal of the 14th(?) amendment)? It's one of those great topics that pundits and politicians can talk about without the fear of really changing anything But the US wont amend its constituition... It's no coincidence that every amendment save one (and that one was overturned) enumerates the rights of the people rather than restricts them. Anyone who favors an Amendment restricting birthright citizenship is a Constitutional idiot. Of course, these issues are designed to play to the ignorant among the Americans, so this comes as no surprise. I agree with you that probably its just hot air, meaning that the political forces against birthright citizenship has not even the faintest hope to reach the momentum for changing the Constitution. However, in principle, is a legitimate argument, because Constitution can be changed and the law is only the tool of the political will. Obviously in the not likely case of this happening the already born would not be affected for the general principle that there should be no retroactive unfavourable law. On a more general plane, I think immigration must be restricted at its source (not letting people in), but I favour birthright citizenship for two self evident reasons: 1) It's not someone fault the place where he is born 2) If someone is denied citizenship of the state he grew in, with which likely he has his only ties of cultural affinity, and where he has everything that consitutes a life (friends, job, knowledge, etc.), where should he go? In short, denying citizenship is too unfair on the son of foreigners. If government exerts such unfairness and harshness on some individuals, all the grounds of western society (i.e. that every single life has inestimable value) would be shattered, and soon other measures as harsh and unfair would be adopted for the "general welfare". So even if someone is not the son of immigrants, he may be hit by the next general welfare law, that could be eugenetic, crime prevention by arrest based on the personality, or any of the many horrors governments are quick to inflict to citizens too scared or unwise to defend their individual rights.
|
|
|
Post by anodyne on Dec 30, 2005 6:30:38 GMT -5
Nock, many illegal immigrants understand that if they have a child born in the states it allows them to stick around. It's not someone's fault where they're born but we shouldn't allow a loop hole for people who have already broken the law by crossing the border illegally.
|
|
|
Post by anodyne on Dec 30, 2005 6:34:05 GMT -5
Also, it should be noted that the 14th Amendment was never actually ratified. Although our school books tell us so and of course government tell us so. It never received a 3/4ths majority but it was passed anyway. Who was going to stop the Republicans from ignoring what some northern (Ohio and New Jersey) and border states wanted and at the same time stop them from strong arming southern states considering it was a few years after the Civil War?
|
|
|
Post by nockwasright on Dec 30, 2005 6:54:00 GMT -5
I think efforts should concentrate on guarding the border. Once someone is born it's a little too late. Or at least a compromise should be that he can not be denied citizenship if he also lived some years in the country, say 10 (just an idea). On a similar note, it's also unfair that people have children carelessly because they know government will take care of them if they can't, but it's less unfair than disregarding the newborns.
|
|
|
Post by Drooperdoo on Dec 30, 2005 7:52:04 GMT -5
Nockwasright, You said that when a person is born in the United States, "it's kind of too late" to deny them citizenship. Are you aware that almost every country on Earth denies citizenship to people born on their land? In Germany, for instance, there are Turks who were born in Germany, their parents were born in Germany--and yet they still aren't allowed to hold German citizenship. And most countries are like that. Try immigrating to Japan, for instance. So a Central American Indian who scurries up to Arizona, and gives birth to a child who was conceived in Guatemala should have zero rights to claim US citizenship. That should be something EARNED, not something stolen. Millions of people every year have to EARN the right to be Americans--through citizenship classes, pledges of loyalty to the Union, expenseive immigration fees, green cards, etc. It's cruel to make THEM go through that if we're just gonna give it away free to scammers. That's like telling half the people that they need to pay to get a college degree and attend the courses and accrue the credits--while to another group we say, "If you break into the school illegally, we'll give you a degree for nothing." That's just an iniquitous policy--and it rewards lawbreakers while punishing the sort of hardworking, legal immigrants we want.
|
|
|
Post by nockwasright on Dec 30, 2005 11:24:03 GMT -5
Nockwasright, You said that when a person is born in the United States, "it's kind of too late" to deny them citizenship. Are you aware that almost every country on Earth denies citizenship to people born on their land? Are you aware that what you say is wrong? UK, USA, Canada, France, Italy, Spain, Australia give citizenship ius soli. Under any profile except head count of the states, this is the majority of the western world. Yeah, more countries are strictly ius sanguinis, but among them the only one that actually receives immigration is Germany (and some northern European states that are not relevant in absolute numbers). Many countries likely never ever had to consider the ius soli, as they never received immigration. However fact is that if someone is born/raised in a country, he will stay there, and rightly so, where the hell could he go? Do you think he should be deported? So I don't see the point in denying him the citizenship. [ftp]http://assembly.coe.int/Documents/WorkingDocs/doc04/EDOC10070.htm[/ftp]
|
|
|
Post by Drooperdoo on Dec 30, 2005 12:12:09 GMT -5
Nockwasright, My mom's actually an immigration attorney in Florida. lol According to her, the nations with the most liberal immigration policy are the former British colonies: The United States, Canada, New Zealand and Australia. (For obvious historical reasons, these colonies had liberal immigration policies because they needed to bulk up their at-one-time small populations.) After those four former-colonies, however, immigration to foreign countries gets hard. When I went to travel to Europe and phoned ahead to see what I needed, England wanted to see proof that I was just "passing through". They don't want illegal immigrants, and neither does France. These countries actually check to see that you have a ticket to pass on to another nation. If you don't they don't let you in. And they definitely don't have the open borders you're suggesting with the easy-access immigration that you're implying. Why do you think, for instance, that 99% of England's immigrants are Indian and Jamaican? --Because those were England's former colonies, so it's easier for those people--and only those people--to attain residency in England. Same thing with France. Their immgrants are Arabs and Africans because France owned large portions of North Africa and the Middle East. If you don't belong to those former colonies, it's extremely hard to immgrate there. Now let's bring us to the United States. Since when was Mexico or Guatemala a colony of the U.S.? Answer: Never. The equivalent would be for the United States to have an open immigration policy for its former colonies--like the Phillipines. Or its current colonies, like Guam or Puerto Rico. Just as Europe doesn't give blank-check immigration to ALL Third World nations, neither should the United States. Right now California, New Mexico and Arizona are facing bankruptcy because of uncontrolled immigration; hospitals are closing down, schools are crippled because of the costs illegals incur; the Centers for Disease Control are issuing reports on the health risks associated with un-immunized Third Worlders, who are bringing vaccine-resistant tuberculosis, polio and typhus into the United States and sitting their infected children next to the children of unsuspecting US citizens. (So far there have been thousands of confirmed cases of Americans infected because of proximity to un-immunized Third Worlders.) According to the government, furthermore, 80% of cocaine enters the US through the Mexican border with illegal aliens, too. And recently Mexican officials were caught smuggling Middle Easterners into the United States illegally--a breach of national security of the most urgent dimensions. So there are very real costs to having an open border: in terms of crime, health, terrorism, etc.
So my answer to you is, yes: The anchor-baby system needs to stop and we need to deport people who break our laws. If you aren't here legally, you have no right to stay. Period.
P.S.--Law-enforcement statistics recently reported that gang violence has gone up 150% since the year 2000--most of the murders and shootings attributed to Central American gangs, like MS-13. (The overwhelming majority of the gang-members are in the United States illegally.) On CNN they reported the story of an MS-13 member chopping the fingers off the hand of a boy in the 7th grade with a machete. Apparently, he wouldn't peddle drugs for them.
|
|
|
Post by dukeofpain on Dec 30, 2005 16:22:40 GMT -5
Nockwasright, You said that when a person is born in the United States, "it's kind of too late" to deny them citizenship. Are you aware that almost every country on Earth denies citizenship to people born on their land? Are you aware that what you say is wrong? UK, USA, Canada, France, Italy, Spain, Australia give citizenship ius soli. Under any profile except head count of the states, this is the majority of the western world. Yeah, more countries are strictly ius sanguinis, but among them the only one that actually receives immigration is Germany (and some northern European states that are not relevant in absolute numbers). Many countries likely never ever had to consider the ius soli, as they never received immigration. However fact is that if someone is born/raised in a country, he will stay there, and rightly so, where the hell could he go? Do you think he should be deported? So I don't see the point in denying him the citizenship. [ftp] assembly.coe.int/Documents/WorkingDocs/doc04/EDOC10070.htm[/ftp]That's the distressing truth
|
|
|
Post by wadad on Dec 30, 2005 18:28:02 GMT -5
Are you aware that what you say is wrong? UK, USA, Canada, France, Italy, Spain, Australia give citizenship ius soli. Under any profile except head count of the states, this is the majority of the western world. Yeah, more countries are strictly ius sanguinis, but among them the only one that actually receives immigration is Germany (and some northern European states that are not relevant in absolute numbers). Many countries likely never ever had to consider the ius soli, as they never received immigration. However fact is that if someone is born/raised in a country, he will stay there, and rightly so, where the hell could he go? Do you think he should be deported? So I don't see the point in denying him the citizenship. [ftp] assembly.coe.int/Documents/WorkingDocs/doc04/EDOC10070.htm[/ftp]That's the distressing truth So what is your solution, mass deportations? lol
|
|
|
Post by Drooperdoo on Dec 30, 2005 18:48:43 GMT -5
Wadad, Mass-deportations would be costly. But doing nothing at all would be costlier. The money it would take to seal the borders and to protect the nation from crime, terrorism and disease is a drop in the bucket of what it would cost to allow California to go bankrupt, to allow hospitals to close down because they're overwhelmed by illegal aliens, the billions in taxes required to fight drug-cartels, who come in illegally and kill American citizens. There is also the cost in lives: How many Americans have already died from polio or typhus that came in with un-immunized Third Worlders. That child who had his fingers hacked off with a machete by illegal alien gang-members of MS-13. He'd have his fingers if we enforced existing laws. A woman recently raped in North Carolina by 7 illegal aliens wouldn't have been violated. A nine year-old girl who was raped in Ohio by an illegal would have had a normal childhood.
No, Americans deserve to know who comes into their country: It's not racist to demand that immigrants be excluded if they are rapists, murderers, drug-dealers, or have deadly diseases. That's what we did at Ellis Island. If you had a contagious disease, you were quarantined until you were better; and, only when you were better, were you allowed to enter the greater populace. Likewise with criminals and murderers. If you were an undesirable, you were sent back. I'm not anti-immigration. I'm anti-illegal immigration. Liberal demagogues always try to re-frame the debate as if you're against illegals you're against all immigrants and are a racist. That's so much worthless cant that should be summarily ignored.
P.S.--In the age of computers there's no reason why we can't streamline the LEGAL avenues for foreigners who want to come to America to work. They shouldn't have to register for expensive visas and be expected to wait seven years before they get an answer. The process should be sped up. We want hard-working, law-abiding immigrants. What we don't want is a broken system, where human-trafficking takes place, white slavery, drug-running and diplomats taking bribes to help people from nations on terrorist watch-lists to sneak in across the border. So far, that's what we have.
|
|
|
Post by tonynatuzzi on Dec 30, 2005 18:53:36 GMT -5
The number of illegals living in the U.S is larger than the population of alot of of countries in the world.
|
|
|
Post by Drooperdoo on Dec 30, 2005 18:59:30 GMT -5
Tony, What's your solution? --Do nothing? How costly is it to build a wall--really? Mexico built a wall on its Southern border to keep Hondurans out. If Mexico can afford it, the United States can't? Get serious.
P.S.--As the poet said, "Good fences make good neighbors". All I want for my nation is the right that Mexico claimed: To build a wall to secure its southern border.
|
|