OT/Immigration

Page 2 of 3  
In article

I love these fantasy scenarios.
--
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
but what they conceal is vital."
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 11/23/2014 8:46 AM, Kurt Ullman wrote:

Same mental disorder that thinks Obama is helping the USA.
- . Christopher A. Young Learn about Jesus www.lds.org .
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

But that is a (relatively) new interpretation. The main reason for the amendment was to codify the citizenship of newly freed slaves when some people started playing games saying they weren't really citizens. In fact, some of the early discussion in Congress suggested this very narrow focus. In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by stating: "Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will ***not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States**, but will include every other class of persons." Emphasis mine.
This understanding was reaffirmed by Senator Edward Cowan, who stated: "[A foreigner in the United States] has a right to the protection of the laws; but he is ***not a citizen in the ordinary acceptance of the word..." ***. The subject jurisdiction phrase was carefully chosen to exclude American-born persons from automatic citizenship whose allegiance to the United States was not complete. With illegal aliens who are unlawfully in the United States, their native country has a claim of allegiance on the child. Thus, the completeness of their allegiance to the United States is impaired, which therefore precludes automatic citizenship. The Supremes early on agreed confirming this restricted interpretation of citizenship in the so-called "Slaughter-House cases" [83 US 36 (1873) and 112 US 94 (1884)]. In the 1884 Elk v.Wilkins case, the phrase "subject to its jurisdiction" was interpreted to exclude "children of ministers, consuls, and ***citizens of foreign states born within the United States***." (Emphasis mine) In Elk, the American Indian claimant was considered not an American citizen because the law required him to be "not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance." The Court essentially stated that the **status of the parents determines the citizenship of the child***. To qualify children for birthright citizenship, based on the 14th Amendment, parents must owe "direct and immediate allegiance" to the U.S. and be "completely subject" to its jurisdiction. In other words, they must be United States citizens.
On the other side of the issue, the first decision one Wong Kim Ark, a child of Chinese immigrants, was born in California in 1873. He traveled to China, but upon return to the United States was barred from entering. Ark objected, and the case was taken to the Supreme Court in 1898. In a 6-2 decision, Ark was declared a U.S. citizen by the 14th Amendment, and thus exempt from the Chinese Exclusion Act. The next batch of case included Perkins v. Elg in 1939, and Afroyim v. Rusk in 1967 which dealt with the specific rights of the citizenship clause, and the Court has consistently declared that any child born within the precincts of the U.S. is a legal citizen.
1982's Plyer v. Doe stated that the undocumented immigrants who reside in a specific state are "within the jurisdiction" of that state. In addition, the majority opinion stated, "no plausible distinction with respect to the Fourteenth Amendment 'jurisdiction' can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful." So the automatic citizenship is currently encrusted in law, but there is evidence that this may not be all that in tune with what those originally involved in it thought would happen.
--
"Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
but what they conceal is vital."
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
ChairMan wrote:

people from walking into our country. But that is tangled up with the drug trade and I think we cannot ignore that connection.
The second problem is that, for many reasons, we don't seem to be able to remove those who are here without documentation, many of whom have had productive jobs for many years, and whose children who have been born here have citizenship. So where we find a family, some of whom are citizens, we have an unpleasant situation, where we have to break up a family. This happens in America, where we say we value the family!
People who are here illegally often are careful to obey the laws, and pay their taxes, because they don't want to come to the government's attention. However, because companies are subject to government inspection, many who are undocumented can safely work only in the under the counter economy. Many citizens also work in that economy. If you need some work on your house, you can go to places where workers gather, and strike a deal to have some of them do your work. Payment is in cash, and I'm confident no taxes are paid. If the undocumented worker filed a return as self-employed, they would be bringing themselves to the attention of the government, which is just what they want to avoid. In my opinion, the homeowner who participates in such a scheme should be liable himself for paying the taxes.
Years ago, I played soccer in an amateur league in California. I was the only citizen on our team. We had an Englishman who had visited and decided to stay; the rest were Mexicans who worked long hours, lived frugally, and sent most of their money back home for their families. One day we were practicing when Immigration raided us. The Mexicans disappeared, and the Englishman and I just stood there. Immigration didn't even question us, apparently because we were both white and didn't run. Soon our practice resumed. I always admired the drive of those Mexicans. They worked hard at jobs that no one else wanted.
Everyone in the US is either an immigrant, or a descendant of immigrants. We should probably stay away from Ancestry.com lest we find an undocumented immigrant in our family tree. The undocumented immigrants that are here are almost always poor and poorly educated. They don't have the knowledge or resources to hire a lawyer to get immigration papers. And they face an immigration law that has often based quotas on race or ethnicity, a history that gives us no cause for pride.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 11/23/2014 5:13 PM, No name wrote:

The second problem would not exist if the first problem was taken care of many years ago. We allowed loose or no enforcement. Usually for the benefits it provided.

Yes, we complain about the illegals but we put them to work at low wages. They can stay as long as we benefit. Need your lawn done? Tomatoes picked?
Jose is OK because the does a nice job on my lawn but tell his brother to get the hell out of here.

Tell that to 5 million native Americans
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Ed Pawlowski wrote:

they were the first wave of immigrants. We're lucky they didn't police their borders better.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I've been here, you just haven't paid attention. the election is the best thing that has happened for the democrats...the conservatives will take this "victory" as a sign that they can do what they want and come '16 they will have to start lubing their asses

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Saturday, November 22, 2014 1:24:32 PM UTC-6, ChairMan wrote:

http://i1181.photobucket.com/albums/x430/BenDarrenBach/Colbert_zpsbf1e2f53.jpg
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Heck even they immigrated Asia. FWIW, there is no evidence that any homonid or even ape is native to the Americas.
--
?Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
but what they conceal is vital.?
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 11/23/14, 7:29 PM, Kurt Ullman wrote:

If America was unsettled when Indians arrived, they weren't immigrants.
King James said much of America was his, so the people he sent to live there wouldn't be immigrants. Who was going to argue with the guy who wrote the Bible?
When the Pilgrims squatted in Plymouth, the Indians figured it was time to enforce their immigration laws. Samoset spoke up for the wetbacks. They'd taken over an abandoned town that happened to border on three nations. They could be a buffer and a source of cheap manufactured goods, like Harbor Freight. He got them amnesty.
In 1623, he sold the English land in Maine. In buying it, the English legally acknowledged Indian ownership.
Local deacons bestowed full citizenship (freeman status) by a vote. A welfare scammer probably wouldn't make it, but an Indian could. Why should deacons excuse a neighbor from the obligations of citizenship just because he wasn't born English?
King James had meant to establish a nation of sharecroppers. The Indians put a stop to that buy giving and selling land to farmers.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

More interesting to me is how well this distraction [immigration issue] has successfully shelved ANYONE from looking at the ACA issue. Which to me is far worse of a problem. Forced to buy a commercial product! With comments during its passage like,pass it to find out what's in it. and now disclosures of the true attitudes of the sources and the people elected to 'represent' us actually think about us! Obviously, not respecting a voter base means a guilty conscience about 'doing' something to that voter base.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 11/24/2014 10:53 AM, RobertMacy wrote:

Oh bomb Us guilty conscience? On what planet?
And it sure is diverting away from Obama Care.
--
.
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
message wrote:

Forced to buy a commercial product!
Yes! Since when does the gov't have the power to force every living American to send monthly payments for life to a private for profit company! Insane! Ins. co's are the largest criminal activity in this country.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 11/24/14, 11:44 AM, Phil Kangas wrote:

public, I should buy a pair of pants from a private for profit company. He says I can save money, though. If I don't buy pants, I'll have to pay a penalty, but the county will give me pants. Just in time for hunting season.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 11/24/2014 4:25 PM, J Burns wrote:

Bet they give you hunter safety orange?
Hey, you can also make your own trousers, or buy them from non profits, right? VOA, Salvo?
- . Christopher A. Young Learn about Jesus www.lds.org .
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 11/24/14, 5:00 PM, Stormin Mormon wrote:

Yes,a hunter safety orange jumpsuit. I quit wearing pants because they didn't give me the coverage I needed when I climbed a ladder.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 22 Nov 2014 16:41:29 -0500, "Ralph Mowery"

Why would you make them citizens? If you feel it's impossible to deport them they can be given permanent residence status but there is NO reason they need to be given citizenship. And we should end birthright citizenship, it's BS, no other first world country allows some pregnant sow to come over the border, drop a kid, and give the kid automatic citizenship. The fact that we do is just one more driver of the illegal's to come here. The US is run by incompetents and fools.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 11/24/2014 8:45 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:

Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Here's the way it really works..
https://soundcloud.com/mrose5/obama-golf
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Ending birthright citizenship is not easy; it's part of the Constitution.
I think that's only part of the problem anyway. IMHO the main reason that we have so many people coming here illegally is that unless you're a physician or an engineer, it's damn near impossible to come here as a legal resident -- but it's comparatively easy to come across the southern border illegally. I think this is backwards: we should make it damn near impossible to cross that border illegally, and easy to come here as a legal resident -- we should welcome anyone who has neither a criminal record nor a communicable disease and has the ability to support himself and his family.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.