Debate over "birthright citizenship"


PDA






bg
December 26, 2005, 07:14 PM
I'm 100% for this. I see no problem with those born to illegals here
be classified as illegal themselves. Too many times these off spring
have enjoyed the benefits of this Nation, and it's not right.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051226/ap_on_re_us/illegal_immigrants_birthright

"Most Americans feel it doesn't make any sense for people to come into the country illegally, give birth and have a new U.S. citizen," said Ira Mehlman of the Federation of American Immigration Reform, which backs Deal's proposal. "But the advocates for illegal immigrants will make a fuss; they'll claim you're punishing the children, and I suspect the leadership doesn't want to deal with that."

Some critics of current policy refer to U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants as "anchor babies" because — when they reach adulthood — they can sponsor their parents for legal permanent residency. Immigrants-rights groups say the number of such cases is smaller than critics allege, but authoritative statistics are scarce.

If you enjoyed reading about "Debate over "birthright citizenship"" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Biker
December 26, 2005, 07:20 PM
The leadership doesn't give a damn about anything except keeping the corporate $s coming in and gaining the hispanic vote, both at the expense of the American middle class. Time for a changing of the guard...
Biker

yonderway
December 26, 2005, 07:26 PM
There are serious 14th Amendment issues that need to be addressed before anything can change.
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.

We might need a new amendment to make this stick. If we're going to much about with amendments, can we repeal XVII, please?

yonderway
December 26, 2005, 07:29 PM
If we're going to much about with amendments, can we repeal XVII, please?

And while we're at it, Amendment XXVII could use some work, too.

cz75bdneos22
December 26, 2005, 08:12 PM
And while we're at it, Amendment XXVII could use some work, too.

i concur..;)

Standing Wolf
December 26, 2005, 09:41 PM
There's a way to amend the Constitution. It's time to draw a line between legitimate immigrants and illegal aliens, including their children.

That said™, I'm not holding my breath while waiting for the Republicans to do the right thing for America.

longeyes
December 26, 2005, 10:01 PM
We've gone from the Invasion of the Body Snatchers to the Invasion of the Nation Snatchers.

Unless this matter is addressed honestly and its political implications openly debated this will end up being The Big Deal-Breaker for both current political parties before the next Presidential Election rolls around. If the major political parties choose to place squatters' rights over citizen and taxpayer rights, it is time they were given a clear signal that their services are no longer needed.

Kaylee
December 26, 2005, 10:35 PM
Personally, I'm all for an end to automatic citizenship. For ALL of us, whether mama crossed the border three weeks before delivery or you can trace your family to the Mayflower.

Seems to me if a person doesn't understand the basics of American governance, they shouldn't have a say in how it goes. I'd say a person has to be a net taxpayer and be able to pass a simple test along the lines of "What are the three branches of governence? List the Bill of Rights... " and so forth in able to get a vote.

-K

Standing Wolf
December 26, 2005, 10:49 PM
If the major political parties choose to place squatters' rights over citizen and taxpayer rights, it is time they were given a clear signal that their services are no longer needed.

Amen! May it be so!

Double Naught Spy
December 26, 2005, 11:13 PM
That said™, I'm not holding my breath while waiting for the Republicans to do the right thing for America.

Who are you holding your breath for? If not the Republicans, do you think the DEMs will do the right thing or are you waiting for some third party to develop and push aside the REPs and DEMs?

gc70
December 26, 2005, 11:18 PM
I'd say a person has to be a net taxpayer and be able to pass a simple test along the lines of "What are the three branches of governence? List the Bill of Rights... " and so forth in able to get a vote.That would be illegal because it would be the intellectual equivalent of a poll tax... that many could not pay. :evil:

c_yeager
December 27, 2005, 12:31 AM
So how would you like to see this done? Would you like every person who gives birth in the hospital to provide their "papers"? Where do these "papers" come from, anyways? Maybe we should have national ID to go along with it. While we are at it, how about border checkpoints inbetween states? How much freedom are you willing to sell to keep landscapers from having to compete with Mexicans?

shecky
December 27, 2005, 12:53 AM
Seems most of the so called problems with illegal immigration could be solved by simply removing the "il" from "illegal".

This is a supply and demand issue. We in the US absolutely DEMAND low cost, flexible labor provided by illegal immigrant work. Providing low cost labor is the net benefit to the economy. With employment rates floating around the mid single digits for a long time now, it's difficult to say they're actually taking much away from anyone. That the US can absorb so many illegal immigrants and remain such a vibrant economy points more to a non existent problem.

I say the best thing is to do what we've been doing for the last few decades, or even nothing at all. The alternative would be a HUGE growth of big government in order to insure that everyone in the country belongs here. Not only would this be big government, it would be big and intrusive government. In addition, the disappearance of flexible low wage labor pool means a labor shortage and higher prices for everything currently touched by that labor pool. Which is just about everything.

horge
December 27, 2005, 01:32 AM
Whether jus solis or jus sanguis, the bottom line remains:
you have to tighten your southern border.

Anything less is ultimately ineffectual.

longeyes
December 27, 2005, 01:50 AM
With employment rates floating around the mid single digits for a long time now, it's difficult to say they're actually taking much away from anyone.

Let's see, there must be some reason that the L.A. Unified School District is planning to build 150 schools by 2012. I wonder who those schools are for. And I wonder who's going to foot the bill.

Yeah, illegal immigration, no problema, todo bueno.

wolf
December 27, 2005, 12:29 PM
That the US can absorb so many illegal immigrants and remain such a vibrant economy points more to a non existent problem.

you have much to learn about ILlegal aliens..first.they are criminals and they are not immigrants...immigrants WANT to become US citizens..not just take our money and run...

should you visit los angeles or any border town/city and don't see any problems..contact your vision professional ASAP...

wolf

Herself
December 27, 2005, 12:37 PM
...Anyone fretting over the children of illegal (immigrants)(aliens) growing up and sponsoring their parents should review the law.

If Mom and Dad went back to their Country of Origin, the kid can sponsor them at age 18, sure enough. But why should he, after being dumped in the U. S.?

If Mom and Dad stayed around to raise their offspring, they're still illegally resident, which adds a ten-year penalty clause. Their child cannot sponsor them until the age of 28!

INS is famously adversarial; they are not at all willing to be fooled on this.

...Maybe it's just me but anyone who manages to sneak into this country, raise a kid, and stay alive for 28 years while working "off the books" might have paid some dues. "Anchor children?" Yeah, you bet.

There are plenty of other aspects to illegal immigration and there are very few easy answers. But this one is not so difficult to work out.

--Herself

Lupinus
December 27, 2005, 12:44 PM
I'm all for it. If your parents are here illegaly I don't think you should be a citizen cause your mother popped you out on our side of the fence one night. But if your parents are citizens or here legaly then you should be considered a citizen. Then agian I am all for having to past a simple history test before you can vote, nothing about view points, simply history and factual questions about the USA that aren't open to peoples view points or beliefs.

Camp David
December 27, 2005, 12:48 PM
Time for a changing of the guard...
Biker

Ok to change this law and Constitution Biker; i.e., birthright citizenship?

But in the the Patriot Act discussion, Constitution is untouchable?

Why the difference Biker?

Biker
December 27, 2005, 12:51 PM
Ok to change this law and Constitution Biker; i.e., birthright citizenship?

But in the the Patriot Act discussion, Constitution is untouchable?

Why the difference Biker?
The "guard" is not the Constitution, it is, in this case, the people responsible for enforcing our immigration laws.
Biker

Camp David
December 27, 2005, 12:52 PM
The "guard" is not the Constitution, it is, in this case, the people responsible for enforcing our immigration laws.
Biker

Clarify what you are saying... are you in favor of changing law that guarantees citizenship to those born in America?

longeyes
December 27, 2005, 12:54 PM
...Anyone fretting over the children of illegal (immigrants)(aliens) growing up and sponsoring their parents should review the law.

If Mom and Dad went back to their Country of Origin, the kid can sponsor them at age 18, sure enough. But why should he, after being dumped in the U. S.?

It's not about sponsoring them down the road for citizenship, it's about all the welfare payments that the minor is able to pass along to illegal Mom and Dad for all those years. You've got illegals with multiple "American" children. What do you think they are living on? Who do you think is paying for the SUVs I see in the Costco parking lot?

Camp David:

Some parts of the Constitution may need some clarification, that's all. Let's apply some common sense.

Biker
December 27, 2005, 12:59 PM
Clarify what you are saying... are you in favor of changing law that guarantees citizenship to those born in America?
No. The anchor baby problem would be almost non-existant if:
a) The illegal was prevented from crossing the border in the first place .
b) If she was able to sneak in, she was rapidly deported upon apprehension.

I still believe that the Constitution is just fine as is.

Clear?
:)
Biker

Camp David
December 27, 2005, 01:02 PM
Clear?
Almost...

Time for a changing of the guard...

Changing what? Current law grants citizenship to any American-born baby; born on U.S. territory... are you in favor of changing this or denying rights under this law?

Sorry to appear dense... it is an important point...

pax
December 27, 2005, 01:13 PM
Okay, so let's just pretend this goes through. Babies born to illegals are themselves illegal.

Will that force the illegals out of the country? Nope. They'll still be here. Millions of illegals live in this country and there's no reason to believe they'll just vanish when this goes through.

Fast forward a few generations, to the birth of a great-grandchild of the original illegal immigrant. That baby's parents have never lived anywhere but America. That baby's grandparents have never lived anywhere but America.

The great-grandbaby doesn't have citizenship in America. He doesn't have citizenship anywhere else. How could he?

INS finds out about the birth, but the great-grandbaby doesn't have a country to go "back" to. He can't be deported because he doesn't belong to any other countries.

Are you folks planning internment camps for the children of undesireables? :barf:

Or what?

pax

Camp David
December 27, 2005, 01:29 PM
Are you folks planning internment camps for the children of undesireables? :barf:

Excellent point pax!

I would be against any change in the birthright law, of any kind. A child is born where he/she is born and is a citizen thereof by natural law.

That said, I am in favor of tightening up immigration access and control procedures. Proactive measures of the latter will reduce need for effort on the former.

Herself
December 27, 2005, 01:37 PM
+1, Pax. It's a poor "solution" that creates an even worse problem. And the stateless would have nothing at all to lose.

--Herself

bg
December 27, 2005, 01:38 PM
You make valid points Pax. However we MUST start somewhere
to decrease the flow of illegals into this country. Myself I don't have
a problem with those who come here and at least start the paperwork
to stay here legally. It's those who WON'T try to go through the
process of either obtaining a LEGAL green card, not the one you
can buy on the street corner down in L.A, or citizenship status
that has I as well as millions more upset. To NOT try to work
with the laws we have here regarding immigration is a direct
slap to the very core of our Nation. We are a land of laws, yet
illegals spit on by not going through the process..

Simply, those who come here illegally should not be allowed the
same rights, benefits, etc as those who DO come here trying to do
the right thing. Your point about sending further gens back to a country
that they weren't born in is also head on. How to fix it ? Deny THEM
any holdings or assets as well until those assets savings etc, are used for
proper documentation. Doesn't matter how much it takes. Fact is it
should be on the family to investigate this. It would all be so much simpler
if illegals DID do the right thing and reg.

If they want to come here to better themselves, then they have
to play by the rules/laws as they are written. If found to be here
illegally the Gov should attach any holdings, assets, etc.

We HAVE to get this handled. It's out of control. These are my
suggestions sad as they are..I'll gladly listen to any other
solutions, except those of La Raza and like orgs.

pax
December 27, 2005, 01:51 PM
Your point about sending further gens back to a country
that they weren't born in is also head on. How to fix it ? Deny THEM
any holdings or assets as well.
I had a hard time following your logic, but it sounds as though your contention is that the problems created by illegal immigration would be solved if we just create a permanent underclass of people who are prohibited by law from owning anything and can therefore never legally acquire the means to go anywhere else.

Somehow, I don't think that will help.

pax

P95Carry
December 27, 2005, 02:07 PM
Without getting into the depths of the thread prime subject I will just say this ....

I spent something like 5 years, going thru INS hoops and hurdles - including time and significant cost. Initially to get my green card - which then was reappraised to give me unconditional status. Time and cost all the way.

Last September - finally - my citizenship was complete. I was more relieved that just ecstatic. The end of a long road. But I do feel proud to be an American and pay my way.

Because I went ''the right way'' I do inevitably feel quite profound angst toward illegals, in particular when they are the criminal types or simply parasitic.

Unfortunately the logic purported by Pax is pretty inescapable - offspring of illegals almost by default have to be regarded as citizens but - it sure sticks in my gullet, that the illegals were here in first place!

Biker
December 27, 2005, 02:10 PM
I repeat; Guard our borders and enforce existing immigration laws and the problem becomes miniscule.
Biker

longeyes
December 27, 2005, 02:18 PM
The kids would not have citizenship and they'd be ousted along with their parents. They have a country to go back to: Mexico (primarily). Why are we playing games with Mexico?

There are, by the way, far worse things than a "permanent underclass." One would be losing your nation and the rule of law. This is one more instance of faux compassion leading to self-destruction. If you don't have the spine to deal with the lawless, expect to be overwhelmed. Just don't plan on taking me with you.

longeyes
December 27, 2005, 02:21 PM
Okay, so let's just pretend this goes through. Babies born to illegals are themselves illegal.

Will that force the illegals out of the country? Nope. They'll still be here. Millions of illegals live in this country and there's no reason to believe they'll just vanish when this goes through.

This isn't about "logic," it's about spine. Those who keep repeating that there's nothing we can do to expel people who by law shouldn't be here are themselves part of the problem. If you think there's no answer, there isn't--for you. Prepare to see your country overwhelmed because you are afraid to do what it takes to defend it.

Camp David
December 27, 2005, 02:33 PM
This isn't about "logic," it's about spine. Those who keep repeating that there's nothing we can do to expel people who by law shouldn't be here are themselves part of the problem. If you think there's no answer, there isn't--for you. Prepare to see your country overwhelmed because you are afraid to do what it takes to defend it.

longeyes... you can't punish the children for mistakes by the adults, in my opinion. Regardless of whether or not one has spine, not granting citizenship to children born in our nation makes this nation a hypocrite. Like abortion, one cannot punish a child for mistakes made by adults, so too birthright citizenship! If illegals have a child while in this nation, that birth makes child a citizen.... denying such makes us as bad as them...

Yes, we need to move against illegal aliens. Put up a proper barrier, evict illegal aliens, punish companies that hire illegals. Even move our National Guard to border. Yes to all. But punish a child for being born? Sorry...no.

longeyes
December 27, 2005, 02:58 PM
Sending a child, with parents, back to the his/her country of origin is not "punishing the child." There is more to a happy childhood than being an American citizen. This is, in my view, dangerous sentimentality; it's not about punishing a child or rewarding a child, it's about something more important than either: honoring the law and respecting one's own culture. If you want more of something, subsidize it, goes the saying. Want more illegal alien problems? Give them goodies, make their offspring citizens with all the rights and privileges emanating therefrom. The 14th Amendment was designed to protect those brought here against their will and exploited; applying it to illegal aliens and their children turns that upside-down: they are coming against OUR will and exploiting US.

The inability to deal firmly with illegal immigration is a sign of the kind of decadence we decry in the Europeans, a case of "moral sophistication" triumphing over common sense and a desire to survive.

Camp David
December 27, 2005, 03:14 PM
Sending a child, with parents, back to the his/her country of origin is not "punishing the child."

His/Her country of origin is the United States if he/she was born here!!!!! Which nation would you presume it would be?

Different sets of standards apply, for illegal aliens versus those children born to them while domecile.

Curious which nation you would enter on their Birth Certificate? Should we lie?

pax
December 27, 2005, 03:41 PM
This isn't about "logic," it's about spine.
Well, I'm glad you are willing to admit that your position is illogical and that you are thinking only with your emotions. It makes it a lot easier.

Nowhere have I said that the illegal immigrant problem is unsolvable. I've only given one of many logical reasons why this isn't the solution.

pax

Half our mistakes in life arise from feeling where we ought to think, and thinking where we ought to feel. -- John Churton Collins

Herself
December 27, 2005, 04:01 PM
The kids would not have citizenship and they'd be ousted along with their parents. They have a country to go back to: Mexico (primarily). Why are we playing games with Mexico?
The example cited several generations, but I'll bite: Because it takes two to tango! Mexico is not obliged to go along with the U.S.'s theories about those children born in the U.S. to Mexican nationals having Mexican citizenship. You could just shoot the babies at the border, perhaps? Or do as the Greeks once did, and simply set them out to die? Willing to take your turn as executioner?

There are, by the way, far worse things than a "permanent underclass." One would be losing your nation and the rule of law.
And a permant underclass wouldn't lead pretty much directly to that? How not? Are you advocating a return to sefdom? Peonage?

This is one more instance of faux compassion leading to self-destruction. If you don't have the spine to deal with the lawless, expect to be overwhelmed. Just don't plan on taking me with you.
The lawless are best dealt with one at a time, in the act of commiting or attempting to commit lawless acts against individuals, at which point one apprehends and detains them, or, if they are unwilling to stop, one shoots them. Politely but firmly. In an armed society, it's just about self-correcting.

Don't dare call me "compassionate," faux or not. No, call me lazy. Dead babies are messy and embarrassing; I don't want to have to explain them to my nieces and nephews. Dead criminals, not so much and easier to account for.

--Herself

geekWithA.45
December 27, 2005, 04:03 PM
Laying aside illegal immigration for the moment, it seems to me that people generally don't value what they get for free.


The INS agent who admited my adopted daughters to the US thought that a green card was (and I quote) "just as good as citizenship, except you can't vote {shrug}", seemed to feel likewise.

Sidebar:

Wierd bits about bringing in adopted kids from overseas: The child protection act of 2000 confers US citizenship to the kids immediately upon lawful admittance, which is to say, as of the moment the admitted stamp goes into the kid's foreign passport. Based on that, we obtained US passports for them shortly thereafter, to document their citizenship status. THEN we got green cards in the mail from Homeland Security, certifying them as permanent resident aliens. :what: (No big deal, they had simply crossed in the mail) Then we domestically re-adopted the kids (which generates a US birth certificate, since the original foriegn documents are impossible to get duplicates of, for all intents and purposes), and THEN we filed a different form to FURTHER document their citizen status.

Why go through all that trouble, when the green card came "for free", with no further effort expended?

One: Despite the statement of the ignoramous INS agent, citizenship COUNTS.

Second: Anecdotal horror stories have been heard concerning adopted citizen kids getting caught up in some sort of juvenile police involvement, which then initiated DEPORTATION PROCEEDINGS, :what: which would have been headed off at the pass had the parents done their duty and gotten their kids the documents they'll need through their lives.

Go figure.

wolf
December 27, 2005, 04:21 PM
i understand longeyes point...and agree...we are fools to grant citizenship to "anchor babies"..the amendment should read...born to citizens...the way it is now..the baby rules... it brings mom & dad..sisters..brothers..aunts..uncles and all related to the aforementioned to the US to take part in the "birth process" .. unfortunetly..most don't leave..and you have a huge population increase in towns & cities that are overwhelemed..the closing of hospitals that cant afford to be the third worlds birthing center and emergency rooms as primary health care for when the "new citizen" gets a cold..and lets build additional schools as fast as we can..and run an educational budget beyond function..

if you don't live in a city/town that has been destroyed or in the path of being destroyed by the mass illegal influx...you may not have the appreciation for my point of view (longeyes and others also)..then there are many that don't see any reason for borders or national sovereignty at all..and think/feel that all third world nations should be allowed to come here for a better life..whatever the cost..the question that i ask to those folks is..do you have doors on your house/home..

wolf

shecky
December 27, 2005, 05:08 PM
you have much to learn about ILlegal aliens..first.they are criminals and they are not immigrants...immigrants WANT to become US citizens..not just take our money and run...

First of all, crimes not against person or property probably shouldn't be crimes.

Second, what's wrong wanting to "just take our money and run"? Illegal immigrants may be better capitalists than many Americans, filling existing needs for cheap and flexible labor.

should you visit los angeles or any border town/city and don't see any problems..contact your vision professional ASAP...

I live in Los Angeles. I see a vibrant and diversified economy for just about anyone that's willing to work. Doesn't seem any worse than any other big city.

shecky
December 27, 2005, 05:18 PM
You make valid points Pax. However we MUST start somewhere
to decrease the flow of illegals into this country.


I have to ask this simple question: Why?

Illegal immigrants are in the US because the US wants them. It's the same with drugs. Simply declaring them illegal doesn't make the demand vanish. I suspect a War on Illegal Immigration will be about as successful as the war on drugs.

While I can understand someone like P95Carry being resentful about illegal immigrants, it should be understood that the problem is with the government's bureaucracy and not with the illegal immigrants themselves. They didn't create the endless hoops to jump or paperwork.

gc70
December 27, 2005, 05:24 PM
Birthright citizenship is one of many factors that promote illegal entry into the US. Any way you want to look at it, giving American-born children of illegal aliens rights and benefits is an inducement to illegal entry. Birthright citizenship would not be a big problem if there were not vast hordes of illegals in the country. Since we are already past that point, birthright citizenship is a valid issue to consider in trying to control illegal entry.

Dealing with birthright citizenship will not be a panacea to solve illegal entry, any more than dealing with any other single contributory factor would be. We will continue to have huge problems with illegal entry until be deal with all of the major inducements.

How about enforcing labor laws? Yes, eliminate the demand for illegal aliens.
How about cutting off benefits? Yes, don't reward illegal aliens for being here.
How about building a wall or a fence? Yes, reduce the ease of casual entry.

BTW, I like BG's solution to pax's question about multi-generational illegals. We already use asset confiscation to prevent criminals from benefiting from their crimes, so extending the concept to illegal aliens is not a big leap. But more than simply confiscating the assets of illegal aliens, BG offers the pragmatic solution of using the confiscated assets t o pay the costs for the illegals to actually go through the process to become legal immigrants.

bg
December 27, 2005, 07:18 PM
I had a hard time following your logic, but it sounds as though your contention is that the problems created by illegal immigration would be solved if we just create a permanent underclass of people who are prohibited by law from owning anything and can therefore never legally acquire the means to go anywhere else.

Somehow, I don't think that will help.

pax
I admit I have a hard time explaining myself many times.
I mean to use something like this idea not to deny but to make it
very clear that this is one of many options the Gov could use
to get people who are here illegally to at least start the process to
either obtain legal status or in the above member's case become a
citizen. I can totally understand his feelings as he did it by the book
and finally obtained citizenship. I too admit from stories I've
read and heard about, if there was a better way to streamline
the process that would have to be the priority.

I don't want to create a different class of people.
I want to see people make it here. But if coming here under illegal
means and abusing the system is just fine with them, then if/when
the Law comes down on them it's a BIG hurt. If not, what's the
sense of having law ?

I simply want those who come to this land to play by the laws
that you, I and most all play by. Illegal infestation is a health
hazard, a drain on the economy and in the end, dangerous.

Heck the kids are born here, grow up here knowing their folks
broke the law coming here illegally. Not all but most do. Since
it seems "ok" for their people to break the law, why should they
obey it in any form..?

All one has to do is look at L.A to see what kind of mess it's
turned out to be. I don't have the answer in stopping it, but
as stated I'm open to any solutions. :confused:

alan
December 27, 2005, 07:41 PM
Today's Pittsburgh Post-Gazette carried an article on this subject. Could get "interesting".

Nationalist
December 27, 2005, 08:41 PM
I agree you are the nationality of your parents no matter where you are born period. I am sick of those illegal immagrants droping their anchor babys here. That law needs to be changed.

longeyes
December 27, 2005, 09:29 PM
Illegal immigrants are in the US because the US wants them. It's the same with drugs. Simply declaring them illegal doesn't make the demand vanish. I suspect a War on Illegal Immigration will be about as successful as the war on drugs.

The "US" doesn't want illegals. A small stratum of axe-grinders wants the invasion.

shecky
December 27, 2005, 11:11 PM
The "US" doesn't want illegals. A small stratum of axe-grinders wants the invasion.

Of course the US wants illegal immigrants. It wants a cheap and flexible labor pool to help fuel the economy. America votes with it's dollars, the kind of vote that really counts.

All one has to do is look at L.A to see what kind of mess it's turned out to be. I don't have the answer in stopping it, but as stated I'm open to any solutions.

Exactly what kind of mess has L.A. turned out to be that's any different from other large cities?

Dealing with birthright citizenship will not be a panacea to solve illegal entry, any more than dealing with any other single contributory factor would be. We will continue to have huge problems with illegal entry until be deal with all of the major inducements.

How about enforcing labor laws? Yes, eliminate the demand for illegal aliens.
How about cutting off benefits? Yes, don't reward illegal aliens for being here.
How about building a wall or a fence? Yes, reduce the ease of casual entry.

Eliminating birthright citizenship won't likely do anything about illegal entry, because the demand for a low wage labor pool won't change.

Enforcing labor laws won't eliminate the demand for illegal aliens any more than enforcing drug laws eliminates drug abuse. Remember that most rudimentary of economic lessons: supply and demand.

Any government action to truly eliminate illegal immigration would be a HUGE growth of government of the intrusive kind (how else do we ensure all employed persons are who they say they are), a corresponding huge tax burden (to pay for all those new government workers and border fence patrol), and higher costs for nearly everything, as the low wage labor pool is eliminated and replaced by all above-the-board labor, which we may need to import from Mexico anyway (remember the US low unemployment rate?), only this time at government regulated wages, with corresponding government regulations imposed on employers (tax records, workers comp, etc.).

bg
December 27, 2005, 11:54 PM
Exactly what kind of mess has L.A. turned out to be that's any different from other large cities?
Well I'm not in other cities. In fact I'm not even in L.A, but I'm not
far from it and it does have a major problem with illegal immigration.
But your right. I shouldn't limit it to just L.A...
Here are just a few samples.
http://usinfo.state.gov/eap/east_asia_pacific/chinese_human_smuggling/smuggling_in_the_press/crime.html
http://www.ice.gov/graphics/news/newsreleases/articles/050823losangeles.htm
http://www.ice.gov/graphics/news/newsreleases/index.htm

longeyes
December 27, 2005, 11:54 PM
Of course the US wants illegal immigrants. It wants a cheap and flexible labor pool to help fuel the economy. America votes with it's dollars, the kind of vote that really counts.

You're generalizing, amigo. A slice of this country wants them. A much bigger chunk of America doesn't. Fact is, Americans haven't really been given a "vote" on this issue. Yet. That will change.

Any government action to truly eliminate illegal immigration would be a HUGE growth of government of the intrusive kind (how else do we ensure all employed persons are who they say they are), a corresponding huge tax burden (to pay for all those new government workers and border fence patrol), and higher costs for nearly everything, as the low wage labor pool is eliminated and replaced by all above-the-board labor, which we may need to import from Mexico anyway (remember the US low unemployment rate?), only this time at government regulated wages, with corresponding government regulations imposed on employers (tax records, workers comp, etc.).

I guess it's not dawned on you that illegal immigration has already spawned a huge growth of government, the vast industry of bureaucratic parasites who in various ways use taxpayers' money to service the illegal alien "customer." Illegal immigration is already costing state governments a mighty bundle in the billions, and we can expect providing health care for the "uninsured," a euphemism for illegal aliens, to further enlarge the scope of government if the lobbyists and burrocrats get their way.

gc70
December 27, 2005, 11:56 PM
Yep, shecky, we can't do anything about the flood of illegals without endangering the ability of the masses to buy more cheap toys. So let's all just relax and enjoy things until we no longer have jobs and then the benevolent government will take care of us at least well enough to ensure that we vote the correct way.

The continuing flood of illegal aliens is a self-fulfilling prophecy for those who are already convinced that nothing can (or should) be done to stop it. I don't share that belief.

bg
December 28, 2005, 12:24 AM
Any government action to truly eliminate illegal immigration would be a HUGE growth of government of the intrusive kind (how else do we ensure all employed persons are who they say they are), a corresponding huge tax burden (to pay for all those new government workers and border fence patrol), and higher costs for nearly everything, as the low wage labor pool is eliminated and replaced by all above-the-board labor, which we may need to import from Mexico anyway (remember the US low unemployment rate?), only this time at government regulated wages, with corresponding government regulations imposed on employers (tax records, workers comp, etc.).
You mean the rest of us who have been paying taxes and part of our
medical benefits while barely getting by in some cases have been
doing this all wrong ? Why should those who come here to the U.S
not pay their fair share ? I'm not buying any defense for illegal
immigration. It's wrong and it has to be faced head on now, or
just like quicksand this Nation will sink like a rock.

Or maybe it's going to take another one of these to happen before
the issue of illegal immigration must be faced..Heck one would
think the death of over 4,000 might do it. Not counting the loss
of our service members overseas.

http://www.september11news.com/WorldNewspapers_USAMontage.jpg

I am getting too emotional on this subject. It should be done with
cool thought out logical ideas. But something has to be done and soon.

longeyes
December 28, 2005, 12:21 PM
While the Democratic Party paints itself into a corner as the party of appeasement and denial on the war abroad, the GOP is dismembering itself as the party of appeasement and denial on the war at home. A pox on both their houses.

MEXICO
Fox hires lobbyist for U.S.
The Texan who advised President Vicente Fox's election campaign will now try to sweeten U.S. views on immigration.
BY SAM ENRIQUEZ
Los Angeles Times Service

MEXICO CITY -- President Vicente Fox has rehired the Texas public relations man and GOP political consultant who quietly helped engineer his election victory in 2000. This time, Fox wants Rob Allyn & Co. to put the brakes on growing anti-immigration, anti-Mexican sentiment in the United States.

Last week, the U.S. House approved a bill to add 700 miles of border fencing and make illegal immigration a felony. Fox denounced the measure as shameful. His foreign minister called it stupid and underhanded.

''The contributions of Mexicans in the United States, who are making their best effort, generating lots of wealth, are not known,'' said Rodrigo Iván Cortés Jiménez, an elected deputy in Mexico's lower house and a member of its commission on foreign affairs.

The immigration bill, expected to reach the Senate in February, has no provision for allowing temporary Mexican workers -- a further slap, in Fox's view. He and President Bush agree on the need for a ''guest worker'' program.

Fox cannot seek reelection next year, and his legacy may rest in part on his pledges to secure an agreement with the United States to grant legal status to the millions of Mexicans living and working illegally north of the border.

So the Mexican leader last week turned to the political operative who helped him topple Mexico's longtime ruling party to win the presidency.

Rob Allyn helped George W. Bush defeat Ann Richards for the governorship of Texas in 1994. Three years later, Allyn saw another potential winner in Fox, then governor of Guanajuato state. He agreed to join Fox's presidential campaign, but only in secret.

For three years, Allyn worked clandestinely, helping craft Fox's message of change, as well as his TV commercials, his polling and his wardrobe. Allyn made dozens of trips to Mexico, traveling under one of three pseudonyms.

Fox, of the National Action Party, came from behind to defeat Francisco Labastida of the Institutional Revolutionary Party, which had ruled Mexico for seven decades. During Mexico's official campaign season in the first six months of 2000, Allyn worked with Penn, Schoen & Berland, a polling and political consulting firm. They operated Democracy Watch, a nonpartisan group hired by Mexicans to conduct national exit polls as a hedge against election fraud.

After the July election, Allyn told the Dallas Morning News he hid his work for Fox because he didn't want to be a political liability. Mexicans are sensitive to foreign interference, especially involving the United States.

Allyn, who also worked on the Bush presidential campaigns, now faces a bigger challenge with the migration issue.

Demands to stem illegal immigration are growing louder in the United States as Mexican and Central American workers spread across the country.

''Our focus is on public opinion, which influences policy outcomes in Congress,'' said Allyn, 46, who grew up in Huntington Beach, Calif., and moved to Texas when he was in high school. ``There is a huge misperception among the U.S. public about Mexico.''

Mexican Foreign Minister Luis Ernesto Derbez said Allyn's message should be that Mexicans have sunk roots deep in their U.S. neighborhoods and that they contribute more through their work, taxes and families than they take away in public services.

If you enjoyed reading about "Debate over "birthright citizenship"" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!