CAnnoneer
Member
Cheap.
We pay taxes, obey laws, and in return expect the gov TO DO THEIR FRICKING JOB!!!! Or do you expect the taxpayer also to shoulder the responsibilities of national security and law enforcement?
Spend a week, build a wall !
- Thread starter sd550
- Start date
- Status
Cheap.
We pay taxes, obey laws, and in return expect the gov TO DO THEIR FRICKING JOB!!!! Or do you expect the taxpayer also to shoulder the responsibilities of national security and law enforcement?
Mr.V.
Member
Allow me to apologize for drawing a parallel between hispanics and insects. However, I do believe that if a country feels that immigration is a problem, don't give people a reason to immigrate. If however people enjoy their gardens to be tended for $1.25/hr or like their Strawberries $2.00 a basket instead of $4.00 then you need a large pool of cheap labor to do it. That's why all our manufacturing jobs are now in China. People wanted $14 toasters....It's just we can't outsource our local Denny's, not yet at any rate...
Don't Tread On Me
Member
beerslurpy said:
Not an attack on you, but die hard libertarians do not believe in walls, or even borders for that matter. They believe in free and open immigration. Buiding a wall as a means to that end is oxymoronic at best.
****
If you were to deport every illegal in America, every single restaurant in the country would go out of business. Who would wash the dishes? Orange juice would cost $10 a quart if illegals didn't pick the fruit. Lawn mowing service would be too expensive to ever use.
I reject any argument as to why these people shouldn't get the work. They are humans like anyone else, and let me tell you - I am NO Liberal at all. If you reject them, then you have fallen victim to the statist propaganda known as "nationalism"...We're an amazing species aren't we? When 3,000 Americans die in a terrorist attack, we all cry and mourn. But when 100,000 people die in a tsunami, we're saddened but not really bothered. Why? Because they belong to a different country? The vast majority of American's didn't know anyone who was killed on 9/11 personally, yet the sorrow is great. Most don't know anyone who died in Thailand or India at all...but no one cares. The difference is that one human being is an American, the other is not. Yet, we're all human beings.
That is the mental illness known as nationalism. It is the great satan of our era. It justifies and promotes the callousness between people based on nothing but artificial labels.
These people are not Mexicans, and we are not Americans. We are all human beings. They want to come here and work, so be it. Let them work. They only put it right back into our economy when they rent apartments, buy shoes and underwear and eat.
As for the socialist entitlement/wealth redistribution programs in America, guess what? Our domestic population does an excellent job of exploiting them already. They don't exploit them really...these programs are PACIFICATION programs. Go ahead and abolish welfare and see what happens in the streets of America. Welfare is the answer to a nasty wound in American culture that has never healed.
If anything, the illegals give us an opportunity to free ourselves from this madness by potentially breaking the system. I hate to say it, but when it comes to some things in our country, we're closer to liberty and freedom by going forward, rather than going backward. We're just prolonging the inevitable. Welfare will NEVER go away until it all collapses and there is revolutionary reform in this nation. Fighting it only delays its own natural path towards destruction.
People say the Mexicans bring crime? HEH...yeah, and exactly what did the Italians bring with them? They brought organized crime, the likes of which had an extremely profound (see 1934 GCA) effect on American politics.
As a Libertarian, whenever someone can offer a good or service for a lower cost to me, then that is beneficial for all of society, since I preserve wealth, and that is the basis for a stable and decent society.
RealGun
Member
This kind of rationale, based upon a nonexistent utopia, unworkable without every piece in place to perfection, is why hard core libertarians find it difficult to be taken seriously. There are all kinds of reasons within the current political environment why this philosophy is simply laughable.
However, what would be relatively close would be a "guest worker program" with some rules of engagement, the first piece of which is a positive ID system and a burden on employers and day laborer crew bosses to require such ID. That is inflationary, but that's another issue. It also requires work site raids by newly hired Federales, perhaps a new department, deployed throughout every State, to enforce employer requirements.
I am not sure those who propose control of illegal immigration recognize that ID requirements will apply to them also and what that really means in terms of a change in the American status quo. They also may not have thought through what it will all cost and how it will be financed.
Don't Tread On Me
Member
Not really, borders separate the jurisdiction of laws...but they do not separate human beings from others. That is un-American.
If this isn't an argument for a flat sales tax, I don't know what is. If you want them paying their part, then a flat sales tax is what we need.
With a free and open border, anyone can come across (as they do now for the most part) but the society they come into will be impossible to avoid contributing to (tax wise) due to a flat sales tax. No more income tax.
No one can argue that a local PD's crime-stopping load is too heavy due to their town being over run by illegals, and the locals have to foot the bill. These illegals would have no choice but to pay their fair share, or they simply couldn't survive here.
So, in effect, borders are BS. They do nothing. The story here is "fairness"...
If this isn't an argument for a flat sales tax, I don't know what is. If you want them paying their part, then a flat sales tax is what we need.
With a free and open border, anyone can come across (as they do now for the most part) but the society they come into will be impossible to avoid contributing to (tax wise) due to a flat sales tax. No more income tax.
No one can argue that a local PD's crime-stopping load is too heavy due to their town being over run by illegals, and the locals have to foot the bill. These illegals would have no choice but to pay their fair share, or they simply couldn't survive here.
So, in effect, borders are BS. They do nothing. The story here is "fairness"...
1911 guy
Member
I respect Oleg, but...
Sorry, you're wrong about immigration always being a good thing. Immigrants who choose to follow the rules, assimilate into a society and be contributing and respected members of society are indeed a good thing. Criminals who sneak into your backyard, leech off your tax dollar and insist you owe them more are most definately not a good thing.
By the way, there are jobs to be had in Mexico. The catch is that you must be educated and not a criminal to get and keep them. What does that say about the illegals who come here looking for jobs?
I work with several mexicans who came here by legal means. They came to get away from the backwoods of rural Mexico and ply a trade. They happen to be good machinists who are willing to work hard and cross train well because they have machining backgrounds and are intelligent. They own nice cars and nice houses with nice families. The polar opposite of the type of people we are discussing in this thread.
Sorry, you're wrong about immigration always being a good thing. Immigrants who choose to follow the rules, assimilate into a society and be contributing and respected members of society are indeed a good thing. Criminals who sneak into your backyard, leech off your tax dollar and insist you owe them more are most definately not a good thing.
By the way, there are jobs to be had in Mexico. The catch is that you must be educated and not a criminal to get and keep them. What does that say about the illegals who come here looking for jobs?
I work with several mexicans who came here by legal means. They came to get away from the backwoods of rural Mexico and ply a trade. They happen to be good machinists who are willing to work hard and cross train well because they have machining backgrounds and are intelligent. They own nice cars and nice houses with nice families. The polar opposite of the type of people we are discussing in this thread.
RealGun
Member
That's a good argument, but once again you have to change everything to a utopia to make the strict libertarian view work.
garyk/nm
Member
I keep seeing reference to "they only come here to work", and while that may be true of some, what about the hangers-on? The 15 member extended family, who are either too young, too old, or too busy taking care of all the kids to go work. How do they fit into this grand guest worker plan?
My solution: no hangers-on. If you are here to work, great. We don't need the rest of your family clogging up our schools and emergency rooms, thank you very much!
Ever been to an emergency room in an area infested by illegals? They use it as a walk-in clinic. But will the hospitals turn them away? Not until they have to close up shop for lack of income.
My solution: no hangers-on. If you are here to work, great. We don't need the rest of your family clogging up our schools and emergency rooms, thank you very much!
Ever been to an emergency room in an area infested by illegals? They use it as a walk-in clinic. But will the hospitals turn them away? Not until they have to close up shop for lack of income.
longeyes
member
I know libertarians, and you, sir, are no libertarian.
Nationalism is now, according to you, both a mental illness and the Great Satan. That is startling news. You must have been reading from the Cancun playbook, spoken aloud by Bush and written for him by the multinational corporatists. Yes, nationalism is "dangerous for America." Right. Let's toss our Constitution and Bill of Rights and all genuflect to Big Brother.
The Founding Fathers were nationalists, in the best and only sense. Let's protect and enhance this nation, with its legacy of political liberties, FIRST. To be an internationalist today means, de facto, to be a socialist, globalist corporatist, or warlord, usually all three.
madmike
Member
Who'll have to spend money on food, housing, goods and services.
What's your problem?
Or are you just opposed to "Them" being here?
Repeat: I STRONGLY FAVOR better enforcement, ID to vote, inspection of employers and workers. There are ALREADY laws in place for this. I recall them coming through the mall in Indy and checking on seasonal workers doing retail (BTW: the illegals were making $6 an hour, just like the locals)(The two "illegals" in question were from Turkey, had visas, were married to other Turks who were permanent residents. Their visas didn't allow them to work. They were working for money to support their families. Such criminals.) and dealing with the situation on the spot--employer was given a huge stack of paperwork that resulted in fines. The workers were cautioned about their visa status and sent home.
If they are driving without licenses, by all means bust them. By all means deport the ones without visas.
Building a wall is a "shut our eyes and it will go away" mentality. People have tunnelled 300 feet or more from BC to Washington state to smuggle in drugs. How long do you think it will take before someone has a tunnel under that wall?
No problem! Dig down ten feet and use lots of rebar!
But wait! There's a TWELVE foot deep tunnel!
Have patrols go along with seismic sensors. They're only $100,000 each plus operating cost and training, and we need one every ten miles.
They're bashing holes on their side of the wall for fun. What do we do?
No problem! Put it 50 feet on our side and SHOOT PEOPLE! THAT's the American way!
Use a minefield! That's cool.
But WAIT! THey're driving dogs and trashed cars through to set off the mines and make a hole!
Use ANTI-TANK MINES! Maybe some SADMs! Blow a few limbs off, and that'll teach those greasers! We're AMERICANS!
They're using boats to go around the wall, and have linked up with the illegal Chinese groups to port in Long Beach and NYC.
Have the Coast Guard do more boardings! Give HSA MORE personnel and power! Instead of just turning them back to try again, let's put them in jail here...oh, wait, that means we have to PAY for them!
No, tell the CG to just SINK THEM! That'll teach the @#$ers!
And hey, a wall worked for the USSR, and Mexico has armed guards shooting people on their southern border. Why don't we emulate THOSE cultures?
longeyes
member
the Man who Came to Dinner
The practical result of the "guest worker" program will be to bring 100 million Central Americans, mostly Mexican, into our nation and, within not very many years, give them the vote. Forget about the fact that in the interim our social service system will be utterly destroyed and overtaxed. Focus on the fact that In 18 years we will be turning control of America's political future over to Mexico.
I am waiting for ONE person in our political establishment to discuss this openly. They won't, they can't, they mustn't.
Want to bring down our welfare state? Well, this will be a good way to do it all right. The only problem is that what will follow will be polity along the model of Matamoros and Medellin.
Wake up, America!
The practical result of the "guest worker" program will be to bring 100 million Central Americans, mostly Mexican, into our nation and, within not very many years, give them the vote. Forget about the fact that in the interim our social service system will be utterly destroyed and overtaxed. Focus on the fact that In 18 years we will be turning control of America's political future over to Mexico.
I am waiting for ONE person in our political establishment to discuss this openly. They won't, they can't, they mustn't.
Want to bring down our welfare state? Well, this will be a good way to do it all right. The only problem is that what will follow will be polity along the model of Matamoros and Medellin.
Wake up, America!
longeyes
member
Hey, are you the guy with dual citizenship who wants to tell Americans how to run America? We talk about "them" because, to be blunt, some people here understand what America's all about and a lot don't. Deal with it.
Americans who roam the shopping malls and outlet centers lusting for $14 toasters are not to be indulged, they are part of the massive problem of crazed consumerism and debt addiction that has been pushed--like any drug--by unscrupulous and irresponsible and perhaps outright insane businesspeople who have utterly lost their spiritual center.
Yes, I said SPIRITUAL CENTER. If you want to understand why Americans have fought and died for LIBERTY, you need to get beyond the "bottom-line" as the be-all and end-all of American society and recognize what inalienable rights are all about and what they are grounded in. Hint: It's not the 99c stores and it's not Donald Trump's gold-plated private jets.
RealGun
Member
And do what?
madmike
Member
Wrong.
I enlisted in the military before my final naturalization hearing, have served 21 years. Have you? And thanks for letting me see what kind of person you are. Sorry I'm only an American by choice. I hope to one day be considered worthy of the consideration of those born here.
A large number of legals do that, too. That's the problem with America--other groups don't have to abide by your ideas.
Why would it make any difference on how many? The amnesty isn't open ended. And I'll bet you can't even tell me the terms of that amnesty. Go ahead.
A: agreed.
B: How do you propose to get the "expense" from them? Sure, you can seize what assets they have. What do you do for the rest?
C: Federal government cannot impose death penalty for such crimes, per US Constitution. You should read it sometime. Fascinating document. States can, but define "trafficking?" And shouldn't we include alcohol and tobacco in there?
D: Such already exists. Finding the means to enforce it in a country where people can freely travel is the problem. Should we require everyone to have passports to move about and get permission?
E: Per that inconvenient US Constitution, people born here are Americans. I'm not sure how this is handled in other countries. At the very LEAST, they would be allowed back as adults. A good lawyer can easily argue their best interests are served by living here. Either their natural family stays, or they get a US foster family. Per that tricky Constitution thing, let me blow the dust off it here, a court would decide how their best interests would be served.
F: Agreed.
longeyes
member
Start by clearing house of all the politicians who are selling out America. A lot of them are up for re-election this fall.
Don't transfer wealth from American taxpayers to people who have no right to it. Cut social welfare benefits for illegal aliens and their dependents.
Don't subvert sovereignty and hand over suffrage because you are afraid of protests or of being called "racist. We owe illegals nothing just because they have been squatting on our territory.
Accept the fact that life includes pleasantness and don't shy away from the difficulties of what must be done to preserve a viable nation.
longeyes
member
All documents can be emended and amended. The jus soli provision could be re-interpreted by SCOTUS. There is nothing sacrosanct about birthright citizenship; it was never intended to apply to the present circumstances anyway.
No one wants "papers" to move about, but when your nation is riddled with illegal trespassers, you have to be realistic.
Anyone who begins a sentence with "a good lawyer can easily argue" has placed himself or herself in the ranks of the damned.
madmike
Member
This is the "living document" version of the Constitution, then.
No one wants to stop you from recreational shooting, but when illegal Mexican alien gangbangers have assault rifles, you have to be realistic.
Anyone who imagines a lawyer won't find holes and make money and get clients what they want is smoking crack.
mcg-doc
Member
Here's some interesting reading on 14th Amendment
The UnConstitutionality of Citizenship by Birth to Non-Americans
http://idexer.com/citizenship.htm
By P.A. Madison
Former Research Fellow in Constitutional Studies
Last updated 1/02/06
We well know what federal law says on the subject of children born to non-citizens (illegal aliens) within the jurisdiction of the United States by declaring them to be American citizens. But what does the Constitution of the United States say about the issue of giving American citizenship to anyone born within its borders? As we explore the Constitutions Citizenship Clause, as found in the Fourteenth Amendment, we can find no Constitutional authority to grant such citizenship to persons born to non-American citizens within the limits of the United States of America.
We are, or should be, familiar with the phrase, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the States wherein they reside." This can be referred to as the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, but what does "subject to the jurisdiction" mean? Jurisdiction can take on different meanings that can have nothing to do with physical boundaries alone--and if the framers meant geographical boundaries they would have simply used the term "limits" rather than "jurisdiction" since that was the custom at the time when distinguishing between physical boundaries, reach of law or complete allegiance to the United States.
It is important to understand what the text of the clause actually says: subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and not any particular State jurisdiction. This is why laws at the time were written to include both limits and jurisdiction of the United States when speaking of aliens. Take for example U.S. title XXX of 1875, sec 2165 where it states: "Any alien who was residing within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States..."
It was never considered that a foreigner within the limits of a State was also automatically under the jurisdiction of the United States at the same time: they were considered still under the jurisdiction of their native country. Only time it could be said the United States had any jurisdiction over a alien is when the alien violates some U.S. law and the United States brings the alien under U.S. jurisdiction through a process of law.
We are fortuante to have the highest possible authority on record to answer this question of how the term "jurisdiction" was to be interpreted and applied, the author of the Citizenship Clause, Sen. Jacob M. Howard (MI) to tell us exactly what it means and its intended scope as he introduced it to the United States Senate in 1866:
Mr. HOWARD: I now move to take up House joint resolution No. 127.
The motion was agreed to; and the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, resumed the consideration of the joint resolution (H.R. No. 127) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
The first amendment is to section one, declaring that all "persons born in the United States and Subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside. I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that 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. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.[1]
One significant highlight about what Sen. Howard says above is that he regards the clause as simply declaratory of the "law of the land already" and is a virtue of "natural law" and "national law." Why this is significant is because some have mistakenly argued that the Citizenship Clause was somehow rooted in Common Law.
Sen. Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, author of the Thirteenth Amendment gives us the definition of what "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means under the Fourteenth Amendment:
[T]he provision is, that 'all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.' That means 'subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.' What do we mean by 'complete jurisdiction thereof?' Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.
Trumbull continues, "Can you sue a Navajo Indian in court? Are they in any sense subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States? By no means. We make treaties with them, and therefore they are not subject to our jurisdiction. If they were, we wouldn't make treaties with them...It is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens; and there can be no objection to the proposition that such persons should be citizens.[2]
Sen. Howard concurs with Trumbull's construction:
Mr. HOWARD: I concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Trumbull], in holding that the word "jurisdiction," as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.[3]
In other words, only children born to American citizens can be considered citizens of the United States since only a American citizen could enjoy the "extent and quality" of jurisdiction of an American citizen now. Sen. Johnson, speaking on the Senate floor, offers his comments and understanding of the proposed new amendment to the Constitution:
[Now], all this amendment [Citizenship Clause] provides is, that all persons born in the United States and not subject to some foreign Power--for that, no doubt, is the meaning of the committee who have brought the matter before us--shall be considered as citizens of the United States. That would seem to be not only a wise but a necessary provision. If there are to be citizens of the United States there should be some certain definition of what citizenship is, what has created the character of citizen as between himself and the United States, and the amendment says that citizenship may depend upon birth, and I know of no better way to give rise to citizenship than the fact of birth within the territory of the United States, born to parents who at the time were subject to the authority of the United States.[4]
No doubt in the Senate as to what the Citizenship Clause means as further evidenced by Sen. W. Williams:
In one sense, all persons born within the geographical limits of the United States are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, but they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States in every sense. Take the child of an embassador. In one sense, that child born in the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, because if that child commits the crime of murder, or commits any other crime against the laws of the country, to a certain extent he is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, but not in every respect; and so with these Indians. All persons living within a judicial district may be said, in one sense, to be subject to the jurisdiction of the court in that district, but they are not in every sense subject to the jurisdiction of the court until they are brought, by proper process, within the reach of the power of the court. I understand the words here, 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,' to mean fully and completely subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.[5]
Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, considered the father of the Fourteenth Amendment, confirms the understanding and construction the framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction while speaking on civil rights of citizens in the House on March 9, 1866:
find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen...[6]
The reason the language "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was chosen for the Citizenship Clause instead of the civil rights bill language that read "all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed" was because Howard feared States could eventually impose a tax on Indian's, making them eligible for citizenship under the Fourteenth. Because of the language "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" required direct allegiance to the United States, Indian's would be disqualified because they owed their allegiance to their respective tribes which in return were considered foreign nations. In 1872 Sen. James K. Kelly sums up the clause and national law on the subject in the most clearest language that anyone could understand when he said "in order to be a citizen of the United States he must been not only be born within the United States, but born within the the allegiance of the United States."[7]
Further convincing evidence for the demand of complete allegiance required for citizenship can be found in the "Naturalization Oath of Allegiance to the United States of America," an oath required to become an American citizen of the United States. It reads in part:
I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen...
Of course, this very oath leaves no room for dual-citizenship, but that is another troubling disregard for our National principles by modern government. Fewer today are willing to renounce completely their allegiance to their natural country of origin, further making a mockery of our citizenship laws. In fact, recently in Los Angeles you could find the American flag discarded for the flag of Mexico in celebration after taking the American Citizenship Oath.
It's noteworthy to point out a Supreme Court ruling in Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (1967), where the court completely discarded the fourteenth's Citizenship Clause scope and intent by replacing it with their own invented Citizenship Clause. The court in effect, ruled that Fourteenth Amendment had elevated citizenship to a new constitutionally protected right, and thus, prevents the cancellation of a persons citizenship unless they assent.
Unfortunately for the court, Sen. Howard effectively shoots down this feeble attempt to replace his clause with their own homegrown Citizenship Clause. Firstly, Howard finds no incompatibility with expatriation and the fourteenth's Citizenship Clause when he says: "I take it for granted that when a man becomes a citizen of the United States under the Constitution he cannot cease to be a citizen, except by expatriation for the commission of some crime by which his citizenship shall be forfeited."
Secondly, Sen. Howard expressly stated, "I am not yet prepared to pass a sweeping act of naturalization by which all the Indian savages, wild or tame, belonging to a tribal relation, are to become my fellow-citizens and go to the polls and vote with me and hold lands and deal in every other way that a citizen of the United States has a right to do."
The question begs: If Howard had no intention of passing a sweeping act of naturalization--how does the court elevate Howard's Citizenship Clause to a new constitutionally protected right that cannot be taken away since this would certainly require a sweeping act with explicit language to enumerate such a new Constitutional right? Remember, the court cannot create new rights that are not already expressly granted by the Constitution.
A third problem for the court is the fact both Howard and Bingham viewed the Citizenship Clause as simply "declaratory" of what they regarded "as the law of the land already." This then requires flights of fantasy to elevate Howard's express purpose of inserting the Citizenship Clause as simply removing "all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States," and not to elevate citizenship to a new protected Constitutional right. Citizenship is a privilege, not a right as say the right to freedom of religion is, and therefore, can be taken away just as any other privilege can.
James Madison defined who America seeked to be citizens among us along with some words of wisdom:
When we are considering the advantages that may result from an easy mode of naturalization, we ought also to consider the cautions necessary to guard against abuse. It is no doubt very desirable that we should hold out as many inducements as possible for the worthy part of mankind to come and settle amongst us, and throw their fortunes into a common lot with ours. But why is this desirable? Not merely to swell the catalogue of people. No, sir, it is to increase the wealth and strength of the community; and those who acquire the rights of citizenship, without adding to the strength or wealth of the community are not the people we are in want of.[8]
What does it all mean?
In a nutshell, it means this: The Constitution of the United States does not grant citizenship at birth to just anyone who happens to be born within American borders. It is the allegiance (complete jurisdiction) of the child’s birth parents at the time of birth that determines the child’s citizenship--not geographical location. If the United States does not have complete jurisdiction, for example, to compel a child’s parents to Jury Duty–then the U.S. does not have the total, complete jurisdiction demanded by the Fourteenth Amendment to make their child a citizen of the United States by birth. How could it possibly be any other way?
The framers succeeded in their desire to define what persons are, or are not, citizens of the United States. They also succeeded in making both their intent and construction clear for future generations of courts and government. Whether our government or courts will start to honor and uphold the supreme law of the land for which they are obligated to by oath, is another very disturbing matter.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnotes
[1]. Congressional Globe, 39th Congress (1866) pg. 2890
[2]. Id. at 2893
[3]. Id. at 2895
[4]. Id. at 2893
[5]. Id. at 2897
[6]. Id. at 1291
[7]. Congressional Globe, 42nd Congress (1872) pg. 2796
[8]. James Madison on Rule of Naturalization, 1st Congress, Feb. 3, 1790.
Permission is granted to use, copy or republish this article in its entirely only.
mcg-doc
Member
For those interested in the "Citizenship Clause" I recommend the enclosed document. It comes not from any particular "interest group," but from the US government. You will see, that majority of the countries in the world do not offer automatic citizenship to each baby bourn on its soil. Moreover, our esteem madmike wouldn't be a British citizen was not for his parents being "settled" in the UK or him being a bastard.
Same holds true for Germany, France, Sweeden, Switzerland, Norway, Israel, Australia, Italy,Japan. It is time to ammend the 14th Ammendment!
http://www.opm.gov/extra/investigate/IS-01.pdf
Same holds true for Germany, France, Sweeden, Switzerland, Norway, Israel, Australia, Italy,Japan. It is time to ammend the 14th Ammendment!
http://www.opm.gov/extra/investigate/IS-01.pdf
In the upcoming elections, remember: Change is good! The status quo is bad!
Change is good! The status quo is bad! Change is good! The status quo is bad! Change is good!
Now--don't just say it--vote it! Take back our country; take our rights!
If people want to come here, let them come here the way my wife came from Chile--LEGALLY!
We'll have the NEW politicians build a wall and leave the illegals on the far side, doing
this-----> :banghead: and this----->
I'll stand on this side doing this----->
Doc2005
Change is good! The status quo is bad! Change is good! The status quo is bad! Change is good!
Now--don't just say it--vote it! Take back our country; take our rights!
If people want to come here, let them come here the way my wife came from Chile--LEGALLY!
We'll have the NEW politicians build a wall and leave the illegals on the far side, doing
this-----> :banghead: and this----->
I'll stand on this side doing this----->
Doc2005
madmike
Member
mcg-doc: I can concur with the position on children of illegals not being considered native born. I have no problem enforcing that.
As to the status of British born citizens, you're wrong. Ditto for German. Australia's a half and half.
Not that I've ever cared for the "They do X in Y, so we should." Half the arguments for gun control are based on that logic.
I'm still waiting to see if anyone here actually is familiar with the provisions of the proposal. It appears most people seem to think it's, "Wetback greasers will be living on welfare tomorrow." And it's not.
By the way: my children are also dual nationals, US and UK, by provision of at least one parent (me) being British.
And no, it doesn't violate US law.
As to the status of British born citizens, you're wrong. Ditto for German. Australia's a half and half.
Not that I've ever cared for the "They do X in Y, so we should." Half the arguments for gun control are based on that logic.
I'm still waiting to see if anyone here actually is familiar with the provisions of the proposal. It appears most people seem to think it's, "Wetback greasers will be living on welfare tomorrow." And it's not.
By the way: my children are also dual nationals, US and UK, by provision of at least one parent (me) being British.
And no, it doesn't violate US law.
mcg-doc
Member
Not according to the above mentioned document. Look it up or provide an opposing source of information.
madmike
Member
Hmmm...let's see, how many Americans were born to military parents in the UK or Germany?
They're all dual nationals. I can personally name two AMERICAN personnel, born to AMERICAN personnel, on A US BASE on BRITISH SOIL who have BRITISH AND AMERICAN PASSPORTS. I can name one AMERICAN airman born to AMERICAN personnel on a US BASE on GERMAN soil who has GERMAN AND AMERICAN PASSPORTS.
If you're born there, you have citizenship as of that moment.
This actually did create complications for one of them at a later point, where he was dealing with controlled information of a highly protected status. Dual nationals are legitimately considered a potential security risk, though it's less so for UK or German than for say, Chinese or Russian.
- Status