Quantcast

Volunteers 'with heat' to support National Guard

Discussion in 'Legal' started by Desertdog, Jan 9, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. kungfuhippie

    kungfuhippie Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2006
    Messages:
    1,440
    Location:
    PRK
    cassandrasdaddy,
    At the meat packing facility... The kid's parents broke the law if they were illegal aliens. Don't blame the government for enforcing the laws these parents broke. My sister takes kids away from their parents all day and puts them in foster homes. Maybe we should stop doing that. Cause taking little Billy from his dad will tramatize him, who cares if Little Billy's father has been buggering him for the past year, you'll be breaking up a family! Let the illegal alien parents explain to their children that they are criminals and broke the law. That they abandoned their children because the consequences of their actions were finally kicking in. I'm surprised a pro RKBA person would make such a emotionally based arguement. Maybe we should only enforce "feel good" and "for the children" laws from now on.

    Want to ruin your feel good mentality? Go south of the border and meet the women who's husband abandoned them to come work here and send money back. Too often the money quits coming and word gets back that Husband got a new girlfriend in the US. Explain to those children why they don't get a daddy anymore. I've spent a great deal of time south of the border and I came across several families with these situations daily. People would borrow against their home/ or their parents home (from a loan shark) to get money to be smuggled here (in Ecuador the price was about $20,000) When they got here often they'd forget their family and the family would lose their home, their father, and any income. So this is why I'm pro-legal-imigration but will be more than happy to report/deport any and all illegal aliens, and their kids too. Lets redefine the 18th to remove the anchor baby clause, it wasn't meant for that, it was meant for former slaves.
     
  2. Sindawe

    Sindawe Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    3,480
    Location:
    Outside The People's Republic of Boulder, CO
    Works for me. Here's a simple set of criterion to make the decisions on.

    1. Child a minor under the age of emancipation? Ship 'em back with the parents. (Can't break up families after all). When child reaches legal adulthood, the individual may petition for admittance if they've kept their nose clean.

    2. Child a minor but over the age of emancipation? Child may chose to stay or go, but if child stays it MUST stay out of trouble. Get convicted = get deported. No return then.

    3. Adult child. They stay and are subject to the same laws as the rest of us.
     
  3. cassandrasdaddy

    cassandrasdaddy Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2006
    Messages:
    4,203
    oh heck

    biker not even a lil bit? i can post a pic of the kid holding a puppy crying? on his dads harley even!

    kung fu hippy so how do you feel about the other 400 employees detained? and many of them would have a hard time producing papers but the "visual check" works.
    "That they abandoned their children because the consequences of their actions were finally kicking in."
    did they abandon them? i guess then the jews abandoned their kin to go on train rides in the country.
    you opposed to them because it breaks up families south of the border? how "interesting" i guess then your doing it "for the children"?

    and currently the law makes the kids citizens, change the law is ok but until that happens i'm averse to second class citizens.

    sindawe you looking to set up a second class citizen?
     
  4. The Real Hawkeye

    The Real Hawkeye member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2004
    Messages:
    4,238
    Location:
    Florida, CSA
    Children born here of illegals are not citizens by that fact. It has been our nation's policy to consider them thus, but there is no Constitutional requirement that we do, and the sooner we stop this insane policy, not imitated by any other nation on earth, the sooner we can dig ourselves out of this mess.

    According to the Fourteenth Amendment, it is not enough to merely have been born here, you must also have been subject to the jurisdiction of the United States when you were born. An illegal alien born in the United States is presumed subject to the jurisdiction of his parent's country of origin. The oft quoted clause in the Fourteenth Amendment only applies to those born of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty. Mexicans in the US illegally owe their allegiance to Mexico, and are thus not subject to US jurisdiction (e.g., cannot be drafted or get a Social Security card), therefore neither are their children presumed subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and are thus not citizens of the United States by merely having been born here.
     
  5. kungfuhippie

    kungfuhippie Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2006
    Messages:
    1,440
    Location:
    PRK
    Those workers are patriots, they endured hardships to preserve their country. So how often do you not have ID? And yes, people are often detained while the good guys sort things out.

    2nd class? nope, just don't want uncle sam to break up more families than needed. Let the anchor babies come back as adults, but don't take um away from mom and dad because of where they're born.

    Comparing the holocaust victims to criminals facing consequences is pretty low. Holocaust victims were not criminals! They were taken on "country train rides:fire: " because of their race/creed.

    The people apprehended are criminals, they made a conscience decision to break our country's laws for personal gain (sounds like what a bank robber does, huh? breaks the law for personal gain) So now that they are asked to pay the price for their lawless behavior we need to worry about their kids being left at day care/school? The problem I see is that people want to start picking and choosing which laws should be enforced based on how it makes them feel, not based on justice. The line to come here legally is so long because of all the people taking "cuts". Is it fair to them that they can't get a visa? THat their kids suffer because some other guy broke the law?

    So yeah, WTH lets get emotionally charged. Logically it wins, emotionally it wins. Those poor kids have to live with criminal parents that are teaching them lawless behavior! Enforce the law, for the children!
     
  6. Sindawe

    Sindawe Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    3,480
    Location:
    Outside The People's Republic of Boulder, CO
    No, I'm proposing a compromise (aka both sides get something, but not everything they want) for addressing the issue of children born in the U.S. of parents who are here illegally.
     
  7. cassandrasdaddy

    cassandrasdaddy Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2006
    Messages:
    4,203
    the other 400 employees didn't feel like patriots

    or volunteer for the duty.

    the lil auistrian corporal considered em criminals only thing he needed to do was win the war to get away with it


    and hawkeye? i am having a hard time finding any legal scholars other than yourself to back your assertions
     
  8. The Real Hawkeye

    The Real Hawkeye member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2004
    Messages:
    4,238
    Location:
    Florida, CSA
    I'm simply reading the Amendment. It's, as luck would have it, written in my native tongue.
     
  9. Keith Wheeler

    Keith Wheeler Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2005
    Messages:
    692
    Location:
    Arkansas
    Hmmm, do people have the right of free movement? To live where ever they so desire?
     
  10. cassandrasdaddy

    cassandrasdaddy Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2006
    Messages:
    4,203
    this it?

    1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    i'm not etting your version apparently and neither aee a host of guys who went to law school. i did find one site which sees it your way but i don't think you wanna be associated with it. they seemed greatly enamoured of the lil austrian coporal
     
  11. ArfinGreebly

    ArfinGreebly Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2006
    Messages:
    11,716
    Location:
    North Idaho
    Fourteenth Amendment

    Persistent misinterpretation

    I don't know how we wound up with "anchor baby = citizen" based on the 14th amendment.
    . . . and subject to the jurisdiction thereof . . .

    Someone who sneaks into the country is NOT "subject to the jurisdiction" of the USA. They are illegally on our soil and, technically, not really here.

    They aren't citizens, they aren't on a visa or work permit, they weren't invited, they're not part of a foreign mission or embassy. Hell, they're not even seeking or claiming asylum!

    They HAVE NO STANDING under US jurisdiction.

    Any child they bear is thus only a citizen of the parent's country of origin, whatever that is.

    The 14th amendment as been interpreted well beyond its original intent and is now being used as the "citizenship loophole" in our system.

    Repeated mis-application does not equate to correct application.

    It was written to ensure the full citizenship of people whose families had been in the country for generations -- brought here, usually, against their will -- yet denied their rights based largely on race.

    None of the people sneaking in were brought here against their will, their families have not been here for generations, and they have not been raised within American jurisdiction.

    Since this misinterpretation is actively cultivated by politicians of all stripes, and enforced by their minions, it's unlikely that this will be fixed soon.

    Nonetheless: it's wrong.
     
  12. Keith Wheeler

    Keith Wheeler Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2005
    Messages:
    692
    Location:
    Arkansas

    Yep, they sure were criminals. Laws of their nation said so.

    That's the crux we're facing folks. My previous post about freedom of movement is to spark debate (of course what it will spark is a lot of conservatives calling me everything but a white man).

    It was illegal in this country to drink beer. A bunch of folks didn't like that. The law changed. Just because something is illegal doesn't mean much if it doesn't mesh with rights.
     
  13. Keith Wheeler

    Keith Wheeler Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2005
    Messages:
    692
    Location:
    Arkansas
    What? How can someone be both illegal under our jurisdiction but not subject to it?
     
  14. Sindawe

    Sindawe Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    3,480
    Location:
    Outside The People's Republic of Boulder, CO
    IIRC, the anchor baby = citizen interpretation is based on United States v. Wong Kim Ark. However, all the information I can find to date states that Mr. Ark's parents were LEGAL residents, not ILLEGAL ones.
     
  15. The Real Hawkeye

    The Real Hawkeye member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2004
    Messages:
    4,238
    Location:
    Florida, CSA
    Naturally, not. You are not at liberty to set up housekeeping in my rec room, for example, as that would be a violation of my right to private property. We also enjoy the right to defend our national soil from foreign invasion. This is a characteristic of national sovereignty, an extension of our sovereignty as individuals.
     
  16. Keith Wheeler

    Keith Wheeler Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2005
    Messages:
    692
    Location:
    Arkansas
    Well, the first seems related to free trade,and could be stated thusly: "An individual has the right to occupy any property for which they have purchased a contract for the real property."

    I don't think the free trade example of rec room directly correlates to national sovereignty. It's close, but not a complete analogy. Outside of a few jurisdictions, I don't think it's illegal to enter contracts for real property with foreign nationals.
     
  17. The Real Hawkeye

    The Real Hawkeye member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2004
    Messages:
    4,238
    Location:
    Florida, CSA
    The fact that someone's presence in the United States is in violation of our law does not make him subject to our national jurisdiction. An illegal alien is not, when arrested, charged with a crime. He is not then placed on a list of those awaiting trial. If he were subject to our jurisdiction, this is precisely what would happen to him. Merely being expelled does not make one subject to our jurisdiction, any more than being stopped at the border while attempting illegal entry makes one subject to our jurisdiction. We are merely sending them back to the jurisdiction to which they ARE subject.
     
  18. kungfuhippie

    kungfuhippie Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2006
    Messages:
    1,440
    Location:
    PRK
    The "lil austrian corporal" considered them an inferior race. He subscribed to the school of eugenics. He did not respect a country's borders either. He killed people because of their ethnicity, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, laziness, dislike of the nazi party, or mental abilities, oh and their age (but only for a while, it wasn't popular to go around killing grandmas)

    read this

    Thing is that comparing illegal imigration to WWII politics isn't very effective to people that can think for themselves. Imigration laws that are being enforced have been in practice in most of the western world for hundreds of years. In fact these types of laws existed in the greek city-states. You know Hitler changed laws to suit his world view, rather than to suit justice. Just as pro-illegal alien types are trying to do now.
     
  19. cassandrasdaddy

    cassandrasdaddy Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2006
    Messages:
    4,203
    hawkeye

    "An illegal alien is not, when arrested, charged with a crime. He is not then placed on a list of those awaiting trial. If he were subject to our jurisdiction, this is precisely what would happen to him. "

    then hawkeye you just unproved your point cause i can assure you illegals are convicted and do real time. i don't know how you missed that in law school . and after doing their time they are then deported. in cases of petty crimes they are expelled in the name of expediency.
     
  20. kungfuhippie

    kungfuhippie Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2006
    Messages:
    1,440
    Location:
    PRK
    Lets expand on that statement to make it clear...

     
  21. crazed_ss

    crazed_ss Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2005
    Messages:
    1,651
    Location:
    Sunny San Diego
    Ok, so since some Hispanics are illegals, then should we subject law-abiding Hispanic citizens to scrutiny and force them to prove their citizenship..Say a cop sees a brown lady walking down the street. Should he stop and demand to know her citizenship status? What if she she doesnt happen to have her birth certificate on her at the time? Should she be detained until she can prove she's legal?

    What if they started doing sweeps on law-abiding gun owners because there's crooks out there shooting people with guns? That wouldnt be very fair would it?

    Like I said.. going into neighboorhoods and doing sweeps and rounding people up is not a viable solution. It might net a whole bunch of illegals, but what about all the citizens that would get screwed over in the proccess?
     
  22. Keith Wheeler

    Keith Wheeler Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2005
    Messages:
    692
    Location:
    Arkansas
    Then why does everyone keep referring to them as criminals?

    Well, according to Hawkeye, they were people who are merely in the wrong jurisdiction. If that's not a crime in their home country, then they aren't criminals.

    Look, I'm not trying to stir up trouble, just exploring this incredibly complex issue. I don't have a full opinion on it. Whether anyone wants to admit it our not, the root of "illegal immigration" is in racism. "Illegal immigrants" were those of the "wrong" race. I believe the first laws against such were attempts to keep Asians out of the west. I am not saying that's the case now, just adding what to me seems to make the whole situation a bit more than a first order problem.

    On the one hand I feel there's nothing more "free" about a free nation than welcoming those who want to enjoy said freedom. I also see the issues we are facing right now.

    Here's a question for those of you who are so against the illegals: if by some other alternative history, it were easier for these people to become naturalized American citizens, and most of them were, would you still have issues?
     
  23. The Real Hawkeye

    The Real Hawkeye member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2004
    Messages:
    4,238
    Location:
    Florida, CSA
    Not for violations of our immigration laws. After they commit other crimes, we treat them as subject to our jurisdiction for the purpose of enforcing criminal codes against them. Are you suggesting that only children born of illegal aliens, who are also burglars and muggers, enjoy citizenship?
     
  24. cassandrasdaddy

    cassandrasdaddy Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2006
    Messages:
    4,203
    sindawe

    His father, Wong Si Ping and his mother, Wee Lee[3] were immigrants from Taishan, China and were not United States citizens.


    what were the laws like back then?


    The Congress of the United States had enacted a law, known as the Chinese Exclusion Act, prohibiting persons of the Chinese race from coming into the United States or becoming naturalized U.S. citizens. Chinese immigrants already in the U.S. were allowed to stay, but were ineligible for naturalization and if they left the U.S., they generally could not return.

    However, the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, ratified after the American Civil War, states the following concerning citizenship: 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.


    In a 6-2 decision, the Court held that under the Fourteenth Amendment, a child born in the United States of parents of foreign descent who, at the time of the child's birth are subjects of a foreign power but who have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States and are carrying on business in the United States, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under a foreign power, becomes a citizen of the United States at the time of birth.


    [edit] Rationale
    The 14th Amendment's citizenship clause, according to the court's majority, had to be interpreted in light of English common law tradition that had excluded from citizenship at birth only two classes of people: (1) children born to foreign diplomats and (2) children born to enemy forces engaged in hostile occupation of the country's territory. The majority held that the "subject to the jurisdiction" phrase in the 14th Amendment specifically encompassed these conditions (plus a third condition, namely, that Indian tribes were not considered subject to U.S. jurisdiction[4]) - and that since none of these conditions applied to Wong's situation, Wong was a U.S. citizen, regardless of the fact that his parents were not U.S. citizens (and were, in fact, ineligible ever to become U.S. citizens because of the Chinese Exclusion Act). The opinion emphasized the fact that "...during all the time of their said residence in the United States, as domiciled residents therein, the said mother and father of said Wong Kim Ark were engaged in the prosecution of business, and were never engaged in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China".

    The dissenters acknowledged that other children of foreigners — including freed slaves — had, through the years, acquired U.S. citizenship through birth on U.S. soil. But they still saw a difference between those people and U.S.-born individuals of Chinese ancestry, because of (1) strong cultural traditions discouraging Chinese immigrants from assimilating into mainstream American society, (2) Chinese laws of the time which made acquiring a new citizenship or renouncing allegiance to the Chinese emperor a capital crime and (3) the provisions of the Chinese Exclusion Act making Chinese immigrants already in the United States ineligible for citizenship.
    and the clincher

    Wong Kim Ark was also cited in Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982), a Supreme Court decision which struck down a Texas state law that had sought to deny public education to undocumented alien children (i.e., children born abroad who had come to the United States illegally along with their parents — not children born in the U.S. to illegal alien parents). The court's majority opinion in Plyler said that, according to the Wong court, the 14th Amendment's phrases "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" and "within its jurisdiction" were essentially equivalent and that both referred primarily to physical presence. It held that that illegal immigrants residing in a state are "within the jurisdiction" of that state, and added in a footnote that

    no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment "jurisdiction" can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful [6].
     
  25. Biker

    Biker Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    6,108
    Location:
    Idaho
    Okay Cdaddy, the puppy and the Harley got me.

    Biker:eek:
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice