The state Republican Party adopted a platform Saturday that includes a provision aimed at opposing automatic citizenship for babies born in the U.S. to illegal immigrants.
Actually, it opposes automatic citizenship for legal residents too, but I’ll get to that in a moment.
“Immigration is an issue that a lot of our party activists feel strongly about,” state Republican Party Chairman Luke Esser said. “And it’s certainly a very defensible position. It’s not at all something that’s based on race concerns.”
Yeah.. sure, Luke. It has nothing to do with race. And when Republicans think about immigration, they don’t automatically envision hoards of Spanish-speaking brown people.
“It’s a matter of what is citizenship going to be based on.”
And in the United States of America, Luke, citizenship is based on the 14th Amendment:
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.
Of course, top notch attorney that he is, Esser relies on the classic Republican legal strategy for getting around a constitutional provision. Reinterpret it:
Esser noted that prohibiting citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants could “require a change in the U.S. Supreme Court interpretation of the 14th Amendment…”
That’s right, the trick, according to WA’s state GOP chair, is not to build the political consensus to revise the US Constitution, but rather, pack the bench with enough conservative justices who are willing to toss out legal precedent that has stood since 1898. And to be clear, the state GOP’s goal is not merely to deny citizenship to natural born children of illegal immigrants, but to deny our long tradition of “birthright citizenship” to the children of legal residents as well.
The provision goes on to say that legal immigration “can best be facilitated by a transparent, traceable and enforceable guest-worker program that does not include amnesty or birthright citizenship and sanctuary cities.”
So children born on US soil to “guest-workers” with legal visas, would be denied citizenship, as would any number of other second-class residents:
Esser said the issue of birthright citizenship is broader than just illegal immigration. For example, he said, “I think if you ask the average person, ‘Should a couple vacationing in the United States who are citizens of another country have a child on U.S. soil, should that child be a U.S. citizen?’, that doesn’t sound reasonable.”
And that’s just one example. The whole purpose of the 14th Amendment was to prevent Congress, the states and the courts from coming up with exceptions under which they could deny one class of people the “privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.” But to our state GOP leaders, I suppose, a child born here of Mexican parents, raised and educated here, and for whom English is his first language, is still more Mexican than American.
That’s the sort of thinking that ultimately led to Japanese internment camps.
[WA Attorney General Rob] McKenna said he doubts the citizenship provision of the party platform will have much impact… “I think the attention span of the public on party platforms is very brief…”
Isn’t that always the GOP strategy… counting on the public not to pay close attention to the issues, or where their party stands on them.
While they’re at it:
I suppose they might like to continue correction of the wild misconstructions of the 14th amendment by effacing that clerical error in 1870 or so that misstated a decision to deny personhood to corporations. A world of trouble would be avoided thereby.
–ml
Well, Goldy…I was there, you weren’t, so I think your take on what we did in Spokane is, at best, second hand and filtered through someone else’s ideology.
And typical for you is the hyperbole about repealing the 14th Amendment. Sheesh!
What we did was to recognize that immigration is a huge issue without any concerted effort underway to address it.
As the grandfather of two Latino boys, your knee-jerk playing of the race card can only be regarded as low rent; this isn’t about race – it’s about who controls access to the rights and benefits of citizenship: Citizens or non-citizens?
Any immigration policy has to be grounded first on controlling the borders. Additionally, dealing intelligently with the 12 or 13 million illegal aliens here now is mandatory. Part and parcel of that is what to do about their offspring. The priviliges and immunities, equal protection of the laws, and all the other emoluments of citizenship shouldn’t automatically be extended to anyone whose presence here is the direct result of the violation of U.S. law.
Once the children are citizens, the legal status of the parents changes, even if only slightly.
You complain about the consequences to the children of illegal aliens. Why don’t you direct your complaint to their parents? Who came here illegally in the first place?
Had they followed the rules, then the children wouldn’t be subject to what you regard as onerous consequences.
You can’t ignore the law then demand a pass when it comes back to bite you in the butt.
And your reading of history is also wrong – the original intent of the 14th Amendment was to protect newly freed slaves and other blacks from invidious discrimination by the former Confederate states. Over the years, however, SCOTUS has expanded it well beyond its original intent.
But that’s another matter for another day.
How many other countries in the world grant birthright citizenship? And is that something that we can no longer afford to do? What is the economic cost to taxpayers of birthright citizenship?
These are legit questions – why not address them and objectively analyze the issue instead of flogging the same old red herrings?
And SCOTUS reinterprets its decisions all the time, so quit making out like it’s some sort of massive scandal. Under your criterion, Plessy v. Ferguson would still be law – after all, how dare SCOTUS take another look at the concept of separate but equal?
When President Bush and Senator Ted Kennedy, supported by John McCain, I might add, tried to make your immigration approach national policy, the outcry from the American people was overwhelming – yours isn’t the popular sentiment by any stretch.
Substantive immigration reform is necessary, and ending the practice of birthright citizenship is a legitimate issue for consideration.
Consider…if the issue of birthright citizenship were put to a national referendum, which POV would prevail? Yours or mine?
The Piper
Hey Pooper you should change your name to red herring! First, you and your party are racists. Everyone knows it. So stop pretending it isn’t true. While I wouldn’t agree with you, I would at least potentially respect you if you’d just come out and admit it – you are a racist party. (As for your grandchildren I bet you screamed bloody murder when your son married a “beaner.”)
As for putting the issue of birthright to a national referendum, your statement would be true of EVERY generation of Americans. And then the country would be a very different place.
While we’re at it – you wanna take a chance on putting the Iraq war to a national referendum?
Didn’t think so asswipe!
You complain about the consequences to the children of illegal aliens. Why don’t you direct your complaint to their parents? Who came here illegally in the first place?
Had they followed the rules, then the children wouldn’t be subject to what you regard as onerous consequences.
You can’t ignore the law then demand a pass when it comes back to bite you in the butt.
Dear Pooper:
I don’t understand your last sentence. The first you refers to the parents. The second you refers to the children. The parents are not the children. See, there is a thing called person hood, each of us has it. Separately. And due process. Each of us has it. See, none of us are responsible for the actions of others, only our own acts.
See, when your argument relies on false assumptions from the beginning, it is rotten no matter where you take it.
@3…BBGOP…
My daughter married a Latino. Your racist, derogatory, and hateful ethnic perjorative betrays you as a bigot with no character and even lower moral standing.
My grandsons will grow up to be proud Americans of Mexican heritage.
Their last name, BTW, is Lopez.
The Piper
@4…Milo…
You’re not clever, and you need to get out of elementary school before engaging in grownup conversation.
If there’s a villain in the piece, it’s not the American people who want immigration reform or even the GOP who suggests ending birthright citizenship – the bad guys are the ones who came here illegally in the first place.
If their children experience problems as a result, the fault lies at the feet of the one who created the mess in the first place.
Or would you just as soon do away with ICE and open the borders for all? First come, first served?
The Piper
Why do democrats call Republicans racists? To obscure the truth: Republicans freed the slaves, defeated the racist Southern democrats, overwhelmingly voted for passage of the Civil Rights Acts (something democrats fought tooth and nail), ad in. The list is extremely lengthy.
Democrats have CURRENT members of Congress who are KKK members.
Democrats created the internment camps for Japanese and Germans during WWII, not the Republicans. FDR was a demo; study some history willya?
…Guy walks into a bank, steals a $million, gives it to his kids. Do they get to keep the money? Of course not, they didn’t come by it honestly. Neither should anyone prosper from a crime: “Fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine.
Lastly, the Constitution says that Congress shall have the power to determine a “uniform rule of naturalization”. The 14th Amendment isn’t applied uniformly. Especially since it clearly states “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”. American law SAYS people who come here illegally are, just that, ILLEGAL. Therefore, the children did not come to be here by legal means and are therefore illegal aliens and NOT citizens.
Why do democrats call Republicans racists? To obscure the truth: Republicans freed the slaves, defeated the racist Southern democrats, overwhelmingly voted for passage of the Civil Rights Acts (something democrats fought tooth and nail), ad in. The list is extremely lengthy.
Democrats have CURRENT members of Congress who are KKK members.
Democrats created the internment camps for Japanese and Germans during WWII, not the Republicans. FDR was a demo; study some history willya?
…Guy walks into a bank, steals a $million, gives it to his kids. Do they get to keep the money? Of course not, they didn’t come by it honestly. Neither should anyone prosper from a crime: “Fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine.
Lastly, the Constitution says that Congress shall have the power to determine a “uniform rule of naturalization”. The 14th Amendment isn’t applied uniformly. Especially since it clearly states “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”. American law SAYS people who come here illegally are, just that, ILLEGAL. Therefore, the children did not come to be here by legal means and are therefore illegal aliens and NOT citizens.
Nice cheesy software…
Operator error doesn’t exist for you?
Lincoln is usually associated with emancipating the slaves. His opponets included republicans. If you have some names and acts of same please trot them out.
Yah the Ole Dixicrats. How many became republican in response to civil rights action in the 60″s?
I honestly haven’t read on internment, its certainly news to me that we interred German Americans in WWll. I suspect investigating the history would fail to indite FDR as the singular cause, or define him as a rascist.
If you believe criminals never prosper, then you haven’t read much capitalistic history. This includes the Kennedie’s as well. Involved with running booze past the taxman I believe. Some major captitalists have come up short on ethics, but big on money. Its all in how much you steal. Steal accouple hundred do time. Steal a couple mil though refinancing in ways you might find very colorful and be acclaimed as a sucessful visionairy.
As for your interpretation of the 14th amendment. How did this escape so many hardworking people, of any political stripe.
But thank you for playing the liberals are racist meme, and as a consolation prize. Describe how racism works, its defining characteristics, and how groups are coupled and uncoupled from this definition.
Or(everybody singalong…..ok) Would You Rather Be A Pig?
Rob McKenna is probably correct that the public won’t pay much attention. The issue didn’t have much traction for the republican candidates for the presidency this year. Tancredo and Hunter, the most xenophobic, were among the first to washout of the race. Their problem will be if the real nut cases, the Pam Roaches and Don Bentons, make a big deal of it and offend most thinking people. As a Democrat I always look forward to Roach spouting off.
I don’t mind the GOP telling immigrants the only warm welcome they’ll get is from Democrats. (snicker)
(sound of boot heels clicking together as Republican rank-and-file render Nazi stiff-arm salute*)
* OK, ok, I admit this metaphor is a bit suggestive; but they do the same thing to us, so why not?
HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR
Say, whatever happened to good ol’ conservative strict constructionism? Didn’t these guys used to say the Constitution means exactly what it says in plain English? Weren’t they the ones who bitched about “activist” judges “reinterpreting” the Constitution?
The more things stay the same, the more they change.
Piper @ 2 is totally correct. I, too, was in Spokane and know what truly happened. The Seattle Times and Goldy are twisting it.
First, let’s quote the exact sentence from the plank:
Note that it says, “Legal immigration can best be facilitated…”
That is a fact. When you take out birthright citizenship, you eliminate the immigration crisis you create with illegal parents and a birthright infant. Does that mean that I totally disagree with the idea of birthright citizenship? No. But the entire immigration crisis must be examined and birthright citizenship from illegal alien parents is a part of that.
“Esser noted that prohibiting citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants could “require a change in the U.S. Supreme Court interpretation of the 14th Amendment…””
This…coming from the party that espouses interpreting the Constitution based on “original intent” and decries “activist judges”… ?????
Esser’s wish bespeaks a serious civic derangement. I mean seriously fucked up.
Piper opines: “Any immigration policy has to be grounded first on controlling the borders.”
…thus contradicting their (wingnutz) golden calf, free market economic theory.
But if you’re a republican, having it both ways is just fine, since the guilt over such obvious hypocricy is now a missing gene in the swamplike pool that consititutes republican “thought”.
Piper opines: “You can’t ignore the law then demand a pass when it comes back to bite you in the butt.”
And thus we have “original sin” for a civic offense. But aren’t all these immigrant babies ‘innocent’ piper?
Piper avers: “the bad guys are the ones who came here illegally in the first place.”
Hmmmm. I wonder what take Native Americans would have on this assumption.
Piper: If all these “illegals” were coming from Sweden, you wouldn’t say anything.
So Esser didn’t take it all the way and suggest requiring that all newborn babies have their blood tested to determine if it’s sufficiently blue?
Piper: Back in the early 1800’s immigrants came to this country with no papers, no visa, no nothing. They were welcomed as citizens participating in a grand new experiment (plus we had an acute labor shortage) until the massive wave of Irish immigration in the 1840’s.
So what changed? And why? And please explain why we have had to put up with this ignorant “know nothing” argument since, well, the Know Nothings?
I know of at least one recently-expecting couple who were considering a trip to another country to for the birth, so their kid would have the advantage of citizenship somewhere else.
Marky: “When you take out birthright citizenship, you eliminate the immigration crisis you create with illegal parents and a birthright infant.”
Except the vast majority of “illegals” in this country walked over the border. So you’re just full of shit when you claim such a policy will ‘eliminate the immigration crisis’, whatever the fuck that is.
What’s it matter, Gregoire just had 14,000 of these children of illegals sign up for he free healthcare for children plan.
It’ll cost 10’s of millions in this state just to pay for the healthcare for these illegals.
Imagine nation wide what it will cost.
If you are a self employed individual in California, and you put all the tax hikes the democrats have in store for you, 39% income tax, 9.3% state tax, 12% expansion on all of your earnings for social security taxes, a 2+% mediacar expansion tax, and I’m sure I’ve missed plenty, you will be paying:
A WHOPPING 64% of your income under OBAMA!
As I see it, most republicans in government are in violation of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, and should be punished appropriately.
it’s about who controls access to the rights and benefits of citizenship: Citizens or non-citizens?
Goldy, I need an LOL emoticon here!! So I can fill up a couple of lines with it. Why? Because Piper’s question, quoted above, is so chock full of stoopid, is why.
Of course US citizens get to control who get the benefits of citizenship – non-citizens have no control over US laws OR their enforcement. This comment was so stoopid, my eyes glazed over and I couldn’t read the rest of the comment. Then, when my brain un-froze, I started laughing.
The worm eats it’s own tail.
PTB Ass @ 23
While I recognize that reading may be difficult when you’re drunk on Dem Koo-Aid, I suggest you try.
I didn’t say it would eliminate the entire immigration crisis. I said it would eliminate that particular crisis created by illegal parents and birthright infants.
I do believe that the child is innocent, but the illegal parents should not be rewarded.
@18. Well, the Native Americans came here from somewhere else too. They just did it about 11 thousand or more years years before those mean, greedy European people did.
gs asks us to dream: “Imagine nation wide what it will cost.”
Well, sure. But imagine what our future GNP will be without these folks’ contribution to the common good.
You are looking at only the cost side, not the benefit side. This is not how cold hearted businessfolk analyze future cash flows. I take it from this you are not a businessperson familar with cash flow analysis, nor an economist (thank god) familiar with national income accounting.
Real Mark @ 27: You wrote, and I quote:
“When you take out birthright citizenship, you eliminate the immigration crisis you create with illegal parents and a birthright infant.”
Show me where the words “that particular” are found in the above.
@27: Assuming “that particular” applies. How is it a “crisis”?
Aren’t all you wingnutz in a reproductive funk because whites are not reproducing “fast enough” and thus engendering a demographic “crisis”?
“I do believe that the child is innocent, but the illegal parents should not be rewarded.”
So, explain how they (the parents) are “rewarded”.
A message channeled from Monitcello.
Let an older man from an older time with more experience in the matter speak up.
In some ways this issue is akin to my problems with slaves. While I wanted to do the right thing, I was inhibited by the laws and by the difficulty in determining what a fair solution might be.
If I freed my slaves I wold be breaking the law and putting these simple people out into an environment they were not prepared for.
Your problem is similar.
First your law, the 14th Amendment to the damned Constitution:
It is not at all true that the intent was to protect children born in our lands. In act, early decisions of the Court suggest that was not eh case. The clear purpose of Section 1 was to provide that former slaves born in the United States would be citizens.
At the time, the US did not yet have a concept of legal vs illegal immigrant so “intent” of the original ruling must be newly invented. In fact, in in 1898 the Court decided that Wong Kim Ark, a child of a Chinese diplomat, born in the USA did have citizenship rights. The only exceptions to this rule identified in Wong Kim Ark concern diplomats, enemy forces in hostile occupation of the United States, and members of Native American tribes.
The Court has, again, never ruled on the eligibility of children born in the United States to illegal immigrant parents are entitled to birthright However, on primniple of law in unsettled areas is to refer to international standards. This type of guarantee—legally termed jus soli or “birthright citizenship”— does not exist in most of Europe or Asia where citizenship has been defined by new laws derived (more or less) independent of a King, but does exist in Europe where citizenship laws arise from older concepts of being subjects to the crown.
In summary, citizen Goldstein, I find it unlikely that the members of the court anticipated this problem. However, in my time the court did understand slavery. Even those of us who wanted to end it had the same problem you have now. How, once slaves are here, do you send them home without doing an injustice? Where is their real home?
One thing about your Torie friend’s ides is that halting the awarding of NEW citizenship to illegals might be a bit like our deciding not to bring in more slaves. The result would be, I would guess, a permanent collection of resident non citizens with a status all to similar to the status of my slaves.
Perhaps you folks in 2008 need a dose of what Mr. Lincoln brought to my homeland in the 1860’s. If you stop allowing illegals to work .. tat is stop importing slaves .. the problekm will eventually stop. If you then fee all the existing slaves, i.e. fire the illegals, then your only prolebm will be the same as ours was .. waht happens with millions of freed slaves?
Looking at your marvelous Mr. Obama, one thing is very clear to me. I was wrong about the limited abilities of Africans. So, taking slavery as a precedent rather than some weak interpretation by a Court I never like anyway, I suspect the immigrants can learn very well to eb Americans. I suggest that of course all illegals, just like all of my slaves, should be citizens just as if they were born here as slaves.
NUFF said!
Here’s Jack Balkin on so-called “originalist” interpretations of the Constitution:
http://www.mail-archive.com/co.....00814.html
Summary: Scalia and his ilk engage is pretty fucking shoddy ‘scholarship’, and I use the term lightly.
@16 – 19, 21…PTBAA…
You’re being oxymoronic again…emphasis on the “again” and again and again and again.
There’s a difference between free market economics and creating an effective, national-security focused immigration policy.
Your remarks indicate to me you don’t think immigration is a big deal – that you’re in favor of unbridled free immigration: no restrictions, no policy, no attempts to control or limit it at all.
If that’s your policy, you’re entitled to it. But have you given thought to the consequences?
If that’s not your policy, then enlighten us…what do you think needs to happen?
The so-called “innocent” babies? That negative consequences come to those because of their parents wrongful behavior is an unfortunate fact of their lives. If you are here because your parents broke the law, the consequences of that behavior may fall upon you. In that case, blame them, not the law.
Your snark @18? For the sake of argument, let’s assume you’re correct – you, then, are a trespasser, squatter, scofflaw, and effectively the thief of land not your own. I will be right behind you as you pack up to return to your ancestral country of origin after walking away from your home and any other property you are currently occupying (can’t call it “own” since by your definition title vests in Native Americans).
Your snark @19? Did you miss where I said I have Latino grandchildren? You libs are all alike: when you have no cogent argument, you slap the race card.
Sorry…no sale.
Your snark @21? The great wave of immigration in the 19th and early 20th centuries was controlled and regulated. Yes, immigrants were allowed in, but they came in via a process – their presence was recorded, they came in legally, and almost without exception, they came to become Americans, to stay permanently, learn the language, and not be a drain on the taxpayers.
Today, it’s not the same, and 9/11 is one serious reason. The porous southern border is an invitation for terrorists to come in almost without fear of detection. In today’s world, don’t you think it wise that the U.S. at least know who it is that’s entering the country?
There are criminal law problems. Illegal immigrants who commit crimes aren’t automatically deported, and a growing problem results from them becoming repeat offenders. You can hardly pick up a newspaper without reading about an illegal with a long record finally commiting a crime – murder is common – that goes beyond the pale.
The police officer in Houston or the young football player in L.A. whose mother is serving in the army in Iraq – both cases of illegals with long criminal records commiting murder.
Why weren’t they reported to ICE for deportation? Because some “sanctuary city” type turned a blind eye.
What’s more, the chisel factor comes into play – there are a lot of immigrants in this country (of all racial and ethnic backgrounds) who played by the rules, came here according to Hoyle, and continue to abide by the rules. Don’t you think it’s unfair to them to let illegals off Scot free?
Where’s that liberal insistence upon fair play?
What the GOP platform advocates is an orderly system that has safeguards and reforms, one of which is doing away with birthright citizenship.
And this will be the end of Western civilization how again???
The Piper
@26…T…
Obviously, my question – who controls, citizens or non-citizens – went over your head.
Right now, nobody is in control, which effectively cedes control to non-citizens. What the GOP platform advocates is putting someone back in conrol of the immigration process, ergo citizens would then be in control.
That settled, tell us all what your ideal immigration policy is…Then tell us how you will pay for it.
The Piper
I’m not a politician, so I don’t need to formulate an immigration policy. But you asked my opinion, and basically I think it is a ‘problem’ that will solve itself. When our economy is bad, illegal immigration will decrease (there is already evidence that this is happening).
The other thing that would be helpful, frankly, would be for our government to foster good government (meaning rule of law, reduction of graft) and reasonable economic policies with countries where undocumented workers are coming from. A lot of folks from southern Mexico have been coming because their agricultural livelihoods have been decimated due to the effects of NAFTA. Our trade policies should not impoverish the poor in other countries (nearby countries especially) for the benefit of agribusiness here, if for no other reason than that the resulting flow of immigrants north is completely predictable.
But honestly, Piper, you act as if Martians control our immigration and law enforcement in this country, and that’s just loony. Big business is what is controlling this, and you must be aware that big business is not in favor of effective enforcement. And don’t try to tell me that big business has no say in it, surely even you understand what a lobbyist does.
@6 Piper spreds:
@36 Piper spews:
Now, as you have surmised, I may not have finished elementary skool, but please explain to me which side of your mouth I should listen to. I will try my best to understand.
Piper- I agree that we should control our borders. This is, however, a national, not a state issue. My recollection is that the Republican Party controlled national policy for six years and did not do anything substantial to address the issue. Now it is thrown out as a political stunt.
I do believe is is on our interest to ensure that children of immigrants, as a matter of fact, all children, should have adequate health care and education. To do otherwise just burdens us later.
Do you want a pool of unvaccinated people ready to serve as a reservoir for the next great plague?
Piper- and regrets for the nasty spew directed to you and your family. I do not agree with that approach.
Piper @ 35. Your entire post is an oxymorom, but let’s take a few of the more hilarious low points:
“There’s a difference between free market economics and creating an effective, national-security focused immigration policy.”
Then you admit that there are some concerns that trump neoclassical economic theory. Glad you cleared that up. When critics of ‘free trade’ or union supporters, or anybody who asserts the primacy of the public good (global warming, land use regulations) over private greed speaks up, you will now keep your trap shut. That would be a welcome development.
“If that’s not your policy, then enlighten us…what do you think needs to happen?”
I am of the opinion that David Niewert at Orcinus has set forth a fairly reasonable policy. Check his blog out.
“Your snark @21? The great wave of immigration in the 19th and early 20th centuries was controlled and regulated.”
Well, actually no. Not until the prohibition on Chinese immigration in the late 19th century. I also specifically referred to the ‘early 1800’s’, but as usual, you weren’t paying attention. This marks you as essentially dishonest. You argue in bad faith, but what’s new.
“Today, it’s not the same, and 9/11 is one serious reason. The porous southern border is an invitation for terrorists to come in almost without fear of detection.”
You’re a fucking dolt. Approximately 15% of illegals to this country come from Asia and Europe. You racists never bring this up. Pray tell, why not?
If you want to have a discussion on this issue try bringing something besides tripe.
@37: Good points, but way over Piper’s head.
Thanks.
cracked piper @35: “I will be right behind you as you pack up to return to your ancestral country…”
You exhibit a central deficciency of moral outlook…It’s OK for us, but not others. Historians such as Paul Johnson have observed that the great wave of immigration to this land from Europe was caused by the population explosion and urbanization Europe experienced beginning in the early 1800’s. It’s almost as if that if they didn’t come here, they would have starved (granted)…by implication this was a “good” or “inevitable” thing (He says nothing about the native americans slaughtered in the process, but whatever). By similar logic, the same thing is happening to us.
So who are we to complain? Peoples have migrated throughout history. So what’s your point?
Pooper avers: “That settled, tell us all what your ideal immigration policy is…Then tell us how you will pay for it.”
Here’s a few things to consider when wondering how to “pay” for “it”:
1. Immigrants have traditionally brought youth, optimism, energy, and hard work to this nation. The same holds true today. This pays big dividends for future economic growth. Pray tell…what is your plan in its absence? How will you pay for this future economic loss?
2. Studies show that “illegals” pay more in taxes then they consume in public services. Plus many pay into SSI (you know, that account that is just ‘funny money’), and will get nothing in return. These funds help pay for our current consumption.
Just 2 things. You bring nothing but scurillous charges akin to that fascist fuck O’Reilly or that nutter Lou Dobbs when you bring up anecdotal ‘evidence’ re crimes committed by “mexicans”.
Can you bring anything but slurs? I doubt it.
While they’re at it how about not allowing US citizenship to people not even born in the US.
Oops, I guess that would eliminate their candidate John McCain.
“Your snark @19? Did you miss where I said I have Latino grandchildren?”
No. What’s your point? Is this like the guy saying “some of my best friends are black”?
I’ve been down that road…the bullshit turnpike. Show some effing self respect. Don’t ask others to join you on that tired old trip.
@43
You also make some great points in 42, 44, 45, with regards to the history. Tag team! But damn, as Atrios is fond of saying….the stupid, it burns! So I’m also not holding my breath that Piper will get beyond the Loud Obbs talking points. Next I suppose he’ll say something about leprosy cases increasing, like we should all be very very frightened.
Piper @2,
I wasn’t there? It’s in your fucking platform! Or did I get the wording wrong?
As to putting birthright citizenship up for a national referendum, I’ve got no idea what the result would be… but that’s not how we amend the Constitution, now is it? If you’re so sure of yourself, go get a two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress, then get the damn thing ratified by a simple majority in three-fourths of the state legislatures.
Notice how the Pooper cut and run when I asked him if he wanted to put the Iraq war to a national referendum?
Typical cowardly, hypocrite from the GOP.
Goldy, if you weren’t there, you didn’t get the bullshit talking points that were distributed to the faithful to try to justify this bullshit. So you can’t speak to their super, secret stupid. But Piper and Mark will be glad to explain it to you. Ha!
I hear the native americans tried to ‘control the borders’ too. ‘Some say’ it was a disasterous policy. I’d say the observed results are fairly clear.
“Controlling the borders” is (a.) not a realistic policy response (cf. Palestinians); and (b.) is usually invoked by those with a xenophobic, uber-nationalist agenda…like, yeah, nazis (“ve must protect der Volk…liebenstraum uber alles”).
Hitler was at least consistent. He invaded Poland. The jerks Piper hangs out with invaded Iraq.
Yes. The stupid. It hurtz.
@50…BBGOP…
The day a puss-filled pimple like you scares me off…well, that day won’t come.
You’re a racist and a hater, which also means you’re a bully and a coward.
The issue on this thread was the GOP platform plank on immigration, not the Iraq war. You can’t seem to stay on topic, can you?
Again…the mood of the nation in immigration is control the borders, eliminate illegal immigration, punish those who employ illegals, and do something about the 12 – 13 million illegals here now, though what that is remains open to debate.
Your referance to my son-in-law as a “beaner” was contemptible earning even a rebuke from one of the regulars here.
In the dictionary next to the words “hypocrite” and “racist” would be your picture except you’re too chicken to post it.
The Piper
Pangloss Piper at 2 expostulates on crime and punishment: “Do they get to keep the money?”
If your name is Vanderbilt, Frick, Carnegie, Morgan, Rockefeller, et.al., why yes, it would seem that you do.
Dostoyevski you are not, piper.
@49…Goldy…
You weren’t there so how can you say what we intended? What the debate was? All you had to go one was the opinion of someone sitting in the cheap seats of the press gallery.
And the idea of a national referendum was a clear “what if?”
BTW…nobody distributed “talking points” on the platform. Each plank was subject to a vote of the delegates, some were reserved for amendment and debate, and, on those, there was plenty of vigorous, spirited discussion.
When claiming to know what goes on at events you did not attend…don’t believe everything you read in the paper.
I was there…you were not.
The Piper
Piper soldiers on: “Again…the mood of the nation in immigration is control the borders,”
1. A policy that will not work. Whatever “control” means.
2. “…eliminate illegal immigration”
As long as the economic desparation is in play driving them over the border, they will come.
3. “… punish those who employ illegals.”
Talk is cheap. No major republican or immigration basher seriously advocates such measures. They reason is obvious.
The failure of this issue to gain truly meaningful traction speaks volumes about your assessment of the national “mood”, piper.
NOTE TO EVERYONE:
Poopy pants considers himself the smartest man on the blog. After all, he does have an unused Jurisprudence degree.
Poopy being a failed lawyer is easier to understand when you read his arguments here. Then he does the so over used “but I am related to one” schtick. No one cares, Poopy, who your daughter married. All anyone cares about is if she is happy. However I do have a question for you.
Suppose your son-in-law’s parents are found to be illegal aliens? By extension their son, your son-in-law, according to what you propose is also illegal. Would that not call into question the legality of your grand children’s citizenship? Or do we make an exception for half-blooded citizens?
See, Poopie, I have an education. I have mad skills for seeing through an argument and destroying it with logic (a gift from my mother, the education a gift from my father as my mother was a stay at home mom. Not to say she did not contribute, she did mightily) . I must admit that you present little challenge. You are wordy, sure enough, but so empty, so hollow and personally quite shallow.
You might consider that there are many sides to your issue. Not just yours. Some of these sides present consequences that you might not want to see.
@54…PTBAA…
Never claimed to be Fyodor…but you certainly prove entitlement to the appellation, “Ass.”
The Piper
@56…PTBAA…
You claim controlling the borders won’t work, but you cite no basis for that conclusion. And you do not refute my contention that it’s favored by most Americans as the lynch pin of an immigration reform policy acceptable to them.
As to the economic deprivation driving illegal immigration? How about getting the countries from whence they cometh to reform their own economies such that opportunity exists there? Rather than exporting to the U.S. what they cannot handle themselves.
Crack down on employers who hire illegals? I’m all for it, and I don’t need to hear from some big shot to know necessary and right policy when I see it.
BTW…if your open borders/amnesty policy was so popular, why is it not law? Why no national clamor in favor of it?
The Piper
59:
Lemme see. 12 years of solid conservative rule, bullying and coercion. 12 years and no policy on immigration, no reform, no laws past. Just a bill to build a wall. A fucking wall. What are we China. We can call it The Great Wall.2…… Any bill brought up would have passed and Bush would have signed it.
The issue is being used for political purposes only at this time. No other reason. Just another conservative attempt to muddy the water rather than work on real issues and problems. Well y’all are up to your asses in economic woes and war.
Good luck!!
Weak, Poopy, really weak.
See Goldy, from Piper himself @55: you have to know what was “intended” because what is actually written in their platform doesn’t include the talking points that rationalize the crap they are trying to pull. Piper, arresting undocumented workers and jailing them for being “illegal” (it’s a felony now, doncha know) is making billions for the new prison-industrial complex. See – either agribusiness and meat packers and construction firms get to make money off the backs of cheap labor, or private prisons get to make money off them! It’s a win-win for big businesses with the expensive lobbyists.
Piper, if you really want a wider view of what’s going on, you should go read the history of what happened in the 1870s when the railroads were finished and the US didn’t want the Chinese here anymore. It’s an instructive case.
@57…Carl…
Man, you are one frustrated dude of late!
How do you know I’m a “failed lawyer?” You’re just picking up a typical Rabbit canard, which doesn’t say much for your ability to discern or think originally.
Never claimed to be the smartest anything – but I do think for myself, which makes me unique in comparison to the HA Happy Hooligans.
A child born in the United States who has a United States citizen as a parent is and should be a citizen. My daughter is a citizen, her husband is not, ergo their status is distinct from that of a child born in the United States of parents neither of whom is a United States citizen.
Since you seem to care…even though she is as poor as a church mouse, my daughter is quite happy, as are my grandsons, William Lorenzo Lopez and Elias Paul Lopez, two All American boys who are products of the great American melting pot – citizens proud of their heritage, but Americans first.
BTW…I mentioned my grandsons because the knee-jerk charge of racism got slapped against me, a typical liberal absence-of-thought tactic. If I’m such a racist, as contended, I must hate my own blood.
So far the racist stuff has come from BBGOP and his “beaner” comment.
When might I expect you to condemn him and his reprehensible mouth?
The Piper
Well, Pooper, I condemn him for using that language. Some find it offensive.
At our house, our son-in-law is known as “the token beaner”. No one takes offense. He was asked by a very rude member of his family how he got mixed up with our family. His response “They needed a token beaner”.
I love the Hillaryesque/McCainesgue demand for condemnation of a third party offense. I had nothing to do with the comment but I am forced to issue an apology and repudiation. How stupid is that?
So according to your logic if someone sneaks over the border and knocks up a citizen (I am assuming natural born citizen) that child is a good ol’ American. What happens to the dad when he is caught? We send him home? What about child support? What about the broken home? Who foots the bill for the child’s health care and schooling? After all he will have a single mother to raise him? Where is the family value in that and why should I have to pay for shipping the dad home and then have to pay to support his progeny?
This is fun.
@60…Carl…
More frustration???
12 years? So, the last four of the Clinton administration was “solid conservative rule, bullying and coercion?”
No question…there’s been a failure of leadership on all sides on this issue. Is that an excuse then to do nothing?
Since you object so much to fences, why not simply do away with customs and border entry points all together? I’m sure Ahmed Ressam would have loved that.
If you think the Republican grassroots regards immigration is merely a political issue for grandstanding purposes, then you are completely clueless about the Republican grassroots.
This is an issue that gets their blood flowing, and it was their pressure that killed the Bush-Kennedy proposals.
http://www.rasmussenreports.co.....nforcement
Yours is not an opinion shared by even a majority of Democrats, most of whom want the borders secured…just like Republicans.
The Piper
@63…Carl…
My son-in-law is proud of his Mexican heritage, and I respect him for that – his is a classic Aztec profile (he’s from Oaxaca).
But whether he’s open to being called certain things is up to him, and until such time as he says something is OK, then I will condemn clearly racist slurs.
A child born in the U.S. of an American parent is an American citizen. The rest of the stuff you raise is superfluous to the issue of citizenship, yet mentioning it illustrates how the issue gets bogged down in a lot of ancillary stuff.
The issue is immigration and citizenship, not child support.
The Piper
I want the borders secured. I don’t want a fence. I want the process to come here steam lined and fair. I want it made so that those who want to come are not intimidated by paperwork and bureaucracy. I want amnesty for those who are here (expedited visas) and working and productive.
I want the process to reflect what it says at the bottom of the Statue of Liberty…..”Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me.
I lift my lamp beside the golden door.” Be you Canadian, Russian or MEXICAN.
65:
Bullshit, Scott.
This issues I raised are the very reason your Republican party cites as a reason to close the borders. Do you not recognize when your own arguments are used against you? You guys rail about how much of our taxes and community services go to illegals and their family’s.
@61…T…
I thought you were smarter than to just fall back on lefty cliches about “talking points,” etc.? Was I mistaken?
There were not talking points. And it was necessary to refer to intent since Goldy was oblivious to the plain language used in the platform.
From The Times article cited by Goldy:
Mathew Manweller is a PhD political science professor at Central Washington University.
If you’d bother to read the whole thing in context, you’d see that the overall proposal was pretty reasonable – nothing about rounding up scofflaws and sending them home or any foolishness like that.
Instead, these are serious proposals to address a serious issue, and, per the polling data, they’re in accord with the sentiments of most Americans, including most Democrats.
The Piper
@66…Carl…
I, too, subscribe to the sentiments expressed in Emma Lazarus’ poem. But since 9/11, I’ve also come to the conclusion that it can’t be unfettered.
We need to know who comes, for what purpose, how long they plan to stay, and where they are. That’s a simple national security issue.
I oppose amnesty…It’s not fair to those who came here and played by the rules. And illegal conduct deserves sanctions. I also oppose the whole notion of so-called “sanctuary cities.”
Play by the rules or don’t play at all!
The Piper
Under Pooper’s plan, Bob Hope would not have been a U.S. citizen.
re 69: “Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.”
They’re using Mexicans as the new bogeyhombre to drum up fear. But, Pooper, with the Republican record of incompetence, who do you think voters are going to trust to solve the problem?
You guys have cried Lobo! once too often.
This thread is giving me a headache.
On one side we have the demicrats with their idea that everyone has the same rights, even illegal immigrants.
On the other side, we have the repricans with their naive belief in the free market, class based rights, and wild west justice.
Podners .. here is some inconvenient facts:
1. There are 12 mill9ion or so illegals here. The minimal cost of deportation of that many folks is in the tens of billions of dollars. Anyone wnat to appropriate that much?
2. The 14th amendment was never intended to deal with children of illegal immigrants, BUT it was intended to deal with children of workers brought here bt means that were illegal by the time of this amendment, that is slavery. A court might make the obvious analogy that kids already born here are Americans.
3. If we passed a strict job::identity bill, wiht enforcement against the employers, it is likley that illegal immigration would fall to almost zero in little time.
A rational solution:
1. Children bron here under the current law are American citizens.
2. All American legal residents are required to have national identity card at the time of employment. The NIC may be replaced by one of a small number of other identifying cards that meet the same standards such as military ID, passport, or ???
3. Employers must record these numbers and report the identity of any employee. The penalty for failing to accurately report such numbers will be twice the wages paid to such an emplyee for two years of the length of emloyment, whichever is greater plus any profits accrued by the enokyer during the time of employment.
4. Employers of unregistered individuals shall further bear full civil responsibility for any monetary debts owed by the employee.
5. Children born less than 1 year after the law takes place will only be eligible if they or their mother applies for citizenship for the child within one year of birth or one year from the start of the new immigration law, whichever comes last.
6. Illegals who can prove they have been in residence for at least one year at the time the bill takes effect are eligible for registration under the status of “non matriculated alien resident. NMARs who do register will receive work permits forfive year. At the end of that time, NMAR may apply of resident alien status.
“No fence, few deportations, great new Americans. “
But not Canadians. We are only going to check the beaners and rag heads.
I lived my whole life without fear of terrorists and national security issues. I still live that way. I am not afraid. I will not be intimidated. All you have is left is fear mongering. We need reforms that are fair. That treat everyone with respect. That take each case into consideration. Come here, I don’t care how, be productive and law abiding and you get to stay. Commit a crime of violence and good bye. (Shoplifting is not a crime of violence).
Everyone can’t be vetted to the n’th degree. The money does not exist to pay for it. Unless you take up a collection and have it paid for voluntarily, you know, like a church donation. I don’t want to be taxed to pay for any more Republican small government. So call your rich friends and start the collection.
Not could require, would require. Sorry Piper, but your platform is a repeal of the 14th amendment.
@14
To do that you need to repeal the 14th. I’m not calling anyone a name or taking a stand one way or the other on immigration, but your boys are shying away from the fact that is a repeal of the 14th. It would be nice if the WSRP just came out and said it.
Birth is a legal process!!!
If you want to change that fine, but birth is a current legal way to become a citizen. Stop playing like it ‘aint.
Where in hell do folks here come by the idea that the court has ruled that the 14th legalizes citizenship based on domestic birth?
The amendment does NOT say that and COULD not because at the time we did not have an illegal or legal immigration status.
This the SC could easily rule that this law was legal.
Piper… once again, it’s in your platform! That’s what I’m basing my comments on… your platform.
And by all means, I hope your candidates run on it.
Pooper I’ve run you off dozens of threads and I’ll do it again. You’ve been caught in many lies here. You’ve been proven wrong here many times. And you’ve cut and run so many times I can’t count.
The thread was originally about YOUR PARTY’S VOTED ON AND AGREED TO PLATFORM. YOU were the one who wanted to extend the debate to national referendums on public policy. And YOU cut and run when I asked the simple question – what do you think would happen if we put your precious WAR IN IRAQ to a national referendum.
And the very fact that you CUT AND RUN as you did when you personally had a chance to serve your country shows us all what the answer is. You can call me a hypocrite or whatever you want and I don’t care because you’re just a skirt-wearing cunt. But you have PROVEN you’re a hypocrite right here on this thread.
You and your party of racists are against immigration because you don’t like people who aren’t just like you – because you know that the more people who are here – the more people who vote – the smaller the chance the GOP has of winning. That’s how it is. That’s how it has always been. That is how it will always be.
And you are STILL a cunt.
So, how does this work exactly with no birthright citizenship for the children of citizens?
Will their be economic hurdles to jump through?
Will failure to make it over these hurdles result in deportation?
Will some judgemental or disgruntled government worker screw up the paperwork because they don’t like the look of me?
I mean I would like a free trip back to Europe and all and if your plan can get me there and away from people that value money more than other people then by gum, sign me up.
@78…Goldy…
I’m glad the immigration plank is in our platform – it’s a good plank advocating good policy,
Go back to the Rasmussen polling data I cited in an earlier post. The policy ideas on immigration in the GOP platform are more in line with the thinking of most Americans than anything suggested by you or most all of the HA Happy Hooligans.
So…If you want to get in step with the people, I don’t think anyone would mind you borrowing the plank.
The Piper
@80…Nobody…
Sigh…try reading the plank first.
Birthright citizenship will still attach to children of citizens, but not the children of illegal aliens.
The Piper
Securing our borders and enforcing our immigration laws isn’t racism, but rather pragmatism. Overpopulation, congestion, urban sprawl, crumbling ingrastructure, overcrowded schools and emergency rooms, vanishing farm land and green space, diminishing resources, crime, pollution, depressed wages, increased tax burdens, the balkanization of our communities, the decline in quality of life, are all the result of unconstrained immigration. Too many people competing for limited resources!
Virtually every industrialized nation, even China and Mexico, have taken steps, often draconnian steps, to end illegal immigration, and to curtail legal immigration to only that which is prudent, demonstrably necessary, and above all other concerns, in the best interests of their native populations. Its dangerously misguided to assert that the United States should not do likewise!
Too many people competing for limited resources has never been considered sound economic, environmental, social or cultural policy!
#4
Huh! It’s my understanding that parents are responsible for their children, at both the federal level, and at all 50 individuals states levels.
Indeed, there is a considerable body of law at both the state and federal level that specifically spells out parental rights and responsibilities. Unlike American born, who have no alternative, illegal aliens can return from whence they came (either forcibly as in deportation, or of their own free will). In most situations, the American born spouse and children of deported illegals are allowed to accompany (its a choice) their deported spouse or parent.
Further, most nations accord dual citizenship to American born spouses and children of their citizens who are deported from the United States.
No one can argue that the best place for any child (regardless of the free perks and benefits afforded by America’s tax payers) is in the custody and control of their biological parents. The fact that so many families of illegal aliens opt for taking advantage of American tax payers, rather than accompany their deported spouse or parent is more a reflection of their values, than it is any fault in our immigration policies.
Most calls for changing the 14th. amendmment have been for clarification along the lines that at least one of the childs parents must be a legal resident of the United States. I doubt anyone is suggesting that valid visa holders be excluded, only that the American born children of illegal aliens be excluded. Undeniably, the prospect of receiving tax payer funded benefits merely by “giving birth”, a process often started in their native country, is appealing to far too many illegal aliens. The number of clinics springing up just this side of the border is demonstrable proof that illegal aliens are taking advantage of this loophole.
Pretty much all my friends at the DNC, likewise support limiting automatic citizenship to births to only legal residents (at least one parent must be a legal resident of the U.S.), and similarly support securing our borders and enforcing our immigration laws. This isn’t a Republican issue, but rather its a question of the will of the people!
7-8 CMK
Right. The Democratic Party has ONE member in the Senate who WAS a KKK member at one time in tehe far past: Robert Byrd, who not only has since publicly rejected the organization and its racism, but also has come out in full support of Barack Obama to be the next president of the United States.
Meanwhile, the remaining racist old-time Democrats from the South who wanted to remain racist became Republicans, like Strom Thurmond (may his soul rot in hell).
If you guys want to repeal the 14th amendment, go ahead and try. Good luck with that one.
I think the point of Goldy’s post is that instead of making an honest case to do so, you want activist conseervative judges to change our fundamental laws from the bench.
piper dont mind byebyegop you see he spent 6 years in tye 3rd grade
83
Honoring the 14th amendment has nothing to do with “securing our borders and enforcing our immigration laws,” because it makes no reference to our borders and is not a law. However, our border policies and our immigration laws must not contradict the 14th amendment. So secure the borders! Enforce the immigration laws! The 14th isn’t stopping you.
#72
Actually, with attrition through enforcement, the cost to tax payers would be minimal. Some reports indicate that illegal aliens are already leaving at an accelerated rate as the result of stepped up enforcement actions. Further, federal and state governments have utilixed asset forfeiture for decades to good benefit in reducing law enforcement costs overall. Indeed, the prospect of forfeiting their assets (ill-gotten gains) might help accelerate the process of self deportation.
The savings to tax payers in education, health care, crime, pollution, etc,,, would easily offset any costs of deporting illegal aliens.
#90
So your okay with the parents being deported, and the kids staying behind then?
Or we could take a look at what is driving people to rip themselves from their homes and leave to go to a semi hostile country. Problems are most easily and economically delt with at their sources. However much it is insisted that the borders porosity is that source. It doesn’t wash for me. Takes some effort and brain power to mediate the real problem.Which is in the countries of origin.
Much easier and I guess more fun to run in circles scream and shout, Save me,save me,the brown people are going to get me!
@87…DL…
Racists in the Democratic Party can now be easily identified, according to supporters of Barack Obama. Simply look to see who supports Hillary Clinton.
Voila!
The ugly truth of who many Democrats are has been revealed during this campaign season. The curtain has been tossed back to reveal the humbug concealed behind it. The lofty pronouncements and oft-paraded public virture turns out to be little more than flatulent gibberish and hubris.
Democrats and their candidates do not walk on water – wallowing in the mud is as natural to them as breathing.
But what goes around comes around – Democrat unity may prove to be as illusory as Democrat virtue, which long ago was sold off to gain the support of a super delegate or two.
Clay feet…glass jaw…thin skin…How often have these been exposed? Corrupt morally, intellectually, and ethically, the Democrat Party now limps towards Denver divided into two camps that so loath each other you have to be back to the hatred between Jimmy Carter and Ted Kennedy to find a parallel.
November won’t be as easy as all of you contend.
The Piper
You keep telling yourself that, Pipes old man.
If racist Republicans were really concerned about illegal immigration they’d direct their platform toward the thing that drives illegal immigration:
illegal employers.
But instead they go after immigrant children.
They leave the sweatshop bullies in their C Class sedans alone. This has nothing to do with immigration. They want more immigration, legal or otherwise, in order to keep labor costs down and unemployment higher. Illegal immigration may be preferable for the time being because it skews the population of immigrants toward the desperately unskilled masses ripe for exploitation.
Quit giving these nihilistic tin siding salesmen the argument they are looking for. They want an argument about children to distract everyone from what they are really after. The current system concerns them not because too many Latino immigrants are coming to America. But because too many of them are having children. And that threatens their tax breaks.
Believe me, if they thought they could get away with it they’d simply include a sterilization clause in their “guest worker” program. But they know that would reveal them for the monsters they are.
This isn’t about immigration, per se. It’s about driving down the cost of labor.
(Posted without bothering to read the preceeding 90+ comments)
The GOP platform, even read in it’s most favorable light, would have the result children of LEGAL immigrants (holders of permanant-resident green cards, etc.), born while in this country, would have to go through the naturalization process in order to become citizens. That means they are ineligible to become President, among other things. It means we are forming a three-tier society, with less mobility between them:
1. U.S. citizens (born in the U.S. to citizens of the U.S.)
2. Legal non-citizens, including chidren of permanant residents, even though born in this country. If they have children before they obtain naturalized citizenship, then their children would also be non-citizens. Note that naturalization proceedures are subject to the whims of Congress and, sometimes, the whims of the immigration examiner.
3. Illegal immigrants, and their children, even if those children are born in the U.S. Note that a child who believed his parents were legal immigrants, was born and raised in this country, could now be deported fairly easily, at any time, and have basic rights and social services (including higher education) deprived of them, even if he/she and their parents had worked and paid taxes the whole time they were here.
Of course, this raises a permanantly disadvantaged working class, which perhaps is the whole reason?
So-called “illegal” immigration is a mere civil infraction, not punishable by jail. The fruits of their labor here are not “ill-gotten,” they are the product of their toil and are theirs. Our forfeiture laws in general are an abomination violating rights to due process.
Not too tough to understand.
Piper
I know good well who Manweller is. He’s a rightie hack.
And what Daddy Love said – what part of the 14th Amendment don’t you understand? And more to the point, what in FSM’s name does it have to do with controlling immigration? Nothing. If undocumented immigrants are having babies here, it means they’re already here! That’s known online as a FAIL.
Anyway, I’m done with this. It’s a sweet to hear about your family and all, but you’re prattering on about that instead of addressing the substantive points I and others have raised about US immigration policy. That is also known as a FAIL.
@77
See 99.
@99…DL…
There is some disagreement among legal scholars as to whether Congress can withhold birthright citizenship to the children of parents who are in the United States illegally, and support for the position that Congress has such authority goes all the way back to the legislative intent of the authors of the 14th Amendment.
It’s not as open and shut as you contend.
Personally, I think a case can be made to exclude children born to illegals. I do not hold the same opinion when it comes to the children of those who are in the United States legally, i.e., Green Card holders.
The core question essentially boils down to: Should children born to parents both of whom are in the United States in violation of the laws of the United States be automatically considered citizens of the United States?
As a practical matter, I believe that a substantial majority of the American people would say they should not have citizenship automatically attached, and they would support that position becoming law irrespective of whether the result could be achieved legislatively or would require a Constitutional amendment.
In the latter case, such an amendment wouldn’t, as Goldy’s headline jingoistically contends, repeal the 14th Amendment. Instead, it would simply remove from its application a class of individuals whose presence in the United States was made possible exclusively through an illegal act. All other provisions would remain in full force and effect.
In other words, the sky is not falling, nor will it in the future.
No where I know of save among the HA Happy Hooligans is there any groundswell of support demanding citizenship for the children of illegals. Not surprising since it’s de rigueur among them to stand foresquare in favor of the illogical and unreasonable, which, in this case, includes rewarding both those who break the law (parents whose children then become entitled to the benefits of citizenship, including access to the public treasury) and those whose presence in the United States is impossible but for the commission of an illegal act.
Withdrawing the application of birthright citizenship to the children of illegal aliens is a reasonable step to take as part of comprehensive immigration reform.
The Piper
@100…T…
Address the substantive points you’ve made about immigration policy?
They were again…???
As I recall, you said it’s not a big deal – it will all sort itself out, so no need to do anything.
Sorry…that’s so far out of the mainstream as to be ostrich-like in refusing to see the obvious.
Still interested, however, in hearing how you handicap The Preakness – what makes that race different from other legs of The Triple Crown such that Big Brown shouldn’t be considered a shoe-in? On that issue, I respect your expertise.
But on immigration? You’re out to lunch.
The Piper
Gotta love how quickly McKenna, the cheap labor Republican, started backing away from this. It’s fun to watch the pompous rich Republicans get handed their hat by the ideologs.
102 PS
Just standing foursquare in support of our Constitution.
“Disagreement among legal scholars?” Yeah, right. You guys always find some fucking nutcase to argue your side. Witness the non-existent “debate” about anthropocentric global climate change in which the odd expert-for-hire is reliably trotted out.
No, the language of the amendment is quite clear and unambiguous, and it notably says nothing about the circumstances of one’s residence. Or else, your argument says, ANY violation of any law is similarly prone to result in a revoked right of citizenship, because your argument is not grounded in any specific language regarding the circumstances of one’s residence. That is to say, if you are not arguing from the language of the Constitution, you’re arguing from nothing.
Also, your argument deals with the parent of the person and not the person. The Constitution clearly says that any “person” (i.e. the child) is a citizen if born here, and that language is clearly irrespective of any act on the part of any other person (for example, the parent). The parent could have shot their way into this country and it would not affect the status of the child, who is not responsible.
However, if you wish to cite some peer-reviewed scholarship that deals with the intent of the amenders, please feel free.
@102 “There is some disagreement among legal scholars”
Yeah, right, just like there’s some disagreement (bought and paid for) over global warming and evolution. It’s all horse shit. Obviously, when you’re the lackey of both religious extremists and global corporations you can come up with some really strange shit.
@103: Piper, go take a flying leap, okay?
Pooper,
You say the “bad guys” are the illegals who come here.
How convenient of you to ignore who employ them, in effect, enabling the flouting of the laws.
So many of those employers lean Republican.
@108
Yep, see #104.
@108…YippeeLilBoy…
I’m all in favor of coming down hard on employers who break the law by hiring illegals.
Here’s an example from Arizona on how cracking down on employers works:
(looks like including the link to a CNN story blocked this post, so go to a report on this on the CNN website from December 22nd of last year)
The author of the Arizona proposal, BTW, is a Republican, and his efforts were castigated and resisted by so-called “immigration rights” outfits.
So your advocacy of sanctions against employers runs afoul of the very illegal aliens you claim to support. They want to come illegally, work illegally, and stay in perpetuity illegally.
What part of “illegally” is alien to you?
And I’m sure Arizona State Representative Russell Pearce, the author of the employer-sanction law, will appreciate knowing that you stand solidly behind this Republican effort.
Thanks for your support…
The Piper
You might want to tell that to your boy/chimp in the White House. He’s cut back that particular budget item every chance he got.
@111…M…
No question…not a good move on the President’s part.
Tell you what…will you join me in calling for the strongest possible sanctions on any employer who hires an illegal alien? Together, maybe we can make it so painful to hire them that not a single illegal will be able to find a job anywhere in the United States.
Just think…no jobs for illegal aliens = no incentive to become an illegal alien or remain in the country as one = no illegal aliens.
Sound good to you?
The Piper
@110 “They want to come illegally, work illegally, and stay in perpetuity illegally.”
I do hope you enjoy making shit up. How large a shit-load of racist hate does it take to come up with that kind of crap?
re 112: If I had an ounce of faith in your honesty or integrity, it would. But you’ve proven yourself time and again to be nothing but a flim-flam man.
re 112: To make “one thing perfectly clear”, as Nixon used to say before beginning to obfuscate, you have no interest in solving the immigration problem OR in punishing people who illegally hire Mexican workers.
Your interest is to scare blue collar Americans into voting against their own best interests by voting for Republicans.
It’s a sleazy trick — an appeal to uninformed self-interest.
Regarding Arizona’s racist bastard Rep. Pearce, I am totally against a law which makes hiring an illegal immigrant a felony punishable by ten years’ imprisonment. We need fewer people in prison for non-violent misdeeds, not more.
Immigrasnts make this country stronger and more diverse, provide needed labor, and help prop up our SS system.
We need to fix our immigration laws all right. We need to give the millions of people living in the shadows in the country a chance to come out into the light and become citizens.
Deleted by author.
@115…HL…
Wow! You packed a lot of non sequiturs into a relatively short number of words.
Your contention that I have no interest in solving the immigration problem is based upon what again? Haven’t I made or endorsed some specific proposals to that end?
But you would rather accuse me of bad faith than even possibly find common ground – typical of much HA Happy Hooligan “thinking.”
Just so you’ll know…for a long time I’ve endorsed stiff sanctions against those who hire illegals – a good way to stem the flow of anything is eliminate its marketplace.
I’m also in favor of dealing reasonably with those who are here now, but not giving them amnesty. There are too many unfiled 1040s among them for that.
I also am opposed to sanctuary cities and refusing to inquire into immigration status of defendents when they’re arrested. Easy way to avoid an discrimination objection is to ask of every person arrested whether they have a legal right to work or reside in the United States.
If they don’t, then they’re subject to immediate deportaiton.
For this issue to be successfully addressed, every POV will have to come to the table and be prepared to compromise somewhere. It appears that the first step is the emerging consensus that whatever is done must include securing the borders as task #1.
For everyone’s information, here is the complete plank on Borders, Immigration and National Security adopted by the State Republican Party Convention:
.
To a majority of Americans, this is not controversial – it’s necessary.
The Piper
Absolutely. This is one of the places where conservatives and I agree. If the heads of corporations down to the guy who hires an illegal to cut his grass really feared jail and fines, the illegal problems would mostly dry up.
Following the RULES is critical to a working society. If you don’t like the rule, change them, but dont ignore them.
If illegals have kids while they are here, their kids are Americans. BUT if the parents are found, they must be deported. The parents have the choice of leaving them in foster care or taking the kids with them. The kids can come back when they want, since they are American. Even John McCain is American, and he’s not born here.
I think immigration is great. I welcome immigration, so long as it’s done legally.
@116…DL…
Your theory of jurisprudence, then, would free all embezzlers, tax cheats, and white collar criminals of all kinds, including insider traders and con artists.
Your rigid orthodoxy is beginning to sound creaky – the ideological limb upon which you’ve gotten yourself stuck is cracking big time, and the fall is going to hurt.
The need for workers can only be legitimately addressed by legal ones, here legally, who obey the law. Let those here illegaly leave the country then make application for re-entry through proper channels.
And try some original thinking for a change…
The Piper
@120 & 121…BJ…
But John McCain was born of American parents while his father was on duty in the Canal Zone.
Since, as a general rule, children belong with their parents, when the parents are deported, the kids need to go with them. Again, blame the parents, not the system.
To place them all in foster care, which is a taxpayer expense, would cost what?
The GOP platform also welcomes immigrants and favors immigration, if done legally. It also favors consequences for illegal immigration, some of which may innure to children. Again, blame those who break the law, not the system.
Come legally, enjoy the benifits – come illegally, suffer the consequences.
The Piper
If we passed this change, so kids of illegals were NOT Americans, what do you see as the consequences?
I don’t see a lot of them leaving because of the rule change. We would end up with 3 and 4th generations of illegals, with NO ties to America, with nothing to lose if they get caught. I can see it leading, long term, to more terrorists. Am I wrong?
So how many U.S. citizens will be put out of work because we send employers of illegal immigrants to prison?
I would rather have increased foster care cost, rather than dismantle the 14th amendment. I’m a parent, I cannot imagine that too many parents would abandon their kids to orphanages.
123 PS
Yes, if the children die, don’t blame the Piper, blame the parents. After all, they are the ones in control of the mechanisms of government.
It will be interesting seeng how you guys fare in the new America where scared whites are not the winning elecorate. Welcome.
122
No, my “theory of jurisprudence” would open up our processes so that many more of our residents would have a path to citizenship. And to show how egalitarian I am, I would even open it up to Canadians.
@125. After the first few, probably almost none. Very very quickly, business would adapt.
About as many as U.S. citizens are put out of work NOW because their boss was a crook and embezzled funds.
@128 – Only if they bring their own beer – those Canadians!
Shazaaam!
Just like magic!
A completely unrelated piece of proposed legislation from a state thousands of miles away is produced in order to change the subject.
But the fact remains that the WSRP doesn’t give a shit about cracking down on slave owners. And they most certainly aren’t proposing any such legislation. They’d just like to imprison and deport the children of the slaves themselves.
Sweet.
And once again the point is that this isn’t about illegal immigration. If it really were about illegal immigration the WSRP would be looking at the folks who drive the illegal immigration in the first place. And that would be the employers and industries who depend upon illegal immigration to create a stable permanent sub-class of employees outside the law. They aren’t seeking to eliminate that sub class. If anything they are proposing steps to enshrine that permanent sub-class of employees outside the law. They are seeking to expand it.
Only a fool thinks that illegal immigration is driven by the attraction of welfare or public schools or (jessus, I can’t even believe anyone would suggest this) voting. It is driven by low paying jobs with no benefits and no worker protections. Dry up the employment pool and the illegal immigration goes away.
But that’s not what the WSRP wants. They want to expand and enshrine a permanent sub-class of stateless non-citizens without worker rights or protections to baseline the U.S. employment market.
I can see you point. Having a set of workers that won’t complain, about anything, to keep their jobs is a powerful incentive. As soon as they get out of line, report them and replace them. Nice. I see this as conservative, it is not Christian but it is very capitalist.
Did anyone notice? Piper AGREED that illegal employers is one of the big problems. Common ground with Piper, who would have thunk it.
So your advocacy of sanctions against employers runs afoul of the very illegal aliens you claim to support. They want to come illegally, work illegally, and stay in perpetuity illegally. What part of “illegally” is alien to you?
When did I claim to support illegal immigration? My position is that if your Republican friends that you hoisted some brews with in Spokane didn’t hire them, they wouldn’t be here. Yes those same friends who want those guest worker programs.
And pooper apparently you can’t understand that undocumented workers from Mexico and elsewhere need to feed their families NOW. Perhaps if your Republican friends didn’t enable them to come here, they’d get mad at their own government, organize and then put the equally right-leaning elites of Mexico and other places out of business.
But you can’t have that either, can you?
Another interesting question is raised:
If an illegal employer’s product has to be so cheap, so Americans will buy it, but this means they cannot pay wages high enough to get Americans to do the labor, should they be in business?
That isn’t necessarily the reason.
Many times employers rely upon undocumented workers because they themselves are unable to fully operate within the law. They lack the capital and creditworthiness to qualify for proper licensing and insurance. They are too incompetent or lazy to properly document their businesses. They prefer to bend an arm at the local watering hole complaining about “gubmint regilashuns”. So they fly by the seat of their pants. And it’s just easier to do that with a bunch of non-citizens with no rights, no support network, and no legal recourse.
So in a sense, you are right, but for the wrong reason. Price isn’t nearly as big a factor as you might think. But cost is. And many small businesses operate remarkably inefficiently. In order to compete, rather than improve their operations, they find it easier to simply import slaves. Take that away from them and some will fix their practices and operate above board. Others will fold, as they should. You might pay a little more to have your house re-roofed, or motel room cleaned. But not very much.
Goldy, you are ignorant. Nothing in the 14th Amendment says that all people born in the U.S. are automatic citizens.
Read and be enlightened.
All that said, I disagree with this resolution, because I think it is a battle not worth fighting, and I believe that birthright citizenship, even for illegals, is better than the alternative.
But it is a. not new, and b. closer to the actual intent and language of the 14th Amendment than your view.
You are also misrepresenting Esser. He didn’t say his goal would be to get a new constitutional interpretation from the Supreme Court, he said that’s what it would take in order to have a change.
But you knew that. You don’t mind lying to get your point across.
@137…Pudge…
Liberals, always crowing about their tolerance and diversity, really are doctrinaire ideologues who stand ready to crucify all who deviate from the party line.
Orwellin to the enth degree.
But a couple from the GOP can disagree on an issue like birthright citizenship and it’s no big deal. Ronaldus Magnus Reaganus’ maxim that my 80% friend is not my 20% enemy is lost on the HA Happy Hooligans.
Then again…most truths are.
And they’re so damn grumpy about it all!
The Piper
@138 “And they’re so damn grumpy about it all!”
After the clusterfuck you people have brought onto this nation, “grumpy” is more than inadaquate. I’m feeling damned mean towards assholes like you. I’m no lib. But I’ll side with them against you fascist freaks any day.
Commies to the left, fascists to the right – I don’t cotton to either one. I damned well don’t cotton to you, asshole.
Steve:
Sorry, what exactly did me and Piper bring onto this nation? Be specific, please.
@140 You know damned well what I’m talking about. Stick your question up your ass.
@141…Steve…
OK, then…you don’t know what you’re talking about since you dump it back in our laps.
Adjust your meds so that the voices speak to you with greater clarity.
The Piper
@142 No, I just don’t play your fucking game. You can take your fascist bullshit and shove it up your ass.
Steve:
No, actually, I have not the slightest idea what you are talking about. And from your response, I am pretty sure you have no idea, too. You just like to give vague attacks without specifics so you can’t ever be proven wrong.
Not a very intelligent or honest thing to do.
To sum up…
Pooper is a racist
The GOP is a racist party
Pooper knows that if the Iraq war went to a national referendum it would loooooooose
Pooper cites Rasmussen polling data to support his lies and they are a GOP leaning polling house
Huh. The overwhelming majority of racists in public life today, and in recent history going back the last few decades, and earlier … are Democrats.
Yet somehow the Republican Party is racist?
Reality-based community, my ass.
@146…Pudge…
It’s pointless to try to discuss anything with BBGOP, who is the ultimate racist both condemned out of his own mouth and by several HA regulars.
He’s a hater, a bigot, and a purveyor of filth who has never displayed an original thought or made a constructive contribution to any conversation to which he has been a part.
Will Rogers would make an exception in his case.
The Piper
Huhh. the words SAY if you are born here, you are a citizen. Are you being an activist judge or something?
Maybe is is the phrase
is what you all are using to exclude.
But that just means, within the borders of the US.
My last response doesn’t appear to be showing up.
Suffice it to say, Blue John, that if you read the link I provided @137, you would know that your definition of “jurisdiction” was not the one used by the people who wrote, passed, and ratified the 14th Amendment. They explicitly stated it excluded Indian tribes in the U.S., for example, because they were not under the full jurisdiction of the U.S.
You can argue about what that means, but it clearly did NOT mean “within the borders of the U.S.” The Amendment already said “in the U.S.,” and one of the first rules of legal interpretation is that additional phrases like that are not assumed to be purely redundant. It has its own meaning. It is simply incorrect to wave it away as being redundant.
Pudge,
I read that you said
But the constitution SAYS
“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.”
How can you spin that to mean something other than WHAT THE WORDS say?If you are born here, you are a citizen.
That would be like taking the 2nd amendment to bear arms literally, but this passage is open to interpretation?
@150 Everything’s situational with these blokes – whatever serves the purpose.
@144 Like I give a flying monkey fuck what you think.
@149, 150
Has the Supreme court had anything to say about that?
According to Pudge, The supreme court, back in 1898, clarified the amendment and confirmed the obvious, that if you are born here, you are a citizen.
Here are more articulate passages for the conservative argument on how the 14th amendment does not apply to illegals.
http://www.fairus.org/site/Pag.....enters4608
Interpreting the 14th Amendment
According to the Constitution’s 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868 to ensure citizenship for the newly emancipated African Americans, “all persons, born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” The phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was intended to exclude from automatic citizenship American-born persons whose allegiance to the United States was incomplete. For example, Native Americans were excluded from American citizenship because of their tribal jurisdiction. Also not subject to American jurisdiction were foreign visitors, ambassadors, consuls, and their babies born here. In the case of illegal aliens, their native country has a claim of allegiance on the child. Therefore, some Constitutional scholars argue that the completeness of the allegiance to the United States is impaired and logically precludes automatic citizenship. However, this issue has never been directly decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.
—
http://www.14thamendment.us/bi.....ntent.html
The United States did not limit immigration in 1868 when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified. Thus there were, by definition, no illegal immigrants and the issue of citizenship for children of those here in violation of the law was nonexistent. Granting of automatic citizenship to children of illegal alien mothers is a recent and totally inadvertent and unforeseen result of the amendment and the Reconstructionist period in which it was ratified.
The correct interpretation of the 14th Amendment is that an illegal alien mother is subject to the jurisdiction of her native country, as is her baby.
—
That said, I still hold that, the way the amendment is written, if you are born here, you are a citizen.
It’s amazing how some folks can read the plain language of the amendment and claim that it means something else. If a person is born here, and the US has jurisdiction over the parents, then that person is a citizen.
If the far-right wants to make the claim that the US has no jurisdiction over people here illegally, then they have to make the claim that if an illegal immigrant commits a crime, we cannot prosecute them for it.
This is obviously absurd, so the plain language of the amendment applies.
Still, we have people that make the claim that, because the Second Amendment explains why citizens get to keep personal weapons, that somehow the plain language “shall not be infringed” doesn’t mean what it says.
(Yeah, I’m one of those “Second Amendment Liberals”.)
The 14th Amendment is quite clear. Of course, the Congress could clearly state that we renounce any jurisdiction over anyone here illegally. They’re free to murder, pillage and plunder, and the law will do nothing about it.
Then we’d really need to carry weapons.
From nolo.com:
It’s quite clear why the conservatives need this kind of revision to the 14th Amendment. Just today, in Montana, they’re pushing for signatures to qualify an amendment to the Montana constitution that would grant full rights of citizenship from the moment of conception — imagine what that would do for immigration without the change to the 14th! Any couple simply visiting Montana from any country could conceive a child and claim full citizenship for it from the moment of conception. That could open up a whole new type of tourism to the US: the conception tour! “We’ll book your US tour and time your stay so that you can conceive a child while in Montana!”
Hey Pooper – I am fucking your sister AND your fat ugly wife tonight. I’ll give you a progress report after you get back from the Port Orchard Bowling Alley where you’ll be busy giving sailors blow jobs.
A legal principle of long standing is that the law should not produce an absurdity. That the 14th Amendment confers citizenship upon all who are born in the U.S. without regard to whether the presence of the parents within the U.S. is legal or illegal can be argued as an absurdity.
It’s not inconceivable for Congress to enact a law including in birthright citizenship only children whose parents are lawfully within the United States, thus specifically excluding scofflaws.
Then it would be up to the courts to decide.
Still, popular sentiment on both sides of the ideological spectrum is in favor of tighter immigration controls, less access by illegal aliens to benefits otherwise enjoyed by legal residents and citizens, and generally shutting of the unbridled flow of illegal aliens into the U.S.
On a broader note, though, this issue exposes the emptiness of so many of the HA Happy Hooligans: immigration law is irrelevent – illegal aliens shouldn’t be subject to any sanctions whatsoever for breaking the law – open the borders without compunction or criterion.
Falls right into the same thinking that fights against any form of integrity in voting – same-day registration, no ID requirement for voting, no effective way to verify whether someone is a legal voter.
In other words, no standards for anything at all.
At least libs are consistent!
The Piper
@158 “On a broader note, though, this issue exposes the emptiness of so many of the HA Happy Hooligans: immigration law is irrelevent – illegal aliens shouldn’t be subject to any sanctions whatsoever for breaking the law – open the borders without compunction or criterion.”
Great. Thanks for telling us what we think, even if nobody here ever said such a thing.
Here’s what you think: You think being a America-hating, fascist pedophile dickhead is the way for you to go through life. Christ, you’re fucked up for thinking such things.
Blue John:
So, now that you have found quotes backing me up, you will be apologizing to me and admitting you were wrong?
John Barelli, you write:
“If the far-right wants to make the claim that the US has no jurisdiction over people here illegally, then they have to make the claim that if an illegal immigrant commits a crime, we cannot prosecute them for it.”
No one is making that claim, so that’s a straw man. It is not that there is no jurisdiction, but that it is not full and complete jurisdiction. That is, they are subject not just to U.S. jurisdiction, but to the jurisdiction of another power.
In other words, the sense intended at the time is that this jurisdiction is *exclusive.*
Now, I am not saying my interpretation is necessarily the correct one, although I think history is clearly on my side. However, your attempt to dimiss this by looking up a contemporary dictionary definition of “jurisdiction” is silly.
That is not how proper interpretation is done. You look at what was meant at the time, in context. As Blue John said, you can’t just look up “arms” in Webster’s and use that to say that our only constitutionally protected weapons are the biarticulated ones attached to the side of our body.
Jerry Brown: you’re committing the question-begging fallacy by claiming this is a revision at all. I’ve already provided strong evidence it is not, and funny, no one has provided any counterevidence. Easier to just pretend it doesn’t exist and hope it goes away, I suppose.
Steve: yawn. As I’ve said before, you really suck at this.