Her roast beef is showing.

8/1/2010 4:10:00 PM

^^
Jesus' Dad deported a whole bunch of Haitians last January..to the afterlife.

8/2/2010 1:11:36 AM

Quote :

"Her roast beef is showing."

indeed it is!

8/2/2010 9:58:49 AM

The point was that many come here for differnet reasons, one being how strong the dollar is to the peso. They earn more here and send a lot home.

AGAIN, I have never said there arent positives to immigration, in fact we need it. But do I support an open border? no

You realize they use the fake SS number to get a job, not because they want to pay SS tax. You could agree with that statement I would imagine.

8/2/2010 10:38:09 AM

so basically what grumpy said:

Quote :

"I didn't even see that you had a point. In fact, I still don't. I'm guessing its something along the lines of, "They send money home!!! This completely negates any positive impacts they may have locally!!!!11uno" "

Quote :

"You realize they use the fake SS number to get a job, not because they want to pay SS tax. You could agree with that statement I would imagine."

REALLY?!!! well that changes everything i never even thought of that!
i mean seriously? basically you tried to use a tight budget as an argument against it but we pointed out that they are helping out by paying $9B into a system they can't receive benefits from.

Quote :

" AGAIN, I have never said there arent positives to immigration, in fact we need it. But do I support an open border? no "

why not? really it seems that a closed border with illegal immigration is the best thing, but isn't the free movement of labor always a positive part of a free market?

8/2/2010 11:18:42 AM

to me the border issue is much more about security than it is economy.

8/2/2010 11:27:01 AM

if you removed incentives for people to cross illegally, and allowed more people to enter legally through customs, wouldn't that make it easier to protect against those entering illegally?

8/2/2010 11:28:48 AM

I talked about a free market and labor on the previous page.

Yes a portion illegals paying into SS helps our current system. But does that mean you stop looking at other consequences? Its not the only thing that matters.

There are negative consequences as well as positives, would you agree? Or in your mind is everyone coming here to work and pay taxes?

8/2/2010 11:50:52 AM

Quote :

"if you removed incentives for people to cross illegally, and allowed more people to enter legally through customs, wouldn't that make it easier to protect against those entering illegally?"

the ones who would choose to enter legally are not the problem. its the drug smugglers, terrorists and bad guys who would still trek across the desert and who would have to be stopped at gunpoint.

8/2/2010 12:40:46 PM

Quote :

"But does that mean you stop looking at other consequences? Its not the only thing that matter"

what i , and grumpy i think, are trying to determine is what negative consequences you are referring to. its hard to hold a conversation when you are being vague.

8/2/2010 1:29:31 PM

They took ur jerbs!

8/2/2010 2:03:41 PM

http://www.myfoxphoenix.com/dpp/news/immigration/mexican-drug-cartel-sheriff-arpaio-07292010

Quote :

"Mexican Drug Cartel Allegedly Puts a Price on Arizona Sheriff's Head"

8/2/2010 2:22:16 PM

if an Arizona lawman is killed by a drug cartel, all hell is going to break loose on the border.

BO will have no choice but to completely militarize it to save his own neck.

8/2/2010 2:26:09 PM

FYI:

Apparently, some in the Obama administration have been floating a memo around the Hill that describes how Obama would bypass Congress to legalize illegal immigrants (check the last two pages and look for "Deferred Action").

http://www2.nationalreview.com/memo_UCIS_072910.html

8/2/2010 3:19:35 PM

where is obama in that?

8/2/2010 3:23:17 PM

8/2/2010 3:38:53 PM

Quote :

"The point was that many come here for differnet reasons, one being how strong the dollar is to the peso."

This seems like an unnecessarily elaborate way of saying "They come here to work."

Quote :

"You realize they use the fake SS number to get a job, not because they want to pay SS tax."

Nobody wants to pay any taxes. But yes, I get it, they use fake numbers so that they can work. Oh the humanity. Christ, if it'd get me a job I'd steal the shit out of a social security number. As long as they're not using it for some real criminal endeavor -- stealing money, ruining someone's reputation, etc -- I don't give a fuck.

Quote :

"I talked about a free market and labor on the previous page."

Hahaha, sure. You basically said "I'm in favor of the free market but because we don't have the free market I am opposed to the free market."

Quote :

"There are negative consequences as well as positives, would you agree?"

This is true of absolutely everything, ever. And you've done a really, really shitty job of explaining the negative consequences, let alone proving that they outweigh the positives.

Quote :

"the ones who would choose to enter legally are not the problem. its the drug smugglers, terrorists and bad guys who would still trek across the desert and who would have to be stopped at gunpoint."

THAT'S THE WHOLE GODDAMN POINT! Open the borders, let in everyone who isn't a security threat, and then you can focus all your efforts on finding the people who are still crossing the desert, because those are your drug smugglers, terrorists, and bad guys.

8/2/2010 3:49:48 PM

[Edited on August 2, 2010 at 3:50 PM. Reason : .]

8/2/2010 3:49:51 PM

Viriginia attorney general rules law enforcement can check immigration status during stops and arrests
August 2, 2010

Quote :

"RICHMOND, VIRGINIA (BNO NEWS) — Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli on Friday ruled through a legal opinion that police officers and local authorities in the state, as in the new controversial Arizona immigration law, can check immigration status during stops and arrests. Legal opinions made by the attorney general in Virginia are considered law unless a judge disagrees with the legal analysis after a court challenge. 'It is my opinion that Virginia law enforcement officers, including conservation officers, may, like Arizona police officers, inquire into the immigration status of persons stopped or arrested; however, persons tasked with enforcing zoning laws lack the authority to investigate criminal violations of the law, including criminal violations of the immigration laws of the United States,' Cuccinelli said in response to Del. Bob Marshall who requested legal advice. If a person is lawfully stopped, detained or arrested, the Arizona immigration law directs law enforcement officials to make a 'reasonable attempt, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of a person' who is arrested or in custody 'except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation.' 'Virginia law enforcement officers have the authority to make the same inquiries as those contemplated by the new Arizona law. So long as the officers have the requisite level of suspicion to believe that a violation of the law has occurred, the officers may detain and briefly question a person they suspect has committed a federal crime,' Cuccinelli said. The controversial immigration law has had mixed opinions and strong criticism throughout several media outlets. Recently, a federal judge blocked key provisions, preventing Arizona law enforcement to check immigration status on anyone they stop or arrest."

http://tinyurl.com/36h2km4

8/2/2010 4:16:26 PM

Quote :

"THAT'S THE WHOLE GODDAMN POINT! Open the borders, let in everyone who isn't a security threat, and then you can focus all your efforts on finding the people who are still crossing the desert, because those are your drug smugglers, terrorists, and bad guys."

NO, THE WHOLE GODDAMN POINT IS:

stop the illegal crossings, prevent anyone from doing so, THEN we can talk about who we allow in.

you have to stop the flow first.

8/2/2010 6:49:00 PM

^ Hear, hear!

8/2/2010 7:08:39 PM

^^ totally agree.

Grumpy, there is a host of negatives, outside of the normal culture clash. But as you so pointed out I tend to focus more on the strain of entitlements/system. Look at the record hospital closures in California and areas with large illegal pop.

A couple more reasons.(hope you find these helpful, and I doubt this will be the first time you have heard of ANY negative effects, lol) I know you said they pay in 9B to SS a year.
"The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office reviewed 29 reports published over 15 years to evaluate the impact of unauthorized immigrants on the budgets of state and local governments, and found that the tax revenues that unauthorized immigrants generate for state and local governments do not offset the total cost of services provided to those immigrants, but that the amount that state and local governments spend on services for unauthorized immigrants represents a small percentage of the total amount spent by those governments to provide such services to residents in their jurisdictions."

A study of "U.S. INS statistics on how many illegal immigrants are residing in each country and the U.S. Dept of Education's current expenditure per pupil by state, and found the estimated cost of educating illegal immigrants students and U.S. citizen children of illegal immigrants in 2004 was $29.6 billion."

You seem ok with Identity theft, so I guess that one wont make a dent.

Drugs/gang violence

Here is an article, that you wont like, that estimates illegals cost 113B a year.

"The report found that the federal government paid $28.6 billion in illegal related costs, and state and local governments paid $84.2 billion on an estimated 13 million undocumented residents."

"The single largest cost to the government of illegal immigration, according to the report, is an estimated $52 billion spent on schooling the children of illegals."
So we have gone from 30B in 2004 to 52B in 6 years.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/07/02/immigration-costs-fair-amnesty-educations-costs-reform/

And as Ive said earlier the market pressure is calling for lower labor costs, yet our govt keeps on driving the price up..which makes off the books employment more appealing.

8/2/2010 10:50:26 PM

^ if your reasoning for hating illegal immigrants is that they cost too much, wouldn't the best long term approach to an increase in the influx of productive workers who have a culture of utilizing government services at a lower cost rate than their legal income counterparts be to provide an easy path to legalization or a guest worker type of program?

How exactly is rounding up, trying, and deporting between 12 and 20 million people going to be cost effective? And how exactly is it beneficial to expel people who obviously are a productive part of the labor market considering that they are even able to get jobs?

And it doesn't really make sense to try and use the costs of education against the immigrants, especially the ones who were born here. Educating them is only going to be better for the US all around. It's exactly like arguing against all tax-payer funded education because it just costs too much.

Quote :

"stop the illegal crossings, prevent anyone from doing so, THEN we can talk about who we allow in. you have to stop the flow first. "

LOL Because it's as easy said as it is done?

HOw do you propose that we stop people from crossing a 2000 mile border, when it's well within their rational economic self interests to do so? And if we take the draconian route and build a berlin wall, that still leaves the massive ocean landings, or sneaking into canada, and crossing that 5500 mile border.

And i would assume that ^, ^^, ^^^ as conservatives certainly don't support heavy-handed gov. regulations forcing at gun-point small business owners to increase their labor costs, while increasing costs for everyone else? Why isn't the free-market solution the best solution when it comes to the labor market?

8/3/2010 7:12:21 PM

walls and the military will stop the crossings, along with a strong deportation policy not unlike the Arizona law. most countries in the world enforce their boundaries with force.

the world we live in demands that we have control over who is crossing our borders and who is staying within them or we will pay another huge penalty in blood.

8/3/2010 9:01:02 PM

Get all that bullshit out of here. Thats not what its about. Tell me how many terrorists came in illegally through mexico? 0.

you know why?

because they are way more sophisticated than that and they fly right in through the airport and enter plain as day.

8/3/2010 9:16:59 PM

Quote :

"Get all that bullshit out of here. Thats not what its about. Tell me how many terrorists came in illegally through mexico? 0."

how do you know?

do me a favor and look in your crystal ball. what about the next 20 years?

dummy. i weep for the value of my diploma.

8/3/2010 9:18:54 PM

^^well if you consider the whole, drugs/drug dealers/etc funding terrorism saying, then the number of terrorists coming in to the US from Mexico would be quite high

quite high indeed

8/3/2010 9:55:30 PM

eyedrb --

My first problem with your post is that it only cites one article. And even within that article, there are things that support my side that you conveniently ignore. Most importantly are these two paragraphs:

Quote :

"“The single biggest 'expense' it attributes to unauthorized immigrants is the education of their children, yet most of these children are native-born, U.S. citizens who will grow up to be taxpaying adults," said Walter Ewing, a senior researcher at the American Immigration Council. "It is disingenuous to count the cost of investing in the education of these children, so that they will earn higher incomes and pay more in taxes when they are adults, as if it were nothing more than a cost incurred by their parents." He added that “the report fails to account for the purchasing power of unauthorized consumers, which supports U.S. businesses and U.S. jobs” and that it “ignores the value added to the U.S. economy by unauthorized workers, particularly in the service sector.”"

All of which I have said to you before, most of which I have said to you before in this thread. You'll forgive me if I don't take the word of one anti-immigrant organization as quoted by an anti-immigrant news organization.

As to the rest...

California is one of the most incompetently designed and operated state governments ever.

If -- and this is debated -- illegal immigrant taxes don't offset the cost of their services but the difference represents "a small percentage of the total amount spent by those governments," then my suspicion is that a vast program to round up and deport people will cost a rather larger percentage.

Quote :

"walls and the military will stop the crossings"

You are my new dumbest person in the soap box.

Walls will do nothing. The Soviet Union only had to wall up and guard West Berlin, a fairly small piece of real estate that was completely surrounded by one of the most well-armed, well-disciplined regimes on the planet, and one which didn't even have to pay lip service to human rights. And PEOPLE STILL GOT OVER THE FUCKING WALL.

Quote :

"the world we live in demands that we have control over who is crossing our borders and who is staying within them or we will pay another huge penalty in blood."

Given that pretty much all of our big international terrorists got into the country through legal means...

Quote :

"well if you consider the whole, drugs/drug dealers/etc funding terrorism saying"

Another things walls won't help. As long as Americans are willing to spend ungodly sums of money on drugs people will get them into the country. Far and away the biggest risk to our border security lies with our ports, which are woefully undermanned and which could easily allow for a vast influx of drugs, weapons, and people.

8/3/2010 10:52:57 PM

Quote :

"walls and the military will stop the crossings, along with a strong deportation policy not unlike the Arizona law. most countries in the world enforce their boundaries with force. "

You're naive if you think this will stop the crossings. We already use force to prevent crossings. There's a line between draconian force, and reasonable enforcement. We don't do stuff in our country because some other country does it either. We don't ban guns like Japan, we don't have universal health care like England, we don't have the insane motor vehicle inspections like Ireland, etc.. Few other countries have the same situation that we have with Mexico, there are even fewer countries (maybe none) that embrace a pluralist society like we claim to embrace.

We definitely need to use deadly force on the borders to stop drug cartels from smuggling violent criminals and weapons, but the over arching immigration policy should reflect our willingness to accept any hard working people that can be productive for our society. Fixing that problem will relieve a lot of the illegal border crossings. But when you look at the subtext of the rhetoric coming from a lot of the proponents of the AZ law, it's not an issue of really fixing any problems, it's a fear of a cultural take over by the brown people, evidenced in Brewer's idiotic statements that most of the immigrants are drug affiliated-- why demonize these people if its a pragmatic issue?

The biggest deterrent to immigration so far, by the numbers, has been the recession.

8/4/2010 2:44:00 AM

grumpy, I also supplied a report from the CBO.

The only criticism I saw from the anti imigration report was that pro immigration groups were sayign the numbers are misleading as they tend to count american children born to illegals in the costs, which seems to be a valid reason to include them in a report on the cost of illegal immigrants.

I would say the percentage of costs is related to two things, the numbers. 10-15M out of 300M people and that most adults cant fully get on our entitlements without an american relative. However, that will change im sure as the parties eye these new votes.

And I do think walls work. You mentioned berlin. that was was designed to keep people IN, not out. And it did a pretty decent job of doing that. I suppose you dont have a door on your house either? Sure there are people who break into houses, but can you imagine if we didnt have doors on our houses how much more there would be? There is a cost vs benefit to anything, when you make it easier more people will do it, when it is harder or more of a hassle less will. Now will it stop 100% of illegals coming in? of course not, I dont think anyone is claiming that is the case.

[Edited on August 4, 2010 at 8:43 AM. Reason : .]

8/4/2010 8:39:58 AM

Quote :

" Given that pretty much all of our big international terrorists got into the country through legal means..."

yeah. the last time. good thing terrorists are predictable.

tell me this...if you wanted to enter our country illegally, how would you do it?

Quote :

"Walls will do nothing. The Soviet Union only had to wall up and guard West Berlin, a fairly small piece of real estate that was completely surrounded by one of the most well-armed, well-disciplined regimes on the planet, and one which didn't even have to pay lip service to human rights. And PEOPLE STILL GOT OVER THE FUCKING WALL."

you are such an arrogant prick sometimes. anyone here that has even a slightly different opinion than you and you decide that you have to grow your E-penis and swell your chest with stupid comments. walls are a deterrent and an obstacle...not a catch all. they are a piece of the puzzle. you are thinking singularly. nobody is saying you will catch 100%, but you can do a lot better fucking job than what is being done now.

you combine a wall with a strict military presence, strong laws against the hiring of illegals and the documentation of illegals with SOLIDARITY at the federal and state levels and you will significantly reduce the problem.

drugs will always be a problem and it is true the economy will greatly influence the crossings. but you suggest NOTHING. the status quo is fine for you. I suggest SOMETHING be done. the current situation is decidedly unacceptable.

8/4/2010 9:27:27 AM

Quote :

"you combine a wall with a strict military presence, strong laws against the hiring of illegals and the documentation of illegals with SOLIDARITY at the federal and state levels and you will significantly reduce the problem. "

you want the military serving on american soil? do you not see the problem with that?

Quote :

"the status quo is fine for you. I suggest SOMETHING be done. "

i'm pretty sure he suggested opening the borders, which is a long way from the status quo

[Edited on August 4, 2010 at 11:12 AM. Reason : .]

8/4/2010 11:11:34 AM

Quote :

"drugs will always be a problem "

They don't have to be. They're only dangerous because they're illegal.

I mean, legalizing drugs wouldn't be a total cure-all but it would go a long damned way to helping.

8/4/2010 11:25:38 AM

Quote :

"you want the military serving on american soil? do you not see the problem with that?"

i want the military PROTECTING american soil. and no, i do not see a problem with it.

8/4/2010 12:35:46 PM

The military is not a law enforcement agency. They are ill-equipped to deal with civilians possessing legal rights.

[Edited on August 4, 2010 at 12:51 PM. Reason : .,.]

8/4/2010 12:50:29 PM

not to mention the whole posse comitatus thing

8/4/2010 1:23:55 PM

eyedrb -- you quoted stuff from a CBO report, but you didn't tell me how to get to it so I could read it and see if there was stuff in there that went absolutely counter to your position -- which seems to have been a trend with links you post lately.

Also, I've been hearing the fear about politicians pandering to get "the immigrant vote" by throwing them free shit and citizenship for a while now, but what I've yet to see is any serious move to give them either.

Quote :

"You mentioned berlin. that was was designed to keep people IN, not out."

It was supposed to do both, and it failed at both. People got over. Yes, it didn't have a terribly high failure rate, but then again half of Berlin is a lot fucking smaller than the perimeter of the United States, it didn't have ocean boundaries, and it was completely surrounded by one of the most repressive regimes in history. If you're willing to go Soviet to keep out some Mexicans, you're a monster, plain and simple.

---

Quote :

"tell me this...if you wanted to enter our country illegally, how would you do it?"

Seems like it'd be a hell of a lot easier to get in like the 9/11 batch did, but if I had to go in illegally I'd come through a port. Port security is a joke, and you may rest assured that many illegal immigrants would use that means of entry if they could afford to do so. Indeed, it is how many illegal immigrants from places overseas get in.

There's logistical problems for a terrorist coming through Mexico that I'd think they'd want to avoid. For one, you still have to fly over to this hemisphere somehow, which is going to require some subterfuge. You've got to land in Mexico, and they're going to want to know what you're doing there. Then you have to sneak across the border, which is far from perfectly successful, especially without help. If you hire a coyote, he's gonna be smart enough to figure out you're up to something a lot scarier than working behind a home depot, and if he's got half a brain he's going to report you in exchange for the US authorities turning a blind eye to his activities.

Hell, the Canadian border is also huge and has way less security than its Mexican counterpart. And it would put you closer to many probable target cities.

You're talking about a radical and potentially violent shift in policy towards an ally, Mexico, to deal with a hypothetical problem that has nothing to do with them and doesn't exist besides.

Quote :

"you combine a wall with a strict military presence, strong laws against the hiring of illegals and the documentation of illegals with SOLIDARITY at the federal and state levels and you will significantly reduce the problem. "

Oh I'm sorry, I must've been confused by your assertion that walls, the military, etc. would stop the problem. Because that's what you said, and it was stupid.

Not that what you're suggesting is much better. To me, a "strict military presence" sounds strongly like "shooting Mexicans," which seems like a ludicrous solution to immigration problems as well as to the heretofore nonexistant issue of waves of al Qaeda swimming the Rio Grande.

Quote :

"the status quo is fine for you."

Do you even fucking know what "status quo" means? In every single immigration thread I have ever posted in I have railed against the status quo. The current immigration policy -- and that which you support, incidentally -- is unjust, unwise, and unenforceable. It has to go. The border will become vastly easier to secure when we don't force otherwise law-abiding citizens to sneak across it. When everyone who just wants job opportunities or to be reunited with their families can just go through a checkpoint, then we'll know that everybody crossing elsewhere is up to no good and we can focus our efforts on real threats.

8/4/2010 1:24:11 PM

I could go for adding checkpoints for the law-abiding...in fact, I really have no problem with the concept of amnesty for those are here simply to work and better themselves. I dont have a fundamental issue with allowing essentially "open" documented immigration for anyone...not just hispanics.

you have to combine that with the boots & wall for it to work, though. you have to enforce the border.

8/4/2010 2:43:16 PM

Quote :

"I could go for adding checkpoints for the law-abiding"

fuck. that.

8/4/2010 3:03:29 PM

Quote :

"not to mention the whole posse comitatus thing"

m52ncsu

A declaration of martial law necessarily renders moot applicable sections of the Posse Comitatus Act. But this threshold need not even be met--it's already happened:

Brigade homeland tours start Oct. 1
3rd Infantry’s 1st BCT trains for a new dwell-time mission. Helping ‘people at home’ may become a permanent part of the active Army
Sept. 30, 2008

Quote :

"The 3rd Infantry Division’s 1st Brigade Combat Team has spent 35 of the last 60 months in Iraq patrolling in full battle rattle, helping restore essential services and escorting supply convoys. Now they’re training for the same mission — with a twist — at home. Beginning Oct. 1 for 12 months, the 1st BCT will be under the day-to-day control of U.S. Army North, the Army service component of Northern Command, as an on-call federal response force for natural or manmade emergencies and disasters, including terrorist attacks. It is not the first time an active-duty unit has been tapped to help at home. In August 2005, for example, when Hurricane Katrina unleashed hell in Mississippi and Louisiana, several active-duty units were pulled from various posts and mobilized to those areas. But this new mission marks the first time an active unit has been given a dedicated assignment to NorthCom, a joint command established in 2002 to provide command and control for federal homeland defense efforts and coordinate defense support of civil authorities."

Quote :

"They may be called upon to help with civil unrest and crowd control or to deal with potentially horrific scenarios such as massive poisoning and chaos in response to a chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear or high-yield explosive, or CBRNE, attack."

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/09/army_homeland_090708w/

8/4/2010 4:26:09 PM

Quote :

"I could go for adding checkpoints for the law-abiding"

I should have clarified...for law abiding immigrants, crossing the border to work.

8/4/2010 6:04:35 PM

Quote :

"fuck. that."

Why? I don't see any problem with making people who want to come into the country go through certain crossing points at the border so we can verify their identities and run a background check to make sure they're not convicted of a serious crime or associated with terrorists. I admit "checkpoints" sounds bad because it implies army roadblocks and shit, but I'm really just talking about our current official border crossings that you're supposed to use anyway.

Quote :

"you have to combine that with the boots & wall for it to work, though. you have to enforce the border."

To an extent I have no problem with this. As long as we're letting the people who just want to work, see family, etc. through the checkpoints, then I think it's reasonable to assume that anybody crossing elsewhere is up to no good. Personally I doubt a wall would do much good. And I don't think you'd have to radically up the manpower since the border patrol and other agencies will be able to spend their time focusing on smugglers, etc. rather than on migrant laborers. I shudder to think the amount of time our agents are wasting running down mere immigrants rather than cartel guys.

And I suspect that most of the agents feel like they're wasting their time, too. Nobody joins border patrol to round up wetbacks, they do it to bust bad guys.

hooksaw--

Quote :

"A declaration of martial law necessarily renders moot applicable sections of the Posse Comitatus Act. But this threshold need not even be met--it's already happened:"

Yeah, it's happened, but that doesn't make it desirable and we shouldn't consider the option lightly. We can all list situations where military people operating on home soil have overstepped their bounds (Kent State leaps to mind, and the National Guard counts, damn it).

Militarizing the border will cost in terms of dollars, lives, and relations with our neighbors and others. People will get shot who don't need to be. Mexico will be pissed. The soldiers, who aren't fond of such duties, won't be happy either. And ultimately I don't think it will get anything productive done. All of the really bad things -- the drugs and associated crime, the *potential* terrorists -- will be inconvenienced at most.

8/4/2010 6:12:43 PM

^^dude, seriously? you're really not the brightest guy are you?

Quote :

" Quote : "fuck. that." Why?"

i thought he meant random checkpoints, i'm fine with stuff at the border. not fine with any kind of police state.

[Edited on August 4, 2010 at 6:22 PM. Reason : .]

8/4/2010 6:13:24 PM

Quote :

"^^dude, seriously? you're really not the brightest guy are you?"

what are you talking about? because my opinion is different than yours? go fly a kite.

8/4/2010 6:56:08 PM

grumpy got the ninja post, it should be ^^^

8/4/2010 6:57:19 PM

http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/08/10/nelson.14th.amendment/index.html?hpt=C2

Quote :

"In case you missed it, a group of Republican senators -- Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Jefferson "Jeff" Davis Sessions of Alabama and Jon Kyl of Arizona -- have decided that we might need to revisit the 14th Amendment's provision granting citizenship to people born in the United States. This development, in response to illegal immigrants whose children are born in the United States, is simply stunning and reckless. Can anyone seriously argue that the Republican Party has not been hijacked by extremists? Even once-sensible conservatives like Graham have drifted to a hard-right ideology so extreme that people of color, in this case Hispanics, will be hard-pressed to find a home in the GOP. These calls to revisit and possibly repeal the 14th Amendment's naturalization clause is a very bad sign of things to come on the immigration front, and we should all pay close attention as we head into the 2010 election cycle. "

What is so "reckless" and "stunning" about having debate and potential bills drawn to alter the 14th amendment to reflect the current needs/concerns of this country???
I am sure the 1860's legislature did not envision a day where one could hop on a plane or jump on a truck that could take you 100's of miles per day. Nor did they build this legislation with any potential concerns it would have in such case where hoards of undocumented persons circumvent the immigration process and illegally enter this country.

Given the current situation and magnitude of illegal immigration I do not see it as so radical to deny US citizenship merely being handed out for being "born here." If some human rights groups are concerned about potential issues, alluding to pre-civil war disenfranchisement of african americans, than the amendment can be corrected in a way to prevent such issue.

In my mind it is clear, to be born a naturalized US citizen than one must....

1.) Be born with at least one parent being a US citizen.
2.) Be born from parent[s] who are legal immigrants to this country (H1B: professional workers, DV-1: Diversity Immigrants, IR-1: Relative Immigrants etc).
3.) Be born from parent[s] who are certain classifications of longer term non-immigrants (J: Student exchange, K1: family of US citizen applying for permanent stay).

Otherwise ILLEGAL and certain classes of non-immigrant peoples given birth in this country should not have children who are automatically given US citizenship...

1.) Tourists (B-1/B-2)
2.) Transient Aliens (C-3)
and anyone ILLEGAL

Quote :

"How in the world can a party that did so many things right during its early days in the 19th century -- ended slavery, championed the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments, started Reconstruction "

I love how the author throws in the slavery red herring.

8/10/2010 6:25:36 PM

Quote :

"What is so "reckless" and "stunning" about having debate and potential bills drawn to alter the 14th amendment to reflect the current needs/concerns of this country???"

Because for the past few years, the right has been calling everyone else communists and unamerican for trying to usurp the constitution, and complaining how they were spitting on the founding fathers’ visions for the constitution, and all this other bullshit, and then they shamelessly talk about amending the constitution to suit their own whims. The absolute worst part too is that the left doesn’t have a machine in place like the Tea Baggers to organize protests and outrage calling them communists or marxists or hitlers for their actions.

Quote :

"Given the current situation and magnitude of illegal immigration I do not see it as so radical to deny US citizenship merely being handed out for being "born here.”"

The issue with immigrants isn’t their presence. The 14th amendment talk is just like when the right talks about abortion, they’re trying to liven their base, but they don’t really care, and you’re gullibly falling for it.

The numbers have been posted a million times in TSB, but we can easily handle the immigrants. The issues are with integrating them into our gov. systems better so they don’t have to stay under the radar, and instead can pay taxes, get educations, to contribute to our economy more. Our birth rate is on the brink of being too low, and with China and India outpacing our populations AND growing their industries, this puts the US in a precarious situation in the long term.

If you think long term, the solutions to the immigration problem are easy, and the definitive wrong solution is to act xenophobic like the Republicans and conservatives want.

8/10/2010 7:57:17 PM

Quote :

"The numbers have been posted a million times in TSB, but we can easily handle the immigrants."

Feel free to hand over your paycheck every month. We are not talking about a couple thousand anchor babies being born
here.....


http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/08/11/hispanic.study/index.html?hpt=T2

Quote :

"One of about every 12 babies born in the United States in 2008 was the offspring of unauthorized immigrants, a Pew Hispanic Center study released Wednesday concluded. According to the study, an estimated 340,000 of the 4.3 million babies born in this country that year had parents who were in the United States without legal documentation. "

One in 12 babies are born to illegal immigrant parents. We have enough problems with the youth and working poor families already living here.
Adding in an additional 340,000 babies is not helping. So basically two or three, on average if populations were assumed to be equally distributed (not likely),
are sitting in 1st grade with your children, getting a free education that OUR taxes pay for.

8/12/2010 9:19:36 AM

^ I have no problem paying for American children to get educations. Seems like the best thing for America, doesn’t it?

8/12/2010 9:23:12 AM

I'd rather be paying for American children born by parents who are actually legal residents. These Americans are only citizens due to a anachronistic loophole in the citizenship process. One should not be rewarded with the luxury of having children automatically naturalized for simply hopping the fence. No one is saying that these children should be mistreated or locked up. It merely does not seem prudent to automatically let illegals anchor into this country just because they have 4 kids who are all technically US citizens.

8/12/2010 1:50:00 PM