l don't think we can legislate our way out of the immigration problem. We need to secure the border and enforce the laws that are already in existence. If we can't do that, then we don't have the national will to fix the problem.
Inexcusable murder
- Thread starter LDB
- Start date
I guess some don't see the difference in applying the 14th Amendment between people who were brought here against there will and made citizens, along with their children, and those that chose to come here illegally.
Last edited:
As part of that effort we should also stop giving them jobs and stop giving them govt benefits to which they aren't entitled. Also, the GOP should kill any chance of these parasites getting amnesty. If they can't get these goodies they're after they'll leave on their own or won't come in the first place.
It's already illegal to give them a job. Check out the Form I-9. Like I said, enforce the existing laws.
They worked extremely well for East Germany. They have worked. They can work extremely well if they're properly utilized.
Well revoking the anchor baby law...would close a loophole....2 illegals get here, pop a kid and then they get the free goodies by default?....2 illegals should = 3 illegals and deport all 3...If 1 parent is a US citizen then that would be different...
It doesnt make sense that 2 illegals = 1 US citizen
It doesnt make sense that 2 illegals = 1 US citizen
OVM - it would require a change to the US constitution, and it would require 100s of legislators across the country to alienate their Hispanic constituency. Or would require a constitutional convention, which is even more unlikely.
It really wouldn't require changing the Constitution at all.
"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"
It was legislation, the 1965 Immigration Act, which allowed the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," to be interpreted to mean even children of illegal immigrants. All it would take is simple legislation stating if at least one of the parents is not a US citizen, or a legal resident, the child would not be under the jurisdiction of the United States.
"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"
It was legislation, the 1965 Immigration Act, which allowed the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," to be interpreted to mean even children of illegal immigrants. All it would take is simple legislation stating if at least one of the parents is not a US citizen, or a legal resident, the child would not be under the jurisdiction of the United States.
Of course we could pass a law that illegal aliens are not subject to American jurisdiction. Unfortunately that would mean they aren't subject to our laws or to arrest.
The only way to "fix" the 14th amendment is to amend the Constitution.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
The only way to "fix" the 14th amendment is to amend the Constitution.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
I want us to work exactly opposite to their system, but equally well. The point being that borders can be as secure as one wants them to be, up to 99.997% secure. Our border, especially considering 9/11 and the ongoing desires of terrorists, should be no less secure. Border meaning the entire perimeter of every portion of the U.S., it's territories and possessions by all entry methods. There was no mention of their system, just a response to the erroneous statement that walls never had and can't work.
The purpose of the wall, fence or other physical barrier would be to keep undesirables out - not in - and would force immigrants to become citizens by the proper means. It could be extremely effective if properly designed and supported with modern technology and an armed military presence. If the USA has the means and ability to build and maintain nearly 48,000 miles of interstate highway they can certainly build a 1900 mile wall along the Mexican border. Considering the corruption and incompetence of the Mexican govt and the condition of their economy and society we would do well to discourage their illiterate, unskilled illegal immigrants from invading our society. We have enough problems of our own without having to absorb theirs.
There is the slight difference in their 96 mile wall and the 1,954 mile wall we need.
They had 302 watch towers or 1 every .31 miles (1/3 mile) which would work out to 6,303 towers for us. But wait, a lot of the terrain out there is very rugged so we would need even more towers in those areas. Maybe one every 1/10 mile?
We haven't even been able to build fencing along the most rugged areas let alone a wall.
Build a 50 foot tall wall and they'll build a 51 foot tall ladder.
I have said this before. If you want to stop illegal immigration make the penalties for hiring them too severe to make it worth while. Hire an illegal and lose 10% of your assets! Then enforce it.
No work = no incentive.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
They had 302 watch towers or 1 every .31 miles (1/3 mile) which would work out to 6,303 towers for us. But wait, a lot of the terrain out there is very rugged so we would need even more towers in those areas. Maybe one every 1/10 mile?
We haven't even been able to build fencing along the most rugged areas let alone a wall.
Build a 50 foot tall wall and they'll build a 51 foot tall ladder.
I have said this before. If you want to stop illegal immigration make the penalties for hiring them too severe to make it worth while. Hire an illegal and lose 10% of your assets! Then enforce it.
No work = no incentive.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Apparently, you think "subject to American jurisdiction" means the same as some kind of police jurisdiction or something. That's just one of the definitions. It doesn't mean that at all in the context of the Constitution. In the Constitution it means authority, dominion, sovereignty. Under American (or US) jurisdiction means having a sovereign allegiance to the US. That's why children born overseas of American citizen parents are considered US citizens at birth, even though they weren't on US soil, because their parents have a sovereign allegiance to the US (under the jurisdiction of). The kid is the same jurisdiction as the parents.
The 1965 Act changed that so the kids and the parents could have different jurisdictions, in order to convey US citizenship on the kid at birth.
The practice began because of British common law. It wasn't until the 14th amendment that citizenship was "defined". I don't think a law as suggested would stand SCOTUS scrutiny, and would be overturned. Hence my comments that it would require amending the constitution. This is why I keep stressing strengthen the border and start following the laws that are in the books.
Yes and no. Prior to the 14th Amendment "citizen" meant solely a citizen of some state. But it gets mentioned many times in the Constitution long before the 14th Amendment cane along. Article IV Section II, for starters. The first section of the 14th Amendment defined what it meant to be a citizen of the United States. That was done almost verbatim from the Civil Rights Act of 1866 which granted citizenship to all persons born in the United States if they were not subject to a foreign power, and that clause of the Fourteenth Amendment constitutionalized this rule. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 was in large part a response from Congress to the Supreme Court for ruling that black people were not citizens, nor could they become citizens or enjoy the benefits of citizenship (the Dred Scott decision - it's a famous one).
I don't know why the Supreme Court would overturn it. They know very well what "jurisdiction of" means, and they know fully well that the Civil Rights Act of 1866 spelled it out to one thing, and the Immigration Act of 1964 altered the meaning to take into account children of illegals, despite the fact that the parents of an anchor baby are, absolutely, subject to a foreign power. (We're actually having some serious problems with that right now, with one or both parents (usually the father) being from a Muslim country and asserting his allegiance to get the baby deported to whatever country dad moved back to).