Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Trump: Anchor babies born in America are not American citizens (Page 3)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 7 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7   
Author Topic: Trump: Anchor babies born in America are not American citizens
Rafi
Member
Member # 6930

 - posted      Profile for Rafi   Email Rafi       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by cherrypoptart:
> TomDavidson

> Which ones, again? I'm looking for a) evidence that it's gotten worse in aggregate; and b) evidence that this is due to illegal immigration.

Well if you're looking for it then let me know what you find.

Don't feed the trolls cherry. [Cool]
Posts: 793 | Registered: Jul 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So I'll ask you, too, Rafi: if Tom doesn't find any evidence, will you admit there is none? [Smile]
Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Ironically you are actually making a supply-side trickle down economics argument here
Supply side would mean that I was saying that giving them more money would cause them to produce more. All economic arguments involve cycles that move through both sides, they're not linear as you seem to be implying. A demand side argument says that if you increase demand by putting more money in the hands of consumers (or increasing the number of consumers) then suppliers will react in ways to increase supply and spend additional revenues further increasing demand, and so on.

quote:
It is 100% certain that illegals do occupy many jobs that Americans otherwise would have, and so I would say the threshold for "illegals create jobs" to have any meaning is if they specifically create more jobs than they take away from Americans.
Not at all. There just have to be more jobs here than there would be without them, because the entire "take jobs away notion" is fallacious unless you have a way to get them here legally in the first place. As long as it's illegal for them to be here, then it will be people who are not here legally filling those jobs. That's the only function that making it illegal for them to be here serves; it creates a supply of cheap, exploitable labor. THe only way you can make those jobs possibly available to US citizens is to ensure that all possible labor that can be hired has the same level of legal protection.

quote:
Also note Pete's good point about the low-cost foods illegals eat. You seemed to largely dismiss his comment, but if, indeed, illegals are typically eating what they ate back home (beans, grains, wheat products) then this will primarily utilize the industries that are already overproducing.
So you claim that they eat that by choice and not because they're forced to be exigency? And even then, don't forget the rest of the money they're moving around. Every time it changes hand's there's another job created. PErhaps a few out of country before it comes home again and starts working here, but even those ou of country jobs represent a net increase in global demand, some fraction of which comes back the the US (more than would from local currency, since, as noted, US currency is most valuable to those that need or want to do business with the US)
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pyr,

there are a lot of construction and day labor jobs that those jobs would be taken by Americans, if illegal labor weren't undercutting them. The illegal labor doesn't create new jobs, it just improves the profit margins of the corporation using the illegal labor to substitute for domestically available labor.

Also as pointed out - a lot of what is consumed by illegal laborers does not increase jobs. Most of the consumed goods and services are largely fixed overhead, so again only the profit margins of the corporations increases - no increase in local labor demand.

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
So you claim that they eat that by choice and not because they're forced to be exigency? And even then, don't forget the rest of the money they're moving around. Every time it changes hand's there's another job created. PErhaps a few out of country before it comes home again and starts working here, but even those ou of country jobs represent a net increase in global demand, some fraction of which comes back the the US (more than would from local currency, since, as noted, US currency is most valuable to those that need or want to do business with the US)

I didn't say it was by choice rather than necessity, and in any case it's irrelevant for the purposes of this discussion. I'm happy you mentioned that some of the money illegals make isn't spent in the U.S. I wasn't going to bring it up but since you mention it a lot of them send significant amounts of their income to support their family back home, and that expatriated money is erased from American circulation. No doubt it's spent 'somewhere' but when Americans are looking at their own economy it's not helpful to point out that someone in Mexico will have a nicer time because that money left the country. The usual multiplier in effect when people earn money is slashed when a good part of that money never sees the light of day in the U.S. Granted, it's trivial in total compared to corporate offshores accounts, but if you're talking about an illegal doing the same job an American would otherwise have done, just remember that the American's paycheck would have gone right back into the system. This is especially so since the poor spend roughly 100% of their income right away (or more, for those who go into debt), whereas the income an illegal earns only partially does so.
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Fenring, one of the most basic principles of microeconomics is that additional demand results in additional jobs. While it is not likely that the increase in demand from a single illegal immigrant will increase hiring, it is a certainty that demand from millions will do so. If you question this hypothesis, you need to construct an entirely different theory of economics from the bottom up.
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Greg Davidson:
Fenring, one of the most basic principles of microeconomics is that additional demand results in additional jobs. While it is not likely that the increase in demand from a single illegal immigrant will increase hiring, it is a certainty that demand from millions will do so. If you question this hypothesis, you need to construct an entirely different theory of economics from the bottom up.

A simple one-line theory about a chaotic system cannot be either universally true or be equally applicable to all cases. I've already explained specifically why I think it doesn't particularly apply to the case of illegal workers. This is not the same as denying that consumption of goods is correlated to levels of production and distribution.

I'm not even making a case against illegals, I just don't believe in throwing the baby out with the bathwater and, in addition to denying that illegals are a serious menace, also throwing in that they contribute all sorts of good things as well. I don't agree with cherry on this topic, but for all that it doesn't make sense to me to attempt to reduce concern about illegal labor to completely zero just because they aren't actually a menace.

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
But is the concern rightly with the labour, or the definition of illegal?

You've explained your thinking in this case, but that explanation seems to be based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the most fundamental economic principles.

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DonaldD:
But is the concern rightly with the labour, or the definition of illegal?

Sorry, I don't understand this question.

quote:
You've explained your thinking in this case, but that explanation seems to be based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the most fundamental economic principles.
I've tried to look at some details in the situation, and if you think my analysis of those is lacking then please feel free to share and show me where I've made a mistake (Pyr is doing that and that's a good thing). But it seems to me that issuing a generalized theoretical statement and assuming it should trump any specifics I'm discussing is, I think, to misunderstand what economic theory is for (or what it is). Economics isn't about making a simple rule and trying to show that it should always be true. That's physics, if anything, and even then possibly not subatomic physics. Rather, economics is nothing more the art of figuring out how things work when it comes to people, and here the details are always more valuable than the general rules. Think of how a generic person might act in a situation; now think of how your friend might act in a situation. In predicting his reaction how much more valuable is knowing your friend intimately compared with having read about 'human nature' in a book? My favorite thing from the book Freakonomics, even though I was bored by most of the stories, was the description by the author of economics of simply being the inspection of motivation and effect; it doesn't have to even involve money (recall the story about teacher cheating). It's about how things work, and the devil is in the details. To learn about why drug dealers are poor the author couldn't just employ general theory to make a prediction; he had to go and learn from drug dealers the details of their business and culture. How would having a general rule help there?

Hell, we don't have even a basic grasp of economics at almost any level beyond a vague notion of how certain things seem like they ought to work. We have numerical data but it's very hard to make sense of it other than simply reciting the data. We certainly have zero predictive power on a quantitative level (best we can do is look at past trends and hope the pattern will repeat), and since complex systems analysis is still in its infancy we don't have the tools to nail down exactly what is happening in an economy down to its real details. I believe it is misguided then, at this time, to assert a simple guideline over and above information on the ground, so to speak. Or, to rephrase - I don't think you are aware of the most fundamental economic principles either, and neither is anyone else yet. All we have now is gross simplification which can be true to an extent but certainly not always true and absolutely not uniformly so. How can you know the fundamentals of economic theory until we have mastered the knowledge of the human mind? Economics is, after all, merely the interaction of millions of minds in commerce. If you can't even guess what your friend will say tomorrow, then say goodbye to making specific pronouncements about how the economy 'should' function based on a maxim about consumption and job creation. Heck, trickle-down arguments are really quite persuasive and sound like they 'ought' to be true based on basic economic theory - except that in practice we simply observe that it's wrong. The actual results contradict the theory, which over the long term ought to verge the theories towards increased accuracy as happens in the hard sciences. However since economics is so damned chaotic (and likewise the human mind) it seems that theories of economics take a very long time to eventually be run out of town. There is no single experiment that can 'officially' invalidate a claim about a complex and shifting situation, and so the winnowing process is a long-term prospect in this field. And again I don't think we really have the mathematical tools yet to deal with it anyhow.

EDITED TO ADD: Just to be clear, I'm not saying we know nothing yet about economics. I'm saying that we haven't yet locked down unshakeable fundamentals that are immutable and where any assertion in contradiction to them proves ipso facto that the assertion is untrue.

[ August 20, 2015, 11:49 PM: Message edited by: Fenring ]

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Fenring, very interesting for me to be on this side of the argument. I co-authored a book in 1988 entitled Economics for a Civilized Society which identified identified systematic flaws in how classical economics measures and models human behavior. That being said, there is a frequently observed empirical correlation between the volume of orders that a given business receives and the labor and capital that are required to meet those offers. If there were no such relationship between demand and staffing, every firm could cut costs by reducing staffing to near-zero except for what was necessary to cash the checks. Even collecting the orders can require additional staffing, Amazon has automated their ordering process and much of the rest of their operation, but as the volume of orders grow, they do need to employ more people in their warehouse in response to demand.

I have no idea how many illegal immigrants are in the US, I heard someone quote a figure of 11 million, but I have no idea if that were true. As a rough estimate, if 4 million people earn 50 dollars a day, that's $200 million that has to be spent. Someone sells them something close to $200 million a day that gets spent on something. How can you provide $200 million of value with zero additional jobs? Even if these numbers are off by a factor of 5-10, the principle still stands.

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Greg, I of course agree with you that there is such a correlation, as I mentioned above. And the entire nature of correlation is that it's generalized and unspecific. This means that on the aggregate it holds on average, which is different from expecting a specific instance to conform to the shape of the general correlation.

If we take your figure of $200 million and divide it up between countless companies including grocery stores, pharmacies, other retailers, maybe cigarette companies, maybe specialists like medical clinics - it doesn't end up being that much for each company as an increase compared to if the illegals didn't spend the money. Pyrtolin was right that at best it pushes certain companies past a threshold of capacity where they need to hire someone else to deal with the workload. Offhand I wouldn't guess this would amount to many jobs, but I don't know specifically what the numbers really are, and I still think the benchmark for whether the job creation that results from this is a net positive would be whether there are more of these than there are jobs undercut by illegals that Americans would otherwise be doing.

I'd actually be quite happy to learn that they create all kinds of jobs, as I don't have any antipathy towards illegals in general. Their presence in NYC certainly made it harder for me and others like me to live, having to compete with them, but even then I never resented them for it. I just don't think the 'job creation' argument for illegals amounts to much compared with the downsides of having a labor force that can undercut the minimum wage. I'm not even getting into the "they don't belong here" issue, which frankly doesn't interest me very much.

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Having them undercut the minimum wage is not actually a problem of the existence of these extra people, you realize...

As well, people making at or below minimum wage really don't spread their purchasing power around as much as those who actually have disposable income: they tend to be limited to basics, and to purchasing locally.

So these people might not be directly involved in new car sales, or the purchase of luxury items, but the local grocery store will be taking in additional revenue as a result of these people, and those employed in servicing these people's needs will see increases in income (or possibly there will be more people being paid to serve them) and those people will purchase things not available to the poorer immigrants.

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
There is a multiplier effect in which not only do you have additional jobs providing the $200M per day in products and services to this community, but those people newly hired for those new jobs will also make purchases that further boost the economy.

ANd I am personally not taking a larger position on the net benefits of a large illegal immigrant population, but this economic effect should be in the positive column

[ August 21, 2015, 09:36 AM: Message edited by: Greg Davidson ]

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Greg Davidson:
There is a multiplier effect in which not only do you have additional jobs providing the $200M per day in products and services to this community, but those people newly hired for those new jobs will also make purchases that further boost the economy.

ANd I am personally not taking a larger position on the net benefits of a large illegal immigrant population, but this economic effect should be in the positive column

Right. This should be in the plus column, while 'taking away jobs' would be in the negative column. What I was getting at is not whether there is any positive contribution, but whether the contribution is a net positive. I'm certainly not sure what the answer is, but I'm contesting that it's obviously a net positive if one takes into account both the loss of jobs for Americans as well as spending by illegals and whatever job creation occurs as a result of that (which I've been arguing is probably not a lot). The issue at stake is when people defend illegals by saying "Hey, they create jobs so they're actually helpful to have here," which I think is a half-truth meant to shut down claims that illegal immigration is a problem.

Since you mention a multiplier, I should also mention what happens when jobs are taken by Americans instead of by illegals. Let's assert that there aren't enough jobs for both Americans and illegals (a trivial assertion, since there is a non-trivial unemployment rate). If illegals undercut the market wage and take some number of jobs, that exact same number of Americans will now be unemployed, perhaps minus the few that get jobs that are created by spending by the illegals. You'll note that the jobs created will obviously be a small fraction of the number of employed illegals. The remaining unemployed Americans will now draw money from welfare, unemployment, food stamps and so forth. This money they draw is taken out of the economy through taxes (and maybe to an extent through bond swaps with the Fed). That tax money's multiplier was removed when it was taxed through tax income tax, and amounts to a lot of money. Let's also not forget that illegals frequently won't be paying income tax at all since they don't have their papers. They are spending some of their money while expatriating some of it, whereas an American in their position would be spending some of it and paying taxes with the rest.

So it's not merely an issue of lost jobs, but the displaced Americans also further take money out of the system that would otherwise have been in the hands of workers and businesses. I'm sure you know all of this, but I'm trying to illustrate that it's rather complicated to assess the net effect of illegal labor, and that it's not as simple as some people (not necessarily you) claim that as long as they're spending they're helpful members of society.

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
If illegals undercut the market wage and take some number of jobs, that exact same number of Americans will now be unemployed...
Only if the market were willing to actually pay the "market wage" for those jobs, of course. In some scenarios, as we saw recently in a few states, it is entirely possible that the jobs would not otherwise be done.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
If illegals undercut the market wage and take some number of jobs, that exact same number of Americans will now be unemployed...
Only if the market were willing to actually pay the "market wage" for those jobs, of course. In some scenarios, as we saw recently in a few states, it is entirely possible that the jobs would not otherwise be done.
Well, yes, that's a good correction. In the Southern states, for sure, there are no doubt some agricultural operations that only exist because there is illegal labor. In New York there are a large amount of 'normal jobs' that are taken by illegals, but there are no doubt also some shady operations going on whose raison d'etre is to exploit cheap labor. So I would amend my statement to say that in the case of regular jobs occupied by illegals the same number of Americans will be unemployed.
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidTokyo
Member
Member # 6601

 - posted      Profile for KidTokyo   Email KidTokyo       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I've lived in NYC for fifteen years (minus the several lengthy stints in Japan) and immigrants from Mexico and CA are a constant presence. What I find appalling is not the immigration (I do not know how many of the immigrants I see are illegal) but rather the routine safety violations on construction sites. Just last week, looking out my colleagues office window, I saw several men climbing on scaffolding six stories high without any safety lines. Supported by loose planks of wood, which they nudged to and fro with their toes nonchalantly.

This terrifying BS happens all the time, right out in the open. We called the city but who knows if they'll do anything? Probably write a fine at most.

We don't need to enforce any immigration laws more than we are to solve this problem though. Enforce safety and wage regulations, and the incentive to hire anyone who could undercut a legal worker disappears. No need to punish the illegal immigrant -- just take away his reason for being there (if in fact working for cheap is the reason). This would benefit all workers and would be both more humane and more effective. One should go to the source of the problem whenever possible.

We should be regulating and punishing the managers, not the workers.

Posts: 2336 | Registered: Sep 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think I agree with Kid on this one. Removing the incentive rather than punishing some few of those who take it is the functional solution.
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Having them undercut the minimum wage is not actually a problem of the existence of these extra people, you realize..."
Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Look, having worked with and lived with these people, they eat food that is an order of magnitude lower than the average anglo poor person. Who do you know that cooks beans from scratch? They often live in places that our society and laws say should not be lived in by human beings. They typically work long hard hours under conditions that our laws have determined are unsuitable for humans.
Do you assert that that is the best they aspire to? [goes on to pretend that i had said that they had no better aspirations]
no. i said no such thing. but i will say that they aspire to help their families more that they aspire to be drone consumers aith space and creature comforts. that's one of many reasons I'm a brown supremacist who believes the Mexicans will supplant anglos in the north American continent. they have a superior culture. better food too. i lived in mexico during an economic calamity bigger than our great depression. mexican extended families prevented mass starvation. the government was useless.

"You're pointing to the effect of exploitation "

yes, that was my point, Genius. illegal immigration is itself an effect of exploitatiom. if we enforece good working conditions and safeguards against those who employ illegals, americans will be able to compete with them for low end jobs, and illegal immigration will reduce. are you simply not reading what i said or do you have an objection to my proposal to treat illegals with basic human dignity?

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
mexican immigrants who remain in intact extended families are less likely to commit crime than the average US citizen. the problem is that our immigration policies systematically break apart Mexican families.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I agree with Trump. The 14th Amendment doesn't say that just because you are born in America you are an American citizen. That's a clear misinterpretation, and it needs to be clarified by the Supreme Court.
Actually, cherry, you and Trump are clearly wrong. Because you are born in America you are clearly an American citizen (unless for some reason you are not subject to the jurisdiction of U.S. law).

I'll let People for the American Way explain it:

quote:
As early as 1898, the Supreme Court, interpreting this clause, flatly declared in United States v. Wong Kim Ark that the 14th Amendment affirmed the right of citizenship by birthplace, or jus soli. The Court ruled that “every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization,” and that the 14th Amendment “has conferred no authority upon Congress to restrict the effect of birth, declared by the Constitution to constitute a sufficient and complete right to citizenship.” Indeed, contemporaneous records from the passage of the 14th Amendment elucidate its intent to cover the children of immigrants...

According to constitutional scholar and former Senate Republican legal aide James Ho, “the text of the Citizenship Clause plainly guarantees birthright citizenship to the U.S.-born children of all persons subject to U.S sovereign authority and laws” and “the clause thus covers the vast majority of lawful and unlawful aliens.” The Citizenship Clause does not cover people who are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States, which means people immune from U.S. laws. Such categories include the children of foreign diplomats and enemy soldiers on U.S. soil. Undocumented immigrants, on the other hand, are not immune from the country’s laws and therefore subject to their jurisdiction.

As the far as the original intent of the law, let's see what PFAW reports what the members of Congress said at the time:

quote:
Sen. Jacob Howard...

"This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons."

Sen. John Conness of California...

"The proposition before us, I will say, Mr. President, relates simply in that respect to the children begotten of Chinese parents in California, and it is proposed to declare that they shall be citizens. We have declared that by law; now it is proposed to incorporate the same provision in the fundamental instrument of the nation. I am in favor of doing so. I voted for the proposition to declare that the children of all parentage whatever, born in California, should be regarded and treated as citizens of the United States, entitled to equal civil rights with other citizens of the United States.
…

"We are entirely ready to accept the provision proposed in this constitutional amendment, that the children born here of Mongolian parents shall be declared by the Constitution of the United Sates to be entitled to civil rights and to equal protection before the law with others."

Sen. Edgar Cowan of Pennsylvania criticized the amendment, saying that it would grant citizenship to those who “owe [the U.S.] no allegiance [and] who pretend to owe none,” including those who “trespass.” Cowan even lamented that the amendment would compel states to give citizenship to the children of “Gypsies” in Pennsylvania and the Chinese in California.

So when the amendment was written, both those for it and against it acknowledged it would give citizenship to anyone born in the United States (subject to our laws), regardless of the citizenship of his or her parents.

The Supreme Court then ruled the same thing, way back in 1898.

And that has been the understanding ever since.

I don't see how this amendment could have been "misinterpreted." Obviously, the misinterpreation is among those who dispute what the amendment states.

[ August 21, 2015, 05:49 PM: Message edited by: Wayward Son ]

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You can find convincing arguments going both ways.

http://www.14thamendment.us/birthright_citizenship/original_intent.html

" In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by stating:

"Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."

This understanding was reaffirmed by Senator Edward Cowan, who stated:

"[A foreigner in the United States] has a right to the protection of the laws; but he is not a citizen in the ordinary acceptance of the word..."

The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was intended to exclude American-born persons from automatic citizenship whose allegiance to the United States was not complete. With illegal aliens who are unlawfully in the United States, their native country has a claim of allegiance on the child. Thus, the completeness of their allegiance to the United States is impaired, which therefore precludes automatic citizenship.
Supreme Court decisions

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.

Over a century ago, the Supreme Court appropriately confirmed this restricted interpretation of citizenship in the so-called "Slaughter-House cases" [83 US 36 (1873) and 112 US 94 (1884)]13. In the 1884 Elk v.Wilkins case12, the phrase "subject to its jurisdiction" was interpreted to exclude "children of ministers, consuls, and citizens of foreign states born within the United States." In Elk, the American Indian claimant was considered not an American citizen because the law required him to be "not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance."

The Court essentially stated that the status of the parents determines the citizenship of the child. To qualify children for birthright citizenship, based on the 14th Amendment, parents must owe "direct and immediate allegiance" to the U.S. and be "completely subject" to its jurisdiction. In other words, they must be United States citizens.

Congress subsequently passed a special act to grant full citizenship to American Indians, who were not citizens even through they were born within the borders of the United States. The Citizens Act of 1924, codified in 8USCSß1401, provides that:

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe.

In 1898, the Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court case10,11 once again, in a ruling based strictly on the 14th Amendment, concluded that the status of the parents was crucial in determining the citizenship of the child. The current misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment is based in part upon the presumption that the Wong Kim Ark ruling encompassed illegal aliens. In fact, it did not address the children of illegal aliens and non-immigrant aliens, but rather determined an allegiance for legal immigrant parents based on the meaning of the word domicil(e). Since it is inconceivable that illegal alien parents could have a legal domicile in the United States, the ruling clearly did not extend birthright citizenship to children of illegal alien parents. Indeed, the ruling strengthened the original intent of the 14th Amendment.

The original intent of the 14th Amendment was clearly not to facilitate illegal aliens defying U.S. law and obtaining citizenship for their offspring, nor obtaining benefits at taxpayer expense. Current estimates indicate there may be between 300,000 and 700,000 anchor babies born each year in the U.S., thus causing illegal alien mothers to add more to the U.S. population each year than immigration from all sources in an average year before 1965. (See consequences.)

American citizens must be wary of elected politicians voting to illegally extend our generous social benefits to illegal aliens and other criminals."

-------------------------------------------

You interpretation that we need to grant citizenship to a baby whose mother stepped across the border just to give birth doesn't make much sense. If we are going to give away American citizenship so casually then why do we have millions of people around the world waiting for years and years and years just to get into America and then waiting for more years and years and years before they are eligible for American citizenship? How is that logical at all?

Looking at the Obamacare ruling again, we have to look at intent. Was that scenario really the intent of the 14th Amendment?

I think not.

Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I am curious whether illegal immigration is one of the top impediments to quality jobs for Americans, or rather just an emotionally useful scapegoat to distract attention away from larger impediments to quality jobs for Americans.
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fenring
Member
Member # 6953

 - posted      Profile for Fenring   Email Fenring       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by cherrypoptart:
You interpretation that we need to grant citizenship to a baby whose mother stepped across the border just to give birth doesn't make much sense. If we are going to give away American citizenship so casually then why do we have millions of people around the world waiting for years and years and years just to get into America and then waiting for more years and years and years before they are eligible for American citizenship? How is that logical at all?

Regardless of the actuals laws in question, in principle this is one statement I do agree with. It makes little sense to offer an obvious incentive to illegally immigrate (citizenship being an enormous incentive, possibly more so than money) while at the same time having strict immigration laws for those who apply lawfully. It's true that changing the law (or reinterpreting it) to cease the practice of granting citizenship for being born in the U.S. would probably do a lot to curtail illegal immigration without the need to also come down on those who were already born in the U.S.

I agree with Greg and still think this isn't the biggest issue to tackle, but to be fair I'm the one who brought up the job situation in this thread. If Americans are really concerned about the illegals then the steps involved should probably be a combination of this and what Kid said before. But anything retroactive would be a terrible and dangerous idea.

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Cherry, the analysis that you quoted is obviously authoritative, since you found it on the internet, yet it at the same time completely misinterprets those 3 cases (or sets of cases).

The Slaughter-House cases were not, strictly speaking, even about citizenship: that being said, the fact that the court made a statement about how to interpret the citizenship clause does provide some direction for future rulings.

But the next two cases actually completely contradict what the author of your link actually claims. In Elk v Wilkins, the court limited its interpretation to Indians born within the USA, acknowledging the special status at the time of the Indian Nations that existed as sovereign political entities within the geographical boundaries of the USA:
quote:
Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States, members of and owing immediate allegiance to one of the Indiana tribes (an alien though dependent power), although in a geographical sense born in the United States, are no more "born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," within the meaning of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government, or the children born within the United States of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations.
So, instead of making a general statement about parents' allegiance, the court made a very limited argument that applies only to Indian children; and not just that, but the majority also identified explicitly in this section the then current exclusions to jus soli as it interpreted it. The court added Indians to what it identified as the other then-current exclusions of
  • "subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government"
  • "the children born within the United States of ambassadors"
  • "the children born within the United States of ... other public ministers of foreign nations"

In the Wong Kim Ark case, your source is verging on deceptive, if he or she read the decision at all. For instance, in the decision for the majority, Justice Gray made the following observation (my emphasis):
quote:
The decision in Elk v. Wilkins concerned only members of the Indian tribes within the United States, and had no tendency to deny citizenship to children born in the United States of foreign parents of Caucasian, African or Mongolian descent not in the diplomatic service of a foreign country.
Gray then goes on to state(my emphasis):
quote:
The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, "All persons born in the United States" by the addition "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases -- children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State -- both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country.
What is especially telling in the Wong Kim Ark case, however, is the sheer volume of precedent cited, which provides ample analysis of how the citizenship clause of the 14th amendment , and specifically the words "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,", must be interpreted.

Cherry, I strongly suggest you read the Wong Kim Ark decision in full.

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Correct me if I'm wrong but in the Wong Kim Ark case his parents were legal immigrants. So what we need is a case that goes to the Supreme Court in which the parents are illegal immigrants. Then we'll see. Otherwise it's just speculation from both sides. To insist that a case with legal immigrants necessarily applies to all illegals as well is reaching.

In other news, I do find this story interesting:

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/08/21/3693788/gun-rights-win-a-major-victory-in-federal-court-and-thats-actually-a-good-thing/

It seems like the Obama administration is torn now because they are saying that illegals are not part of "the people" whose right to bear arms is protected by the 2nd Amendment.

What's fun for me about this is that liberals against the 2nd Amendment get to find themselves torn between extending it to illegals while they try to take it away from Americans or denying it to illegals which diminishes their rights in America. I don't see the quandary for conservative 2nd Amendment supporters here. Of course illegal invaders shouldn't have a legal right to carry guns. To even think they do is just absurd. They have the right to be deported and that's all.

Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by KidTokyo:
I've lived in NYC for fifteen years (minus the several lengthy stints in Japan) and immigrants from Mexico and CA are a constant presence. What I find appalling is not the immigration (I do not know how many of the immigrants I see are illegal) but rather the routine safety violations on construction sites. Just last week, looking out my colleagues office window, I saw several men climbing on scaffolding six stories high without any safety lines. Supported by loose planks of wood, which they nudged to and fro with their toes nonchalantly.

This terrifying BS happens all the time, right out in the open. We called the city but who knows if they'll do anything? Probably write a fine at most.

We don't need to enforce any immigration laws more than we are to solve this problem though. Enforce safety and wage regulations, and the incentive to hire anyone who could undercut a legal worker disappears. No need to punish the illegal immigrant -- just take away his reason for being there (if in fact working for cheap is the reason). This would benefit all workers and would be both more humane and more effective. One should go to the source of the problem whenever possible.

We should be regulating and punishing the managers, not the workers.

amen. deport the managers who run dangerous conditions.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
There are two ways that illegal immigrants harm wages

1) direct willingness to work for less
2) increasing the pool of competition, which drives down wages

Your suggestion of enforcement only deals with 1, not 2

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by cherrypoptart:
You can find convincing arguments going both ways.

http://www.14thamendment.us/birthright_citizenship/original_intent.html

" In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by stating:

"Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."

This understanding was reaffirmed by Senator Edward Cowan, who stated:

"[A foreigner in the United States] has a right to the protection of the laws; but he is not a citizen in the ordinary acceptance of the word..."

The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was intended to exclude American-born persons from automatic citizenship whose allegiance to the United States was not complete. With illegal aliens who are unlawfully in the United States, their native country has a claim of allegiance on the child. Thus, the completeness of their allegiance to the United States is impaired, which therefore precludes automatic citizenship.
Supreme Court decisions

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.

Over a century ago, the Supreme Court appropriately confirmed this restricted interpretation of citizenship in the so-called "Slaughter-House cases" [83 US 36 (1873) and 112 US 94 (1884)]13. In the 1884 Elk v.Wilkins case12, the phrase "subject to its jurisdiction" was interpreted to exclude "children of ministers, consuls, and citizens of foreign states born within the United States." In Elk, the American Indian claimant was considered not an American citizen because the law required him to be "not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance."

The Court essentially stated that the status of the parents determines the citizenship of the child. To qualify children for birthright citizenship, based on the 14th Amendment, parents must owe "direct and immediate allegiance" to the U.S. and be "completely subject" to its jurisdiction. In other words, they must be United States citizens.

Congress subsequently passed a special act to grant full citizenship to American Indians, who were not citizens even through they were born within the borders of the United States. The Citizens Act of 1924, codified in 8USCSß1401, provides that:

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe.

In 1898, the Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court case10,11 once again, in a ruling based strictly on the 14th Amendment, concluded that the status of the parents was crucial in determining the citizenship of the child. The current misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment is based in part upon the presumption that the Wong Kim Ark ruling encompassed illegal aliens. In fact, it did not address the children of illegal aliens and non-immigrant aliens, but rather determined an allegiance for legal immigrant parents based on the meaning of the word domicil(e). Since it is inconceivable that illegal alien parents could have a legal domicile in the United States, the ruling clearly did not extend birthright citizenship to children of illegal alien parents. Indeed, the ruling strengthened the original intent of the 14th Amendment.

The original intent of the 14th Amendment was clearly not to facilitate illegal aliens defying U.S. law and obtaining citizenship for their offspring, nor obtaining benefits at taxpayer expense. Current estimates indicate there may be between 300,000 and 700,000 anchor babies born each year in the U.S., thus causing illegal alien mothers to add more to the U.S. population each year than immigration from all sources in an average year before 1965. (See consequences.)

American citizens must be wary of elected politicians voting to illegally extend our generous social benefits to illegal aliens and other criminals."

-------------------------------------------

You interpretation that we need to grant citizenship to a baby whose mother stepped across the border just to give birth doesn't make much sense. If we are going to give away American citizenship so casually then why do we have millions of people around the world waiting for years and years and years just to get into America and then waiting for more years and years and years before they are eligible for American citizenship? How is that logical at all?

Looking at the Obamacare ruling again, we have to look at intent. Was that scenario really the intent of the 14th Amendment?

I think not.

it was a bull**** ruling, like most of the 14th amendment rulings of that period, when the justices that wrote the dredd scott decision were "interpreting" the 14th amendment.

read the 14th amendment for yourself, Cherry.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You mean read the same 14th Amendment that protects gay marriage?

I've read it. There is no way it grants citizenship to a baby of a lady here for a week or two on a birth tourist package.

Anyone can read it so that it does if they want to though, I will admit that. It should have been made more clear, just like apparently it should have been made clear that it doesn't protect gay marriage either. With all the wisdom of our ancestors they simply weren't prescient enough to predict how ridiculously their words would be twisted by future generations to mean things they never intended.

Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by cherrypoptart:
You mean read the same 14th Amendment that protects gay marriage?

I've read it. There is no way it grants citizenship to a baby of a lady here for a week or two on a birth tourist package.

Seriously Cherry - please look at the totality of the citations in the Wong Kim Ark decision. There are hundreds of years of precedent documenting what the 14th amendment means by "subject to the jurisdiction thereof".

quote:
Originally posted by cherrypoptart:
Correct me if I'm wrong but in the Wong Kim Ark case his parents were legal immigrants. So what we need is a case that goes to the Supreme Court in which the parents are illegal immigrants. Then we'll see. Otherwise it's just speculation from both sides.

Wait - what? Didn't you just post a link that uses as the basis for its argument the slaughter-house cases and Elk v Wilkins in support of your position against the citizenship clause applying to the offspring of illegals? Why move the goal posts now?
Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't want to get too far into the weeds here. If people have immigrated to the U.S. legally and are planning to become citizens eventually then there shouldn't be any problem with their children being U.S. citizens at birth. That applied to Wong's parents.

The argument that there is no difference between them and birth tourists, migrant farm workers who have temporary work visas, and illegals who are breaking the law even being here at all possesses a logic that escapes me. So the "Wong precedent" is no precedent at all regarding those other conditions. Apples and oranges.

Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Cherry, you do realize that Wong's parents were not authorized to become citizens according to the court's interpretation of the naturalization laws at that time, right?

As to this:
quote:
The argument that there is no difference between them and birth tourists, migrant farm workers who have temporary work visas, and illegals who are breaking the law even being here at all possesses a logic that escapes me.
Who said there is no difference? It is just that these differences are irrelevant to the way the 14th amendment is written, and irrelevant to the historical meaning of jurisdiction as it pertains to jus soli, both in the USA and in English common law.

If you don't like the way it is written, or the way the 14th amendment has been interpreted for the past 130 years, then there is a mechanism for changing the constitution. Just hoping that the SCOTUS will suddenly change its interpretation will almost certainly not work.

Hope is not a plan.

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yes, that's an option, to change the Constitution. That was also the most logical option for gay marriage as applying the 14th Amendment to gay marriage is just ridiculous and certainly flies in the face of the intent of anyone who wrote it or passed it. So we've already proven the Constitution only means what the majority of the Supreme Court at any given moment feels like it means, so that is the logical first place to go before an amendment. If the Supreme Court decides against original intent as they often do then sure smacking them upside the head with a new amendment is the only alternative at that point. Just make sure it's ironclad this time because if there is any way at all to misinterpret it, people will certainly choose to do so.
Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Man, it seems to me that if you're faced with having to change the Constitution to legally continue being a racist, a bigot, or some combination thereof, it would make more sense to simply stop being an *******.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Geez, Tom...

Cherry, is it your contention that the Wong Kim Ark decision went "against original intent"? Also, given that Wong's parents neither had any expectation or ability of becoming USA citizens as you previously thought, does that change either your position on the Wong decision or maybe, just maybe, about your opposition to the offspring of illegal aliens becoming automatic citizens at birth?

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
thom and the Goodrich gnang of four seem to have it fastened in their pretty little heads that the constitution de4fines what a bigot is.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The Wongs were here legally though. Maybe that makes no difference but maybe it does. We should have a new Supreme Court case to find out.

Of course, birth tourists are here legally too.

I have to admit I just love hearing all the arguments that birth tourism must be protected by our Constitution. That's just precious.

Ridiculous of course, but absolutely precious nonetheless. I would be curious to hear more about why it's in our national interests to protect birth tourism though, and channeling a little bit of Tom here, see some evidence that anyone who wrote the 14th Amendment supported birth tourism and meant to enshrine its protection in our sacred Constitution. I'm sure that would be fascinating.

Of course the logic trap is all too obvious. Birth tourism is an absurd protection to afford through our Constitution, and since that is the case that the children born to people here legally as tourists should not automatically be U.S. citizens then neither should children of people here illegally.

Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
cherrypoptart
Member
Member # 3942

 - posted      Profile for cherrypoptart     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm not sure what you were getting at Tom. Is Ireland a nation of racists and bigots just because they recently got rid of automatic jus soli? That's quite an offensive label to apply to a whole nation of people.

The notion that it is racist and bigoted for a country to have borders, protect them, and to have as well as enforce immigration laws for the common good of its citizens is a peculiarly liberal one. But then so is the position that any idea one disagrees with is racist and bigoted so I guess it makes sense from that perspective.

Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 7 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1