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 4)

 - 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
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Cherry, is it your contention that the Wong Kim Ark decision went "against original intent"?

Is it also your contention that the 14th amendment should be interpreted as you prefer, notwithstanding that the words used have meant something explicitly (not even implicitly) different, both by the authors of the amendment as well as in almost all precedent for hundreds of years before that?

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?

I thought I posted some references stating that the original intent was for birthright citizenship not to apply to aliens. They didn't use illegal aliens as a term back then.

I say, "Yes?" but really I just disagree with many of the premises for these arguments. I find myself in the company of such disparate figures as Ann Coulter and Harry Reid, and I'll take it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GiNix9VAGVE

That was before he ran the numbers on all the votes the Democrats could get.

I also like how I'm willing to admit that the people I disagree with have a claim to their interpretation but apparently all of those people can't begin to fathom the possibility that anyone else could have a different yet nevertheless valid interpretation. So that's always fun to notice.

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

It's also basic literacy. You use authority worship and eyerolling to dance around the obvious plain text reading of the constitution. Exactly the tactics of the obtuse left run around the 2nd amendment.

I wish the 14th amendmemnt had been written differently. The amendment failed to anticipate modern travel technology. But birth tourism is a small price to pay for living in a natiom of laws.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 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 Pete at Home:
"I have to admit I just love hearing all the arguments that birth tourism must be protected by our Constitution. That's just precious"

It's also basic literacy. You use authority worship and eyerolling to dance around the obvious plain text reading of the constitution. Exactly the tactics of the obtuse left run around the 2nd amendment.

To be fair cherry used the phrase "must be protected", rather than "is currently protected." The difference lies in the fact that if birth tourism is currently protected then cherry suggests an amendment to cease its protection; in response to this Tom pulled the racist card. The position Tom, at least, is presenting is that birth tourism must be protected and that an amendment stopping it would therefore be racist. I think cherry has acknowledged that it's possible that birth tourism is currently legal but believes this is a mistake and the constitution should be cleaned up to fix it. This in itself isn't an issue of literacy, although cherry's discussion with Donald might be.
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  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 
There are plenty of people as smart as any of us and they have different opinions on this with all of the same evidence.

I wonder how long I'm going to have to wait to witness someone step up to the plate here and insist that the original intent of the 14th amendment was not only to permit but to encourage birth tourism and for very good reasons too. And I'd love to know what those reasons were and still are.

Edit: So perhaps the purpose of birth tourism and why it is and must be protected by the Constitution is to help prevent racism? Or at least if not always succeed in preventing it then at least irritate racists?

Okay, just read you Pete. So it's just an unintended consequence that we have to put up with? Well as the liberals always say, the Constitution is a "living document" which usually means we don't have to actually live with what it says but can interpret for ourselves what we want it to mean. May as well use that to our advantage now then.

[ August 22, 2015, 09:32 PM: Message edited by: cherrypoptart ]

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 
quote:
Is Ireland a nation of racists and bigots just because they recently got rid of automatic jus soli?
No. They got rid of jus soli because enough of them are scared, racist bigots.

=====

quote:
The position Tom, at least, is presenting is that birth tourism must be protected and that an amendment stopping it would therefore be racist.
No. It is merely that the people proposing to end "birth tourism" are, by and large, racists. They are not racist because birth tourism is something that must be protected; that's putting the cart far in front of the horse.

[ August 22, 2015, 09:41 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 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 
Actually, the racists are the ones who think the countries these people are coming from are not fit for human habitation, like a turn on the white man's burden except instead of going over to their countries to show them how they should be run we give up on that and tell them to come here and we will take care of them. Just having fun trying this silly little game of calling everyone a racist for every little thing. Honestly I don't see what they joy is in it but different strokes for different folks I suppose.

But just to make sure I understand this correctly, is stopping anyone at the border racist too? Or is it just racist to stop pregnant women? Or is it not racist to stop them at the border but it is racist to say that if they can sneak in then their babies born here shouldn't necessarily automatically be citizens?

Maybe an easier question is what isn't racist?

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 
And again just to make sure, Ireland is racist because they want to control who is a citizen. I guess that's established. So Japan is too then? Isn't that racist to label a whole country racist? I suppose you could get away with it with the Irish since they are white and whites are the only ones who can be racist according to many people who are experts in these things, but isn't labeling every Japanese as racist also racist? And the same thing applies to every population in every country around the world that doesn't offer birthright citizenship. That's really shameful to call all of those people racists without even getting to personally know any of them. Just out of curiosity, is there a specific name for this corollary of Godwin's law where people try to win arguments by just calling the other side racists? If it seems like I'm not taking being called a racist seriously it's because actually I don't.
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 
quote:
And again just to make sure, Ireland is racist because they want to control who is a citizen.
No, they're racist because they're racist. They want to control who is a citizen to keep certain specific groups from being citizens, because they are racist. (In Ireland's case, as with America, you can argue bigotry more than racism; there is a current of xenophobia and aggrieved nationalism at the heart of most of both country's exaggerated fears of immigration.)

And, yes, Japan is an astonishingly racist country.

quote:
isn't labeling every Japanese as racist also racist?
Well, it would depend highly on the definition of "racist" being used, for one thing. But more relevantly, it assumes incorrectly that observing that Japanese culture is astonishingly racist, and that Japan as a country is a racist one, means that all individual Japanese are racist. There are many Japanese who are not.

There are many Americans who are not racist, as well. The intersection between that group and people making an issue of birthright citizenship is very small.

[ August 22, 2015, 11:04 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

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 
OK, so I found where you quoted a 14th amendment revisionist, Cherry.
quote:
Under Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes the same Congress who had adopted the Fourteenth Amendment, confirmed this principle: “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.”

Who are the subjects of a foreign power? Thomas Jefferson said “Aliens are the subjects of a foreign power.” Thus, the statute can be read as “All persons born in the United States who are not aliens, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.”

I don’t know whether the author was being dishonest here or was simply ignorant, but “subject to” and “subjects of” are not synonyms. This is further made clear as the word “subject” is not pluralized, as it would be if it related to “persons” who are subjects “of” a foreign power. Do I need to explain that “subject to” has some direct implications of a foreign power being able to project its authority, without consent, on a newborn? This particular fiction is extended only to the offspring of current political appointees of foreign sovereigns and their families, such as ambassadors, currently in residence in the foreign country (in this case, the USA).

In fact, “subject to” a sovereign was such a well-defined phrase at the time, that it seems silly debating its meaning.
quote:
Sen Trumbull stated during the drafting of the above national birthright law that it was the goal to “make citizens of everybody born in the United States who owe allegiance to the United States,” and if “the negro or white man belonged to a foreign Government he would not be a citizen.”

Now, what does it mean, if a man “belonged to a foreign Government”? An obvious reading, of course, is one who actually belongs to, i.e., is a member of, a government, meaning an elected representative, a ruler, or their representative, or the family thereof. Trumbull clearly did not use the word “belong” to mean “to be owned by”, which is the only meaning that could possibly apply to an infant. But Trumbull spoke a number of times on this subject of debate: here is another less ambiguous passage, describing what he meant by "subject to our jurisdiction”:
quote:
Trumbull, during the debate, said, "What do we [the committee reporting the clause] mean by 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States'? Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means." He then proceeded to expound upon what he meant by "complete jurisdiction": "Can you sue a Navajoe Indian in court?...We make treaties with them, and therefore they are not subject to our jurisdiction.... If we want to control the Navajoes, or any other Indians of which the Senator from Wisconsin has spoken, how do we do it? Do we pass a law to control them? Are they subject to our jurisdiction in that sense?.... Would he [Sen. Doolittle] think of punishing them for instituting among themselves their own tribal regulations? Does the Government of the United States pretend to take jurisdiction of murders and robberies and other crimes committed by one Indian upon another?... It is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens."

So, what was Trumbull’s full position on “subject to the jurisdiction of [the USA]”? Those who are “completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws”. Of course, he said many more things on the subject I’m sure, but it just goes to show that depending on a particular partisan source may not be the best policy when quoting for value.
quote:
Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee (39th Congress), James F. Wilson of Iowa, added on March 1, 1866: “We must depend on the general law relating to subjects and citizens recognized by all nations for a definition, and that must lead us to the conclusion that every person born in the United States is a natural-born citizen of such States, except that of children born on our soil to temporary sojourners or representatives of foreign Governments.”
This one is interesting, as it seems to have an internal conflict: under English common law (one of the “nations” mentioned in the quote) jus soli is basically defined as was accepted in Wong Kim Ark:
quote:
The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called "ligealty," "obedience," "faith," or "power" of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King's allegiance and subject to his protection.
Similarly, the French had basically the same rule at the time (and still does). Now that seems to be in conflict with the rest of the sentence, where Wilson mentions “temporary sojourners”. Taken on its face, the quote would seem to imply some restriction on jus soli, though his idea did not define ‘temporary’, and one would be hard-pressed to describe illegal immigrants, having overstayed their welcome by years or even just months, as ‘temporary’ since it is their intention to remain permanently.

Finally, there is this:
quote:
Framer of the Fourteenth Amendments first section, John Bingham, said Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes meant “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” If this statute merely reaffirmed the old common law rule of citizenship by birth then the condition of the parents would be entirely irrelevant.”
This is, of course, just a reiteration of the citizenship clause of the 14th. The interpretation by the author, however, is a complete non sequitur: there is in the common law the concept of those excluded from the local country’s jurisdiction: specifically, heads of state and their official agents, e.g., ambassadors, their staff and families. Such people owe allegiance to a foreign sovereignty and that concept is absolutely native to the common law.

So, in summary, the author you quoted did provide one quote that suggested one legislator thought there should be some undefined temporal limitation, yet who was seemingly not able to, or not invested enough, to put such wording into the amendment. The rest of the discussion was a) a misinterpretation of the word “subject”, b) a cherry-picked quote of Trumbull’s which still managed to be ambiguous and yet was contradicted by some of his other arguments anyway and c) a quote that did not actually support the author’s thesis, and simply further illustrated the author's lack of knowledge of the common law.

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 cherrypoptart:
There are plenty of people as smart as any of us and they have different opinions on this with all of the same evidence.

I wonder how long I'm going to have to wait to witness someone step up to the plate here and insist that the original intent of the 14th amendment was not only to permit but to encourage birth tourism and for very good reasons too. And I'd love to know what those reasons were and still are.

Edit: So perhaps the purpose of birth tourism and why it is and must be protected by the Constitution is to help prevent racism? Or at least if not always succeed in preventing it then at least irritate racists?

Okay, just read you Pete. So it's just an unintended consequence that we have to put up with? Well as the liberals always say, the Constitution is a "living document" which usually means we don't have to actually live with what it says but can interpret for ourselves what we want it to mean. May as well use that to our advantage now then.

If you are suggesting thatt he postmodern lefty dishonest revisionist interpretation that gave ujs ssm and houseplants being "commerce (Rausch) then sure. But then good luck keeping your gun rights.
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 
"there is a current of xenophobia and aggrieved nationalism at the heart of most of both country's exaggerated fears of immigration."

There's also simple fear of crime. In Norway, for example, despite some very friendly immigration policies, immigrants are 8 times as likely as nationals to commit rape. While some Norwegians like Brevik may be xenophobic and/or racist, there's nothing inherently racist about wanting to slow immigration down to a level where immigrants can be integrated into what the host society considers civilized. E.g., no, if a girl shows you her face that's not an invitation to rape her. No, please dont throw your feces and rotten meat in the street. Etc.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 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 DonaldD:
quote:
The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called "ligealty," "obedience," "faith," or "power" of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King's allegiance and subject to his protection.
Similarly, the French had basically the same rule at the time (and still does). Now that seems to be in conflict with the rest of the sentence, where Wilson mentions “temporary sojourners”. Taken on its face, the quote would seem to imply some restriction on jus soli, though his idea did not define ‘temporary’, and one would be hard-pressed to describe illegal immigrants, having overstayed their welcome by years or even just months, as ‘temporary’ since it is their intention to remain permanently.
Not being a constitutional lawyer I am in no position to tell you what I think of the interpretations, but just based on the quotes you've provided it doesn't seem to me that your interpretations of them entirely make sense. For one thing I don't know that it's been made clear what "king's allegiance" specifically means. Since I'm also not versed in legal history I can only ask questions, but wasn't the term "allegiance" a common way to refer to the oath a person had to explicitly or implicitly take to swear fealty? And therefore wasn't someone under the king's allegiance therefore someone sworn to serve the king? I don't know that they had our exact definition of citizenship back them which was recognized internationally; doubly so given the frequency of nations using impressment to man their navies. If my sense of "allegiance" is right then the quote above means that anyone born who is sworn to protect King and Country is automatically a citizen, the missing part being that allegiance back then was hereditary by definition. Anyone visiting the country or even staying there for a long time but who had not sworn allegiance to the King would therefore not be within the King's allegiance and therefore not even really under his protection (notwithstanding the fact that the King obviously defends the country which effectively protects sojourners there). Those people would also not completely be subject to the king's laws. They would be subject to some of them, such as policing issues like murder and theft, but not to others such as being taxed or having to serve in the King's army when called to do so. It doesn't sound right to me (but I could be wrong) to explain the above quote as meaning "anyone born within the borders of the King's land". Also worth discussing is that when swearing an oath of fealty I don't know that it's possible to swear an oath to two different kings, whereas nowadays one can have multi-citizenship, so the historical precedent also may not apply properly to nowadays. But it was definitely true back then that one's oath to one's king didn't vanish just by visiting another nation, even for an extended period.

I'm also not sure exactly on what basis you dismissed the exception to sojourners in the other quote you refer to. Why is that clause not relevant to the interpretation? Obviously you're right that such specific wording didn't end up in the 14th, but is the mere absence of those exact words enough to convince you that the opposite of those words is intended?

I'm just trying to keep an open mind here and so will welcome any answers or corrections you have for me. Also, Donald, try to keep in mind that you are simultaneously addressing two distinct concerns of cherry's, one of which is birth tourism, and another of which is illegal immigration followed eventually by children who gain citizenship. On the surface these two scenarios are similar since they both result in babies being granted citizenship, but they are different because one group (the tourists) are legal sojourners while the others can alternatively be classified as either illegal refugees or else as criminals. In a practical sense I think calling many of them refugees fits the situation, which may then call into question to what extent they still have allegiance to a nation from which they fled. Criminals (trying to steal employment, opportunities, etc) on the other hand could not automatically be assumed to have renounced allegiance to their previous nation.

[ August 23, 2015, 01:28 AM: Message edited by: Fenring ]

Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  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 was thinking of an interesting (to me, at least) hypothetical question. If a case went to the Supreme Court in the next year with our current justices to decide if the 14th Amendment grants birth citizenship to children of people here illegally and/or as tourists, would the decision be unanimous?

If not, which justices would decide which way?

I'll speculate that it would not be a unanimous decision and at least three justices would decide against birth citizenship in some cases. But if it's even agreed that the decision is not likely to be unanimous, then what is the explanation for that lack of unanimity if the 14th Amendment is so clear, obvious, and ironclad in its singular possible interpretation?

In other words, if the decision won't be unanimous I think I should be cut a little slack for having the same opinion as at least one Supreme Court justice. That's not too much to ask.

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'll also mention that many of the countries these immigrants are coming from have much harsher immigration laws themselves than America. If the people in those countries are racists since their countries have such harsh laws against illegal immigrants then why are we letting a bunch of racists into our country?

What could be more racist than a group of people with an organization they proudly call, "The Race"?

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 
quote:
what is the explanation for that lack of unanimity if the 14th Amendment is so clear, obvious, and ironclad in its singular possible interpretation?
There are at least three conservative judges who vote according to blowing partisan winds while paying lip-service to the idea of principle, and at least two opposing judges who do the same.

quote:
If the people in those countries are racists since their countries have such harsh laws against illegal immigrants then why are we letting a bunch of racists into our country?
First off: you're still making a stupid assumption, here. But you know you are, so you're just being dishonest instead of dumb. I guess that's better?

But taking your question at face value, I would argue that being a racist clearly does not disqualify someone from aspiring -- with validity -- to be an American.

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 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 
The Problem with Birthright Citizenship: Ed Erler on The American Mind

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jn6XRc8vBf8

This guy spells it out. Basically, jurisdiction in the context of the 14th Amendment was used to mean allegiance but the word allegiance wasn't used because it sounded too British. The writers of the 14th Amendment meant for it not to apply to sojourners.

Also, the Wong decision was a 5-4 decision so hanging your hat on that as being the final say for all time is too much. All it takes is a new case with a different Supreme Court which looks at original intent and we're back on the right path here.

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 
Cherry, again, why are you so scared about this issue? What in particular are you afraid will happen if it goes unaddressed?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 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 
Unrestricted immigration will lower the standard of living for Americans. It's really that simple.

Now, let me ask a question too. What level of immigration, what restrictions on immigration, would be acceptable for a country to have and still have them be a country full of good people?

What should the limits be?

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 
Why do you believe unrestricted immigration will meaningfully impact quality of life?
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:
Why do you believe unrestricted immigration will meaningfully impact quality of life?

Not to take sides, but are you testing cherry's position, or are you implicitly asserting that unrestricted immigration would have no effect on quality of life for a nation?
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 
Unrestricted immigration is not infinite immigration, one observes.
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:
Unrestricted immigration is not infinite immigration, one observes.

I'll follow along. What does "unrestricted" mean as you're using it, then?
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  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 
Basically unrestricted is what we have now. Let in anyone who can get here and give them an amnesty every thirty years or so. Also don't check people coming in for health threats, criminal backgrounds, or ability to contribute and stay off welfare.

If one isn't for that, then what is the solution? What's the limit? Who do we stop and how?

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 
Just listening to some stuff on youtube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-pX5UesvXA). Apparently El-Chapo's son was flown in while he was still in his mommy's womb just so he could be born in America and have American citizenship, and then his mom promptly flew back to Mexico. I suppose an ISIS bride could, or perhaps already has, done the same thing. Or a North Korean. No problem?
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 
I don't see the problem, no. We have plenty of non-tourist-born citizens wanting to join ISIS already.
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:
I don't see the problem, no. We have plenty of non-tourist-born citizens wanting to join ISIS already.

I'm actually curious and wasn't merely grilling you about how you define "unrestricted immigration."
Posts: 1636 | Registered: Oct 2014  |  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 
So unrestricted immigration is okay and it won't be unlimited because there are natural limits based on the number of people who want to come here and have the ability to get here?

That position does seem very popular, especially with the Democrats but also with many Republicans as well.

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 TomDavidson:
I don't see the problem, no. We have plenty of non-tourist-born citizens wanting to join ISIS already.

That's a stupid argument. Tom.

Citizens are easier to detect than tourist borns since they interact within our community. In the last 12 months, Most of them dont make it out of the country before getting caught.

A tourist-born could go out and train with isis before even showing up and claiming her US citizenship. Totally off the radar until too late.

Finally, even if tourist borns only representedd 20% of the threat, it would still would be a significant gain to eliminate that much. (Which was scotus' exact reasoning when approving the 21 yr old drinking restriction: that it would reduce the number of drunk drivers even though 18-21 year olds drink and drive less that say 38~42 year olds.

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 
quote:
Originally posted by cherrypoptart:
Just listening to some stuff on youtube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-pX5UesvXA). Apparently El-Chapo's son was flown in while he was still in his mommy's womb just so he could be born in America and have American citizenship, and then his mom promptly flew back to Mexico. I suppose an ISIS bride could, or perhaps already has, done the same thing. Or a North Korean. No problem?

Setting aside Tom's ridiculous counter, neither situation presents a problem because:

1. North Koreans dont fly freely out and back into the country unless they are diplomats, and diplomats are "not under US jurisdiction" and therefore cant make annchor babies.

2. ISIS will be gone in 10 years or anchor babies will be the least of our problems.

Also, isis unlike al qaeda, cannot use tricks like saying that they are "under us jurisdiction." if we play smart, we can squeeze off a lot of those bastards just by requiring legal avowals. The lefties will go bug**** over this, but there's nothing sinister about making someone claim a right in order to secure it. (Unless they physically cant)

Not how zakky mousaoui scewed his defense by refusing to acknowledge the court jurisdiction ...

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KidTokyo
Member
Member # 6601

 - posted      Profile for KidTokyo   Email KidTokyo       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Cherry,

quote:
Unrestricted immigration will lower the standard of living for Americans. It's really that simple.
If the standard of living of Americans is your concern then you are focusing on a symptom rather than a cause.

The cause of the declining standard of living for Americans is the centralization of wealth as a matter of economic policy, brought about by decades of corporate welfare. This reaches beyond our borders, and has directly affected millions of lives in Mexico and CA, and is why we have the immigration "problem" now.

If conditions were better in Mexico and Cent Am, there would not be as many people driven here from there.

If it were not for the fact that US corporations are free transact and on a massive scale across sovereign borders, while retaining the leverage of border restrictions on labor to drive down wages everywhere, along with subsidies by the US govt to aggro and technology, conditions south of the border would be better, as would conditions here in the US.

These formalist discussions about the Constitution are pointless without a practical discussion of causes and effects. FWIW, the Slaughterhouse cases were about the distinction between federal and state citizenship and the rights conferred to State corporations.

[ August 24, 2015, 10:38 AM: Message edited by: KidTokyo ]

Posts: 2336 | Registered: Sep 2010  |  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:
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.
The problem with believing that is that those who voted for and against the amendment obviously did not believe it.

If 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," then why would anyone want to vote against it on the grounds that the amendment "would grant citizenship to those who “owe [the U.S.] no allegiance [and] who pretend to owe none,” including those who “trespass...”" and "would compel states to give citizenship to the children of “Gypsies” in Pennsylvania and the Chinese in California."

You can't say that "if the amendment passes, it will grant citizenship to those with no allegiance to the United States," and then say "the amendment was intended not to grant citizenship to those with no allegiance to the United States" after it passes. [LOL]

It either means to grant citizenship to jus soli babies or it didn't. And Sen. Edgar Cowan at the time clearly believed that it did.

So unless you can find a source that explains that Sen. Cowan was talking about something else than the amendment as written, then it is clear from the historical record that the 14th Amendment understood at the time to grant citizenship to those born on U.S. soil. To argue that it wasn't intended to do so flies in the face of the facts as we know it.

Sure, you can argue that wasn't the intent. You can also argue that the sky is colored deep purple.

You would still be wrong.

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  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 
Wayward, that's evidence but not conclusive evidence.

Patrick Henry voted against the 1989 constitution. By your logic we shouldd go read patrick henry's predictions of the horrors the constitution would create, as definitive interpretations of what the feds are allowed to do under the constitution.

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 
Maybe some people voted against it because that was their interpretation of it, one that many people agree with today. He certainly saw the writing on the wall.

That doesn't mean everyone at the time had the same interpretation, which could very well explain why they voted for it.

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

You understood exactly what I was thinking with the ISIS birth tourists. As for the North Koreans, of course they wouldn't come in on a North Korean passport. They are master counterfeiters and spies as well. One of my points there is that if they did get in by breaking every law on the books for instance, once the woman had the child on American soil the deed would be done and according to some interpretations of the Constitution there's not a darned thing we can do about it. That's the problem.

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

I just heard that not one European country still has birthright citizenship.

http://www.cis.org/birthright-citizenship


I'd also like to get back to this racist thing for a moment and am wondering if it is racist to just oppose birthright citizenship or is it racist to support ANY restrictions on immigration?

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 
quote:
once the woman had the child on American soil the deed would be done and according to some interpretations of the Constitution there's not a darned thing we can do about it
What would we want to do about it?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 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 
Have the child not be an American citizen by birth of course. I can see a little bit what you mean by the racist angle though now that Jeb Bush has opened his mouth.

"What I was talking about was the specific case of fraud being committed where there's organized efforts—and frankly it's more related to Asian people—coming into our country, having children, in that organized efforts, taking advantage of a noble concept, which is birthright citizenship. I support the 14th amendment. Nothing I've said should be viewed as derogatory toward immigrants at all."

Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I just heard that not one European country still has birthright citizenship
And you think the European experience with immigrants is one to emulate?
Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  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 
By taking away birthright citizenship like all of them have done?

Or by having a huge welfare state that they allow too many people to take advantage of at the expense of their citizens?

I think we should emulate Japan and Israel. What would happen if Israel had America's immigration system and current implementation?

They would cease to be Israel as we know it. And in very short order. Jews would be living under Sharia Law within a generation. It's only hubris that assumes that same type of thing can't happen to us except instead of Sharia Law it will be a the tyranny of Democrats with laws like Obamacare that make criminals out of previously law abiding citizens.

In fact, look at exactly how that happened with what Obama did in Minnesota, escorting in a hundred thousand Somalis to give the election to Al Franken which gave us Obamacare. It's so obvious Obama and the Democrats are using immigrants and coldly calculating where to place them to do the most political damage to America with a type of immigrant gerrymandering except instead of using changing geographic lines to encompass the right types of voters the voters are just transported en massed into the right geographic areas. Basically anyone insisting on the current immigration system is calling for the destruction of the Republican party. Why should Republicans just sit back and accept that? Because if they don't they'll be called racists? How convenient.

Democrats are using immigration as a weapon against their political opponents to turn America into a one party country. I can guarantee you that if the immigrants coming in were voting 8-2 in favor of Republicans then the Democrats would be just as opposed to them as Trump is now, kind of like Harry Reid was when he tried to pass a law getting rid of birthright citizenship before he got the memo.

Posts: 7675 | Registered: Mar 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Emulate by creating permanent populations of non-citizens. Failing to assimilate immigrant populations so that foreign traditions are maintained generation after generation. Rather than the US (and Canadian) experience where immigrants blend fairly well after a couple of generations.

The problem the Israelis face is because there's only a few million of them and many more million potential immigrants. Unless a couple of billion people can be expected to immigrate to the US, I don't think much about Israel's situation is applicable to the US.

So how many of those "hundred thousand Somalis" were born on US soil?

Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  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:
Have the child not be an American citizen by birth of course.
Why would having the child be an American citizen be especially problematic?

----

quote:
I think we should emulate Japan and Israel.
I think you might want to ask the gaijin and goyim how they feel about those examples.

America is a country that is at least nominally proud of its openness, to the extent that we put a big (even if more than slightly hypocritical) plaque on a giant statue and said it represented how welcoming we were to immigrants. Saying that we'd do better to adopt the Japanese or Israeli model -- two countries that are rather explicitly unwelcoming to cultural outsiders -- is to assert that one of the core American ideals is impractical or foolish.

------

quote:
In fact, look at exactly how that happened with what Obama did in Minnesota, escorting in a hundred thousand Somalis to give the election to Al Franken which gave us Obamacare.
This, by the way, is complete bull****. You really should know better, and/or find better sources.

[ August 25, 2015, 10:48 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  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