RE: Author of Arizona immigration law wants to end birthright citizenship

RE: Author of Arizona immigration law wants to end birthright citizenship (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

cloudboy -> RE: Author of Arizona immigration law wants to end birthright citizenship (5/26/2010 4:13:39 PM)
quote: Actually, that's exactly how a democracy works. When the majority of a populace wants something changed, a bill is put before the necessary branch of the government and it's voted on. If enough people speak up about ditching the 14th amendment, it's ditched. Simple. Did you not take government in high school? Really, when was the last time the Constitution was amended? What I see here is some low life Americans (not particularly wealthy or well educated) wanting to push around the people beneath them (workers in the US without status) in order to feel empowered and less threatened. Immigration built the US into what it is, and I hope that it continues to drive our development / advancement well into the future. The one reassuring thing is that at every turn and in every generation, there were Americans just like you who opposed and despised the newcomers --- but those prejudices never shut our doors to foreigners.

cadenas -> RE: Author of Arizona immigration law wants to end birthright citizenship (5/26/2010 5:19:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Loki45 quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx My point, that you chose to ignore, was your position quoted above. You do not have the authority to tell the government what laws they may enforce. Actually, that's exactly how a democracy works. When the majority of a populace wants something changed, a bill is put before the necessary branch of the government and it's voted on. If enough people speak up about ditching the 14th amendment, it's ditched. Simple. Did you not take government in high school? Ummm. That's NOT how democracy works. If it did, we'd have a dictatorship of the majority. The democracy protects minorities as well as the majority. Did you not take government in high school? You can put a bill before the "necessary branch of the government" (which branch is that anyway?) as you call it all day long, and you may even get it passed - if it conflicts with the Constitution, that law isn't worth the paper it is printed on. You could try to amend the Constitution instead. Since you took government in high school, I'm sure you remember what it takes to amend the Constitution? Or at least you may be able to tell me how long it took to pass the most recent Amendment to the Constitution?

cadenas -> RE: Author of Arizona immigration law wants to end birthright citizenship (5/26/2010 5:25:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy quote: Actually, that's exactly how a democracy works. When the majority of a populace wants something changed, a bill is put before the necessary branch of the government and it's voted on. If enough people speak up about ditching the 14th amendment, it's ditched. Simple. Did you not take government in high school? Really, when was the last time the Constitution was amended? Eighteen years ago, in 1992. That Amendment took more than 200 years to pass; it was introduced in 1789 (it actually was one of the 12 Amendments in the Bill of Rights. We commonly talk about 10 Amendments because two didn't pass back then. One never passed, and the other eventually became the 27th, and most recent, Amendment).

thompsonx -> RE: Author of Arizona immigration law wants to end birthright citizenship (5/26/2010 6:34:17 PM)
quote: no such things as anchor babies? dont people read anymore? You have already explaned to us that you can't

thompsonx -> RE: Author of Arizona immigration law wants to end birthright citizenship (5/26/2010 6:37:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 quote: ORIGINAL: Loki45 quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx My point, that you chose to ignore, was your position quoted above. You do not have the authority to tell the government what laws they may enforce. Actually, that's exactly how a democracy works. When the majority of a populace wants something changed, a bill is put before the necessary branch of the government and it's voted on. If enough people speak up about ditching the 14th amendment, it's ditched. Simple. Did you not take government in high school? Gee, and all this time I thought "the govt" worked for "us!" How do we get "the govt" to just enforce the laws that are on the books now? Government by the minority doesn't have a very good track record. Do you really think you can tell a cop (because he works for you) that he is not to give you a ticket for going through that red light? Is this concept that difficult for you to grasp?

tazzygirl -> RE: Author of Arizona immigration law wants to end birthright citizenship (5/27/2010 1:45:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cadenas Read what? Here is what I read - the actual law. Look at Immigration and Nationality Act section 201, (b)(2)(A)(i) http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-29/0-0-0-914.html Not sure what you read, but it obviously does not agree with the law. quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl no such things as anchor babies? dont people read anymore? ‘Anchor’ Babies: No More U.S. Citizenship The U.S. should pass H.R. 1868—the Birthright Citizenship Act of 2009—so all babies born on U.S. soil are no longer automatically made citizens. Pro or con? http://www.businessweek.com/debateroom/archives/2009/07/anchor_babies_no_more_us_citizenship.html "Anchor baby" is a term used by immigration reductionists in the United States to describe a child born in the U.S. to illegal aliens. It is generally used as a derogatory reference to the supposed role of the child, who as a U.S. citizen through the legal principle of jus soli, may facilitate immigration for relatives through family reunification under the provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965.[1][2][3][4][5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchor_baby Sinking `anchor babies' http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2006/08/sinking_anchor_.html Anchor babies: born in the USA--enormous taxpayer costs--Part II http://www.examiner.com/x-3515-Denver-Immigration-Reform-Examiner~y2009m7d15-Anchor-babies-born-in-the-USAenormous-taxpayer-costsPart-II quote: The Marmara Manhattan, a Turkish-owned luxury hotel on New York's City Upper East Side, markets birth tourism packages to expectant mothers abroad, luring more than a dozen pregnant guests and their families to the United States to give birth last year alone. "What we offer is simply a one-bedroom suite accommodation for $7,750, plus taxes, for a month, with airport transfer, baby cradle and a gift set for the mother," Marmara Hotel spokeswoman Alexandra Ballantine said. The hotel estimates the total cost of the package at $45,000. Most women stay for two months, Ballantine said, and they make medical arrangements on their own. "Guests arrange and pay for these by themselves," she said of hospital costs that can approach $30,000. For those with the means to pay, it's a small price to give a child the full benefits of U.S. citizenship, including the ability to travel freely to and from the United States, easy access to a U.S. education and a chance to start a life here. "We found a company on the Internet and decided to go to Austin [Texas ] for our child's birth," Turkish mother Selin Burcuoglu told Istanbul's Hurriyet Daily News. "I don't want [my daughter] to deal with visa issues. American citizenship has so many advantages." The greatest of those advantages may be the ability of the citizen child to later sponsor the legal immigration of his or her entire family permanently to this country, experts say. The "birth tourism" industry, which is difficult to track and remains largely anecdotal, has been on the rise for years, according to government and participants reports. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/birth-tourism-industry-markets-us-citizenship-abroad/story?id=10359956&page=1 Now, you are read up on the subject. you may not like the term. you may want to deny this industry exists. But there it is, in black and white, in mainstream media. As far as France... you have that backwards. French nationality law is historically based on the principles of jus soli, according to Ernest Renan's definition, and/or the German's definition of nationality formalized by Fichte. The 1993 reform (Méhaignerie Act) required children born in France of foreign parents to request French nationality at adulthood, rather than being automatically accorded citizenship. This "manifestation of will" requirement was subsequently abrogated by the Guigou Law of 1998 [1], but children born in France of foreign parents remain foreign until obtaining legal majority. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_nationality_law

Loki45 -> RE: Author of Arizona immigration law wants to end birthright citizenship (5/27/2010 4:34:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy Really, when was the last time the Constitution was amended? 1992. quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy What I see here is some low life Americans (not particularly wealthy or well educated) wanting to push around the people beneath them (workers in the US without status) in order to feel empowered and less threatened. Everyone sees what they want. What I see is a bunch of people in border states tired of watching hospitals close, tired of watching illegals commit DUI hit-and-runs; and tired of people BREAKING THE LAW to get into this country in order to demand that the CITIZENS of this country bend over backward to help them. quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy --- but those prejudices never shut our doors to foreigners. No one's talking about shutting doors to anyone. There are very legal, very welcomed citizens who go about it the right way. The ones who skirt the laws and cry foul over being called illegal are the ones we have a problem with.

Loki45 -> RE: Author of Arizona immigration law wants to end birthright citizenship (5/27/2010 4:36:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cadenas Ummm. That's NOT how democracy works. If it did, we'd have a dictatorship of the majority. The democracy protects minorities as well as the majority. Did you not take government in high school? You have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. quote: ORIGINAL: cadenas if it conflicts with the Constitution, that law isn't worth the paper it is printed on. 27 amendments to that very constitution would seem to disagree with you.

cloudboy -> RE: Author of Arizona immigration law wants to end birthright citizenship (5/27/2010 7:18:40 AM)
What you don't understand is that people here are illegal because the legal doors are shut. People without status don't lack status because they are "bad people" or because they are "skirting the law," they are without status because there is no way for them to legalize via either an immigrant or non immigrant category. On top of that are draconian penalties barring folks for three (3) and ten (10) years from the US for falling out of status.

tazzygirl -> RE: Author of Arizona immigration law wants to end birthright citizenship (5/27/2010 7:50:24 AM)
What you fail to understand is that each country is entitled to have their own immigration policies and procedures. no one has a right to undermine that. Using the excuse that they cannot obtain it legally, so they are here illegally, is a bunch of bull. Its like justifying robbing a 7/11 because that store would not hire you.

ReverendJim -> RE: Author of Arizona immigration law wants to end birthright citizenship (5/27/2010 8:27:07 AM)
How very well put.

thompsonx -> RE: Author of Arizona immigration law wants to end birthright citizenship (5/27/2010 11:10:27 AM)
quote: No one's talking about shutting doors to anyone. What is the quota of mexicans allowed to immigrate to the u.s. each year? There are very legal, very welcomed citizens who go about it the right way. If a mexican started their immigration proceedure today how long would it take to gain legal access to the u.s.?

thompsonx -> RE: Author of Arizona immigration law wants to end birthright citizenship (5/27/2010 11:12:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl What you fail to understand is that each country is entitled to have their own immigration policies and procedures. no one has a right to undermine that. Using the excuse that they cannot obtain it legally, so they are here illegally, is a bunch of bull. Its like justifying robbing a 7/11 because that store would not hire you. Isn't that how the u.s. acquired california,arizona,new mexico,texas,nevada,colorado and parts of oklahoma and kansas?

tazzygirl -> RE: Author of Arizona immigration law wants to end birthright citizenship (5/27/2010 11:39:50 AM)
Its how most countries acquired their land. That has nothing to do with this discussion.

thompsonx -> RE: Author of Arizona immigration law wants to end birthright citizenship (5/27/2010 11:41:36 AM)
Below you will find the link which you provided. It explanes clearly that the term "anchor baby" is a bullshit term that does not mean what you are trying to make it mean. The law clearly states that an "anchor baby" cannot bring its parents to the u.s. until that anchor baby is 21 years old and can support the parent at a level at least 125% of the poverty level. Do you really believe that an illegal alien can come here and have a kid and then automatically gain citizenship? You constantly snark at people claiming that they cannot comprehend what they read and you obviously suffer the same problem. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_reunification#Family_reunification_in_the_United_States Citizens and permanent residents of the United States may sponsor relatives for immigration to the United States in a variety of ways. Citizens of any age may sponsor their heterosexual spouses and their children, but only citizens who have reached the age of 21 may sponsor siblings and parents. Permanent residents may only sponsor spouses and unmarried children. In all cases, the sponsor must demonstrate the capacity to support their relative financially at 125% of poverty level, and provide proof of the relationship. Immediate relatives of United States citizens (spouses, parents, and unmarried children under 21 years of age) are automatically eligible to immigrate upon approval of their application. All other people eligible to immigrate through a family member must wait for a place; a preference system governs the order at which these places become available. [4] [edit] Immigration of parents Under the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. While the Supreme Court has never explicitly ruled on whether children born in the United States to illegal immigrant parents are entitled to birthright citizenship via the Fourteenth Amendment,[5], it has generally been assumed that they are.[6] Under existing law, parents of United States citizens may be sponsored for immigration by their adult citizen children (those at least 21 years of age) under certain conditions.[4] The child must demonstrate the financial ability to provide for the parents.[7] In addition to this under current law and USCS policy individuals who entered illegally (EWI or Entry without Inspection) may not adjust in the country. However, leaving the United States triggers a ban on entering the U.S. If the parent was present in the U.S. for only between 180–364 days, the parent will get a 3 year ban. However, as is more common if the parent was present for 365 days or more, the parent will get a ten year ban on entering the U.S. Unless, the parent is willing to live out the ban outside the country, the parent may not regularize their status though the child. For parents who enter legally, they will not have to leave the U.S. to adjust status unless they entered on a K visa or for people who entered on J visas and did not obtain a wavier for the foreign stay period[8][9] Having US citizen minor children has been mischaracterized as being beneficial in deportation proceedings; such benefits do not exist except in the very rare case of extreme and profound hardship on the child. The number of such hardship waivers is capped at 5000 per year.[10] Federal appellate courts have upheld the refusal by the Immigration and Naturalization Service to stay the deportation of illegal immigrants merely on the grounds that they have U.S.-citizen, minor children.[11] There are some 3.1 million United States citizen children with at least one illegal immigrant parent as of 2005; At least 13,000 American children had one or both parents deported in the years 2005-2007.[12][13]

thompsonx -> RE: Author of Arizona immigration law wants to end birthright citizenship (5/27/2010 11:46:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Its how most countries acquired their land. That has nothing to do with this discussion. Has it ever occured to you to read a history book? We try to buy their land and they refuse so we steal it at the point of a gun. You don't have a problem with that theft but you characterize those who work illegally as thieves. OK for you to steal but not for others[8\|].

tazzygirl -> RE: Author of Arizona immigration law wants to end birthright citizenship (5/27/2010 11:48:03 AM)
quote: There are some 3.1 million United States citizen children with at least one illegal immigrant parent as of 2005; At least 13,000 American children had one or both parents deported in the years 2005-2007.[12][13] These numbers speak for themselves. 3.1 million children with at least one illegal parent. 13000 children have had one or both parents depeorted. Leaves a whole lot of parents left in the US living here on the back of their US citizen child. I never said the parents could or would become citizens. I said they lived here because their children have the right to live here as US citizens. I have posted proof that welfare is available to these families.

tazzygirl -> RE: Author of Arizona immigration law wants to end birthright citizenship (5/27/2010 11:51:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Its how most countries acquired their land. That has nothing to do with this discussion. Has it ever occured to you to read a history book? We try to buy their land and they refuse so we steal it at the point of a gun. You don't have a problem with that theft but you characterize those who work illegally as thieves. OK for you to steal but not for others[8\|]. Coountries have a long history of "stealing" from each other. From middle ages to present day, and long before. Theives? They steal across the boarder to come to a country that they demand accept them on their own terms, and im not supposed to see them as theives? eh... lable me as you wish. i could care less. if this is the best you can come up with as an argument, no wonder why you are in attack mode all the time.

thompsonx -> RE: Author of Arizona immigration law wants to end birthright citizenship (5/27/2010 12:01:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: There are some 3.1 million United States citizen children with at least one illegal immigrant parent as of 2005; At least 13,000 American children had one or both parents deported in the years 2005-2007.[12][13] These numbers speak for themselves. 3.1 million children with at least one illegal parent. That would be the total as of 2005. 13000 children have had one or both parents depeorted. That would be the total for the two years listed 2005-2007. Leaves a whole lot of parents left in the US living here on the back of their US citizen child. Not only is your reading comprehension faulty so is your math. How are they living on the back of their u.s. citizen child. They would be illegal and subject to deportation? I never said the parents could or would become citizens. I said they lived here because their children have the right to live here as US citizens. They do not live here legally is the point that you seem to keep missing. The child does not give them any legal status. I have posted proof that welfare is available to these families. No you have not. What you posted was that the citizen child can get welfare. What you posted about how much welfare the citizen child got was a lie. When called on your lie you responded that you "misread" your own proof. No apology cuz as you say you do not apologize even when you lie and get caught in it.

thompsonx -> RE: Author of Arizona immigration law wants to end birthright citizenship (5/27/2010 12:06:43 PM)
quote: Coountries have a long history of "stealing" from each other. From middle ages to present day, and long before. Clearly you do not feel that the u.s. is special in the history of the world. Clearly you approve of armed robbery as long as you are the benificiary. You must be estatic over the current adventure in armed robbery in the sand box. Do you have any other countries you would like the u.s. to go rob? Theives? They steal across the boarder to come to a country that they demand accept them on their own terms, and im not supposed to see them as theives? They demand to be accepted on their own terms????how so???

Page: << < prev 8 9 [10] 11 12 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875