|
cadenas -> RE: Author of Arizona immigration law wants to end birthright citizenship (5/25/2010 2:14:53 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: THELADY
The thread is anchor babies and it comes down to the law.
No, the thread is about children born on US soil. Anchor babies are a common myth thrown out by anti-immigration zealots; they are an invention. A lie if you will. There is no such thing as "anchor babies" since there is no immigration category that would allow parents to immigrate based on having a newborn US citizen child.
quote:
ORIGINAL: THELADY
the 14th admendment
Section 1. 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
and the citizenship clause says
described the clause as excluding American Indians who maintain their tribal ties, and “persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.
it further adds
The meaning was tested again in the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) regarding children of non-citizen Chinese immigrants born in United States. The court ruled that the children were U.S. citizens.[10] The difference between "legal" and "illegal" immigrants was not clear at the time of the decision of Wong Kim Ark.[11]
Wong Kim Ark confirmed what was already clear from the wording. The key is "subject to the jurisdiction thereof". If illegal aliens weren't subject to US jurisdiction, we couldn't arrest them or try them in US courts. Diplomats etc. enjoy that kind of immunity from US jurisdiction - ordinary citizens don't. American Indians also are not necessarily fully subject to US jurisdiction (but rather to tribal jurisdiction).
quote:
ORIGINAL: THELADY
I am not against immigrants, do it legally and welcome! This land was indeed built on the backs of the immigrants! They came out of tyranny and enjoyed freedom as they helped build it!
I think we are in agreement here. The real problem is that it has become all but impossible to do that. 96% of people are NEVER eligible to immigrate, and for the remaining 4% or so, the backlog is up to 25 years. Did you know that our immigration law requires spouses of LEGAL immigrants to live in another country - and usually not even visit their LEGAL spouse - for five to six years?
quote:
ORIGINAL: THELADY
people can deny that illegals cost the tax payers because they cant legally apply for aid, but I beg to differ.... they go to our schools, get reduced lunches, are enrolled in schip, use the emergency rooms, and take jobs our people could do.
Actually, you are missing something important: illegal immigrants pay taxes. In fact, they pay MORE than US citizens, because they have income taxes withheld but can't get a refund. They pay Social Security taxes but can't get retirement benefits. etc. In fact, according to the New York Times, illegal immigrants are the reason Social Security isn't bankrupt.
quote:
ORIGINAL: THELADY
And having worked with those carpenters and painters I know a lot of them do come over to work and send the money home and with plans to do so for a limited time. how many of them paid taxes? how many were adding to our economy? how many had concerns for our communities?
How many paid taxes? All of them; the employers would withhold it, just as for US citizens. How many were adding to our economy? All of them. When you work and spend money, you are contributing to our economy. Citizenship has nothing to do with that.
You indirectly made one important point: the border fence made matters worse. It is true that historically, most illegal immigrants came for a limited time. In the 1970s, they came, worked harvests or whatever for a few weeks, and went back to Mexico. When we started securing the border in the 1980s and 1990s, the numbers in the USA INCREASED because returning to Mexico became expensive and risky. So they stayed year-round.
quote:
ORIGINAL: THELADY
our borders should be secure( come on, the people who would do us harm, not most of the illegals, but the drug runners and radical terrorists that can just walk over, it is shameful! we deserve better protection!!) and
illegals should be returned home and amnesty for the ones with anchor babies under 18.
There really is only one way to secure the border from terrorists and the like - and that is to make sure ordinary citizens don't have a NEED to cross it. And that means, creating a legal way for them to immigrate. Currently, our legal immigration law is so absolutely crazy that basically you have to be illegal just to see your own family.
quote:
ORIGINAL: THELADY
Why is it OK for Mexico to allow their police and army to demand papers of all foreigners at any time but its not OK for America? Why is it OK for all other countries have immigration laws, and enforce them, but its not OK for the USA to protect their borders and laws?
Huh? First of all, of course it is legal for immigration officers to ask foreigners in the USA for documentation. Where we differ from Mexico is that under Mexican law, you get arrested first, and then have to prove your innocence. In the USA, we have Constitutional guarantees that prevent false arrests of US citizens. And our immigration laws are enforced - and harsher - than most country's immigration laws.
The reason we have a problem protecting our border is a simple number: 20,000 miles. That's about the length of our borders and coastlines. Even short borders are inherently unprotectable - East Germany went bankrupt trying to protect a 300 mile border with Germany.
|
|
|
|
