RE: Birthright citizenship.

RE: Birthright citizenship. (Full Version)

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

Message

popeye1250 -> RE: Birthright citizenship. (1/10/2011 9:35:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Can anyone point to an actual problem with birthright citizenship? Just to be clear, arguments that boild down to "I hate foreigners" isn't a problem popeye. DomKen, there's no problem with "birthright citizenship" as long as both parents are in the country legally. And I don't "hate foreigners", I have dual U.S./Irish citizenship and my father was an Irish national.

popeye1250 -> RE: Birthright citizenship. (1/10/2011 9:46:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 Joether, so you don't consider a hundred thousand illegal alien pregnant women sneaking over our border each year a "wild scenario?" Or that there are foreign cos that make tens of millions of dollars by running "U.S. Birth" boiler rooms? You "cool" with that? And do they all sneak across, just for the pregnance? No other reason (work, family, avoiding hellish circumstances, etc)? I'm sure some do, but not every single one of them, not even the majority. What you stated previous, was a wild scenerio. A scenerio in which you stack the odds heavily to one side of the arguement. Would be like dueling with pistols, except one guy has just a single short pistol, and the other gun a Glock with extended mag. Who do you think is going to win that duel? What is a 'foreign cos'? Sorry, I dont understand ultra-bad grammer/English. Joether, "cos." is short for "companies." And noone is supposed to sneak across for anything! This country has always controlled who we let in and kept out and in this day and age that's more important than ever! As things stand now that is out of our hands and out of control! We need to have a 10 - 20 year stop on all immigration until we can get a handle on it. No country can have 20 to 30 million illegal aliens in it. This is why a lot lost their jobs in the last election and more will in the next election.

joether -> RE: Birthright citizenship. (1/11/2011 2:48:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 Joether, "cos." is short for "companies." So why not just say 'companies' in the first place? Your against illegal immigrants who don't know American-English (as opposed to the Queen's English), and yet, you use a word that isn't even an abbrivation for 'companies'. Maybe it is, but for the most part, its not widely accepted. Which is why 'Ebonics' was not accepted as a language about a decade ago. I'm not expecting you to be awesome with grammer/spelling, but at least, write regular words. quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 And noone is supposed to sneak across for anything! This country has always controlled who we let in and kept out and in this day and age that's more important than ever! And all the folks that work on the border, get absolutely no thanks from most Americans. According to a number of news sources, President Obama has removed more illegal immigrants then any previous President. He attacked companies that hired them, by sending federal lawyers to investigate 'the books'. He ran a campaign over last summer targeting those illegal immigrants to report unfair labor practices to the National Labour Relations Board (and that was successful). He's added more money and manpower to help combat the problem. He's not just doing all this to score political points or 'play to the crowd'; He's doing the job of a President! And how much thanks does he get from conservatives across our nation? Absolutely none! Personally, I still believe the Kennedy/McCain Immigration bill of 2007 offered the best template with which to retool our immigration laws in a sane manner. Not many people have actually read the document, but most will claim to know what it was set up to do: Grant Amenesty to law breakers. The bill itself, does not even do that, but why should Americans read the facts, when conservative 'news' outlets are just so happy to print misinformation, lies, and dishonesty? Have you actually sat down, and read the document? Its actually called "Secure Borders, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Reform Act of 2007". Here's a LINK to the actual document. quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 As things stand now that is out of our hands and out of control! We need to have a 10 - 20 year stop on all immigration until we can get a handle on it. No country can have 20 to 30 million illegal aliens in it. This is why a lot lost their jobs in the last election and more will in the next election. I would argue many Democrats lost their jobs, because of the conservative misinformation machine, then to illegal immigrants storming into the nation. Nothing is 'out of our hands'. We just have a lame duck Congress thanks to conservatives. The problem (as far as Immigration is concern), are two sides that will not come together and decide on a comprise. Why not use the Kennedy/McCain bill as a template, updated it to 2011, and push it through? Rather then waiting 10-20 years, why not do something now?

DomKen -> RE: Birthright citizenship. (1/11/2011 4:49:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Knightwalker quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen That would be true if Ellis Island wasn't US territory. It is therefore they were here illegally. The whole point was to regularize their status, unnecessary if they were legal entrants. You can try and spin it any way you like. The fact remains the same -- those allowed to continue on to the mainland US were granted legal status. Those turned away, were not. Ergo, if someone made it through from Ellis Island to the mainland, they were and are considered legal immigrants. They were illegals who were allowed to become legal. If there was a similiar option available to illegal immigrants today I'm sure they would do the same. It still doesn't change the facts, your ancestors arrived on these shores without a legal entry document and only because back then we welcomed immigrants did your ancestors get in. Now you are hypocritically demanding that people just like your ancestors should be permanently consigned to a second class status.

tazzygirl -> RE: Birthright citizenship. (1/11/2011 5:50:23 AM)
The two agencies responsible for processing immigrants at Ellis Island were the United States Public Health Service and the Bureau of Immigration (later known as the Immigration and Naturalization Service - INS).

Knightwalker -> RE: Birthright citizenship. (1/11/2011 6:15:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen They were illegals who were allowed to become legal. If there was a similiar option available to illegal immigrants today I'm sure they would do the same. It still doesn't change the facts, your ancestors arrived on these shores without a legal entry document and only because back then we welcomed immigrants did your ancestors get in. Now you are hypocritically demanding that people just like your ancestors should be permanently consigned to a second class status. As I said before, you can try to spin it and twist facts all you like. When the U.S. Government processes and accepts a person into the country, that person is a legal immigrant. It doesn't matter what you call them. It's not as though the people coming through Ellis Island snuck into the country. They arrived at Ellis Island on ships that were supposed to bring them there. The U.S. Government set up Ellis Island to welcome and process them into the country. So no matter what twist you try and put on it to make your non-existent point, those who came through Ellis Island did so legally and with the permission of the U.S. Government. Your point...such as it is....is moot, and factually wrong.

DomKen -> RE: Birthright citizenship. (1/11/2011 6:34:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Knightwalker quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen They were illegals who were allowed to become legal. If there was a similiar option available to illegal immigrants today I'm sure they would do the same. It still doesn't change the facts, your ancestors arrived on these shores without a legal entry document and only because back then we welcomed immigrants did your ancestors get in. Now you are hypocritically demanding that people just like your ancestors should be permanently consigned to a second class status. As I said before, you can try to spin it and twist facts all you like. When the U.S. Government processes and accepts a person into the country, that person is a legal immigrant. It doesn't matter what you call them. It's not as though the people coming through Ellis Island snuck into the country. They arrived at Ellis Island on ships that were supposed to bring them there. The U.S. Government set up Ellis Island to welcome and process them into the country. So no matter what twist you try and put on it to make your non-existent point, those who came through Ellis Island did so legally and with the permission of the U.S. Government. Your point...such as it is....is moot, and factually wrong. Maybe you don't understand how legal migration works. You go to the country's embassy or consulate and get what is called an entry visa or similiar. Without some form of visa you aren't legally allowed into the country. Most immigrants did not have visas and had to be processed at places like Ellis. The fact that we chose back then to welcome illegal immigrants doesn't change the fact that they entered this nation without the correct documents. Just exactly like those you demonize today.

MrRodgers -> RE: Birthright citizenship. (1/11/2011 7:45:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 Mr. Rogers, the 19th Amendment gives "women" the right to vote ("woman's sufferage") So going by your reasoning if someone is a woman and she sneaks into the U.S. she can vote because she's a "woman?" Also, the 14th amendment was naturally preceeded by the 13th which....... Hardly and you are smarter than that. She would be ineligible to vote not being a citizen and not being registered.

MrRodgers -> RE: Birthright citizenship. (1/11/2011 7:55:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 Mr Rogers, the 14 th Amendment was written to give "full citizenship" to freed slaves. I've read it and nowhere in there does it say you can sneak into the U.S. illegally and get U.S. Citizenship for your illegal children. It's not even a "loophole. Its actually the very first line: quote: 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 Well DomKen, I guess you're just going to keep ignoring the sneaking into our country illegally thing then. Hey, here's one, how about we make a law that if a bank robber can avoid being arrested for 365 days they can't charge him and, he can keep the money that he stole? As I have written, how mother gets here and under what conditions is irrelevant. All that matters is that under our current law as ruled...any person and without any other qualifications, born in the US...is a citizen...period. Lol, it's "irrelevant?" So if next week China said that they're going to be sending over 200 huge ship's full of pregnant women to give birth in the U.S. you wouldn't have a problem with that??? Then India announced that they'd be sending over 2,000,000 pregnant woman next month so that their offspring would have U.S. Citizenship that'd be "cool" with you too? The 13 th amendment ended slavery and the 14 th amendment gave those freed slaves "full citizenship", that's all. We don't need to "amend" it we could just strike the 14 th as it's no longer neccessary. Well you can infer whatever ridiculous extension of reasoning you like. But if those countries did as you suggest...yes, their offspring if born here would be citizens of the US and this debate is about the amending of the 14th to make a new distinction as just who is eligible and who isn't.

MrRodgers -> RE: Birthright citizenship. (1/11/2011 8:10:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Knightwalker quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Most, 99+%, Ellis Island immigrants were not legal entrants to the country. That's why we set up places like Ellis Island, to process and screen immigrants that did not have an entry visa or equivalent. That would be the equivalent today of opening a big building on the Mexico border and giving out green cards to anyone and everyone who tried to cross the border. In short you are descended from what would be called illegal immigrants today. Ummmm no. Ellis Island was an immigration processing station. So when someone was allowed to enter the US through Ellis Island, they were legal immigrants. Those who did not have their documents in order or were deemed unfit were turned away, back to their country of origin. Many thousands were allowed (with or without papers) in leading up to WWI and given citizenship if the at the same time they...enlisted in the Army or Navy. Some were threatened with return if they did not. There was more than just the enlightened coming to the US at work all throughout the history of Ellis Island.

MrRodgers -> RE: Birthright citizenship. (1/11/2011 8:15:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Knightwalker quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Most, 99+%, Ellis Island immigrants were not legal entrants to the country. That's why we set up places like Ellis Island, to process and screen immigrants that did not have an entry visa or equivalent. That would be the equivalent today of opening a big building on the Mexico border and giving out green cards to anyone and everyone who tried to cross the border. In short you are descended from what would be called illegal immigrants today. Ummmm no. Ellis Island was an immigration processing station. So when someone was allowed to enter the US through Ellis Island, they were legal immigrants. Those who did not have their documents in order or were deemed unfit were turned away, back to their country of origin. That would be true if Ellis Island wasn't US territory. It is therefore they were here illegally. The whole point was to regularize their status, unnecessary if they were legal entrants. That they arrived without visas, you would be correct. Who had them back in the day. We are discussing the subsequent swearing in as citizens. Many at Ellis were.

philosophy -> RE: Birthright citizenship. (1/11/2011 8:15:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Knightwalker When the U.S. Government processes and accepts a person into the country, that person is a legal immigrant. It doesn't matter what you call them. ...well, to be fair, thats not always true. Now, I know it's another country but i'm here in Canada totally legally and i'm not technically an immigrant. i'm what's called a permanent resident. Able to work, pay taxes, all that good stuff. i can vote municipally, provincially but not federally. But the immigrant bit usually refers to someone seeking citizenship.

MrRodgers -> RE: Birthright citizenship. (1/11/2011 8:23:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy quote: ORIGINAL: Knightwalker When the U.S. Government processes and accepts a person into the country, that person is a legal immigrant. It doesn't matter what you call them. ...well, to be fair, thats not always true. Now, I know it's another country but i'm here in Canada totally legally and i'm not technically an immigrant. i'm what's called a permanent resident. Able to work, pay taxes, all that good stuff. i can vote municipally, provincially but not federally. But the immigrant bit usually refers to someone seeking citizenship. I have an online sub in Canada and she was born in America. She is now what she tells me is a 'landed immigrant, and enjoys the full benefits of Canadian citizenship.

philosophy -> RE: Birthright citizenship. (1/11/2011 8:26:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy quote: ORIGINAL: Knightwalker When the U.S. Government processes and accepts a person into the country, that person is a legal immigrant. It doesn't matter what you call them. ...well, to be fair, thats not always true. Now, I know it's another country but i'm here in Canada totally legally and i'm not technically an immigrant. i'm what's called a permanent resident. Able to work, pay taxes, all that good stuff. i can vote municipally, provincially but not federally. But the immigrant bit usually refers to someone seeking citizenship. I have an online sub in Canada and she was born in America. She is now what she tells me is a 'landed immigrant, and enjoys the full benefits of Canadian citizenship. .....except the right to vote federally, as it was explained to me by the nice lady from Canadian Immigration.....

Elisabella -> RE: Birthright citizenship. (1/11/2011 2:05:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Maybe you don't understand how legal migration works. You go to the country's embassy or consulate and get what is called an entry visa or similiar. Without some form of visa you aren't legally allowed into the country. Most immigrants did not have visas and had to be processed at places like Ellis. The fact that we chose back then to welcome illegal immigrants doesn't change the fact that they entered this nation without the correct documents. Just exactly like those you demonize today. Well I definitely know how immigration works, and what was done at Ellis Island is similar to what is done to gain an entry visa. The only difference is that it's done on US soil instead of foreign soil...the end result is the same. Ellis Island gave health, identity, and background checks. It was the precursor to our current system. Entry visas were not required (or even offered) until 1924. Besides that, the world was a lot different then...culture was different, the US was less populated and had no social welfare programs, etc. You can't call someone an illegal immigrant if the way they immigrated was legal at the time. It just doesn't work that way...you're trying to compare 19th century society with 21st century society...you're right that in the 19th century, more immigrants were let into the US legally...those people were also left to fend for themselves once they got citizenship. Progressive social programs increase the benefit of citizenship. Australia has a very restrictive immigration program - only professionals under a certain age, in good health, can immigrate on their own merits. I'd imagine few, if any, of the people who cross the US border would qualify. The reason for this is that Australia takes good care of its citizens with national healthcare and strong social programs - they want to make sure that the country benefits more from the immigrant than the immigrant from the country. BTW: As of 2006, the United States accepts more legal immigrants as permanent residents than all other countries in the world combined. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_the_United_States

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Birthright citizenship. (1/11/2011 3:04:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen [They were illegals who were allowed to become legal. More lies from DK after he gets caught not knowing wtf he's talking about.

DomKen -> RE: Birthright citizenship. (1/11/2011 3:15:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Elisabella quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Maybe you don't understand how legal migration works. You go to the country's embassy or consulate and get what is called an entry visa or similiar. Without some form of visa you aren't legally allowed into the country. Most immigrants did not have visas and had to be processed at places like Ellis. The fact that we chose back then to welcome illegal immigrants doesn't change the fact that they entered this nation without the correct documents. Just exactly like those you demonize today. Well I definitely know how immigration works, and what was done at Ellis Island is similar to what is done to gain an entry visa. The only difference is that it's done on US soil instead of foreign soil...the end result is the same. The end result was similiar but the process and the immigrants status prior to processing was very different. The simple fact is we functionally imprisoned immigrants that entered by steamship and held them until we had decided to let them become legal immigrants. It was quite simply a process that made people who did not have permission to enter the country, despite already being here, into legal immigrants. This is simple and basic logic, if the immigrants only became legal entrants to this nation after processing at Ellis Island and equivalent then what was their status during and prior to processing? quote: Ellis Island gave health, identity, and background checks. It was the precursor to our current system. Entry visas were not required (or even offered) until 1924. Actually they were just called something different prior to 1924. Diplomats, business travelers and wealthy migrants avoided Ellis Island by dent of having such paperwork when they debarked.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Birthright citizenship. (1/11/2011 3:34:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen This is simple and basic logic, if the immigrants only became legal entrants to this nation after processing at Ellis Island and equivalent then what was their status during and prior to processing? Immigrants. Period. The primary reason for denial of entry was health. There were no visas or passports, no such thing as an "illegal" unless you tried to bypass immigration screening.

rulemylife -> RE: Birthright citizenship. (1/11/2011 4:06:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy Immigrants. Period. The primary reason for denial of entry was health. There were no visas or passports, no such thing as an "illegal" unless you tried to bypass immigration screening. Immigration Immigration Act of May 26, 1924: This act was US law until 1952 and one of the most sweeping reforms in immigration history. ....This act also stated that all immigrants entering the United States must present a valid visa from the US Consular Office in their native land.

truckinslave -> RE: Birthright citizenship. (1/11/2011 4:13:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 Joether, "cos." is short for "companies." So why not just say 'companies' in the first place? Your against illegal immigrants who don't know American-English (as opposed to the Queen's English), and yet, you use a word that isn't even an abbrivation for 'companies'. Maybe it is, but for the most part, its not widely accepted. Which is why 'Ebonics' was not accepted as a language about a decade ago. I'm not expecting you to be awesome with grammer/spelling, but at least, write regular words. As a poor (slow) typist and infrequent proofreader, I rarely correct the spelling, punctuation, or grammar of others. But this is just too funny to ignore. Anyone for a short round of Whack-a-Mole? I count nine errors in the Joether paragraph wherein he rants about the impropriety of a perfectly correct abbreviation. How many can you find? (BTW, I accepted American-English but took exception to his last comma).

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4] 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875