quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

Unless you are harboring illegals the penalties are as below;

quote:

A pattern of knowingly employing illegal immigrants can mean extra fines and up to six months in jail for an employer.

quote:

Now make it 20 years first offense and i will guarantee you it will have an immediate affect.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

Unless you are harboring illegals the penalties are as below;

First offenders can be fined $250-$2,000 per illegal employee.

For a second offense, the fine is $2,000-$5,000 per illegal employee.

Three or more offenses can cost an employer $3000-$10,000 per illegal employee. A pattern of knowingly employing illegal immigrants can mean extra fines and up to six months in jail for an employer.

Obama has been a bit better than Bush at cracking down but there have been very few convictions that resulted in jail time.

Now make it 20 years first offense and i will guarantee you it will have an immediate affect.

Butch

quote:


Someone like Trump could pay for enforcement with the fines and force illegals to self-deport at the same time

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thegunnysez

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
]ORIGINAL: Thegunnysez

quote:

Interestingly enough, if a child is born outside the US, when one or both parents is a US Citizen, the child is usually considered a US Citizen, not a citizen of the country of birth.

Canada,Brazil, Mexico, Argentina and many others would disagree with you.

quote:

I don't give a rat's ass what those other countries think. It's how the US works, and that's what we're talking about.
Does the US have to align their immigration, naturalization, and citizenship policies with other countries? If so, why?

Your statement was that:
"the child is usually considered a US Citizen, not a citizen of the country of birth."
The countries I named and many others confer citizenship at birth whether you like or not. My point was that your statement was factually incorrect. Not that the U.S. should follow any other country in it's immigration policies.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thegunnysez

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thegunnysez

quote:

Minor children of parents who were not citizens at the time of the child's birth can gain citizenship when the parents gain citizenship. The parents wouldn't be "renouncing" the child's citizenship, because citizenship hasn't been determined yet.

The child becomes a citizen at birth. When the child reaches the age of majority and can afford to sponsor the parents they can be brought in. Then of course there is the question of why the parents would want to renounce the child's U.S. citizenship?

What if he wasn't born here? What if the parents naturalized when the kid was 15, having been born outside the US? Oh, that's right. He's gains citizenship.

This issue concerns a hypothetical "anchor baby". Necessarily the baby was born here. If the parents acquire status before the child is of majority it does not change the child's status as a citizen.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thegunnysez

quote:

The 14th Amendment doesn't bring up anything about whether the parents are only here for a visit or not. Where do you come up with that idea?

You brought up diplomat's children not being citizens.

quote:

quote:

You still can't understand the intent of the 14th Amendment, even when it's quoted by the guy that wrote that section.

You said the opinions of those who wrote the amendment were not relevant...only the printed words on the paper were necessary to understand the document. Now, if you wish to change your mind and bring in this individuals opinion then we must also bring in the other 240 odd individuals who created this document.

quote:

quote:

Wait. I'm wrong. I'm sure you understand. You just won't agree.

I certainly understand what you are saying and I am disagreeing with it.

quote:

The US Government considers those children US Citizens, not citizens of the country of their birth.

quote:

I am not going to declare what Canada, Guam, North Umbria, Westeros, or Nanda Parbat consider a child born in their country of foreign parents. I don't give a fuck what they think. I give a fuck what the US thinks, as that is my country.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thegunnysez

quote:

The 14th Amendment doesn't bring up anything about whether the parents are only here for a visit or not. Where do you come up with that idea?

You brought up diplomat's children not being citizens.

quote:

The 14th Amendment doesn't address "visitors" does it?

quote:

You still can't understand the intent of the 14th Amendment, even when it's quoted by the guy that wrote that section.

quote:

You're full of shit.

quote:

I asked you which was more important, the wording or the intent. You blather on, attempting to find cute little minutiae to twist things. I'm not falling for it. Sorry for you. I do believe intent of the law is more important.

quote:

And, I said that I thought the SCOTUS would correctly uphold the US Government's side in the latest Obamacare suit because the intent of the law was for the subsidies to apply to those who bought insurance on any exchange.

quote:

Wait. I'm wrong. I'm sure you understand. You just won't agree.

quote:

That's what I said.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thegunnysez
[quote[ Your statement was that:
"the child is usually considered a US Citizen, not a citizen of the country of birth."
The countries I named and many others confer citizenship at birth whether you like or not. My point was that your statement was factually incorrect. Not that the U.S. should follow any other country in it's immigration policies.

quote:

The US Government considers those children US Citizens, not citizens of the country of their birth.

The U.S. government considers those children to be possessed of dual citizenship

quote:

I am not going to declare what Canada, Guam, North Umbria, Westeros, or Nanda Parbat consider a child born in their country of foreign parents. I don't give a fuck what they think. I give a fuck what the US thinks, as that is my country.

Your country thinks that they are dual citizens.

quote:

My country believes they are US Citizens. That's all that matters.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thegunnysez
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thegunnysez

quote:

The 14th Amendment doesn't bring up anything about whether the parents are only here for a visit or not. Where do you come up with that idea?

You brought up diplomat's children not being citizens.

quote:

The 14th Amendment doesn't address "visitors" does it?

The cite you brought up re: diplomats by one of the sponsors of the bill when he discussed diplomats. diplomats would be visitors because they plan on returning to their country of origin.

quote:

quote:

You still can't understand the intent of the 14th Amendment, even when it's quoted by the guy that wrote that section.

You said the opinions of those who wrote the amendment were not relevant...only the printed words on the paper were necessary to understand the document. Now, if you wish to change your mind and bring in this individuals opinion then we must also bring in the other 240 odd individuals who created this document.

quote:

You're full of shit.

quote:

quote:

I asked you which was more important, the wording or the intent. You blather on, attempting to find cute little minutiae to twist things. I'm not falling for it. Sorry for you. I do believe intent of the law is more important.

Previously you said the final words on the paper were the most important thing. Now it seems you have changed your mind. If that is the case then lets look at all 240+ opinions. The two you cited clearly disagree with your opinion of them.

quote:

quote:

And, I said that I thought the SCOTUS would correctly uphold the US Government's side in the latest Obamacare suit because the intent of the law was for the subsidies to apply to those who bought insurance on any exchange.

You seem terribly invested in something that is not part of this discussion. The SCOTUS did not write the bill they inferred it's intent. The people who wrote the bill are the ones whose intent is important to this discussion.

quote:

quote:

Wait. I'm wrong. I'm sure you understand. You just won't agree.

I certainly understand what you are saying and I am disagreeing with it.

quote:

That's what I said.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thegunnysez
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

My country believes they are US Citizens. That's all that matters.

You are mistaken.
Your country thinks that they are dual citizens.

quote:

:Thegunnysez
Previously you said the final words on the paper were the most important thing. Now it seems you have changed your mind. If that is the case then lets look at all 240+ opinions. The two you cited clearly disagree with your opinion of them.

quote:

:DesideriScuri

Show us the proof of the part I put in bold.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thegunnysez

quote:

Which do you support: literal translation of the law (the words used are what matter), or the spirit of the law (the intent of those that wrote the law)?

Don't you feel that both are necessary? We know that the slaves were illegal aliens. We know the framers of these three amendments were not unaware of the issues involved. Notice how native Americans are dealt with in these three amendments. The framers wanted to tailor the law to the need. That need being the enfranchisement of the offspring of illegal aliens while at the same time preventing the enfranchisement of native Americans.

No, I don't feel both are necessary, especially when they oppose each other.

quote:

IOW, "no, it doesn't address visitors."

quote:

Because you are mistaken

Yet, you agreed.

quote:

What you, apparently, forget is that you asked how the intent of a bill and the wording of the same bill could not be in agreement. I gave you an example.

quote:

Since the example was in direct response to your question, and directly answered your question, it is relevant to this discussion.

quote:

The SCOTUS decision shows that intent can override wording when the two aren't in alignment. The intent of limiting subsidies solely to citizens of states that set up an exchange was supported and later refuted by Jonathon Gruber. SCOTUS determined that the intent of the law was for any citizen buying on an exchange would be eligible for subsidies, even though the wording supported those that brought suit.

quote:

Now, we have to look at the same question for the 14th Amendment. Clearly, the man who wrote that section does not agree that the Amendment intended to provide birthright Citizenship to citizens of another country who are not legally in the US.

quote:

The Elk case clearly shows that being under the full jurisdiction of the US was important (which was also brought up in the discussions leading up to ratification of the 14th Amendment) in determining birthright citizenship.

quote:

The Ark case clearly shows that children born in the US to legal resident non-US Citizens have birthright citizenship, which hinged on the legal presence of the parents, even after they returned to their home country.

quote:

That children born here of foreign diplomats do not gain birthright citizenship is strong evidence that simply being born on US soil does not guarantee birthright citizenship (and, this part was also included in discussions leading up to the passing of the 14 Amendment).

quote:

Clearly, we have intent not completely agreeing with the wording. Which, in your opinion, is more important, intent or wording?

quote:


Let's put out a hypothetical situation here. John and Jane Doe are US Citizens in Germany, working for a US company. During the 5 years they live there (only coming home for visits at Christmas), they have a child. What is the citizenship of the child, in the eyes of the US Government?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thegunnysez

quote:

:Thegunnysez
Previously you said the final words on the paper were the most important thing. Now it seems you have changed your mind. If that is the case then lets look at all 240+ opinions. The two you cited clearly disagree with your opinion of them.

quote:

:DesideriScuri
Show us the proof of the part I put in bold.

I believe this is the post I was referring to.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thegunnysez

quote:

Which do you support: literal translation of the law (the words used are what matter), or the spirit of the law (the intent of those that wrote the law)?

Don't you feel that both are necessary? We know that the slaves were illegal aliens. We know the framers of these three amendments were not unaware of the issues involved. Notice how native Americans are dealt with in these three amendments. The framers wanted to tailor the law to the need. That need being the enfranchisement of the offspring of illegal aliens while at the same time preventing the enfranchisement of native Americans.

No, I don't feel both are necessary, especially when they oppose each other.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thegunnysez

quote:

What you, apparently, forget is that you asked how the intent of a bill and the wording of the same bill could not be in agreement. I gave you an example.

No you did not. You gave an example of inference.