In the lexicon of the constitution, to be the subject of the jurisdiction of a particular nation is to recognize and yield to that nations jurisprudence. Many illegal aliens retain allegiance to mexico, and a newborn, even minors, are legally unable to grant that kind of consent.
We still get leaky boatloads of them.
quote:
Quoth Pvednes:
I was under the impression it was used as leverage towards permanent residency, in a similar vein to mail-order marriages.Not so?
It is, but only by wailing and crying and looking for sympathy. There is no legal loophole that allows them to stay, nor even any legal process by which their status can be changed.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Maradon! wrote their words upon the rocks;
It could very easily be argued that illegal aliens and their children are not subject to the jurisdiction of the united states, and thereby not legally citizens.In the lexicon of the constitution, to be the subject of the jurisdiction of a particular nation is to recognize and yield to that nations jurisprudence. Many illegal aliens retain allegiance to mexico, and a newborn, even minors, are legally unable to grant that kind of consent.
The problem is, the first two words of the section, that making arguing it pointless:
All - Meaning all, not just "consenting ones" or "People we like"
Persons - Not "people already citizens somewhere else"
So, following a strict reading an interpretation of the Constitution, a baby born on US soil no matter to whom (except foreign diplomatic staff), *is* a US citizen. Know of any court cases where the government tries to argue that a child born on US soil was not a US citizen? I don't.
My point is, there is no simple counter to the "anchor baby" loophole, as long as the 14th Amendment is there. There may be no counter at all, or someone would have found one... unless we declare their parents "foreign diplomatic staff." 
EDIT: Oh, by the way, an illegal alien caught by the police still has constitutional rights. Counsel, right to remain silent, fair trial, etc. The Constitution applies to everyone. Mightion Defensor fucked around with this message on 06-26-2007 at 12:51 AM.
quote:
Peanut butter ass Shaq Mightion Defensor booooze lime pole over bench lick:
The problem is, the first two words of the section, that making arguing it pointless:All - Meaning all, not just "consenting ones" or "People we like"
Persons - Not "people already citizens somewhere else"
No, might, those two words are immediately followed by qualifiers "born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"
People who were not born here or are not subject to our jurisdiction (as is the case with diplomats, as is the case with illegal aliens) are explicitly excluded.
That was kinda the entire point of my post. Maradon! fucked around with this message on 06-26-2007 at 01:57 AM.
I'm sorry if this is a stupid question, I'm probably missing something obvious
quote:
And the Replyobots combined to form Maradon!, who roared:
No, might, those two words are immediately followed by qualifiers "born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"People who were not born here or are not subject to our jurisdiction (as is the case with diplomats, as is the case with illegal aliens) are explicitly excluded.
That was kinda the entire point of my post.
I am referring only to "Anchor babies". They are US citizens. As for their parents, if they are on our soil, they are subject to our jurisdiction. They can be arrested; charged, tried, and sentenced.
My point is, legally, can we deport the parents of anchor babies? Legally, yes.
Does anyone deport the parents of anchor babies? No. (Unless I missed a human-rights shitstorm on CNN)
Is anyone (in government) saying we should deport the parents while leaving anchor babies with family/foster care? Not that I know of.
Is anyone (in government) likely to suggest it? Not likely. Even I can't stretch my cynicism so far to believe some heartless and idiotic politician would suggest such a thing.
quote:
Quoth Maradon!:
No, might, those two words are immediately followed by qualifiers "born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"People who were not born here or are not subject to our jurisdiction (as is the case with diplomats, as is the case with illegal aliens) are explicitly excluded.
That was kinda the entire point of my post.
Unless you suddenly became a constitutional lawyer while no one was looking, you should really quit trying to debate the True Meaning of the US Constitution. You've yet to get it right, in any of the myriad discussions where you've attempted it.
It's a fact of life that babies born on US soil are US citizens by default. Arguing that you don't think the Constitution reads that way is silly.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
Mightion stated that he believed the issue was iron clad without a constitutional amendment, I pointed out that it wasn't, that's all. I read and listen to a lot of news and I remember reading someone make this point but goddamn if I can't remember where.
It's moot anyway since I was only pointing out that the "anchor baby" loophole could be closed without a constitutional amendment, not claiming that I had the correct interpretation.
And Maradon, I don't know about you, but if I had to pick between paying taxes and being subject to getting kicked out of the country or thrown in jail without a moment's notice, I'd pay the taxes.
Actually, I already have that choice, and I pay the taxes. What makes you think illegals would do anything different? Blindy. fucked around with this message on 06-26-2007 at 08:58 AM.
And when I say alot easier, I mean it. Screw dealing with Mexico on this, we need to just worry about them on our side of the border. Put offices at the major crossing points, and set up a system that can allow us to process people through at a high rate. Special work visas, good for one year (just a guess on the duration), and encoded with the person's fingerprint data. Make it cost less to get the visa than it does to get smuggled into the US.
After about a year of this, go ape-shit postal all over the remaining illegals and any business that hires them.
Am I overlooking something that makes this not work? Yeah, I bet I am. And I'm sure someone will point it out to me. I just haven't thought of anything better, though.
I can sorta understand it. I mean, its like giving special attention to those who dont go through the mandatory legal process now. Where someone coming in from across the pond has to get all their ducks in a row and prove their usefullness, so to speak, this would be giving visas away for the virtue of 'well, they're already here'.
I think that detection of illegal status should be immediately dealt with. Arrest an illegal, deport them. They were jaywalking? So what? They're not here legally. They should be deported back out.
I think getting this bill passed will be a major buckling of will in regards to our borders.
quote:
It has been ordained by Primus, that there will be a Chosen One who will use the Matrix to "light our darkest hour." That darkest hour may come sooner if Maradon! keeps posting things like this:
Even if I were a constitutional lawyer, you'd just say I was making an appeal to experienceMightion stated that he believed the issue was iron clad without a constitutional amendment, I pointed out that it wasn't, that's all. I read and listen to a lot of news and I remember reading someone make this point but goddamn if I can't remember where.
It's moot anyway since I was only pointing out that the "anchor baby" loophole could be closed without a constitutional amendment, not claiming that I had the correct interpretation.
But you're basing your reinterpretation on the "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" phrase. It seems like you're saying they're not subject to our laws, even though it is not possible for an illegal alien to *not* be subject to our laws if they are on our soil.
Even diplomats with full diplomatic immunity are still subject to our jurisdiction to a degree. They can't murder someone on American soil and not get arrested and charged, they still have to obey the speed limits when driving, and such.
Oh, by the way, our nation does recognize dual citizenship. Arnold Schwarzenegger was not required to give up his Austrian citizenship when he became a US citizen, for example.
So no, Maradon. There is no logical way to claim illegal aliens are not subject to our jurisdiction.
quote:
This one time, at Mightion Defensor camp:
Oh, by the way, our nation does recognize dual citizenship. Arnold Schwarzenegger was not required to give up his Austrian citizenship when he became a US citizen, for example.
Technically, no. A person can have dual citizenship, but the US only recognizes US citizenship.
My mom is a dual citizen of England and here. England recognizes her dual citizenship, but America does not. It doesnt mean that she does not have it, but that American will not take her English citizenship into account legally.
quote:
Get the soap! Azakias just said:
I think the main issue is how people want to make it easier for illegals to work here.I can sorta understand it. I mean, its like giving special attention to those who dont go through the mandatory legal process now. Where someone coming in from across the pond has to get all their ducks in a row and prove their usefullness, so to speak, this would be giving visas away for the virtue of 'well, they're already here'.
I think that detection of illegal status should be immediately dealt with. Arrest an illegal, deport them. They were jaywalking? So what? They're not here legally. They should be deported back out.
I think getting this bill passed will be a major buckling of will in regards to our borders.
You're missing the point of the bill.
All things considered, illegals do jobs Americans don't want to do for wages Americans are not willing to take. They are a vital part of the economy in these regards, and deporting them would cause profit loss and/or inflation on some basic service industries (the ones who can't be outsourced to foreign nationals, like food service, grass cutting, construction, ect, ect). The money the illegals get paid, what little of it there is, is mostly spent right here in America. Yes, some gets sent out of the country, but the majority goes to line American companies' profits.
Simply removing the entire illegal population would cause huge holes in the economy and cause a lot of American run local businesses to go out of business- not just the ones that hire illegals, but the ones that illegals patron.
So ask yourself, what's the bad side of illegal immigrants?
a) They do not pay taxes
b) They make children, who consume taxes
Then there are the tertiary bad sides, which I consider to be mostly fluff but are worth consideration:
c) They may be criminals
d) They are a national security risk
Just because you document aliens does not mean you have to give them the full rights of an American Citizen. They would not be eligible for welfare, government grants, or voting, and considering that documenting these illegals (with fingerprints, dna, whatever) would give us better records of the actual population, allow us to charge them taxes, and give us a better means to track them city-to-city and kick them out if they have a criminal nature, I'm all for it. I mean, really. Let's get these guys on the books so we can start charging taxes, and let's document future immigrants so that we can charge them taxes too.
The classical argument is that if we open the doors, millions of immigrants that otherwise would not have come will come, but I have to argue that the job market for these people is not unlimited and when that dries up, so will the immigration rate.
quote:
Naimah - Naimah = 0:
If we are willing to change our laws in order to make illegal activity legal what is the point of having law, or given the presence of law, what is the point of respecting law?
Would you be equally against eliminating prohibition if this were 1933?
quote:
If Naimah was a glacier, they'd be a fast one:
Prohibition is hardly in the same category as the sanctity of our boarders. One is with regards to our sovereignty as a state, and the other is a moral preference. That's like comparing 'right on red' to theft.
I wasn't saying they were the same.
I was saying that sometimes laws do more harm than good, and getting rid of (or modifying) those laws is not necessarily a bad thing.
Edit: Look, even if we export these people, the damage has already been done. We've got generations of American citizens with immigrant parents who do not pay taxes to offset the government's burden to raise their kids.
If you get rid of the parents, guess what, you still have a generation of American citizens who's costs are not being offset by their parents.
So what do you want to do? Kick them out and continue paying for their children, or get them to help pay for their children? Or would you prefer to just to abolish all social welfare systems? Because out of the three of those options, I only see one as being plausible without causing either economic turmoil or riots in the major cities. Blindy. fucked around with this message on 06-26-2007 at 03:47 PM.
quote:
Blindy. had this to say about the Spice Girls:
I wasn't saying they were the same.
I was saying that sometimes laws do more harm than good, and getting rid of (or modifying) those laws is not necessarily a bad thing.
Agreed, but getting rid of a law simply because people are breaking that law is the wrong reason to do it. People consistently speed, but they don't increase the speed limits.
quote:
Nobody really understood why Naimah wrote:
Agreed, but getting rid of a law simply because people are breaking that law is the wrong reason to do it. People consistently speed, but they don't increase the speed limits.
In fact, they did that here in Michigan last month. Highway 496 which wraps around Lansing used to be 55mph. Too many people were flying through there at normal highway speed and causing accidents daily, in turn they bumped it up to 70mph.
It's a lot better now 
quote:
However, the Supreme Court's later ruling in Plyler v. Doe[4] stated that illegal immigrants are "within the jurisdiction" of the states in which they reside, and added in a footnote that "no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment 'jurisdiction' can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful."
There ya have it; Supreme Court precedent.
quote:
This insanity brought to you by Naimah:
Agreed, but getting rid of a law simply because people are breaking that law is the wrong reason to do it. People consistently speed, but they don't increase the speed limits.
That's because speed limits are set intentionally low for revenue generation.
quote:
Blindy.ing:
And Maradon, I don't know about you, but if I had to pick between paying taxes and being subject to getting kicked out of the country or thrown in jail without a moment's notice, I'd pay the taxes.
Because that's not the choice being put before them. In the current, now defunct senate immigration bill and other "comprehensive" bills being proposed, the illegals are granted legal, albeit non-citizen status the moment the bill is signed. The threat of deportation is no longer there.
quote:
All things considered, illegals do jobs Americans don't want to do for wages Americans are not willing to take.
First of all, this is a myth. Anybody who tells you illegal aliens are a vital part of the economy is an idiot or has an agenda. Canada and Japan do just fine without illegal immigrants. Most illegal immigrants aren't even working shit jobs, they're working for Tyson and Wal-Mart and making minimum wage already.
Even if this weren't a flat out propagandist lie (and it is) if we LEGALIZE all the illegal immigrants, suddenly we'll HAVE to pay them minimum wage and we won't have this allegedly cheap labor anyway, so this argument is doubly idiotic.
We have no labor shortage in this country. If every illegal alien in the country vanished tomorrow, a couple landscaping companies would be consolidated by larger landscaping companies and that's about it.
We certainly don't need them here and we're probably a lot better off without them, they are using far, far more than they create and they are breaking the law.
quote:
Just because you document aliens does not mean you have to give them the full rights of an American Citizen. They would not be eligible for welfare, government grants
Take a look at the bills being proposed chief - in the Senate immigration bill and every other bill deemed "comprehensive" by the left, not only do illegal aliens get every social service under the sun the second the bill is signed, they get in-state tuition at colleges, social security that they never paid into, and a wealth of other shit.
quote:
Maradon! isn't in Kansas anymore:
Because that's not the choice being put before them. In the current, now defunct senate immigration bill and other "comprehensive" bills being proposed, the illegals are granted legal, albeit non-citizen status the moment the bill is signed. The threat of deportation is no longer there.
Uhm.. ok? You said "You think they'll just VOLUNTARILY become citizens and start paying taxes?" And I'm saying "Yes. Yes they will."
quote:
First of all, this is a myth. Anybody who tells you illegal aliens are a vital part of the economy is an idiot or has an agenda. Canada and Japan do just fine without illegal immigrants. Most illegal immigrants aren't even working shit jobs, they're working for Tyson and Wal-Mart and making minimum wage already.Even if this weren't a flat out propagandist lie (and it is) if we LEGALIZE all the illegal immigrants, suddenly we'll HAVE to pay them minimum wage and we won't have this allegedly cheap labor anyway, so this argument is doubly idiotic.
We have no labor shortage in this country. If every illegal alien in the country vanished tomorrow, a couple landscaping companies would be consolidated by larger landscaping companies and that's about it.
We certainly don't need them here and we're probably a lot better off without them, they are using far, far more than they create and they are breaking the law.
If we didn't have a (willing to work for very cheap) labor shortage, then why is there a job market for the resident illegal aliens? You think people just enjoy running a company that speaks two different languages?
quote:
Take a look at the bills being proposed chief - in the Senate immigration bill and every other bill deemed "comprehensive" by the left, not only do illegal aliens get every social service under the sun the second the bill is signed, they get in-state tuition at colleges, social security that they never paid into, and a wealth of other shit.
I am not in favor of this immigration bill for this very reason. The left is trying to go way to far so they can secure some more voters in their base. But you can do this without giving them the welfare system access, or social security, or any of the other fringe benefits.
Living in North Carolina, I distinctly remember that vast numbers of Mexicans were pretty much necessary to keep the assorted farm operations up and running. And they were there in numbers large enough that farmers could pretty much pay them as much as they liked and treat them however they liked.
Now...the upside of a situation like that is that we get to continue having farms the way we like them. I personally think farm subsidies are freakishly high and we're wasting a lot of agri-power on crops the government essentially pays farmers not to grow, but that's a wholly different argument. For farms as they exist in the United States to function as they do now, you need illegals.
Living in North Carolina, a lot of cleaning staff at schools and major companies were black folks. In Indiana, that's where I see the largest concentration of non-English-Speaking Hispanics (by "Non-English-Speaking" I mean not having the equivalent English language skills of, say, a sixth grader) (mind you I don't live in a rural area anymore, and according to the news there's a sizeable migrant illegal population, primarily from Mexico who live in the state, and lord knows I see a lot of NESH's cruising in their rustbuckets to suppose that the news is correct).
Now, based on those observed facts, I'm willing to believe that there is a large undocumented sub-class of workers. I'm willing to believe that this sub-class works for lower pay, or equal pay off-the-books, and is a drain on the system in numerous ways.
So as it stands right now we need them (and don't kid yourselves with the "well if the Mexicans weren't taking the jobs, white folks and black folks would" argument. If that were true you wouldn't have white trash trailer parks snuffling off of welfare, people scamming financial aid checks ad infinitum from community colleges that by law can't turn anyone away, and massive 'hoods full of black folks driving cadillacs and dressing nice but not actually having any job), and they really don't have any impetus to get any sort of legal standing. We'll provide health care for them. We'll provide housing for their anchor babies, and Mooj is right, so long as they keep cranking out the kids, the benefits never run out.
I think that whatever the choice may be in shipping them out, we need to have a fundamental reality check. People hate the notion of social stratification, and they hate the idea of legal stratification, but the simple fact is that we've managed to paint ourselves into a pretty nasty corner pretending those things don't already exist.
Any poor person can tell you that there's a difference between how they live and how someone with more money lives. There's plenty of reasons for it (education, fiscal planning, etc), but it exists. And there already exists a legal stratification. But...THIS IS NOT A NEW FACT. Insular non-assimilated communities have ALWAYS had alternate rules. Hollywood glamorizes it when you see references to "Chinatown" or Italian-American stereotypes, but it's nothing new. There was a piece on NPR a while back talking about how if you know somebody who knows somebody in most neighborhoods even in NYC, you can get your car fixed to professional quality off-the-books for a fraction of what it costs to get it done at a shop. It happens there, and those are completely legal, naturalized or native-born Americans. You can be damned sure that it happens amongst the illegals. There have been papers and studies talking with grudging admiration about how information is rapidly-disseminated in these communities (and particularly amongst illegals).
And yet we have people who think that if we offer them the chance to take part in all the trappings of our country (taxes, licenses, etc), they'll be happy to give up what they've got. And it might be true in some cases, but there's enough of an issue here where the "some cases" just plain can't speak for the others. If you've been here for five or more years illegally, you've found a way you like to live off the proverbial grid. And there are people routinely found who've been here ten years or more illegally. WHY would someone who's been here five or more years illegally bother getting legal or risk getting deported if they can just keep going the way they're going? They get a lot of necessities for free, after all.
So I'd say codify the non-native lower class. Want government funding for your hospital? You treat either only documented citizens or documented non-citizens. Your responsibility to documented citizens is highest, followed by documented non-citizens. Non-documented non-citizens can suck it up. Same deal with welfare. If you're a citizen, you get the benefit of the welfare system. If you're a documented non-citizen, you get a lesser range of benefits. If you're a non-documented non-citizen, you get dick.
Anchor babies? Let's be clear on anchor babies. Their parents aren't coming to America because they want what's best for the baby. The baby isn't born yet, and the mother is taking HIGHLY dangerous risks (assuming she's already pregnant when she makes the choice to flee her native country) with her unborn child in an attempt to make an end run on a technicality. Even if 50% of the time the primary, deal-making reason, the real drive to flee the native country is this unborn child, then you're STILL admitting that half the time it's personal, completely selfish, reasons. Reasons that, to accomplish the goal, exploit a child. Exploitation of a child is grounds in the United States for removing them from their parents. Don't EVEN get me started on people who've been here illegally for a while and then have a kid.
Now. Should the child be taken forever? No. My mother was adopted, and she's filled my head with all sorts of horror stories about orphanages in the 50's and 60's, how vile foster homes can be, and even if they have been cleaned up signficantly (and all indications are things have changed for the better), it's still not an ideal situation. If the parent loses their kid, their name and information should be tracked and if they make the journey to getting citizenship (thus proving their honest intent), they should get their kid back. No one wants to break up homes, but at this point a certain cynicism about the number of "anchor babies" is inevitable.
And there shouldn't be a deal of "well so long as you can spawn offspring, you can stay on the system" for anyone. Nothing is quite so maddening as people who breed constantly in lieu of finding a job. Don't bother arguing the point. It happens. I saw it constantly in North Carolina. White folks, black folks, hispanic folks. Doesn't matter. If irresponsible breeding becomes a workable alternative to gainful employment, if scamming the system becomes a workable alternative to gainful employment, then what are the hopes that you will ever get such scammers and breeders gainfully employed?
So congratulations. You have no job, and you've just spawned a kid. Here's your check, here's your benefits. The clock is now ticking. You will get no added benefits for additional offspring. Social services WILL be watching you, and if you can't take care of your kids, you will be relieved of your parenting duties. And, coincidentally, those checks you get WILL stop when you are relieved of your parenting duties, and be redistributed to the professionals now caring for your children.
IN EXCHANGE...The government will do everything in it's power to help Non-Documented Non-Citizens become Documented Non-Citizens (at certain costs), and Documented Non-Citizens can of course always apply for citizenship and go through the same immigration and naturalization procedure as everyone else. Documented Non-Citizens will be given access to help finding jobs with monitored employers who will NOT exploit Non-Citizens. You'll work for lower wages, and have fewer benefits (as described above). It will be hard. But it will be survivable. And it will be a path toward getting the good stuff.
Learning to assimilate into any culture, especially one as diverse and complex as American culture can be tricky, and if you need the running head start from NonDoc-NonCit to a Doc-NonCit to a DocCit, then so be it. How long it takes is dependent entirely on the individual and their drive.
And I have no illusions about how long this sort of thing would take to get up and running. I'd give them a year's warning or so then switch over. People won't believe it'll actually happen. Guarantee you once their cozy benefits start getting messed with we'll see some changes, though.
sigpic courtesy of This Guy, original modified by me
I agreed with roughly 85%-90% of that post, which is amazing, as my political views are an amalgam of most issues.
The problem with my ideas is that there's these things called details.
sigpic courtesy of This Guy, original modified by me
