|
Title: You may/may not be guess who wants to repeal 1804 Post by: sgrizzle on November 27, 2007, 06:40:59 am http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/fn/5330080.html
... construction companies and homebuilders associations... I thought they "weren't using illegal immigrants." Posted because I'm sure DoubleA will be all over this. Title: You may/may not be guess who wants to repeal 1804 Post by: guido911 on November 27, 2007, 08:05:31 am quote: From the article: "Retailers and employers whose success depends on Latino business and workers have felt the pinch since Oklahoma's anti-illegal immigrant law went into effect on Nov. 1." Shouldn't this read: "Retailers and employers whose success depends on illegal, trespasser Latino business and workers have felt the pinch since Oklahoma's anti-illegal immigrant law went into effect on Nov. 1. Title: You may/may not be guess who wants to repeal 1804 Post by: sgrizzle on November 27, 2007, 08:10:06 am Not really, they depend on latino business. If they are still operating, then they weren't dependent solely on illegal immigrants. You could say they "partially depend" on illegal immigrants, but not fully.
Title: You may/may not be guess who wants to repeal 1804 Post by: cannon_fodder on November 27, 2007, 09:37:01 am Well then soon home buyers, commercial entities, and realtors will be missing them. But... as long as the feds are not willing to do anything the problem will remain with the states. Who will either do nothing, open their arms, or shut their doors. No middle ground and no real solution - just reactions to the problem.
Stupid imperial federal government. That's why I'm voting for Hillary... because like social security, the war, the budget and taxes she has promised to look at immigration when she is elected. I've always elected officials who don't know what they think until AFTER they are elected. /sarcasm Title: You may/may not be guess who wants to repeal 1804 Post by: Conan71 on November 27, 2007, 10:22:42 am I was just in one of the larger industrial laundry plants this morning. No shortage of Hispanic workers. I specifically asked the production manager about the fall-out from HB 1804 and he said he's only lost five workers in the last month that he can directly attribute to the bill. I don't have a clue how many people work there, but there were at least 40 cars or so around the plant.
After that, I drove a few blocks away to a commercial construction project. Electricians, plumbers, roofers, and some guys getting ready to assemble a large walk-in cooler. Not a single Hispanic on the job site out of about 15 men. Draw your own conclusions. I've been told by a few people that the Hispanics who are here are trying to be less visible. Perhaps they think it's easier to be "spotted" if they are working outdoors on a construction project from the street, rather than "hidden" deep inside some sort of plant. We've got an insulator who contracts with us who was "legalized" by the immigration act of '86 who has given me some pretty good info on what's happening in the local Hispanic community. I never paid attention before, but when I do see a Hispanic at the gas pump, their windows are almost always tinted. But the fender flares and horse etchings on the back window of their Chevy truck is still a dead giveaway. [}:)] We've had a shortage of good help since long before HB-1804, so I really don't see where it's put the pinch on the company I work for. It might dilute the pool of unskilled laborers who are now assuming jobs formerly occupied by Hispanics, but not in the skilled trades area. Prior to passage, I'd say less than 10% of our job applicants were Hispanic. Title: You may/may not be guess who wants to repeal 1804 Post by: Double A on November 27, 2007, 12:17:38 pm quote: If they need employees, they should get in contact with the labor unions in town, they will be happy to fill these jobs. Title: You may/may not be guess who wants to repeal 1804 Post by: Rico on November 27, 2007, 08:54:43 pm quote: "Union"....? That is an inflationary term.... double talk... lingo... for "Communism"...... That's why we have "Right To Work" and "Whirlpool"... No "Communism in Oklahoma"... Below is a paid commercial announcement for the "Employ all Americans Foundation" No mejicanos para hacer su trabajo? Bueno, llama el Senor Doble A.. El si puede limpiar su jardin.! Title: You may/may not be guess who wants to repeal 1804 Post by: inteller on November 27, 2007, 09:21:01 pm quote: I hope that this drives hundreds of shady companies out of business. Once we get rid of the people who caused this problem in the first place, the illegals will go away. Title: You may/may not be guess who wants to repeal 1804 Post by: Double A on November 27, 2007, 11:19:51 pm BTW, here's a shocker, I oppose "son of 1804". Although, I must admit I do support the provision about seizing the assets of Employers who use illegal labor, the rest of it I disagree with. Terrill's political opportunism regarding this issue is becoming more like legislative McCarthyism than good public policy, law and order. If he wants to change the 14th amendment he should get himself elected to federal office and start the process there. Last time I checked, the Constitution supersedes state law. This provision just seems to be a frivolous waste of time and resources, an empty gesture for pure political posturing.
Title: You may/may not be guess who wants to repeal 1804 Post by: guido911 on November 28, 2007, 10:47:16 am quote: Son of 1804: http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=071126_1_A1_spanc32887 Title: You may/may not be guess who wants to repeal 1804 Post by: guido911 on November 28, 2007, 11:01:23 am It would be interesting to see how the birth certificate aspect of the son of 1804 would play out, given the issuance and regulation of birth certificates generally falls within the authority of state government and not the federal government. Lucky for me there are numerous constitutional scholars on this forum like who can quickly answer how this could/could not be done.
Title: You may/may not be guess who wants to repeal 1804 Post by: rwarn17588 on November 28, 2007, 11:23:04 am You got it.
The Constitution says: Also: "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." Since people born on American soil are given automatic citizenship as explicitly spelled out in the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, it's not hard to figure out that not issuing birth certificates to American citizens is abridging a privilege. Title: You may/may not be guess who wants to repeal 1804 Post by: Hometown on November 28, 2007, 12:40:28 pm Both HB 1804 and the Oklahoma Republican drive to further gut state government have put us a trajectory that could lead to a second Okie migration.
Title: You may/may not be guess who wants to repeal 1804 Post by: iplaw on November 28, 2007, 01:41:28 pm quote:Still trotting out this line of crap? You lost this argument 6 months ago with me (remember the discussion about "anchor babies"). There is no law granting automatic citizenship to people born on American soil unless they are born to legal citizens/immigrants, and case law makes this abundantly clear. Unless you can point me to a case that states differently (and you couldn't 6 months ago)... Title: You may/may not be guess who wants to repeal 1804 Post by: guido911 on November 28, 2007, 01:44:02 pm quote: RW: Please, for once, just stop. Not all persons born "on American soil are given automotic citizenship." First, the statement in the Fourteeth Amenment you claim supports your point states "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 they reside." In the Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36, 73 (1872), the U.S. Supreme Court explained that "subject to its jurisdiction" excluded from its operation "children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States." Another interesting point from those cases was the impact the 14th Amendment had on national citizenship versus state citizenship. Indeed, in Snowden v. Hughes, 321 U.S. 1, 6-7, 64 S.Ct. 397,400 (1944), the U.S. Supreme Court stated: "The protection extended to citizens of the United States by the privileges and immunities clause includes those rights and privileges which, under the laws and Constitution of the United States, are incident to citizenship of the United States, but does not include rights pertaining to state citizenship and derived solely from the relationship of the citizen and his state established by state." In my post, I was simply making the point that the issuance of birth certificates is a function exclusive to the state. I would be interested to know if the federal givernment could compel Oklahoma to issue a birth certificate. Title: You may/may not be guess who wants to repeal 1804 Post by: rwarn17588 on November 28, 2007, 02:37:42 pm <guido wrote:
I would be interested to know if the federal givernment could compel Oklahoma to issue a birth certificate. <end clip> Yes. Title: You may/may not be guess who wants to repeal 1804 Post by: rwarn17588 on November 28, 2007, 02:43:47 pm "Subject to jurisdiction" means people who are in the United States, excluding those with diplomatic immunity.
The 14th Amendment is explicit and clear. You can turn acrobatic circles all you want, but it doesn't change the clarity of the amendment. Maybe you kids need to go back to school. And if you're somehow convinced that anchor babies (such as conservative pundit Michelle Malkin, incidentally) in the United States are somehow here illegally, call the feds and demand to arrest and deport them. You'll hear nothing but crickets. Title: You may/may not be guess who wants to repeal 1804 Post by: guido911 on November 28, 2007, 03:40:59 pm quote: Please RW, for the love of Pete just shut up. You have no idea what you are talking about. Second, if you would bother reading your own posts, YOU stated "Since people born on American soil are given automatic citizenship.." I pointed out that YOUR point was flat wrong--and now you agree with me but apparently I need to go back to school. Oh, and nice job dodging my second point about national verses state citizenship. Jeez. Please stick to topics you have some working knowledge of. Otherwise, you look stupid. Title: You may/may not be guess who wants to repeal 1804 Post by: Double A on November 28, 2007, 05:13:18 pm quote: Yeah, just shut up. They hate hearing truth spoken to power. Title: You may/may not be guess who wants to repeal 1804 Post by: guido911 on December 01, 2007, 12:01:18 pm quote: No AA, "they" hate misinformation spewed by the uneducated. Incidentally, any time you, RW, or any other person suffering from know-it-all-itis want to challenge me on a legal issue we differ on, let me know. Title: You may/may not be guess who wants to repeal 1804 Post by: Double A on December 02, 2007, 01:36:41 am CORRECTION: They hate hearing truth spoken to white power.
Title: You may/may not be guess who wants to repeal 1804 Post by: Rico on December 05, 2007, 10:21:32 pm quote: Do you suppose this may just Unravel .....? (http://"http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectID=11&articleID=071205_1_A1_hGOPs73808") Or will it take a little longer.? Title: You may/may not be guess who wants to repeal 1804 Post by: Chicken Little on December 06, 2007, 06:18:58 pm RWARN knows exactly what he's talking about.
quote: American citizenship is a birthright. All persons without diplomatic immunity are "subject to the jurisdiction". Iplaw is absolutely right, we have been all through this before, and he and his fine friends were wrong, then, too. Find me a case, esquires, where a person born here, not of diplomats, was denied US citizenship because of the status of their parents. Just. Freaking. One. From your favorite Heritage Foundation (http://"http://www.heritage.org/Research/GovernmentReform/wm925.cfm") wingnuts: quote:That is the ENTIRETY of your argument. That, and a $1.25, will get you a cup of coffee. That ain't law. That's not even a challenge. That's whining. So, either you beagles get on it or get off of it, but stop the whining. Title: You may/may not be guess who wants to repeal 1804 Post by: guido911 on December 06, 2007, 07:07:06 pm quote: What are you talking about? I pointed out that RW' original post was WRONG! Right now, you are agreeing with me. If you would read though the posts on this thread before you decided it was too important instead to look stupid, you would have picked up on that. My original point is that while U.S. citizenship may be a birthright, does that mean that the federal government can compel a state like Oklahoma to issue a birth certificate. Now, if you do not have anything intelligent to say on that point, then I say shut up. Title: You may/may not be guess who wants to repeal 1804 Post by: Double A on December 06, 2007, 09:00:19 pm quote: Not a chance of this getting repealed in the legislature. Looks like English might become the official language of Oklahoma, though: http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectID=11&articleID=071206_1_A13_hAlaw10161 Even if 1804 was repealed in the legislature, it would immediately be resurrected in the form of an initiative petition, most likely including the provisions of "son of 1804", and easily make it on to the ballot. The referendum would sail to victory with an overwhelmingly majority. Be careful what you wish for. Title: You may/may not be guess who wants to repeal 1804 Post by: Chicken Little on December 06, 2007, 09:19:10 pm quote:Probably should have quoted IP's post. This was his argument last time. That "anchor babies" weren't American because the Supreme Court hadn't specifially bestowed citizenship upon them. Utter BS. To your point, if the kid's a US citizen, why wouldn't he be entitled to equal protection under the 14th amendment? Title: You may/may not be guess who wants to repeal 1804 Post by: guido911 on December 06, 2007, 10:37:58 pm quote: Your question is at the heart of the anchor baby debate, not whether the "son of 1804" which could result in Oklahoma withholding birth certificates to children of illegals and whether such is constitutional. This was my only point, which is at the heart of the federalism. As to your question, look at that quote from the Snowden decision in an earlier post of mine. I believe it might answer your question. Title: You may/may not be guess who wants to repeal 1804 Post by: Chicken Little on December 08, 2007, 08:58:07 am So why would you, a conservative, want the Courts to "legislate from the bench"? Hypocritical, don't you think?
Title: You may/may not be guess who wants to repeal 1804 Post by: rwarn17588 on December 08, 2007, 01:28:34 pm Oh, baloney.
There is no debate, except among those who apply contortionist theories. Such far-flung theories are not applicable in the real world. If you're born in the United States, you're an American citizen. Period. If you think anchor babies are somehow illegal, try to arrest them and see how far you get. Title: You may/may not be guess who wants to repeal 1804 Post by: guido911 on December 08, 2007, 03:27:49 pm quote: Are you asking me this question? |