Rep. Terrillbe is working up the newest version of this misery.
It goes like this. If you own property and there is an illegal caught doing work on that property, the state gets to step in and confiscate your property for being party to a criminal act.
Tulsa's sheriff is becoming rather notorious. Hope this doesn't divert his attention and resources from real crime.
Oh, good--some people need more reason to fear Hispanics being in their yard.
Y'all stay clear of my yard. I'm keeping a coffee can full of rocks on my porch just in case.
Are you sure you are reading correctly? Is this barroom talk or do you have an article from the timesonline.com you can post?
Source please?
If that is the case, I don't see a chance in hell of that being passed. Not even wealthy Repugs who employ illegals would go for that one.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Are you sure you are reading correctly? Is this barroom talk or do you have an article from the timesonline.com you can post?
Source please?
If that is the case, I don't see a chance in hell of that being passed. Not even wealthy Repugs who employ illegals would go for that one.
I have my sources.....but will refuse to reveal them for their own privacy. But wait and see.....if I am wrong, I will admit it.
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
Rep. Terrillbe is working up the newest version of this misery.
It goes like this. If you own property and there is an illegal caught doing work on that property, the state gets to step in and confiscate your property for being party to a criminal act.
Tulsa's sheriff is becoming rather notorious. Hope this doesn't divert his attention and resources from real crime.
I think those that deliberately/knowingly higher illegals should have their assets and property confiscated as well as serve time behind bars and then when they get out lose any ability to own and or operate a business.
OOOOPPPSSSS!!!!!!
quote:
Originally posted by jamesrage
Quote
I think those that deliberately/knowingly higher illegals should have their assets and property confiscated as well as serve time behind bars and then when they get out lose any ability to own and or operate a business.
You seem very angry about this. I'm guessing this is true because of the stylized skull you use for your avatar and the fact that you have the word "rage" in your handle.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, though. I don't want to mistake cold calculation for random unstoppable fury.
It would be interesting to see what the burden of proof is. I've never once checked a contractors immigration status before letting him work. I've never checked with my mechanic to see if he is legal. This summer, a neighbor kid was pushing a mower and a gas can down the street and mowed my lawn for $15 - I failed to check his immigration status.
Seriously, has anyone here had a plumber show up and ask for his social security card (which would take a good 5 minutes to fake well enough to fool 95% of the population anyway)? I never have.
What about sub contractors? If I hire a roofer and have him tender his SS card am I clear, or do I have to check the entire crew? What if he needs a crane to get the work done, do I have to flag down the crane operator? Recently I had BestBuy deliver a new dish washer, I did not ask for proof of citizenship.
If they don't have "proof" on them do I just deny them work or am I required to hold them at gunpoint until the cops come? When the cops come, is that counted as "work" on my property for which I have to check their citizen status? Hey, what about firemen? I don't want no stinking Mexican firemen saving my property only so it can get confiscated.
The systems broken. Forcing people to question each other isn't going to fix it.
If true, this would be the poorest Band-Aid our state could use to try and plug the gaping hole we call our southern border.
This could get into all sorts of areas. Imagine a general contractor employing 15 different subs in specialty trades to build a 10,000 sq. ft building. Let's say the project is completed and the company employed to do the final cleaning happens to have an illegal alien working for them, TCSD shows up or INS and locks down the new building before a stick of furniture gets moved in.
In this case, the property owner had nothing to do with, nor knowledge of the illegal working on his property, yet he gets property confiscated. That's pretty jacked up.
Even if it got as far as his desk, I couldn't see Gov. Henry signing it, and I really don't see it as being easily enforceable.
My favorite part of the "son of 1804" is Terrill wanting to "challenge" the 14th amendment to the constitution.
How exactly do you challenge the constitution?
Here's what the 14th Amendment states:
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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
He's an idiot of epic proportions that obviously failed his high school civics class.
quote:
Originally posted by swake
My favorite part of the "son of 1804" is Terrill wanting to "challenge" the 14th amendment to the constitution.
How exactly do you challenge the constitution?
Here's what the 14th Amendment states:
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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
He's an idiot of epic proportions that obviously failed his high school civics class.
Even an idiot can see the wiggle room in the Constitution, which should be discussed. It's far from open/shut so please stop acting like it is.
The key phrase appears to be "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof". So, does simple presence make you a 'citizen of this country"?
If so, it kind of makes passports meaningless and would allow anyone to decide their own citizenship by means of simple transportation.
There can also be made some reasonable argument that those born here are assumed to be from legal residents.
The "without due process of law" part also injects the possibility that the Constitution intended to allow legislative jurisdiction.
But, take the simpleton approach if you choose.
Wrinkle, what might be more compelling is the phrase:
quote:
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws
Note, it does not say "any citizen" or "person born here" or "them." It says "any person." The prior passage specifies "citizens of the United States" and thus we can tell that the author knew how to distinguish between citizens and everyone. That is usually the basis for providing rights to non-citizens that are in the United States.
This subject was previously debated here:
http://www.tulsanow.net/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=8147&whichpage=1&SearchTerms=14th%2Camendment%2Cjurisdiction
quote:
Originally posted by jamesrage
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
Rep. Terrillbe is working up the newest version of this misery.
It goes like this. If you own property and there is an illegal caught doing work on that property, the state gets to step in and confiscate your property for being party to a criminal act.
Tulsa's sheriff is becoming rather notorious. Hope this doesn't divert his attention and resources from real crime.
I think those that deliberately/knowingly higher illegals should have their assets and property confiscated as well as serve time behind bars and then when they get out lose any ability to own and or operate a business.
why stop there?
make the punishment fit the crime.
lethal injection is our only solution.
dey took yer jawb!
derp dee doo.
What I can't understand is why we are debating the constitutionality of a law applying to illegal immigrants, when we should be debating the constitutionality of laws banning same-sex marriage for citizens, etc.
quote:
Originally posted by grahambino
why stop there?
make the punishment fit the crime.
lethal injection is our only solution.
dey took yer jawb!
derp dee doo.
Back in the pile.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
I've never once checked a contractors immigration status before letting him work.
But, that's your job now. HB 1804 makes all of us part of the police apparatus. If you know of someone here illegally, you must report it, or you could be guilty of a felony. Ain't no such thing as an unknowing innocent anymore. Bunch of fascist cr*p if you ask me.
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
QuoteOriginally posted by cannon_fodder
... Bunch of fascist cr*p if you ask me.
Thank goodness no one asked you...
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
The key phrase appears to be "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"...
EVERYBODY, other than a handful of folks with formal diplomatic immunity, is "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States and the state that they are in. There's no debate there.
Being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States doesn't confirm your citizenship, it confirms you are a person without immunity, and not a diplomat, tiger, or sofa. Thus, if you are not a diplomat, tiger, or sofa, and you were born here, then you are an American citizen.
Anybody who argues against birthright generally hasn't thought things through. What makes YOU an American citizen?
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
I've never once checked a contractors immigration status before letting him work.
But, that's your job now. HB 1804 makes all of us part of the police apparatus. If you know of someone here illegally, you must report it, or you could be guilty of a felony. Ain't no such thing as an unknowing innocent anymore. Bunch of fascist cr*p if you ask me.
You don't have to ask EVERYONE. Just the ones that everyone assumes are illegal--you know, the brown ones.
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
You don't have to ask EVERYONE. Just the ones that everyone assumes are illegal--you know, the brown ones.
Shhhh. This is not a racist law.
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
It would be interesting to see what the burden of proof is. I've never once checked a contractors immigration status before letting him work. I've never checked with my mechanic to see if he is legal. This summer, a neighbor kid was pushing a mower and a gas can down the street and mowed my lawn for $15 - I failed to check his immigration status.
Seriously, has anyone here had a plumber show up and ask for his social security card (which would take a good 5 minutes to fake well enough to fool 95% of the population anyway)? I never have.
What about sub contractors? If I hire a roofer and have him tender his SS card am I clear, or do I have to check the entire crew? What if he needs a crane to get the work done, do I have to flag down the crane operator? Recently I had BestBuy deliver a new dish washer, I did not ask for proof of citizenship.
If they don't have "proof" on them do I just deny them work or am I required to hold them at gunpoint until the cops come? When the cops come, is that counted as "work" on my property for which I have to check their citizen status? Hey, what about firemen? I don't want no stinking Mexican firemen saving my property only so it can get confiscated.
The systems broken. Forcing people to question each other isn't going to fix it.
Best post I've ever read on here!
quote:
Originally posted by midtownnewbie
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
It would be interesting to see what the burden of proof is. I've never once checked a contractors immigration status before letting him work. I've never checked with my mechanic to see if he is legal. This summer, a neighbor kid was pushing a mower and a gas can down the street and mowed my lawn for $15 - I failed to check his immigration status.
Seriously, has anyone here had a plumber show up and ask for his social security card (which would take a good 5 minutes to fake well enough to fool 95% of the population anyway)? I never have.
What about sub contractors? If I hire a roofer and have him tender his SS card am I clear, or do I have to check the entire crew? What if he needs a crane to get the work done, do I have to flag down the crane operator? Recently I had BestBuy deliver a new dish washer, I did not ask for proof of citizenship.
If they don't have "proof" on them do I just deny them work or am I required to hold them at gunpoint until the cops come? When the cops come, is that counted as "work" on my property for which I have to check their citizen status? Hey, what about firemen? I don't want no stinking Mexican firemen saving my property only so it can get confiscated.
The systems broken. Forcing people to question each other isn't going to fix it.
Best post I've ever read on here!
That's all we need, CF with an inflated ego.[}:)]
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
I've never once checked a contractors immigration status before letting him work.
But, that's your job now. HB 1804 makes all of us part of the police apparatus. If you know of someone here illegally, you must report it, or you could be guilty of a felony. Ain't no such thing as an unknowing innocent anymore. Bunch of fascist cr*p if you ask me.
You don't have to ask EVERYONE. Just the ones that everyone assumes are illegal--you know, the brown ones.
Okay, you really got me laughing with that one. [}:)]
quote:
Originally posted by cannon_fodder
Wrinkle, what might be more compelling is the phrase:
quote:
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws
Note, it does not say "any citizen" or "person born here" or "them." It says "any person." The prior passage specifies "citizens of the United States" and thus we can tell that the author knew how to distinguish between citizens and everyone. That is usually the basis for providing rights to non-citizens that are in the United States.
There's that 'jurisdiction' word again.
See prior posting.
But, does 'equal protection under the law' extend 'Constitutional Rights' of citizens to anyone here? I think not, though some 'rights' are basic and apply to all, not all of them.
In general, I think the Constitution meant if they are arrested for a crime, or the victim of one, our existing laws will be applied equally.
It does not intend to say they can vote, for example.
<Wrinkle says:
But, does 'equal protection under the law' extend 'Constitutional Rights' of citizens to anyone here?
<end clip>
Yes.
Next question.
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
There's that 'jurisdiction' word again.
See prior posting.
But, does 'equal protection under the law' extend 'Constitutional Rights' of citizens to anyone here? I think not, though some 'rights' are basic and apply to all, not all of them.
In general, I think the Constitution meant if they are arrested for a crime, or the victim of one, our existing laws will be applied equally.
It does not intend to say they can vote, for example.
The right to vote has nothing to do with it. Many felons can't vote. Does this mean that their children aren't citizens?
If you are born here to persons who do not enjoy diplomatic immunity, you are an American citizen. I'm presuming you are not a naturalized citizen, and so, this is the one and only claim that you yourself have to US citizenship. It's your birthright...and the birthright of
them people (insert euphemism here), too.
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
There's that 'jurisdiction' word again.
See prior posting.
But, does 'equal protection under the law' extend 'Constitutional Rights' of citizens to anyone here? I think not, though some 'rights' are basic and apply to all, not all of them.
In general, I think the Constitution meant if they are arrested for a crime, or the victim of one, our existing laws will be applied equally.
It does not intend to say they can vote, for example.
The right to vote has nothing to do with it. Many felons can't vote. Does this mean that their children aren't citizens?
If you are born here to persons who do not enjoy diplomatic immunity, you are an American citizen. I'm presuming you are not a naturalized citizen, and so, this is the one and only claim that you yourself have to US citizenship.
Same old argument, eh CL? Why are you bringing it up here? The discussion isn't about native-born citizens, it's about the ones who migrated here illegally and the government seizing the property of others due to them.
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
But, does 'equal protection under the law' extend 'Constitutional Rights' of citizens to anyone here? I think not, though some 'rights' are basic and apply to all, not all of them.
The 14th amendment doesn't extend
privileges to non-citizens, but it does guarantee equal
protection to all "persons." So no, non-citizens don't get to vote. But I assume that it does prevent the creation of a second-class category of person-hood, which seems to be what 1804 is seeking to do.
Text from Wikipedia (//%22http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution%22)
quote:
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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Same old argument, eh CL? Why are you bringing it up here? The discussion isn't about native-born citizens, it's about the ones who migrated here illegally and the government seizing the property of others due to them.
The 14th Amendment was ratified on July 9, 1868. Yeah, that's pretty old. What's your point? This argument most certainly is about denying the rights of citizenship to certain people who were born on US soil. What's your definition of "native-born"?
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
<Wrinkle says:
But, does 'equal protection under the law' extend 'Constitutional Rights' of citizens to anyone here?
<end clip>
Yes.
Next question.
I disagree.
A 'right' and a law are very different.
Though, some rights are indifferent, some are.
You seem to grant citizenship to anyone who shows up.
Next objection.
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
There's that 'jurisdiction' word again.
See prior posting.
But, does 'equal protection under the law' extend 'Constitutional Rights' of citizens to anyone here? I think not, though some 'rights' are basic and apply to all, not all of them.
In general, I think the Constitution meant if they are arrested for a crime, or the victim of one, our existing laws will be applied equally.
It does not intend to say they can vote, for example.
The right to vote has nothing to do with it. Many felons can't vote. Does this mean that their children aren't citizens?
If you are born here to persons who do not enjoy diplomatic immunity, you are an American citizen. I'm presuming you are not a naturalized citizen, and so, this is the one and only claim that you yourself have to US citizenship. It's your birthright...and the birthright of them people (insert euphemism here), too.
You jump to illogical conclusions here.
Because a convicted felon cannot vote has nothing to do with the citizenship of their children.
But, voting is a right of citizenship subject to the jurisdiction of the government.
The government, via the electorate (I presume), determined convicted felons should not be extended the right to vote. And, while I personally disagree with the breadth of this law, it is the current situation.
So, rights are indeed subject to the jurisdiction. In fact, the government can even revoke your citizenship under certain conditions, which means it has the ability to control the conditions of citizenship.
And, the rights of citizens is different than the rights of non-citizens. As you know, non-citizens are not allowed to vote. At least, aren't supposed to be, even though many do.
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Same old argument, eh CL? Why are you bringing it up here? The discussion isn't about native-born citizens, it's about the ones who migrated here illegally and the government seizing the property of others due to them.
The 14th Amendment was ratified on July 9, 1868. Yeah, that's pretty old. What's your point? This argument most certainly is about denying the rights of citizenship to certain people who were born on US soil. What's your definition of "native-born"?
I've already chased your shifting goal post on who is a native U.S. citizen once before, not doing it again. What was your point in bringing this issue up? I'll say it again, no one said a thing about native-born U.S. citizens causing other's to lose their property.
14th amendment doesn't apply here because the 14th amendment did not grant automatic citizenship to people who have entered this country illegally. Those are the people HB 1804 and this latest rumored variant target.
So long as proof-of-citizenship requirements are meted out equally, no single group is discriminated against.
Otherwise it's nothing more than hyperbole that paints scary pictures in peoples heads of OHP cars and TCSD cars with sharp teeth in the grills chasing every hapless "brown" person across the border to Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, Texas, Colorado, or New Mexico.
Unless anyone here is TCSD, OHP, INS, or TPD and cares to admit to profiling, then anyone else's assertions of it is just emotional speculation.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
I've already chased your shifting goal post on who is a native U.S. citizen once before, not doing it again.
Why? Because you lost? It's not a "shifting" anything. If you are born here, to parents who are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, then you are a citizen. That's what the 14th Amendment says...explicitly. Beyond immunity status, everything else about your parents is immaterial.
quote:
...14th amendment did not grant automatic citizenship to people who have entered this country illegally
Yes, I know. It grants citizenship to their
children born here. And that's what bothers y'all for some reason.
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
You jump to illogical conclusions here.
Because a convicted felon cannot vote has nothing to do with the citizenship of their children.
I didn't jump anywhere, you did. And it just so happens that you jumped into a pile of dog doo. The fact that a child's parents are here illegally at the time of that child's birth has nothing to do with the citizenship of the child.
quote:
But, voting is a right of citizenship subject to the jurisdiction of the government.
The government, via the electorate (I presume), determined convicted felons should not be extended the right to vote. And, while I personally disagree with the breadth of this law, it is the current situation.
So, rights are indeed subject to the jurisdiction. In fact, the government can even revoke your citizenship under certain conditions, which means it has the ability to control the conditions of citizenship.
And, the rights of citizens is different than the rights of non-citizens. As you know, non-citizens are not allowed to vote. At least, aren't supposed to be, even though many do.
The 14th Amendment says
persons who are subject to the jurisdiction of the US. Not "voting" or "rights".
I can see that you are trying to use some form of transitive reasoning, i.e., if A equals B, and B equals C, then A equals C. But it doesn't even get off the ground. A person and a right are not the same thing.
quote:
Originally posted by we vs us
quote:
Originally posted by jamesrage
Quote
I think those that deliberately/knowingly higher illegals should have their assets and property confiscated as well as serve time behind bars and then when they get out lose any ability to own and or operate a business.
You seem very angry about this. I'm guessing this is true because of the stylized skull you use for your avatar and the fact that you have the word "rage" in your handle.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, though. I don't want to mistake cold calculation for random unstoppable fury.
My choice of avatar and user name is not the topic of the thread nor does it have any relevance.
quote:
Originally posted by grahambino
why stop there?
make the punishment fit the crime?
Taking the property and assets from those who knowingly/deliberately hire illegals does fit the crime because they are basically profiting from illegal activities and using money for illegal purposes when they hire illegals.Asset forfeiture/forfeiture and seizure laws should apply to those who hire illegals just as it does to drug dealers and other criminals.
quote:
Originally posted by jamesrage
Taking the property and assets from those who knowingly/deliberately hire illegals does fit the crime because they are basically profiting from illegal activities and using money for illegal purposes when they hire illegals.Asset forfeiture/forfeiture and seizure laws should apply to those who hire illegals just as it does to drug dealers and other criminals.
Best argument yet.
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
You jump to illogical conclusions here.
Because a convicted felon cannot vote has nothing to do with the citizenship of their children.
I didn't jump anywhere, you did. And it just so happens that you jumped into a pile of dog doo. The fact that a child's parents are here illegally at the time of that child's birth has nothing to do with the citizenship of the child.
quote:
But, voting is a right of citizenship subject to the jurisdiction of the government.
The government, via the electorate (I presume), determined convicted felons should not be extended the right to vote. And, while I personally disagree with the breadth of this law, it is the current situation.
So, rights are indeed subject to the jurisdiction. In fact, the government can even revoke your citizenship under certain conditions, which means it has the ability to control the conditions of citizenship.
And, the rights of citizens is different than the rights of non-citizens. As you know, non-citizens are not allowed to vote. At least, aren't supposed to be, even though many do.
The 14th Amendment says persons who are subject to the jurisdiction of the US. Not "voting" or "rights".
I can see that you are trying to use some form of transitive reasoning, i.e., if A equals B, and B equals C, then A equals C. But it doesn't even get off the ground. A person and a right are not the same thing.
It says, "all persons born or naturalized".
An argument can be made that naturalization was the alternate to persons born to legal citizens.
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
It says, "all persons born or naturalized".
An argument can be made that naturalization was the alternate to persons born to legal citizens.
If I'm understanding you, then no. Where does it say anywhere that your parents have to here legally? And "Born or naturalized" refers to the person herself, not the parent of that person. There's a difference.
And it's not just a difference in language, it's about our values, too. We don't like criminality. But what crime has this child committed?
Yesterday, it seemed clearly outrageous that we would punish the child of a convicted felon for the actions of their parent. You wouldn't deny that child the right to vote, or any rights as a citizen of this country.
And it's equally outrageous, and also obscene and unamerican, that we would punish an innocent child for the actions of his or her parents by denying them their birthright. We don't punish people for "sins of the father" anymore. That went away with debtor's prisons and witch dunking.
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
It says, "all persons born or naturalized".
An argument can be made that naturalization was the alternate to persons born to legal citizens.
If I'm understanding you, then no. Where does it say anywhere that your parents have to here legally? And "Born or naturalized" refers to the person herself, not the parent of that person. There's a difference.
And it's not just a difference in language, it's about our values, too. We don't like criminality. But what crime has this child committed?
Yesterday, it seemed clearly outrageous that we would punish the child of a convicted felon for the actions of their parent. You wouldn't deny that child the right to vote, or any rights as a citizen of this country.
And it's equally outrageous, and also obscene and unamerican, that we would punish an innocent child for the actions of his or her parents by denying them their birthright. We don't punish people for "sins of the father" anymore. That went away with debtor's prisons and witch dunking.
Since when is it 'punishment' to not allow anyone to be a citizen?
You may view it that way, but it's not, any more than being born of one race or another is 'punishment'.
The entire question is just that, what IS their birthright?
You say it's one thing, others disagree. The Constitution has enough ambiguities that it should be tested. Maybe contested is not the approapriate word, but tested means to feather out.
Let all argue the issue and determine a solution. It's really not that clear. And, appears we've been operating on a batch of assumptions requiring clarification. Another issue is if the Constitution, as written, allows legislative control of these things.
At the root, did Framers anticipate the current situation and properly incorporate remedy into the wording of the Constitution?
As for values, those may be able to be addressed if the legislative issue is resolved. Then, laws can be shaped around values. As it is, values are as variable as people. You and I, for example, have a different value on this issue. It doesn't make either of us wrong/right, just different.
But, I'm pretty sure there's no God-given right to be a U.S. Citizen. Nor is it punishment for one not to be.
And, to be clear, illegally entering the United States is not a serious crime. It is a simple misdemeanor, the same class of crime as jaywalking or speeding. Would you also advocate denying citizenship to children of speeders? Or seizing the automobiles of people that park illegally?
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
Since when is it 'punishment' to not allow anyone to be a citizen?
You may view it that way, but it's not, any more than being born of one race or another is 'punishment'.
The entire question is just that, what IS their birthright?
You say it's one thing, others disagree. The Constitution has enough ambiguities that it should be tested. Maybe contested is not the approapriate word, but tested means to feather out.
Let all argue the issue and determine a solution. It's really not that clear. And, appears we've been operating on a batch of assumptions requiring clarification. Another issue is if the Constitution, as written, allows legislative control of these things.
At the root, did Framers anticipate the current situation and properly incorporate remedy into the wording of the Constitution?
As for values, those may be able to be addressed if the legislative issue is resolved. Then, laws can be shaped around values. As it is, values are as variable as people. You and I, for example, have a different value on this issue. It doesn't make either of us wrong/right, just different.
But, I'm pretty sure there's no God-given right to be a U.S. Citizen. Nor is it punishment for one not to be.
There is a right to be a citizen, and it's granted...explicity...in the 14th Amendment. Since when is depriving someone of a right a good thing? The right to citizenship of a child born to foreign parents has already been affirmed (//%22http://law.jrank.org/pages/13135/United-States-v-Wong-Kim-Ark.html%22)...a long time ago in 1897. Among other findings:
quote:
The Court recognized Congress's right to deny citizenship by passing naturalization laws. In cases where birth was the source of citizenship, however, the Court ruled that Congress had no power to remove a right granted by the Constitution.
quote:
Originally posted by swake
And, to be clear, illegally entering the United States is not a serious crime. It is a simple misdemeanor, the same class of crime as jaywalking or speeding. Would you also advocate denying citizenship to children of speeders? Or seizing the automobiles of people that park illegally?
The act of entering illegally is not a serious crime, granted. I think in legal terms, it's what's termed an 'enabler' issue.
If all they did was cross the border, ho hum.
But, what we've found is that those who do often create a lifestyle of problematic issues, such as driving without license and insurance, killing and injuring people in accidents who's victims have no renumeration and placing a load on public services which the rest are forced to bear.
Seldom has any action harsher than being deported enforced on someone here illegally, if that's all they are.
I suggest it only you who can relate parking and speeding to birth.
quote:
Originally posted by swake
And, to be clear, illegally entering the United States is not a serious crime.
It is still a crime and it is a felony for the 2nd time illegally entering the country.
quote:
It is a simple misdemeanor, the same class of crime as jaywalking or speeding.
They have fines and or punishments based on the severity and number of offenses committed.
quote:
Would you also advocate denying citizenship to children of speeders?
Only if the speeders are illegal aliens.
quote:
Or seizing the automobiles of people that park illegally?
It is not the same crime as illegal immigration.Measly fines do not deter those who are already saving money by hiring illegals,loss of assets,prison time,and future ability to own and or operate business would.
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
Since when is it 'punishment' to not allow anyone to be a citizen?
You may view it that way, but it's not, any more than being born of one race or another is 'punishment'.
The entire question is just that, what IS their birthright?
You say it's one thing, others disagree. The Constitution has enough ambiguities that it should be tested. Maybe contested is not the approapriate word, but tested means to feather out.
Let all argue the issue and determine a solution. It's really not that clear. And, appears we've been operating on a batch of assumptions requiring clarification. Another issue is if the Constitution, as written, allows legislative control of these things.
At the root, did Framers anticipate the current situation and properly incorporate remedy into the wording of the Constitution?
As for values, those may be able to be addressed if the legislative issue is resolved. Then, laws can be shaped around values. As it is, values are as variable as people. You and I, for example, have a different value on this issue. It doesn't make either of us wrong/right, just different.
But, I'm pretty sure there's no God-given right to be a U.S. Citizen. Nor is it punishment for one not to be.
There is a right to be a citizen, and it's granted...explicity...in the 14th Amendment. Since when is depriving someone of a right a good thing? The right to citizenship of a child born to foreign parents has already been affirmed (//%22http://law.jrank.org/pages/13135/United-States-v-Wong-Kim-Ark.html%22)...a long time ago in 1897. Among other findings:
quote:
The Court recognized Congress's right to deny citizenship by passing naturalization laws. In cases where birth was the source of citizenship, however, the Court ruled that Congress had no power to remove a right granted by the Constitution.
I would stand firm with the Court on the ruling that Congress has no power to remove a right granted by the Constitution.
The question is what the Constitution grants.
I'm not sure the case actually addressed that directly.
But, if so, fine. I'm agreeable to what the Court rules then or now.
We do need to keep in mind that if an illegal alien does give birth to a new Citizen, it can be considered an 'accident', since current law allows no illegal persons to be on our property.
So, it can only occur when other existing laws and enforcement has failed.
These issues would go away if we would just invade and take over Mexico......
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
<Wrinkle says:
But, does 'equal protection under the law' extend 'Constitutional Rights' of citizens to anyone here?
<end clip>
Yes.
Next question.
Really? Can you point us to any case law that supports that statement?
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
Since when is it 'punishment' to not allow anyone to be a citizen?
You may view it that way, but it's not, any more than being born of one race or another is 'punishment'.
The entire question is just that, what IS their birthright?
You say it's one thing, others disagree. The Constitution has enough ambiguities that it should be tested. Maybe contested is not the approapriate word, but tested means to feather out.
Let all argue the issue and determine a solution. It's really not that clear. And, appears we've been operating on a batch of assumptions requiring clarification. Another issue is if the Constitution, as written, allows legislative control of these things.
At the root, did Framers anticipate the current situation and properly incorporate remedy into the wording of the Constitution?
As for values, those may be able to be addressed if the legislative issue is resolved. Then, laws can be shaped around values. As it is, values are as variable as people. You and I, for example, have a different value on this issue. It doesn't make either of us wrong/right, just different.
But, I'm pretty sure there's no God-given right to be a U.S. Citizen. Nor is it punishment for one not to be.
There is a right to be a citizen, and it's granted...explicity...in the 14th Amendment. Since when is depriving someone of a right a good thing? The right to citizenship of a child born to foreign parents has already been affirmed (//%22http://law.jrank.org/pages/13135/United-States-v-Wong-Kim-Ark.html%22)...a long time ago in 1897. Among other findings:
quote:
The Court recognized Congress's right to deny citizenship by passing naturalization laws. In cases where birth was the source of citizenship, however, the Court ruled that Congress had no power to remove a right granted by the Constitution.
Legal status has been granted to children born to foreign parents who were here LEGALLY. There exists no case law which extends that ruling to cover children born to ILLEGAL foreign parents.
For Christ's sake. If you're going to cite to a case, at least read the damned thing first.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
Since when is it 'punishment' to not allow anyone to be a citizen?
You may view it that way, but it's not, any more than being born of one race or another is 'punishment'.
The entire question is just that, what IS their birthright?
You say it's one thing, others disagree. The Constitution has enough ambiguities that it should be tested. Maybe contested is not the approapriate word, but tested means to feather out.
Let all argue the issue and determine a solution. It's really not that clear. And, appears we've been operating on a batch of assumptions requiring clarification. Another issue is if the Constitution, as written, allows legislative control of these things.
At the root, did Framers anticipate the current situation and properly incorporate remedy into the wording of the Constitution?
As for values, those may be able to be addressed if the legislative issue is resolved. Then, laws can be shaped around values. As it is, values are as variable as people. You and I, for example, have a different value on this issue. It doesn't make either of us wrong/right, just different.
But, I'm pretty sure there's no God-given right to be a U.S. Citizen. Nor is it punishment for one not to be.
There is a right to be a citizen, and it's granted...explicity...in the 14th Amendment. Since when is depriving someone of a right a good thing? The right to citizenship of a child born to foreign parents has already been affirmed (//%22http://law.jrank.org/pages/13135/United-States-v-Wong-Kim-Ark.html%22)...a long time ago in 1897. Among other findings:
quote:
The Court recognized Congress's right to deny citizenship by passing naturalization laws. In cases where birth was the source of citizenship, however, the Court ruled that Congress had no power to remove a right granted by the Constitution.
Legal status has been granted to children born to foreign parents who were here LEGALLY. There exists no case law which extends that ruling to cover children born to ILLEGAL foreign parents.
For Christ's sake. If you're going to cite to a case, at least read the damned thing first.
I read it and cited it just fine. Citizenship is a right of the child born here. The child broke no law, why should she be penalized?
I'm with the chicken poop on this one.
The child is a citizen. Period.
Originally posted by Chicken Littlequote:
I read it and cited it just fine. Citizenship is a right of the child born here. The child broke no law, why should she be penalized?
No. You interpolated the law injecting your own wants and ideas creating a subjective interpretation of the opinion. In the legal world that's referred to as a misstatement of the law. The fact pattern in Wong is simple and the opinion follows the fact pattern. We are not free to vamp on the explicit holding of the court simply because we FEEL like it may be unfair.
Citizenship is only a right to those born to legalized citizens or foreign nationals who are here legally. To read broader meaning into Wong is error.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
I'm with the chicken poop on this one.
The child is a citizen. Period.
Feel free to side with CL, but you aren't allowed to say that the law says something it doesn't. I can respect that you FEEL like it should be that way, but it doesn't make it so.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
No. You interpolated...
Baloney. Read. My emphasis in bold:
quote:
The government claimed that Wong's parentage should determine his citizenship. Wong's parents were subjects of the Emperor of China at the time of his birth. Therefore, Wong was likewise a foreign subject. According to the appeal,Wong was also Chinese by reason of his "race, language, color and dress." Because he did not belong to any of the classes of Chinese allowed entry under immigration rules, he was technically considered to be a laborer and liable to the terms of the Chinese Exclusion Act.
These arguments were no more successful in Washington D.C. than they had been in San Francisco. The Court rejected the appeal on 28 March 1898, over a year after hearing the case. Writing for the majority, Justice Gray noted the Constitution's deep roots in English common law. By this tradition, all persons born within England's domain could expect protection from the King, to whom they were expected to owe their allegiance. Gray traced the lineage of this concept of determining citizenship by birthplace from its English origins to standard practice in the American states.
The Court found its strongest reason for affirming Wong's citizenship in the Fourteenth Amendment. Ratified by Congress in 1868, the amendment was designed to grant the rights of citizenship to persons of African descent who had been slaves prior to the Civil War. To the majority, Section I of the amendment was unequivocal:
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 in which they reside.
The Court recognized Congress's right to deny citizenship by passing naturalization laws. In cases where birth was the source of citizenship, however, the Court ruled that Congress had no power to remove a right granted by the Constitution.
What this says is that your folks, their allegiances, origins, and citizenship have nothing to do with your citizenship. And, in fact, that citizenship is derived through birth.
So, when you say, "Citizenship is only a right to those born to legalized citizens or foreign nationals who are here legally." you are claiming parentage matters. It clearly don't. And your huffing and puffing is not going to blow that house down. In the non-lawyer world, we call this acting like a lawyer.
Here's the message: CL doesn't mind his tax dollars being ripped off by scam artists that use innocent children who don't have a clue what nationality means the day they are born as pawns to collect benefits and money which would otherwise be denied to them (the parents, not the child).
He'll continue to justify and ignore the growing illegal immigration and anchor baby problem until he falls victim of a personal crime against himself by an illegal immigrant.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
Originally posted by Chicken Little
quote:
I read it and cited it just fine. Citizenship is a right of the child born here. The child broke no law, why should she be penalized?
No. You interpolated the law injecting your own wants and ideas creating a subjective interpretation of the opinion. In the legal world that's referred to as a misstatement of the law. The fact pattern in Wong is simple and the opinion follows the fact pattern. We are not free to vamp on the explicit holding of the court simply because we FEEL like it may be unfair.
Citizenship is only a right to those born to legalized citizens or foreign nationals who are here legally. To read broader meaning into Wong is error.
IP, you might like the Wikipedia article on Birthright citizenship in the United States, (//%22http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthright_citizenship_in_the_United_States_of_America%22) which does an excellent job of laying out the major case law for all us laytypes.
While you're correct in a very narrow way -- there is no specific law stating explicitly that being born here in all cases guarantees citizenship -- it's been assumed to be true by the Supreme Court since the 14th amendment became law. Wong makes that assumption, as does Plyler v. Doe, which clarifies the phrase "within the jurisdiction of" in regard to residing in states, saying in part:
quote:
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
So, really, unless you can amend the Constitution to say what you want it to say, or unless you can get Congress to craft some legislation saying it explicitly, then the law of the land is, you're born here and you're a citizen. Pretty much full stop.
quote:
Originally posted by we vs us
So, really, unless you can amend the Constitution to say what you want it to say, or unless you can get Congress to craft some legislation saying it explicitly, then the law of the land is, you're born here and you're a citizen. Pretty much full stop.
That's what conservatives have said, too. More specifically, that their best bet is to convince Congress to
take away citizenship to certain classes using the same authority that allowed them to
invite indian tribes to be citizens. Sounds lovely.
They've always been about one Google click away from all sorts of theories...what's up with that, guys?
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
Here's the message: CL doesn't mind his tax dollars being ripped off by scam artists that use innocent children who don't have a clue what nationality means the day they are born as pawns to collect benefits and money which would otherwise be denied to them (the parents, not the child).
He'll continue to justify and ignore the growing illegal immigration and anchor baby problem until he falls victim of a personal crime against himself by an illegal immigrant.
That might be your message, but it's not
my message. My message is that it's easy to become an American, most of us were simply
born that way. But it's much harder to
act like one.
If there's one thing we've learned from our great American history, it's that groups of people sometimes have to put up with things they don't like. Based on what I've read about history, I'm gonna say that when somebody starts talking about putting American babies on trial, they've gone too far. They can pretty much count themselves as
intolerant persons.
A lot of people are looking at Oklahoma right now and thinking that there's something very weak about us. And, more Americans than you think believe that intolerance is unchristian. And what else? That House Bill 1804 is crap in and of itself? Just be thankful that more people aren't paying attention right now. I mean, come on! Gimme a break with this stuff.
That's a little closer to my message, Conan. I'll expound on that as much as you want.
Yes....I have had mucho correspondence from frineds throughout the globe saying how weak Oklahoma is appearing and I better pack up post haste....
quote:
Originally posted by Breadburner
Yes....I have had mucho correspondence from frineds throughout the globe saying how weak Oklahoma is appearing and I better pack up post haste....
Well, then maybe you need more friends, friend. Word on the street is that we all are going to drown in the shallow end of the gene pool on this brown baby thing. That, Okie will become a euphemism for stupid. Oh, wait...
It's going to unravel the whole anti-immigration wedge issue. And where would you all be without your wedge issues?
Don't run away on my account, stick around, you're tolerable. But don't b*tch when the State we both love comes out a loser in this deal, and people on both sides of this issue are p*ssed at us.
Originally posted by Chicken Littlequote:
What this says is that your folks, their allegiances, origins, and citizenship have nothing to do with your citizenship. And, in fact, that citizenship is derived through birth.
So, when you say, "Citizenship is only a right to those born to legalized citizens or foreign nationals who are here legally." you are claiming parentage matters. It clearly don't. And your huffing and puffing is not going to blow that house down. In the non-lawyer world, we call this acting like a lawyer.
Again, you should try reading the actual opinion next time instead of a summary. Your first highlighted line doesn't appear in the opinion at all.
I'll make it easy for you and paste the holding of the opinion for you to read:
The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States , and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.The opinion explicitly states that the parents must have PERMANENT domicile and residence within the US. The judge didn't throw that in for sh!ts and giggles, it actually affected the opinion of the court.
And this is why. According to precedent in
Loc v I.N.S.:
A child inherits the domicile of their parents, and an individual (a parent in this case) in the United States illegally
"cannot lawfully possess an intent to be domiciled in this country".
Therefore the child is NOT domiciled in the US since their parents are not domiciled within the US making them illegal as well.
Again, actually reading the holding of an opinion might help next time...
quote:
Originally posted by we vs us
While you're correct in a very narrow way -- there is no specific law stating explicitly that being born here in all cases guarantees citizenship -- it's been assumed to be true by the Supreme Court since the 14th amendment became law. Wong makes that assumption, as does Plyler v. Doe, which clarifies the phrase "within the jurisdiction of" in regard to residing in states, saying in part:
quote:
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
Correct is correct, no matter the degree, and assumptions do not make good law.
As to Plyler, that case did not address the issue of anchor babies. Different facts will yield differing results, and the question of "jurisdiction" is only one variable in the equation. (See my answer to CL above for more)
quote:
So, really, unless you can amend the Constitution to say what you want it to say, or unless you can get Congress to craft some legislation saying it explicitly, then the law of the land is, you're born here and you're a citizen. Pretty much full stop.
Unfortunately, the law doesn't work that way...
In fact, the legality of immigrant citizenship is covered under various Acts, as your wiki article stated. Affirmatively legislating that anchor babies are not immediately granted citizenship would not take an amendment to the Constitution, just amendment of existing Acts.
IP, you may have read the case, but I don't think you read the whole case. The only restriction the 14th Amendment places on citizenship for persons born in the United States is that they must be subject to its jurisdiction. Arguing that the facts of Wong mandate a narrow holding ignores the extensive discussion of what "jurisdiction" truly means, and how broadly the Court interpreted it. From Wong:
quote:
It can hardly be denied that an alien is completely subject to the political jurisdiction of the country in which he resides, seeing that, as said by Mr. Webster, when secretary of state, in his report to the president on Thrasher's case in 1851, and since repeated by this court: 'Independently of a residence with intention to continue such residence; independently of any domiciliation; independently of the taking of any oath of allegiance, or of renouncing any former allegiance,-it is well known that by the public law an alien, or a stranger [169 U.S. 649, 694] born, for so long a time as he continues within the dominions of a foreign government, owes obedience to the laws of that government, and may be punished for treason or other crimes as a native-born subject might be.'
The court viewed jurisdiction to simply refer to a geographical area. There were no other restriction placed upon the right to citizenship by birth. To dismiss Plyler as "not being about anchor babies" ignores that they were specifically discussing the issue of jurisdiction within the context of the Fourteenth Amendment. Dismissing the argument that students were not "within the jurisdiction," the Court stated in a footnote:
quote:
Justice Gray, writing for the Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), detailed at some length the history of the Citizenship Clause, and the predominantly geographic sense in which the term "jurisdiction" was used. He further noted that it was "impossible to construe the words `subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' in the opening sentence [of the Fourteenth Amendment], as less comprehensive than the words `within its jurisdiction,' in the concluding sentence of the same section; or to hold that persons `within the jurisdiction' of one of the States of the Union are not `subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.'" Id., at 687.
Justice Gray concluded that "[e]very citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States." Id., at 693. As one early commentator noted, given the historical emphasis on geographic territoriality, bounded only, if at all, by principles of sovereignty and allegiance, 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.
Can you provide a cite for your Loc case?
Originally posted by pmcalkquote:
IP, you may have read the case, but I don't think you read the whole case. The only restriction the 14th Amendment places on citizenship for persons born in the United States is that they must be subject to its jurisdiction. Arguing that the facts of Wong mandate a narrow holding ignores the extensive discussion of what "jurisdiction" truly means, and how broadly the Court interpreted it. From Wong:
quote:
It can hardly be denied that an alien is completely subject to the political jurisdiction of the country in which he resides, seeing that, as said by Mr. Webster, when secretary of state, in his report to the president on Thrasher's case in 1851, and since repeated by this court: 'Independently of a residence with intention to continue such residence; independently of any domiciliation; independently of the taking of any oath of allegiance, or of renouncing any former allegiance,-it is well known that by the public law an alien, or a stranger [169 U.S. 649, 694] born, for so long a time as he continues within the dominions of a foreign government, owes obedience to the laws of that government, and may be punished for treason or other crimes as a native-born subject might be.'
The court viewed jurisdiction to simply refer to a geographical area. There were no other restriction placed upon the right to citizenship by birth. To dismiss Plyler as "not being about anchor babies" ignores that they were specifically discussing the issue of jurisdiction within the context of the Fourteenth Amendment. Dismissing the argument that students were not "within the jurisdiction," the Court stated in a footnote:
quote:
Justice Gray, writing for the Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), detailed at some length the history of the Citizenship Clause, and the predominantly geographic sense in which the term "jurisdiction" was used. He further noted that it was "impossible to construe the words `subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' in the opening sentence [of the Fourteenth Amendment], as less comprehensive than the words `within its jurisdiction,' in the concluding sentence of the same section; or to hold that persons `within the jurisdiction' of one of the States of the Union are not `subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.'" Id., at 687.
Justice Gray concluded that "[e]very citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States." Id., at 693. As one early commentator noted, given the historical emphasis on geographic territoriality, bounded only, if at all, by principles of sovereignty and allegiance, 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.
Again, if you look at the holding, you see a very explicit question being asked which generated a very specific answer from the judge. You know as well as I do that when SCOTUS accepts a petition for cert it's usually limited to specific questions. The judge explicitly stated that the parents domicile was a part of the calculus for a reason.
Here is a more recent case dealing with the issue of domicile: Melian v Immigration and Naturalization Service, 987 F2d 1521, which states, in part,
"In order to have 'lawful domicile,' then, an alien must have the ability, under the immigration laws, to form the intent to remain in the United States indefinitely. . . . Thus an alien who enters the country illegally cannot have a 'lawful' intent to remain here."So simple geographical determinations of jurisdiction are clearly incorrect under modern immigration jurisprudence.
quote:
Can you provide a cite for your Loc case?
Loc v Immigration and Naturalization Service, 681 F2d 107 (Deals with expired visas, but contains the quote I used)
Finally, you can't forget Elk, (112 US 94 (1884)), which was discussed at length in the opinion. The Elk court held that "subject to the jurisidction of" did not encompass
"children of ministers, consuls, and citizens of foreign states born within the United States." The court in Wong apparently decided not to disturb this clearly explicated precedent.
The only way to clear the water on the issue of "subject to the jurisdiction of" is to have the Court clearly define a rule based upon an unambiguous fact pattern involving an illegal alien giving birth to a child on US soil. Until then it's speculation.
But it's fun discussing it with another lawyer...
[;)]
IP wrote: "The only way to clear the water on the issue of "subject to the jurisdiction of" is to have the Court clearly define a rule based upon an unambiguous fact pattern involving an illegal alien giving birth to a child on US soil. Until then it's speculation."
No it's not.
RW