Well we are at it again in an attempt to cut down on illegal immigration by taking the 14th Amendment to the Supreme Court for clarification, and possible changes in an effort to eliminate "Anchor Baby" syndrome.
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2011/01/05/20110105birthright-citizenship-bill-arizona-lawmakers-introduced05-ON.html (http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2011/01/05/20110105birthright-citizenship-bill-arizona-lawmakers-introduced05-ON.html)
Quote from: dbacks fan on January 05, 2011, 12:39:46 PM
Well we are at it again in an attempt to cut down on illegal immigration by taking the 14th Amendment to the Supreme Court for clarification, and possible changes in an effort to eliminate "Anchor Baby" syndrome.
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2011/01/05/20110105birthright-citizenship-bill-arizona-lawmakers-introduced05-ON.html (http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2011/01/05/20110105birthright-citizenship-bill-arizona-lawmakers-introduced05-ON.html)
Oklahoma along with several other states are following suit.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/05/AR2011010503134.html
I don't believe the USA prohibits "undocumented" parents from taking their children with them when the "undocumented" parents are forced to go home.
Quote from: Red Arrow on January 05, 2011, 08:23:56 PM
I don't believe the USA prohibits "undocumented" parents from taking their children with them when the "undocumented" parents are forced to go home.
http://www.fairus.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=16535&security=1601&news_iv_ctrl=1007 (http://www.fairus.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=16535&security=1601&news_iv_ctrl=1007)
The issue is most don't go back. They have to commit a crime to be put in a position to be sent back, and 90% of the crimes commited are misdemeanors, and since they have infant children that are born here they get sent through the revolving door know as the US border and are right back in a short period of time.
Call it a "loophole" or an "interpritation" of the 14th, it's based on a decision from 1868 regarding slaves and thier children as well as enimies or agents against the US. It's an issue that was never dreamed of when the amendment was written, and from what I have read has never been challenged especially in the light of people who have sought out the US as sanctuary from persicusion in their country of origin. This has been a part of political and war refugees for years, wether it be from Cuba, Bosnia, Haiti, Slovakia, and many others. Yes I realize that most if not all of those came here with the intent to become US citizens, the problem now is they come across to have children to bypass the system.
So wait. According to current interpretations of the law, so called anchor babies can't sponsor citizenship for their parents until the kid turns 21? So the wait till legality is more than two decades, from conception of the child till eligibility? Not to mention the length of the process of naturalization itself, which sometimes takes years.
Why would anyone go to that amount of trouble?
More importantly, do we actually know if anyone goes to the trouble? Or do we just think they go to the trouble?
Quote from: we vs us on January 05, 2011, 10:08:47 PM
So wait. According to current interpretations of the law, so called anchor babies can't sponsor citizenship for their parents until the kid turns 21?
I knew we could count on you.
I don't know specifically if a minor can sponsor citizenship. There are a lot of things minors cannot do that adults can.
Quote from: Red Arrow on January 05, 2011, 10:30:25 PM
I knew we could count on you.
Thanks. Just here to clarify current law before we all get our panties in a twist and start agitating to amend the constitution and all.
It's actually policy, by the way . . . if you look it up, the "anchor" part of the anchor baby thing can't happen till the baby turns 21, so their parents have to be awfully patient people to hope that the fruit of their loins will also be their path to naturalization. 21 years (and change) later.
It would seem to me that why make such an elaborate, time consuming plot when you can just jump the fence and start living the dream right away? But that's just me. I've never been a particularly long term thinker.
Quote from: we vs us on January 05, 2011, 10:48:08 PM
Thanks. Just here to clarify current law before we all get our panties in a twist and start agitating to amend the constitution and all.
It's actually policy, by the way . . . if you look it up, the "anchor" part of the anchor baby thing can't happen till the baby turns 21, so their parents have to be awfully patient people to hope that the fruit of their loins will also be their path to naturalization. 21 years (and change) later.
It would seem to me that why make such an elaborate, time consuming plot when you can just jump the fence and start living the dream right away? But that's just me. I've never been a particularly long term thinker.
So are you saying, except for the impracticality of it, that we can send "them all" back to their home country but their kid(s) born in the USA could stay if the parents wanted to leave them here. Or, the parents could take their USA born kid back to the parents' country of origin. That's actually the way I interpret it.
Any of our lawyers (that didn't get their degree from Holiday Inn Express) care to weigh in?
Quote from: Red Arrow on January 05, 2011, 11:12:19 PM
So are you saying, except for the impracticality of it, that we can send "them all" back to their home country but their kid(s) born in the USA could stay if the parents wanted to leave them here. Or, the parents could take their USA born kid back to the parents' country of origin. That's actually the way I interpret it.
Any of our lawyers (that didn't get their degree from Holiday Inn Express) care to weigh in?
Yes, as it has been interperated here in Arizona, that if the parents are here illegaly they can be deported, but the children born here to the parents of illegals can stay in the US, because of the interpertation they are American citizens by birth in the US.
This whole thing of "birth right" and "born in the US and needing to choose nationality of children born to foreign parents" has become diluted and perversed over many years. I'm not against someone who is a US citizen that is married to a foriegn national that has not completed naturalization, but if you are in the US, legally or illegaly, and neither parent is not a US citizen, you should not be granted US citizenship, you should declare the citizenship of your country of origin.
Quote from: we vs us on January 05, 2011, 10:48:08 PM
Thanks. Just here to clarify current law before we all get our panties in a twist and start agitating to amend the constitution and all.
It's actually policy, by the way . . . if you look it up, the "anchor" part of the anchor baby thing can't happen till the baby turns 21, so their parents have to be awfully patient people to hope that the fruit of their loins will also be their path to naturalization. 21 years (and change) later.
It would seem to me that why make such an elaborate, time consuming plot when you can just jump the fence and start living the dream right away? But that's just me. I've never been a particularly long term thinker.
It's not like they are sitting around twiddling their thumbs bored for 21 years. They are mowing lawns or picking fruit, drinking Tecate, making tamales, and making more anchor babies while they wait.
Quote from: Conan71 on January 05, 2011, 11:59:17 PM
It's not like they are sitting around twiddling their thumbs bored for 21 years. They are mowing lawns or picking fruit, drinking Tecate, making tamales, and making more anchor babies while they wait.
You are right, once they are able to enroll their children in school, and with that enrollment they can get legal rental agreements, and utilities in thier name because of the child being in preschool, or kindergarden in a public school system, they, the parents, become elegible for support from the state and the fed for benefits.
Quote from: dbacks fan on January 05, 2011, 11:35:45 PM
Yes, as it has been interperated here in Arizona, that if the parents are here illegaly they can be deported, but the children born here to the parents of illegals can stay in the US, because of the interpertation they are American citizens by birth in the US.
This whole thing of "birth right" and "born in the US and needing to choose nationality of children born to foreign parents" has become diluted and perversed over many years. I'm not against someone who is a US citizen that is married to a foriegn national that has not completed naturalization, but if you are in the US, legally or illegaly, and neither parent is not a US citizen, you should not be granted US citizenship, you should declare the citizenship of your country of origin.
The problem is that the 14th Amendment is clear and unambiguous. It means exactly what it says and has not become "diluted" or "perversed" over many years. Any person born in the U.S. is a citizen. You don't like it? Change it. There's a procedure to do so that thankfully is very cumbersome. The slavery context would only be admissible to resolve ambiguity. Since the language creating birthright citizenship is not ambiguous, the context is irrelevant. Those who drafted the amendment could have easily worded it more narrowly but chose not to.
State legislators such as Randy Terrill who dream up schemes to allow states to "opt out" of constitutional principles are just pulling your leg. The contextual argument is just a false political talking point and wedge issue to rile up voters.
Quote from: dbacks fan on January 05, 2011, 11:35:45 PM
Yes, as it has been interperated here in Arizona, that if the parents are here illegaly they can be deported, but the children born here to the parents of illegals can stay in the US, because of the interpertation they are American citizens by birth in the US.
This whole thing of "birth right" and "born in the US and needing to choose nationality of children born to foreign parents" has become diluted and perversed over many years. I'm not against someone who is a US citizen that is married to a foriegn national that has not completed naturalization, but if you are in the US, legally or illegaly, and neither parent is not a US citizen, you should not be granted US citizenship, you should declare the citizenship of your country of origin.
What country of origin? The parents are from another country, not the child. That child may well have never even been to that country.
Red said;
I don't believe the USA prohibits "undocumented" parents from taking their children with them when the "undocumented" parents are forced to go home.
Got me started wondering if the parents went home, would the children then be the illegal aliens there? And would that country allow them in?
Quote from: dbacks fan on January 05, 2011, 12:39:46 PM
possible changes in an effort to eliminate "Anchor Baby" syndrome.
Anchor baby syndrome? You do realize that it's completely made up, right? Being the parent of a minor child citizen doesn't help an illegal alien gain legal status. The child can't sponsor the parent until they are 18 (or possibly 21, I'm not positive..they do have to be an adult). Even then, they have to have the funds to support the parent seeking legal status. If the parent gets caught, the parent gets deported after legal process determines that they are not a citizen.
And the parent is still not eligible for public support. The
child gets it, but the parent does not. If they're spending the money on themselves, that's a felony for which they can be detained until deportation. Generally speaking, a suspected illegal immigrant with ties to the community can be released until their deportation proceedings are complete unless they're accused of a felony. Why? Because sometimes US citizens have deportation proceedings begun against them. Same reason we have bail in criminal cases.
There are plenty of things in this world (even just relating to immigration!) to be upset about without making up new ones.
I don't quite understand why people have a problem with citizenship by birth. It's not as if
the child did anything wrong.
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on January 06, 2011, 01:03:58 PM
Red said;
I don't believe the USA prohibits "undocumented" parents from taking their children with them when the "undocumented" parents are forced to go home.
Got me started wondering if the parents went home, would the children then be the illegal aliens there? And would that country allow them in?
Might depend on the country but if US citizens have a child in another country, the child is offered US citizenship. The child may have dual citizenship but I don't know the ins and outs of that.
Not exactly "offered" citizenship - they ARE US citizens. (Otherwise, John McCain would not have been eligible to run for President.)
I'm thinking about Mexico, Costa Rica, Nicaraqua, etc. I guess I could use Google if it were that big a deal to me. I guess it isn't....
Quote from: heironymouspasparagus on January 07, 2011, 12:56:50 PM
Not exactly "offered" citizenship - they ARE US citizens. (Otherwise, John McCain would not have been eligible to run for President.)
I'm thinking about Mexico, Costa Rica, Nicaraqua, etc. I guess I could use Google if it were that big a deal to me. I guess it isn't....
I said "offered" because I don't know that they are required to accept it. Maybe they are.
Quote from: Red Arrow on January 07, 2011, 05:46:56 PM
I said "offered" because I don't know that they are required to accept it. Maybe they are.
Children born to US citizens are, in most cases, US citizens at birth, even if the birth isn't registered. Needless to say it's much easier to make the claim of citizenship if the birth was timely registered.
What's interesting is, if you actually read the first two sentences of the 14th amendment, (as opposed to that murky second amendment on gun rights,) it's pretty clear what the meaning is. The second sentence speaks directly to Randy Terrill and his statehouse cohorts.
Try this: "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 (meaning our Oklahoma legislature) shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;" Seems pretty clear to me and what is most ironic is these guys are all "constitutional conservatives" hard over on "original intent."
Also Remember, a lot of the Founding fathers were immigrants, mostly from England, so be careful when you badmouth immigrants
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Nothing murky at all about that, especially given the pre-revisionist attempts to define what a militia is - they were the sum total of the CITIZENS of the country - "the people". The was no such thing as a national guard - the later days revisionist militia we hear so much about.
And as a subordinate clause, the first four words are specifically designed as a phrase to enhance, elaborate, clarify, etc - but NOT to subvert or redefine the main clause of the phrase which is specific and crystal clear - the right of THE PEOPLE. Same people specifically designated in so many other amendments and held for decades if not centuries to be a personal right. (Free speech, etc). (Ref; Miss Penfield, 9th grade English)
As far as the RWRE - their concern is NOT the Constitution. Or personal rights. It is their agenda. As is evidenced by their poster child Sarah Palin. Or their poster child of legislation, the un-"Patriot Act". Everyone has heard her - the one who works the word "Constitution" into EVERY conversation, but cannot identify one of the main clauses of the First Amendment when told what it is. Yeah, her.
Actually, back in 1780's when the Constitution was being put together, most colonial towns actually did have militias and called them that, kind of like modern small towns now have volunteer firemen. (The National Guard wasn't actually created until 1903) The famous "Minute Men" of the Revolution were the town militias from Concord and Lexington.
So as I read the Constitution (from a strict constructionist view point,) it's pretty clearly referring to these part time colonial town militias. The second amendment was intended to allow the able bodied men in town to keep the old flintlock over the fireplace along with some powder and shot and be ready to gather as a "well regulated militia" to defend the village from marauding Indians and roving bands of renegade Canadians.
That "original intent" pretty much died out by the time of the Civil War when most towns no longer need defending. The invention of six shot side arms of Western movie fame around the 1850's suddenly gave new meaning to the rest of the amendment after the comma. "The right to keep and bear arms", now took on a whole new meaning beginning with guys like Jesse James and Wyatt Earp and our current gun enthusiasts.
If you believe in the liberal idea of a living Constitution, then the concept of every civilians right to open carrying semi automatics around town on their hips at political rallies, into restaurants and around campus is a very modern reading of what, to me, is a very elastic (but currently legal) interpretation of the Constitutions original intent.
Quote from: eDuece on January 13, 2011, 11:10:52 PM
Actually, back in 1780's when the Constitution was being put together, most colonial towns actually did have militias and called them that, kind of like modern small towns now have volunteer firemen. (The National Guard wasn’t actually created until 1903) The famous “Minute Men” of the Revolution were the town militias from Concord and Lexington.
So as I read the Constitution (from a strict constructionist view point,) it’s pretty clearly referring to these part time colonial town militias. The second amendment was intended to allow the able bodied men in town to keep the old flintlock over the fireplace along with some powder and shot and be ready to gather as a “well regulated militia” to defend the village from marauding Indians and roving bands of renegade Canadians.
That “original intent” pretty much died out by the time of the Civil War when most towns no longer need defending. The invention of six shot side arms of Western movie fame around the 1850's suddenly gave new meaning to the rest of the amendment after the comma. “The right to keep and bear arms”, now took on a whole new meaning beginning with guys like Jesse James and Wyatt Earp and our current gun enthusiasts.
If you believe in the liberal idea of a living Constitution, then the concept of every civilians right to open carrying semi automatics around town on their hips at political rallies, into restaurants and around campus is a very modern reading of what, to me, is a very elastic (but currently legal) interpretation of the Constitutions original intent.
However, if you keep in mind that when the constitution was written the power was to belong to the states and the people, and that the bill of rights was written to protect the powers of these, then it gives a new light on the purpose of those militias. It wasn't merely to give the individuals the ability to protect themselves indians and renegades, but from over reaching federal governments as well. Also, you assume that the type of firearm make a differance to this law, but don't take into account that in order to be able to defend ones home that you really need a weapon of the same, or better, ability as those you are defending against. As such, when the firepower of those that may threaten the home increases in ability, so must that of those meant to defend it.
oh, and the bill of rights was not included in the writting of the constitution (hence why they are amendments), but were agreed to be included at a later point in order to get the states to ratify them.
Quote from: custosnox on January 14, 2011, 08:45:22 AM
As such, when the firepower of those that may threaten the home increases in ability, so must that of those meant to defend it.
Where's my nuclear-tipped ICBM? ;D
Quote from: nathanm on January 14, 2011, 09:50:08 AM
Where's my nuclear-tipped ICBM? ;D
I've been asking the same thing for years. Though the description is often updated. Now it needs to be a nuclear-tipped ICBM with pinpoint GPS guidance systems and stealth capabilities.
Quote from: nathanm on January 14, 2011, 09:50:08 AM
Where's my nuclear-tipped ICBM? ;D
I happen to have one, where would you like me to aim it?
(http://i131.photobucket.com/albums/p309/kallsop2/Tombstone111.jpg)
Quote from: dbacks fan on January 14, 2011, 10:54:06 AM
I happen to have one, where would you like me to aim it?
(http://i131.photobucket.com/albums/p309/kallsop2/Tombstone111.jpg)
First, I suggest you tell all those people looking over the edge at it to get off your freakin' lawn. ;)
Quote from: custosnox on January 14, 2011, 10:14:18 AM
I've been asking the same thing for years. Though the description is often updated. Now it needs to be a nuclear-tipped ICBM with pinpoint GPS guidance systems and stealth capabilities.
Probably don't need
pinpoint GPS guidance. Close counts in horseshoes, hand grenades,
and Nuclear Weapons.
;D
Quote from: Red Arrow on January 14, 2011, 12:07:21 PM
Probably don't need pinpoint GPS guidance. Close counts in horseshoes, hand grenades, and Nuclear Weapons.
;D
Get me within 5 miles and I'm good. Do you want an air burst or ground level?
And using that same logic, the right of free speech is limited to the use of an ink well and a quill pen. Or an old manually operated printing press. So, all the methods of speech we have today would be subject to government regulation. And nobody could use a bus or automobile or train or airplane to peaceably assemble.
The founding fathers never envisioned the invention of the semiconductor, so a computer could never be used to write or print. Nor did they foresee airplanes, so one could never fly to Washington to have either a Hannity OR a Stewart rally.
That is such a lame argument. But it is the only thing the anti-gun LWRE can come up with. And particularly ignorant given the FACTS of how increased gun ownership in this country leads ONLY to decreased crime. How tragically hip those oblivious-to-reality are!
Yes, Dorothy, there is a corresponding LWRE to the RWRE.
And the Constitution IS flexible - that is what has allowed it to be tweaked 27 times so far. The founding fathers recognition that change IS inevitable and modifications would be required to adapt to corresponding societal conditions. But slowly with much difficulty.
Not to belabor the point, but I think you have a bit of a false equivalency there. Free speech is a concept like original sin and free will. Concepts and ideals are just that, whether they are on parchment or a computer screen and aren't affected by time or technology.
Allowing citizens to keep their flintlocks at home in case they are needed for "a well regulated militia" to repel Indians and renegade attacks is a physical act allowing or requiring you to do something. The first part of the second amendment became obsolete and meaningless within 75 years of when it was written but technology has provided those same citizens with "the right to bear arms" and have more firepower in their gun cabinet then Washington had at Valley Forge.
Allowing folks to hunt and keep guns around the house under the umbrella of the Second Amendment is not a bad thing, I have a few around my own house. Where I start disagreeing is when folks read that amendment as allowing and purposely intending the citizenry to arm themselves against the tyranny of the Federal government in preparation for "watering the tree of liberty with the blood of patriots". That's been tried more than a few times in the past 200 years and the Feds have always won.
Also I'm not to convinced by your argument that massive gun ownership has reduced crime when our murder rate per 1000 people is three or four times what it is in other countries although Mexico may currently be trying to outdo us.
I'm still trying to figure out where you get that the right to bear arms was to defend against indians and renegades.
And just to point out, since you mentioned Mexico, it is, of course, against the law in mexico to own a gun.
Belaboring greatly.
Self defense is exactly the same type of concept and ideal - preserving the gift that God has given - your life. Not only is it a right, I feel it is a duty to whatever Creator you happen to believe in to preserve yourself. Just from a species survival standpoint it would seem counterproductive to just sit there and let someone kill you on a whim. And apparently society as a whole believes at least a variation on that theme - evidence the laws against suicide AND murder in most of the worlds countries.
Should there be any doubt concerning the effectiveness of an armed citizenry, yes, there is plenty of evidence to show reduced crime rates. Records kept by the FBI and reported on regularly by the NRA. According to those FBI records, 2.5 million times a year a firearm is used in self defense of some form or other.
And then there is always Switzerland for reference. Since the mid 1600's. And their murder rate is lower than England with their massively intrusive laws.