If You Really Want To Help The Illegals, Give Them Your Social Security Number

reply to post by Merigold


Technically, they are citizens. But that's due more to a loophole than the original intention of the law itself.

However, this would be the same exact thing as stealing someone's lottery tickets, having it win, and then claiming you are technically the winner since it is now in your possession.

Should you be able to keep the rewards of committing a crime?
Prior to 18, they are technically citizens, but are under the care of their parents that, under current laws, are criminals by living here illegally.

Should a crime be rewarded because there's a loophole?
Does it sound "right" or "just" to you that by coming here illegally, but managing to give birth on our soil, they have now "secured" the right to be here by way of their children?

That is an incredibly backwards way of looking at the law and actually rewards those that successfully break it to begin.

If you take the time to look at the progression, you will realize that had the parents NOT been permitted to be here in the first place, a.k.a. the government enforcing our current laws, there would be no children born here to then be called citizens in the first place.

The original illegal act should negate any benefits received from committing said crime.

Another example:
If you commit a crime, say laundering money, and then buy a mansion with that money. The court doesn't say: Well, now you own it and it's in your name, so it's yours by right.

Rather, they say: Had you never committed the crime in the first place, you would not have had the money to buy the mansion, and therefore you can not keep it.

Originally posted by Merigold
reply to post by lpowell0627

 

But it doesn't change the fact most illegal aliens are not here to drain your resources, they are here to start a new life by working their asses off. The last thing they want to do is alert the authorities that they are here illegally, because despite the erroneous belief having an American child does not make you eligable to stay in the US legally. The familial connection can only be used via American citizens past the age of 21.

True enough:
They don't want to alert the authorities. This should be the first RED FLAG signaling there's a problem.

Then, the real issues come into play since in order to avoid alertying the authorities, they don't pay taxes, they don't have legal employmnet unless they stole or are using a fake social security number, they don't enroll their children in school until someone comes and takes them by force to school, etc.

Exactly how many crimes are you willing to overlook when they could have all of the benefits of living in this country had they arrived here legally from the start.

It's not as if we don't allow immigrants to live in this country.
It's not as if we don't offer student visas, temporary worker visa, temporary resident visas, and permanent resident visas.

There are MANY legal ways to come to, and live in, this country.

Originally posted by lpowell0627

There are MANY legal ways to come to, and live in, this country.

This is what US citizens just don't get. To be allowed in the US legally a person has to be rather well off (by 3rd world standards). There is nothing wrong with the US setting these requirements. Most countries have similar requirements in order to migrate legally.

This usually envokes the "I don't care. If they can't come legally then don't come" answer that I often see to which the illegals retort "I don't care if it is against the law cause I'm going anyway" and you end up with your present day situation.

reply to post by daskakik




.

My argument is simply that the people who are so vehement aren't against illegal immigration as much as illegal immigration of poor people.

I don't think 's a coincidence that the unprecedented backlash against immigrants in general ( 95% of the threads here are anti POOR immigrant) coincides with general unrest of the American people.

"It's those blasted illegals!" is music to the ears of your government, misdirection at it's finest. It worked for Hitler, it's worked for many of governments throughout history, when the going gets tough, misdirect your people's attention to some phantom enemy.

The real villain here isn't some guy sneaking over the border to pick tomatoes so his family can eat, it's your government and it's allies.

reply to post by Merigold


I was actually responding to lpowell0627's comment on their being a legal way to get into the states but most don't understand that it is out of reach for most.

I agree that all of this is just politics as usual.

[edit on 18-5-2010 by daskakik]

reply to post by Merigold


Let me be the first to say --

I am opposed to illegal immigration in ALL cases.

I favor legal immigration in ALL cases and think that the poor should be more of a priority to provide a better lifestyle to than those already well-off.

Sometimes, when debating these issues, we fail to also provide our opinion on the flipside of the coin -- which in this case is our opinion on legal immigration.

Originally posted by lpowell0627
Technically, they are citizens. But that's due more to a loophole than the original intention of the law itself.

The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution 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 wherein they reside."

Where do you see a loophole in that. It isn't even up for interpretation.

Originally posted by daskakik

Originally posted by lpowell0627
Technically, they are citizens. But that's due more to a loophole than the original intention of the law itself.

The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution 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 wherein they reside."

Where do you see a loophole in that. It isn't even up for interpretation.

Here's where I see the loophole:

"....wherein they reside."

Do they really reside there?
Do squatters have a right to the places they reside? (I'm not saying illegals are squatters, I am using a totally different example.)
Does merely residing there -- if by the fact that one does reside there breaks the law -- grant the rights of citizenship?
How can one claim to reside in a place that by being in that very place they are committing a crime?
Had they (meaning the parents) been evicted from the place they were illegally residing in, there would be no place for this same child to reside.

Again, if the crime had been prevented in the first place, there would be no reason to even have this discussion.

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by Merigold

 

I was actually responding to lpowell0627's comment on their being a legal way to get into the states but most don't understand that it is out of reach for most.

[edit on 18-5-2010 by daskakik]

What you are talking about is refining our current immigration laws, which is a completely different topic than our current situation of illegal immigration.

However, I would still argue that there are many ways to come to this country legally.

Perhaps not enough for all of the people that choose to do so, but inadequate legal immigration laws are not, and should never be, justification for breaking current laws.

If everybody simply chose to break the laws that they personally found inadequate or ridiculous, can you imgaine the state of this country then? It would be one big free for all which is hardly the epitome of a civilized, unified, nation.

That's why we have a democratic process to changing laws.
We don't simply ignore the ones we don't like.

Originally posted by lpowell0627

Originally posted by daskakik

Originally posted by lpowell0627
Technically, they are citizens. But that's due more to a loophole than the original intention of the law itself.

The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution 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 wherein they reside."

Where do you see a loophole in that. It isn't even up for interpretation.

Here's where I see the loophole:

"....wherein they reside."

Do they really reside there?
Do squatters have a right to the places they reside? (I'm not saying illegals are squatters, I am using a totally different example.)
Does merely residing there -- if by the fact that one does reside there breaks the law -- grant the rights of citizenship?
How can one claim to reside in a place that by being in that very place they are committing a crime?
Had they (meaning the parents) been evicted from the place they were illegally residing in, there would be no place for this same child to reside.

Again, if the crime had been prevented in the first place, there would be no reason to even have this discussion.

Actuall the words "...wherein they reside" is separated from the declaration of citizenship and is merely stating that they are also citizens of their state as well. That's how I read it.

But, even if it is refering to the declaration of citizenship as well as state then, yes if someone is living in a state then, even if they are out on the street, are residing in that state. Wherever you are living that's your residence.

A person born on US soil is not breaking any law by being there. You are the one trying to find a loophole to say they are not citizens by arguing that if a parent breaks a law this should cancel out their childrens constitutional rights.

[edit on 18-5-2010 by daskakik]

I grow increasingly tired of immigration threads, especially the proliferation of sarcastic, unproductive, and provocative threads.

Keeping them all or booting them all are not the only two solutions, but either way the first of many steps is NOT actually dealing with the illegals themselves.

If you really want anything to change, you must be willing to concede a few things first.

1) We can not and should not maintain our current global empire while leaving gaping holes in our domestic security.

2) We will not get anywhere placing blame on people rather than the government that not only allowed this to happen, but turned a blind eye to it and the corporate interests that actively recruit in other countries to get these very low paid workers to come here (meat processing plants are just one example).

3) We must fix the system to allow more people in legally, and I'd suggest with a preference to nations in our hemisphere.

4) Trying to paint those who don't subscribe to (what seem to be) generally xenophobic immigration methods as marginal, uber-liberal, or other bastardizations of the many and varied opinions out there is foolish, and that's putting it nicely.

When you want to have a real and practical immigration debate, look me up. I'll be happy to have a real debate, but this ludicrous nonsense really needs to end.

Peace
KJ

What exactly is the issue against immigrants since legal or illegal is just a recall number away from a law past to tighten control over citizens.

Once upon a time immigration was a godd thing and you didn't need to register for it. Social security numbers were issued to support people that were just too old to work anymore.

Look at what it has all become. We bought this load of crap from our government and from corporations that profit off of us. You allow yourselves to be defined by your number. What are you without your number? Can't get a job but it does not stop you from being in business for yourself. Can't get a loan but it does not stop you from buying things. Can't get welfare but if you didn't need welfare, you wouldn't need a number anyway.

What is your complaint? I hardly think that it has anything to do with illegal immigrants coming in but everything to do with your number being used to steal your hard earned cash and credit. Right? You and your parents and grandparents bought into this pedigree registration thing because it was only supposed to be used to give you future benefits.

I say we should make Mexico a state, making them all citizens and solve this problem once and for all. But then again, the illegal immigrants are not the problem, are they? The problem is our government using your pedigree to spend foolishly and your faith in corporations doing wrong by you. Isn't it?

I call it the social security number boom-a-rang. When we firt threw it out there we had no idea it would come back to bite us in the arse. Isn't that the root of the problem?

If You Really Want To Help The Illegals,
Give Them Your Social Security Number

They don't need mine or yours
Their children are legal and have the same last name.
Do you think Social Security cares where the money is coming from?

LOL!

Originally posted by marg6043
reply to post by Alxandro

 

Alejandro espero que tengas la piel the cocodrilo porque te van a comer vivo.

You know I am Spanish also 100% Puertorican even when I was born American and Spanish is my first language I am against illegal immigration.

For that I have been call "elitist, racist and you name it, but the truth about immigration and the problems that our nation is facing can not be denied.

Still your thread tittle just make me laugh my hart out.



[edit on 16-5-2010 by marg6043]

My wife has been told she isn't "brown enough", or called a "potato" (brown on the outside, white on the inside).

But every single person who has ever said that to her got to report to work being paid near minimum wage. A few have worked for her in the years since they said that (you can't hold a grudge from high school).

But her mom and dad always told the kids to act right. To blend into society. "Stop speaking spanish....English is what we speak".

And i can guarantee that my in laws are as Mexican as it comes. Right down to the ugly, border patrol green colored house and the 9 Dallas Cowboys stickers on the FIL's truck.