House Republicans Introduce Bill to Repeal Birthright Citizenship Amendment

reply to post by prexparte

I believe hispanics are a infestation to america and our economy.

^----What you said.

Oh?

Hispanics are an infestation to America, huh? Yes...You know what? You're right we are.

I mean, we come here and all we do, whether legal or not, is get on Medicare and welfare just to bring down the system..I mean, that's why my family and I came here. We heard there was free stuff in America to be had and we came to get it!

When my brother joined the Army 4 years ago, he did it for the mountains of cash and the free stellar health care. It's been a steal...Going to combat twice was just icing on the cake.

It was just getting old for my parents to live in Cuba ya know? All the free stuff they were getting there just wasn't enough...They wanted the comparatively Gold plated free stuff here. It's a matter of sound, rational economics, if free stuff in your country isn't as good as the free stuff in another, move to the other country!

I mean, the ten years my parents spent homeless in Costa Rica(as a sort of layover while we waited for the green light to enter the US) was a vacation....Do you have any idea what it's like to get all that great free stuff we live for ALL THE TIME?! We just needed a break from having stuff.

The logic in your post is irrefutable. NO ONE is going to see anything wrong with that sort of thinking at all...



Huh!!!!???

I sya get rid of the il;legals regardless of where they came from, open up the job industry to the legal citizens. Green card is legal they are included of course. I am in no means anti hispanic, I am pro american, and stand in line and become legal. Im tired of beign legal and beign pushed to the back of the line.

You'll find few, sir, who are as fervently against illegal immigration as I am. But after your first statement, WITHIN THE SAME POST, I'm supposed to believe that you're not anti-Hispanic?

Really? Did you bother to read your own words before hitting the post button?

I've heard the whole "who's going to pick our fruit" argument, and that is just as prejudice as what other folks say if there is actually any prejudice in either argument at all.

btw, as a correction, I was using the term immigrants, which was a flawed use on my part, I meant to use illegal immigrants in my posts prior to this one. I just noticed that, sorry.

Originally posted by Hefficide
reply to post by Logarock

 

Originally posted by Logarock

No this will simply mean that if the parents of a child are not citizens then their child born in this country wont be ither. And only a dammed fool cant see the wisdom of this under the current set up.

Just cut all of those benifits and see how fast they leave the land of liberty! Make them pay taxes and see how fast they bail. Make them act like a citizen and they are out of here for the most part.

Actually this presents a huge conundrum regarding our current financial woes because, whether some folks want to admit it or not, illegals do generate tax revenue. Not only do they pay sales and ad velorum taxes but many, as a side effect of working under aliases and assumed identity, actually pay into the tax and Social Security system - money that they will never claim back.

While I do not support illegal entry into this country, to infer that they somehow live here without contributing anything is just racist propaganda and such flights of logic don't do anything towards solving the problem.

~Heff

Well I am going to have to take offence to being called a racist here and certainly from someone that considers the illegal use of a SSN as a windfall for the owner and system as well as an injustice to the illegal paying in.

Closer to the truth is that these people help to fuel identity theft and many make up in what they "pay" in by taking advantage of "free" services payed for in taxes by self or by the employer of the same guy whos SSN they ripped off.

reply to post by projectvxn


Your post, good Sir... A thing of pure beauty! Kudos.

~Heff

I have no problem with this bill whatsoever.

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by prexparte

 

Really? Did you bother to read your own words before hitting the post button?

edit on 8-1-2011 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)

Ok, but how about addressing the issues she brought up about welfare discrimination.

reply to post by whatukno


S&F, I couldn't agree with you more, with one exception. I don't know if I would call it "reintroducing" slavery because I really don't believe it was ever really eliminated, only remodeled. I guess today's politically correct terminology might be "subsistence level employment" or something like that.

If you remember in the "Roots" mini series right after the slaves were freed, the influential white plantation owners and politicians were meeting inside the store of one of the local merchants when the politician said something to the effect that; "Just because they are legally free doesn't mean that we can't keep them enslaved through debt." He went on to say that these newly freed slaves would be needing supplies in order to become farmers and that so long as they were overcharged for their supplies and underpaid for their products, essentially they would continue to be the slaves of the wealthy elite.

So in reality, slavery has never really been eliminated, only remodeled. The american working class in enslaved through their debt and when they stand up and demand more for their efforts, the corporate elite move their factories and jobs over to the next unsuspecting nation of "newly freed slaves." Slave labor is the keystone to their success, always has been.

Isn't this great. Whether I agree or disagree is not the issue, the issue is that when it comes to our bill of rights, or our constitution, things change with time according to the big wigs. People with felonies cannot own weapons, etc. But when it comes to their agenda's its a misapplication and shouldn't change. Hypocritical bastards.

reply to post by Logarock


How about I discuss it with you instead? You don't think Hispanics are worthless nor did you say so.

I believe that if you aren't a CITIZEN or Legal Permanent Resident(Green Card Holder like me) you shouldn't be able to do the following:


-Work here
-Get free healthcare(No, I most certainly am not talking about emergencies)
-Have your kids here and be automatic citizens; we can remove this through sound legislation without destroying American jurisprudence through repealing the 14th Amendment
-Be able to take part in schools, tuition assistance programs private or public.
-Join Unions
-Renting or buying homes
-Participating in the political process like canvassing(like what happened in California)(Green card holders can't vote)
-Be food Stamp recipients


What should happen to you if you're found to be here, regardless of how long, illegally:

-You should be arrested by ICE(or local police who will then hand you over to ICE)
-You should be investigated for identity theft and if evidence found prosecuted and have assets seized and paid to the victim, or the state(to recoup losses) in the event the victim is deceased and no next of kin can be located.
-Deported either at the end of your prison sentence or immediately after discovery of legal status.

Originally posted by Logarock

Well I am going to have to take offence to being called a racist here and certainly from someone that considers the illegal use of a SSN as a windfall for the owner and system as well as an injustice to the illegal paying in.

Closer to the truth is that these people help to fuel identity theft and many make up in what they "pay" in by taking advantage of "free" services payed for in taxes by self or by the employer of the same guy whos SSN they ripped off.

I do apologize if you feel I called you racist. It was not my intention and my word was meant as a generalization of a concept and not directed specifically towards you. Although I will point out that when refuting the label of racist, turning around and using the words "these people" is probably ill advised. It sends the wrong message entirely.

As to the rest of what you have said... I never said that identity theft and the illegal use of SSN's are a windfall, not did I imply injustice towards those who pay into the system in this manner. My statement was that, as it stands, these illegal aliens to pay into our tax coffers and that avoidance of this reality is propaganda and rhetoric of the highest order.

If we are to address, discuss, and solve problems, as a culture, we simply must learn to get past this partisan tactic of obfuscation and manipulation of facts. Painting this issue in any light, other than an accurate one, can only lead to incorrect application of remedy.

Again, illegal aliens to contribute to our system. To state that they leech from it, without putting anything back into it, is incorrect and is propaganda. This fact must be factored into this discussion because our economy cannot withstand any sharp blows right now and, realistically, if the Tea Party had its way, right now, and booted everyone out, right this moment... many parts of the US would suffer, greatly, from the loss of revenue and labor pool.

It would be a disaster.

~Heff

reply to post by Hefficide


The correct question is then: Do illegals pay more into the system than they take from it? The net effect is important.

reply to post by projectvxn


Well yes her conclusion was overboard even if she did see this unfair treatment.

Originally posted by TimBrummer

Originally posted by aptness
First, the child has no choice where he’s born, nor does he have any influence over the illegal status of his parents. So why should the child be punished by not having US citizenship,

How is being born a Mexican or Polish or Packistani citizen "punishment"?

Why did you truncate my quote? To distort the full meaning of what I wrote? Here’s what I wrote:

So why should the child be punished by not having US citizenship, especially in light of the existing jus soli standard?

The part you omitted is important because it points out that it’s already the practice to afford US citizenship to anyone (except children of diplomats) born in the United States. It’s in light of this that doing what you advocated for — denying citizenship to children of illegal immigrants — would be a punishment, and not in some more general context of “not being born American” as you tried to imply.

In any case, my post merely reflects Supreme Court jurisprudence, namely the principles that “by the Fourteenth Amendment, the powers of the states in dealing with crime within their borders are not limited, but no state can deprive particular persons or classes of persons of equal and impartial justice under the law.” (Caldwell v. Texas, 1891)

An extremely relevant opinion to these matters is the one from Plyler v. Doe (1982) where the Court said—

The illegal aliens who are plaintiffs in these cases challenging the statute may claim the benefit of the Equal Protection Clause, which provides that no State shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is a "person" in any ordinary sense of that term. This Court's prior cases recognizing that illegal aliens are "persons" protected by the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, which Clauses do not include the phrase "within its jurisdiction," cannot be distinguished on the asserted ground that persons who have entered the country illegally are not "within the jurisdiction" of a State even if they are present within its boundaries and subject to its laws. Nor do the logic and history of the Fourteenth Amendment support such a construction. Instead, use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" confirms the understanding that the Fourteenth Amendment's protection extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's territory.

Repealing this provision will NOT cause there to be "millions of people with no country".

Babies will be able to gain the citizenship of their parents in nearly every case, regardless of where they were born.

All this will do is stop the "anchor baby" syndrome, which many countries (for example Switzerland and Spain) already have.

BTW, I FULLY support any strengthening of laws against illegal immigrants or anchor babies.

Originally posted by Darkrunner
I have no problem with this bill whatsoever.

You mean other than trying to amend the Constitution by statute, right? Or that doesn’t bother you at well when it’s the guys you voted for doing it?

reply to post by whatukno


This is wonderful,finally some courage being shown by our represenitives.I am in total support for not granting "Birthright" citizenship to children born from people who broke the law and entered this country ILLEGALLY! There not saying if your parents are legal citizens that you wont receive citizenship on birth.Only that if you arrived here illegally that your child wont be a citizen,and thats fine. Imagration is fine as long as they go through the legal process to obtain it. Those people who came here not using the legal avenue should not be rewarded while people who did things the proper way,and had to fill out the tedeious paperwork,and who had to wait their turn. By them comming here illegally, what does this say about their respect of the laws of this country,or the country itself??? * just my two cents*

reply to post by babybunnies


Repealing the 14th Amendment will also change the way the legal system defines person.

It is a dangerous precedent to set, bunnies.

That's what I meant by destroying American jurisprudence. Between Progressives and Neocons the people don't stand a chance...

WE'RE HAVING THE WRONG ARGUMENT when it comes to the 14th Amendment.

reply to post by Maslo


This is exactly the kind of question that we need to be asking! Thank you very much for asking it.

I think the answer to this question is probably highly regionally specific and diverse. In this sense, the true net values become somewhat less important than the regional totals. Any laws, legislation, or action taken would have to take into consideration these regional issues and the long term well being of those areas.

I personally don't have a horse in this race. I am not Hispanic. My entire position is based in a lifetime of seeing the results of knee-jerk reaction to social issues - and how badly these reactions tend to end up being for the common man.

~Heff

reply to post by ufoyoshi

The United States is a nation founded based on principles of equality, fairness and opportunity, where every child — regardless of background — is born with the same rights as every other US citizen.

If people no longer believe this, or the legislature wishes to add exceptions to this principle, then it has to do so through a Constitutional amendment and not pretend the 14th Amendment doesn’t say what it says.

reply to post by Hefficide


That's how I feel about gun control.

But I digress.

The fact remains that the Federal Government, the executive branch is particular are responsible for enforcing the laws that the legislative passes. We already have some pretty strong laws against illegal immigrants. We have a few holes but most of the stuff that's on my list in the post above is already in the books and have been for 70 years. All of it within the enumerated scope of powers granted to the Feds by the Constitution.

The point is, this really isn't a matter of social issues. It's a matter of law, what the law says, and what the role of government actually is.