PDA

View Full Version : Changing the 14th amendment


taperxz
08-04-2010, 7:17 AM
If Congress changes the 14th as some are proposing, can this change everything in McDonald?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100803/ap_on_go_co/us_republicans_birthright_citizenship


WASHINGTON – Leading Republicans are joining a push to reconsider the constitutional amendment that grants automatic citizenship to people born in the United States.
Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said Tuesday he supports holding hearings on the 14th Amendment right, although he emphasized that Washington's immigration focus should remain on border security.
His comments came as other Republicans in recent days have questioned or challenged birthright citizenship, embracing a cause that had largely been confined to the far right.
The senators include Arizona's John McCain, the party's 2008 presidential nominee; Arizona's Jon Kyl, the Republicans' second-ranking senator; Alabama's Jeff Sessions, the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee, and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a leading negotiator on immigration legislation.
"I'm not sure exactly what the drafters of the (14th) amendment had in mind, but I doubt it was that somebody could fly in from Brazil and have a child and fly back home with that child, and that child is forever an American citizen," Sessions said.
Legal experts say repealing the citizenship right can be done only through constitutional amendment, which would require approval by two-thirds majorities in both chambers of Congress and by three-fourths of the states. Legislation to amend the right, introduced previously in the House, has stalled.
The proposals are sure to appeal to conservative voters as immigration so far is playing a central role in November's elections. They also could carry risks by alienating Hispanic voters and alarming moderates who could view constitutional challenges as extreme. Hispanics have become the largest minority group in the United States, and many are highly driven by the illegal immigrant debate.
McConnell and McCain seemed to recognize the risk by offering guarded statements Tuesday.
McCain, who faces a challenge from the right in his re-election bid, said he supports reviewing citizenship rights. He emphasized, however, that amending the Constitution is a serious matter.
"I believe that the Constitution is a strong, complete and carefully crafted document that has successfully governed our nation for centuries and any proposal to amend the Constitution should receive extensive and thoughtful consideration," he said.
At a news conference, McConnell refused to endorse Graham's suggestion that citizenship rights be repealed for children of illegal immigrants. While refusing to take questions, he suggested instead that he would look narrowly into reports of businesses that help immigrants arrange to have babies in the United States in order to win their children U.S. citizenship.
The 14th Amendment, adopted in 1868 in the aftermath of the Civil War, granted citizenship to "all persons born or naturalized in the United States," including recently freed slaves.
Defenders of the amendment say altering it would weaken a fundamental American value while doing little to deter illegal immigration. They also say it would create bureaucratic hardships for parents giving birth.
Quoting a newspaper columnist, Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada said Republicans were "either taking leave of their senses or their principles" in advocating repeal.
An estimated 10.8 million illegal immigrants were living in the U.S. as of January 2009, according to the Homeland Security Department. The Pew Hispanic Center estimates that as of 2008, there were 3.8 million illegal immigrants in this country whose children are U.S. citizens.

taperxz
08-04-2010, 7:23 AM
Yes I know their focus is on immigration, but once you open up the can of worms?? Can the antis insist on other changes to the 14th??

Lulfas
08-04-2010, 7:34 AM
Thank you! Did you read the article? Our current congress is now thinking of changing the 14th. If they have the votes they can change the whole thing or get rid of it. I appreciate the name calling:cool:

Republicans won't have the votes for it.

taperxz
08-04-2010, 7:37 AM
Republicans won't have the votes for it.

You may be right but what i am getting at is that some may want to open up pandoras box for other reasons. the 14th is a pretty broad amendment.

Doheny
08-04-2010, 7:39 AM
Changing the 14th amendment

While we're at it, let's change the 1st, 2nd and 4th too...

Wake me when this happens.

hill billy
08-04-2010, 7:40 AM
Thank you! Did you read the article? Our current congress is now thinking of changing the 14th. If they have the votes they can change the whole thing or get rid of it. I appreciate the name calling:cool:

I'm pretty sure he wasn't referring to you.

paul0660
08-04-2010, 7:42 AM
I'm pretty sure he wasn't referring to you.

It really doesn't matter. His only excuse is that, in Connecticut, he has already had his three martini lunch.

taperxz
08-04-2010, 7:45 AM
It really doesn't matter. His only excuse is that, in Connecticut, he has already had his three martini lunch.

No big deal. My point is that after reading the article we have NRA backed senators looking at changing the 14th for one reason and may open it up for change for others for another reason.

andalusi
08-04-2010, 7:51 AM
Thank you! Did you read the article? Our current congress is now thinking of changing the 14th. If they have the votes they can change the whole thing or get rid of it. I appreciate the name calling:cool:

Congress doesn't have the power you think it does. They can suggest repealing or modifying the 14th Amendment, but once the bill is passed, it doesn't have any effect on its own. The states, either by state convention or a vote by the state legislature, actually decide whether to approve the change and ratify the new amendment.

Decoligny
08-04-2010, 8:01 AM
It really doesn't matter. His only excuse is that, in Connecticut, he has already had his three martini lunch.

The person he called a fool is Alabama's Jeff Sessions for the following statement:

"I'm not sure exactly what the drafters of the (14th) amendment had in mind, but I doubt it was that somebody could fly in from Brazil and have a child and fly back home with that child, and that child is forever an American citizen," Sessions said.

If the "Honorable" Mr. Sessions would take the time to do a little reading, then he would indeed know EXACTLY what they had in mind.

For not doing this simple little bit of research, Mr. Sessions has opened himself up to legitimately being called a fool.

BluNorthern
08-04-2010, 8:12 AM
Going the long way around the barn...again. Close the border, troops or fence or both or whatever it takes. Get the illegals deported, fine the hell out of businesses that employ them, no more free social programs for illegals. Quit talking it to death with stupid political rhetoric and ACT.

hoffmang
08-04-2010, 8:13 AM
Nothing to worry about:

Article. V.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

-Gene

yellowfin
08-04-2010, 8:40 AM
^ Watch them try to amend that out of the Constitution or ignore it. They don't like playing by the rules when it doesn't suit them, so why pay attention to that?

ScottB
08-04-2010, 9:15 AM
The Constitution has been amended 17 times since it was first adopted along with the Bill of Rights. It can and will be amended again. The 21st Amendment repealed the 18th Amendment (Prohibition) and the 17th Amendment amended the provision in Article 1 of the Constitution to provide for direct election of Senators.

I would bet a significant majority of the country thinks automatic citizenship upon birth, regardless of circumstances, is problematic. Its not a difficult argument to make that the specific intent of that one provision was to address a particular situation that no longer exits - denial of citizenship to freed slaves, and that it is now used mainly to evade immigration laws.

A narrowly written Amendment dealing solely with automatic birthright citizenship does not on the face of it appear to threaten McDonald or the Due Process clause - at least not to my simple brain.

vantec08
08-04-2010, 9:18 AM
Seems it would take a Constitutional Convention to actually change any amendment. The original intent of anchor babies had to do with slavery -- not self-chosen illegal immigration. If that is definable by Congress, lets get after it. But then . .. . there is the "universal usage of long standing" argument.

ScottB
08-04-2010, 9:40 AM
No convention required per my last post. You just need to pass a superceding amendment, the process for which was outlined in the article. Its been done at least twice before.

gef
08-04-2010, 10:20 AM
The ERA was the the last one I remember attempted, it passed both houses but failed to pass the necessary number of states and died when it ran out of time. I don't see anything going for repeal of the 14 amendment.

wash
08-04-2010, 10:22 AM
I really don't like politicians messing around with the 14'th after we just used it to get incorporation.

The real solution to anchor babies is to control the borders.

I hate that Arizona has had to do what they have done because the federal government doesn't control the border.

Do your job and there is no problem.

CaliforniaLiberal
08-04-2010, 10:53 AM
No way in hell would both houses of Congress get a two-thirds vote on anything, must less a Constitutional Amendment. And that's just the first step before getting three fourths of State Legislatures to pass it.

This doesn't open up any Pandora's boxes. Congress does not get to get their sneaky fingers in the Constitution, the proposed Amendment would be simple, cut and dried. Everyone has to agree on the exact same language, no last minute changes or funny business.


The one consideration that I don't hear much in the debate over Immigration Control or Immigration Reform is "How much of your Rights and Freedoms are you willing to give up to achieve your goal here?" How much of our deficit spending you want to blow on putting 3 Army Divisions on the border to "Seal the Border" or Control the Borders". Anyone remember the Iron Curtain? Multiple barbed wire fences, guard towers, machine guns, mine fields, "Shoot On Sight Orders" - How far are you willing to go? "Whatever it takes?" How many billions of dollars that we don't have?

I think we gave up way too much Liberty to "Homeland Security" and "TSA bulls$&@#"t airport body searches/scans." How about proposed National Identity Cards? How about warrentless wiretaps? Secret National Security Letters used to get secret access to your personal information/banking records? How about keeping prisoners without charges or trial for 8 years? Who's next? Are you gonna speak up now or when you're the last ones to be hauled away?

Are you willing to be prepared every minute of every day to prove your citizenship status to whatever Officer or Bureaucrat demands your papers?

How much of your Rights and Freedoms are you willing to give up?

bodger
08-04-2010, 10:56 AM
I hear that.
I don't like politicians messing around with the Constitution, period.

I can only imagine what Nancy Pelosi would like to do with it.

Frightening.

KylaGWolf
08-04-2010, 11:00 AM
Why can't we do here what a lot of other countries do. If you have a child while in that country and neither parent is a legal citizen of that country they are deemed child born abroad from their home country not a citizen of the country they are born in.

I know this from when my daughter was born in England while my now ex was stationed there. Since we were both Americans she was designated an American born abroad. Although she had to be registered with the British Government and did receive a National health number she was in no other way considered a British Citizen, although it was explained it would be easier for her if she ever chose to do so.

By doing the same here it would stop a lot of the headaches that happen when a child is born here of illegal aliens and they deport the parents but the child isn't. Also might take away one of the reasons some come here because they know that the chance of them being deported once they have a child is slim to none.

yellowfin
08-04-2010, 11:05 AM
The Constitution has been amended 17 times since it was first adopted along with the Bill of Rights. It can and will be amended again. The 21st Amendment repealed the 18th Amendment (Prohibition) and the 17th Amendment amended the provision in Article 1 of the Constitution to provide for direct election of Senators.And the 16th Amendment repealed the 13th.

ScottB
08-04-2010, 11:19 AM
And the 16th Amendment repealed the 13th.

The 13th Amendment abolished slavery and indentured servitude. The 16th authorized the income tax.

Oh ... I get it :D

Sutcliffe
08-04-2010, 11:21 AM
Seems this must be an attempt to lay down smoke for something else.

Mitchell_in_CT
08-04-2010, 11:29 AM
Thank you! Did you read the article? Our current congress is now thinking of changing the 14th. If they have the votes they can change the whole thing or get rid of it. I appreciate the name calling:cool:

I was not referring to you, but referring to the quote in the article:

"I'm not sure exactly what the drafters of the (14th) amendment had in mind, but I doubt it was that somebody could fly in from Brazil and have a child and fly back home with that child, and that child is forever an American citizen," Sessions said.

Unless you are Sessions...in which case, I was. :rolleyes:

andalusi
08-04-2010, 11:34 AM
No convention required per my last post. You just need to pass a superceding amendment, the process for which was outlined in the article. Its been done at least twice before.

Your post, however, does not supercede the actual words of the Constitution, which Gene was kind enough to post above. Let me bottomline it for you: when Congress decides to consider a new amendment to the Constitution, that is called a Constitutional Convention. Period. And even if both the House and the Senate by 2/3 vote in each decide to pass the bill, the amendment still does not pass! 3/4 of the states must then approve the new amendment, which they do either by having the state legislatures vote yea or by calling conventions in each state for the public to vote yea.

That is the *only* way amendments to the Constitution can be created. It even states as much in the article you apparently didn't read too carefully.

Mitchell_in_CT
08-04-2010, 11:35 AM
People who are so eager to amend the constitution are more dangerous that all the effects of illegal immigration combined.

ScottB
08-04-2010, 11:36 AM
The ERA was the the last one I remember attempted, it passed both houses but failed to pass the necessary number of states and died when it ran out of time. I don't see anything going for repeal of the 14 amendment.

Repealing the 14th is not what is being proposed.

What is proposed is a 28th Amendment restating that babies born to aliens while in this country will have the same legal status as their parents. e.g. Green card parents = green card baby; illegal (undocumented) parents = undocumented baby. Children will inherit their parents citizenship. Seems pretty straightforward to me. Why all the paranoia?

The ERA died in 1989 because by then it was largely mooted by court decisions and had been effectively reduced to a political statement. But the 27th (regulates Congressional pay) passed in 1992. Granted, it took 200 years, but still ...

I think there are a few proposed amendments pending state ratification still floating around, but they have no champions and are dead

stix213
08-04-2010, 11:42 AM
McCain just wants to seem far enough to the right as to not lose his job.

There is no serious chance 2/3 of both houses + 3/4 of all states will support getting rid of birth right citizenship. The party in power right now depends on it to continue increasing its voter base after all.

ScottB
08-04-2010, 11:44 AM
Your post, however, does not supercede the actual words of the Constitution, which Gene was kind enough to post above. Let me bottomline it for you: when Congress decides to consider a new amendment to the Constitution, that is called a Constitutional Convention. Period. And even if both the House and the Senate by 2/3 vote in each decide to pass the bill, the amendment still does not pass! 3/4 of the states must then approve the new amendment, which they do either by having the state legislatures vote yea or by calling conventions in each state for the public to vote yea.

That is the *only* way amendments to the Constitution can be created. It even states as much in the article you apparently didn't read too carefully.

Read that paragraph more closely and focus on the word "or" and "in either case" We have amended the Constitution many times. No Constitutional Convention has ever been called by 2/3 of the states - and that is a procedure reserved to the States. The Federal Republic would likely have to be in near collapse for that to occur.

The procedure that has always been used is the one discussed - to be introduced as a bill and passed in both houses of Congress and then ratified by 3/4 of the states.

The article in the first post even states as much:

Legal experts say repealing the citizenship right can be done only through constitutional amendment, which would require approval by two-thirds majorities in both chambers of Congress and by three-fourths of the states. Legislation to amend the right, introduced previously in the House, has stalled.

Mitchell_in_CT
08-04-2010, 11:57 AM
Constitutional amendments are extreme responses to a situation which is resolvable on a mush simpler, less extreme level - a policy of increased enforcement of established laws.

It is the equivalent of spanking a baby with an axe, and just as inteligent of a response to a problem.

ScottB
08-04-2010, 12:04 PM
Constitutional amendments are extreme responses to a situation which is resolvable on a mush simpler, less extreme level - a policy of increased enforcement of established laws.

It is the equivalent of spanking a baby with an axe, and just as inteligent of a response to a problem.

The problem, as I understand it, is that the Citizenship Clause in the 14th gives us the current situation and it can only be undone by subsequent amendment. You can't get around it with a simple law as it would be struck down for being in conflict with the 14th.

How else would you propose changing the situation?

BigDogatPlay
08-04-2010, 12:07 PM
Interpretation of the Citizenship Clause in the 14th, by all three branches of government, is what gives us the current situation, as I understand it.

gobler
08-04-2010, 12:10 PM
A few member of congress have already stated they are NOT touching this one until after the election. So, if the "R"s have a sweep like some think, then I will wager they will indeed try this. Here is a brief history of the 14th...


SECTION 1. RIGHTS GUARANTEED: CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES

In the Dred Scott Case, 1 Chief Justice Taney for the Court ruled that United States citizenship was enjoyed by two classes of individuals: (1) white persons born in the United States as descendents of ''persons, who were at the time of the adoption of the Constitution recognized as citizens in the several States and [who] became also citizens of this new political body,'' the United States of America, and (2) those who, having been ''born outside the dominions of the United States,'' had migrated thereto and been naturalized therein. The States were competent, he continued, to confer state citizenship upon anyone in their midst, but they could not make the recipient of such status a citizen of the United States. The ''Negro,'' or ''African race,'' according to the Chief Justice, was ineligible to attain United States citizenship, either from a State or by virtue of birth in the United States, even as a free man descended from a Negro residing as a free man in one of the States at the date of ratification of the Constitution. 2 Congress, first in Sec. 1 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 3 and then in the first sentence of Sec. 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, 4 set aside the Dred Scott holding in a sentence ''declaratory of existing rights, and affirmative of existing law. . . .'' 5

While clearly establishing a national rule on national citizenship and settling a controversy of long standing with regard to the derivation of national citizenship, the Fourteenth Amendment did not obliterate the distinction between national and state citizenship, but rather preserved it. 6 The Court has accorded the first sentence of Sec. 1 a construction in accordance with the congressional intentions, holding that a child born in the United States of Chinese parents who themselves were ineligible to be naturalized is nevertheless a citizen of the United States entitled to all the rights and privileges of citizenship. 7 Congress' intent in including the qualifying phrase ''and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,'' was apparently to exclude from the reach of the language children born of diplomatic representatives of a foreign state and children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation, both recognized exceptions to the common-law rule of acquired citizenship by birth, 8 as well as children of members of Indian tribes subject to tribal laws. 9 The lower courts have generally held that the citizenship of the parents determines the citizenship of children born on vessels in United States territorial waters or on the high seas. 10

In Afroyim v. Rusk, 11 a divided Court extended the force of this first sentence beyond prior holdings, ruling that it withdrew from the Government of the United States the power to expatriate United States citizens against their will for any reason. ''[T]he Amendment can most reasonably be read as defining a citizenship which a citizen keeps unless he voluntarily relinquishes it. Once acquired, this Fourteenth Amendment citizenship was not to be shifted, canceled, or diluted at the will of the Federal Government, the States, or any other government unit. It is true that the chief interest of the people in giving permanence and security to citizenship in the Fourteenth Amendment was the desire to protect Negroes. . . . This undeniable purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment to make citizenship of Negroes permanent and secure would be frustrated by holding that the Government can rob a citizen of his citizenship without his consent by simply proceeding to act under an implied general power to regulate foreign affairs or some other power generally granted.'' 12 In a subsequent decision, however, the Court held that persons who were statutorily naturalized by being born abroad of at least one American parent could not claim the protection of the first sentence of Sec. 1 and that Congress could therefore impose a reasonable and non-arbitrary condition subsequent upon their continued retention of United States citizenship. 13 Between these two decisions there is a tension which should call forth further litigation efforts to explore the meaning of the citizenship sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Citizens of the United States within the meaning of this Amendment must be natural and not artificial persons; a corporate body is not a citizen of the United States. 14

Footnotes

[Footnote 1] Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393, 404 -06, 417-18, 419-20 (1857).

[Footnote 2] The controversy, political as well as constitutional, which this case stirred and still stirs, is exemplified and analyzed in the material collected in S. Kutler, The Dred Scott Decision: Law or Politics? (1967).

[Footnote 3] ''That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States; and such citizens, of every race and color, without regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude . . . shall have the same right[s]. . . .'' Ch. 31, 14 Stat. 27.

[Footnote 4] The proposed amendment as it passed the House contained no such provision, and it was decided in the Senate to include language like that finally adopted. Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. 2560, 2768-69, 2869 (1866). The sponsor of the language said: ''This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is . . . a citizen of the United States.'' Id. at 2890. The legislative history is discussed at some length in Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253, 282 -86 (1967) (Justice Harlan dissenting).

[Footnote 5] United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 688 (1898).

[Footnote 6] Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36, 74 (1873).

[Footnote 7] United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898).

[Footnote 8] Id. at 682.

[Footnote 9] Id. at 680-82; Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94, 99 (1884).

[Footnote 10] United States v. Gordon, 25 Fed. Cas. 1364 (C.C.S.D.N.Y. 1861) (No. 15,231); In re Look Tin Sing, 21 F. 905 (C.C.Cal. 1884); Lam Mow v. Nagle, 24 F.2d 316 (9th Cir. 1928).

[Footnote 11] 387 U.S. 253 (1967). Though the Court upheld the involuntary expatriation of a woman citizen of the United States during her marriage to a foreign citizen in Mackenzie v. Hare, 239 U.S. 299 (1915), the subject first received extended judicial treatment in Perez v. Brownell, 356 U.S. 44 (1958), in which by a five-to-four decision the Court upheld a statute denaturalizing a native-born citizen for having voted in a foreign election. For the Court, Justice Frankfurter reasoned that Congress' power to regulate foreign affairs carried with it the authority to sever the relationship of this country with one of its citizens to avoid national implication in acts of that citizen which might embarrass relations with a foreign nation. Id. at 60-62. Three of the dissenters denied that Congress had any power to denaturalize. See discussion supra pp. 272-76. In the years before Afroyim, a series of decisions had curbed congressional power.

[Footnote 12] Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253, 262 -63 (1967). Four dissenters, Justices Harlan, Clark, Stewart, and White, controverted the Court's reliance on the history and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment and reasserted Justice Frankfurter's previous reasoning in Perez. Id. at 268.

[Footnote 13] Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971). This, too, was a five-to-four decision, Justices Blackmun, Harlan, Stewart, and White, and Chief Justice Burger in the majority, and Justices Black, Douglas, Brennan, and Marshall dissenting.

[Footnote 14] Insurance Co. v. New Orleans, 13 Fed. Cas. 67 (C.C.D.La. 1870). Not being citizens of the United States, corporations accordingly have been declared unable ''to claim the protection of that clause of the Fourteenth Amendment which secures the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States against abridgment or impairment by the law of a State.'' Orient Ins. Co. v. Daggs, 172 U.S. 557, 561 (1869). This conclusion was in harmony with the earlier holding in Paul v. Virginia, 75 U.S. (8 Wall.) 168 (1869), to the effect that corporations were not within the scope of the privileges and immunities clause of state citizenship set out in Article IV, Sec. 2. See also Selover, Bates & Co. v. Walsh, 226 U.S. 112, 126 (1912); Berea College v. Kentucky, 211 U.S. 45 (1908); Liberty Warehouse Co. v. Tobacco Growers, 276 U.S. 71, 89 (1928); Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U.S. 233, 244 (1936).

gobler
08-04-2010, 12:11 PM
SECTION 1. RIGHTS GUARANTEED: PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES

Unique among constitutional provisions, the privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment enjoys the distinction of having been rendered a ''practical nullity'' by a single decision of the Supreme Court issued within five years after its ratification. In the Slaughter-House Cases, 15 a bare majority of the Court frustrated the aims of the most aggressive sponsors of this clause, to whom was attributed an intention to centralize ''in the hands of the Federal Government large powers hitherto exercised by the States'' with a view to enabling business to develop unimpeded by state interference. This expansive alteration of the federal system was to have been achieved by converting the rights of the citizens of each State as of the date of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment into privileges and immunities of United States citizenship and thereafter perpetuating this newly defined status quo through judicial condemnation of any state law challenged as ''abridging'' any one of the latter privileges. To have fostered such intentions, the Court declared, would have been ''to transfer the security and protection of all the civil rights . . . to the Federal Government, . . . to bring within the power of Congress the entire domain of civil rights heretofore belonging exclusively to the States,'' and to ''constitute this court a perpetual censor upon all legislation of the States, on the civil rights of their own citizens, with authority to nullify such as it did not approve as consistent with those rights, as they existed at the time of the adoption of this amendment. . . . [The effect of] so great a departure from the structure and spirit of our institutions . . . is to fetter and degrade the State governments by subjecting them to the control of Congress, in the exercise of powers heretofore universally conceded to them of the most ordinary and fundamental character. . . . We are convinced that no such results were intended by the Congress . . . , nor by the legislatures . . . which ratified'' this amendment, and that the sole ''pervading purpose'' of this and the other War Amendments was ''the freedom of the slave race.''

Conformably to these conclusions, the Court advised the New Orleans butchers that the Louisiana statute, conferring on a single corporation a monopoly of the business of slaughtering cattle, abrogated no rights possessed by them as United States citizens; insofar as that law interfered with their claimed privilege of pursuing the lawful calling of butchering animals, the privilege thus terminated was merely one of ''those which belonged to the citizens of the States as such.'' Privileges and immunities of state citizenship had been ''left to the state governments for security and protection'' and had not been placed by this clause ''under the special care of the Federal Government.'' The only privileges which the Fourteenth Amendment protected against state encroachment were declared to be those ''which owe their existence to the Federal Government, its National character, its Constitution, or its laws.'' 16 These privileges, however, had been available to United States citizens and protected from state interference by operation of federal supremacy even prior to the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Slaughter-House Cases, therefore, reduced the privileges and immunities clause to a superfluous reiteration of a prohibition already operative against the states.

Although the Court has expressed a reluctance to attempt a definitive enumeration of those privileges and immunities of United States citizens which are protected against state encroachment, it nevertheless felt obliged in the Slaughter-House Cases ''to suggest some which owe their existence to the Federal Government, its National character, its Constitution, or its laws.'' 17 Among those which it then identified were the right of access to the seat of Government and to the seaports, subtreasuries, land officers, and courts of justice in the several States, the right to demand protection of the Federal Government on the high seas or abroad, the right of assembly, the privilege of habeas corpus, the right to use the navigable waters of the United States, and rights secured by treaty. In Twining v. New Jersey, 18 the Court recognized ''among the rights and privileges'' of national citizenship the right to pass freely from State to State, 19 the right to petition Congress for a redress of grievances, 20 the right to vote for national officers, 21 the right to enter public lands, 22 the right to be protected against violence while in the lawful custody of a United States marshal, 23 and the right to inform the United States authorities of violation of its laws. 24 Earlier, in a decision not mentioned in Twining, the Court had also acknowledged that the carrying on of interstate commerce is ''a right which every citizen of the United States is entitled to exercise.'' 25

gobler
08-04-2010, 12:12 PM
In modern times, the Court has continued the minor role accorded to the clause, only occasionally manifesting a disposition to enlarge the restraint which it imposes upon state action. Colgate v. Harvey, 26 which was overruled five years later, 27 represented the first attempt by the Court since adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment to convert the privileges and immunities clause into a source of protection of other than those ''interests growing out of the relationship between the citizen and the national government.'' Here, the Court declared that the right of a citizen resident in one State to contract in another, to transact any lawful business, or to make a loan of money, in any State other than that in which the citizen resides was a privilege of national citizenship which was abridged by a state income tax law excluding from taxable income interest received on money loaned within the State. In Hague v. CIO, 28 two and perhaps three justices thought that freedom to use municipal streets and parks for the dissemination of information concerning provisions of a federal statute and to assemble peacefully therein for discussion of the advantages and opportunities offered by such act was a privilege and immunity of a United States citizen, and in Edwards v. California 29 four Justices were prepared to rely on the clause. 30 In Oyama v. California, 31 in a single sentence the Court agreed with the contention of a native-born youth that a state Alien Land Law, applied to work a forfeiture of property purchased in his name with funds advanced by his parent, a Japanese alien ineligible for citizenship and precluded from owning land, deprived him ''of his privileges as an American citizen.'' The right to acquire and retain property had previously not been set forth in any of the enumerations as one of the privileges protected against state abridgment, although a federal statute enacted prior to the proposal and ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment did confer on all citizens the same rights to purchase and hold real property as white citizens enjoyed. 32

In other respects, however, claims based on this clause have been rejected. 33

Footnotes

[Footnote 15] 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36, 71 , 77-79 (1873).

[Footnote 16] Id. at 78-79.

[Footnote 17] Id. at 79.

[Footnote 18] 211 U.S. 78, 97 (1908).

[Footnote 19] Citing Crandall v. Nevada, 73 U.S. (65 Wall.) 35 (1868). It was observed in United States v. Wheeler, 254 U.S. 281, 299 (1920), that the statute at issue in Crandall was actually held to burden directly the performance by the United States of its governmental functions. Cf. Passenger Cases, 48 U.S. (7 How.) 282, 491 -92 (1849) (Chief Justice Taney dissenting). Four concurring Justices in Edwards v. California, 314 U.S. 160, 177 , 181 (1941), would have grounded a right of interstate travel on the privileges and immunities clause. More recently, the Court declined to ascribe a source but was content to assert the right to be protected. United States v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745, 758 (1966); Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 629 -31 (1969). Three Justices ascribed the source to this clause in Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112, 285 -87 (1970) (Justices Stewart and Blackmun and Chief Justice Burger, concurring in part and dissenting in part).

[Footnote 20] Citing United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876).

[Footnote 21] Citing Ex parte Yarbrough, 110 U.S. 651 (1884); Wiley v. Sinkler, 179 U.S. 58 (1900). Note Justice Douglas' reliance on this clause in Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112, 149 (1970) (concurring in part and dissenting in part).

[Footnote 22] Citing United States v. Waddell, 112 U.S. 76 (1884).

[Footnote 23] Citing Logan v. United States, 144 U.S. 263 (1892).

[Footnote 24] Citing In re Quarles and Butler, 158 U.S. 532 (1895).

[Footnote 25] Crutcher v. Kentucky, 141 U.S. 47, 57 (1891).

[Footnote 26] 296 U.S. 404 (1935).

[Footnote 27] Madden v. Kentucky, 309 U.S. 83, 93 (1940).

[Footnote 28] 307 U.S. 496, 510 -18 (1939) (Justices Roberts and Black; Chief Justice Hughes may or may not have concurred on this point. Id. at 532). Justices Stone and Reed preferred to base the decision on the due process clause. Id. at 518.

[Footnote 29] 314 U.S. 160, 177 -83 (1941).

[Footnote 30] See also Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112, 149 (1970) (Justice Douglas); id. at 285-87 (Justices Stewart and Blackmun and Chief Justice Burger).

[Footnote 31] 332 U.S. 633, 640 (1948).

[Footnote 32] Civil Rights Act of 1866, ch. 31, 14 Stat. 27, now 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1982, as amended.

[Footnote 33] E.g., Holden v. Hardy, 169 U.S. 366, 380 (1898) (statute limiting hours of labor in mines); Williams v. Fears, 179 U.S. 270, 274 (1900) (statute taxing the business of hiring persons to labor outside the State); Wilmington Mining Co. v. Fulton, 205 U.S. 60, 73 (1907) (statute requiring employment of only licensed mine managers and examiners and imposing liability on the mine owner for failure to furnish a reasonably safe place for workmen); Heim v. McCall, 239 U.S. 175 (1915); Crane v. New York, 239 U.S. 195 (1915) (statute restricting employment on state public works to citizens of the United States, with a preference to citizens of the State); Missouri Pacific Ry. v. Castle, 224 U.S. 541 (1912) (statute making railroads liable to employees for injuries caused by negligence of fellow servants and abolishing the defense of contributory negligence); Western Union Tel. Co. v. Milling Co., 218 U.S. 406 (1910) (statute prohibiting a stipulation against liability for negligence in delivery of interstate telegraph messages); Bradwell v. Illinois, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 130, 139 (1873); In re Lockwood, 154 U.S. 116 (1894) (refusal of state court to license a woman to practice law); Kirtland v. Hotchkiss, 100 U.S. 491, 499 (1879) (law taxing a debt owed a resident citizen by a resident of another State and secured by mortgage of land in the debtor's State); Bartemeyer v. Iowa, 85 U.S. (18 Wall.) 129 (1874); Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U.S. 623 (1887); Crowley v. Christensen, 137 U.S. 86, 91 (1890); Giozza v. Tiernan, 148 U.S. 657 (1893) (statutes regulating the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors); In re Kemmler, 136 U.S. 436 (1890) (statute regulating the method of capital punishment); Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162 (1875) (statute regulating the franchise to male citizens); Pope v. Williams, 193 U.S. 621 (1904) (statute requiring persons coming into a State to make a declaration of intention to become citizens and residents thereof before being permitted to register as voters); Ferry v. Spokane, P. & S. Ry., 258 U.S. 314 (1922) (statute restricting dower, in case wife at time of husband's death is a nonresident, to lands of which he died seized); Walker v. Sauvinet, 92 U.S. 90 (1876) (statute restricting right to jury trial in civil suits at common law); Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 267 (1886) (statute restricting drilling or parading in any city by any body of men without license of the Governor); Maxwell v. Dow, 176 U.S. 581, 596 , 597-98 (1900) (provision for prosecution upon information, and for a jury (except in capital cases) of eight persons); New York ex rel. Bryant v. Zimmerman, 278 U.S. 63, 71 (1928) (statute penalizing the becoming or remaining a member of any oathbound association (other than benevolent orders, and the like) with knowledge that the association has failed to file its constitution and membership lists); Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319 (1937) (statute allowing a State to appeal in criminal cases for errors of law and to retry the accused); Breedlove v. Suttles, 302 U.S. 277 (1937) (statute making the payment of poll taxes a prerequisite to the right to vote); Madden v. Kentucky, 309 U.S. 83, 92 -93 (1940), (overruling Colgate v. Harvey, 296 U.S. 404, 430 (1935)) (statute whereby deposits in banks outside the State are taxed at 50 cents per $100); Snowden v. Hughes, 321 U.S. 1 (1944) (the right to become a candidate for state office is a privilege of state citizenship, not national citizenship); MacDougall v. Green, 335 U.S. 281 (1948) (Illinois Election Code requirement that a petition to form and nominate candidates for a new political party be signed by at least 200 voters from each of at least 50 of the 102 counties in the State, notwithstanding that 52% of the voters reside in only one county and 87% in the 49 most populous counties); New York v. O'Neill, 359 U.S. 1 (1959) (Uniform Reciprocal State Law to secure attendance of witnesses from within or without a State in criminal proceedings); James v. Valtierra, 402 U.S. 137 (1971) (a provision in a state constitution to the effect that low-rent housing projects could not be developed, constructed, or acquired by any state governmental body without the affirmative vote of a majority of those citizens participating in a community referendum).



The rest is on property rights and such.

Vox
08-04-2010, 12:14 PM
this is an abhorrent idea. I don't think anyone should support it. We don't NEED to change this law we simply need to change our immigration policy and secure the border.

locosway
08-04-2010, 12:19 PM
I'm all for changing the 14th so we don't allow people to have anchor babies. However, can do allow congress to go in there and modify the 14th without changing key areas that are crucial to the rights of the citizens?

It's a hard question to address here, but I do think we should focus on other areas such as tighter borders, and deportation for all illegals that are currently here.

Mitchell_in_CT
08-04-2010, 12:23 PM
A systematic inhospitability to people illegally in the united states obtaining work.

If you as an employer hire an illegal and pay him below minimum wage, fail to pay his appropriate taxes and SSI, then make the employer strictly liable for the employee's unpaid taxes, as well as all penalties and interest which would acrue for the lack of payment.

Further, the employer would be subject to civil sanctions for exploitation of workers and be liable for triple damages to the employee for failing to pay him minimum wage.

Additionally, civil forfiture of all profits the employer obtained through the exploitation of his worker, as well as forfiture of profits on the imputed income from paying someone below the legal minimum wage.

Using round numbers...

Minimum wage is $10 an hour. Gross income per day (8 hours) is $80/day. ($400/week)

Assume 20% taxes & deductions...$16/day in taxes...5 days per week, $80/week in taxes

Net to the employee would be $320 per week.

Employer pays illegal $250/week under the table.

The difference between the Gross of $400 an employee making minimum wage and $250 ($150) is unlawful, untaxed income to the employer. Bang him for that.

The $80 per week that the employee should have been paying...that's on the employer's head. Bang him for that too.

The interest on the unpaid taxes the employee should have paid...yup on the employer. Penalties for non-payment...you got it!

Oh, and your dasterdly failure to pay the illegal a living wage...yeah, that $150 per week difference between minimum wage and what you paid (the illegal income we mentioned above...yeah...the one you now have to fork over to the state department of taxation...) you need to pay the illegal triple damages. :) For ever $150 you didn't pay the illegal guy you owe him $450.

Oh...and what you already paid him - barred from taking that off your taxes as a business expense.

Oh, yeah...and we encourage illegals to report economic exploitation. State economic exploitation commission. Limited appeals. Relaxed rules of evidence. Informal, and foriegn language friendly.


Now. Who wants to hire an illegal alien under that system?

Illegal immigration would dry up. It would be like Rome salting the fields of Carthage.

Without firing a shot, without building a wall...

Make illegal labor too expensive and people will go with the less costly alternative.

Americans and people with green cards.

joedogboy
08-04-2010, 1:08 PM
No change to the text is needed.

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.

If immigrants are truly "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States, they are in the country legally. Being here illegally is an obvious declaration by them that they do not accept that they are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

a1c
08-04-2010, 1:10 PM
Not gonna happen, and wouldn't change a thing anyway regarding immigration.

This is just lame pandering to gather some votes for the upcoming election. I wish politicians would focus on actually fixing the problems by addressing the root cause of an issue, rather than targeting symptoms to pander to the populace.

bohoki
08-04-2010, 1:13 PM
i say let it be if you are born here you are "from" here simple

the idea of the anchor baby is false there is nothing wrong with a forigner taking their us born child home with them

Vox
08-04-2010, 1:17 PM
The idea of suddenly denying people born here citizenship approaches a dangerous precedent.

hoffmang
08-04-2010, 1:39 PM
If immigrants are truly "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States, they are in the country legally. Being here illegally is an obvious declaration by them that they do not accept that they are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

How many undocumented aliens can use that to keep from getting arrested? 0. Move along.

:popcorn: Xenophobia FTW!

-Gene

Vox
08-04-2010, 2:11 PM
How many undocumented aliens can use that to keep from getting arrested? 0. Move along.

:popcorn: Xenophobia FTW!

-Gene

it really is the only thing that approaches a valid constitutional argument. However it still doens't work, close but not sufficient.

dantodd
08-04-2010, 2:24 PM
I find the possibility of someone coming over on a tourist visa with the intent to give birth in the U.S. strictly to give their child the option to immigrate later in life much more vexing than the "anchor baby" issue.

If someone is trying to make a life for themselves here then I can see giving their children citizenship, if they are merely "creating a future opportunity" for a child with no intention of being part of our nation I see a lot wrong with that. Citizenship shouldn't be bartered or acquired as an arbitrage investment.

Since we have no proposed text it is impossible to guess if any of this would effect 2A but my guess is that it would be very narrowly written to not adversely effect existing 14A jurisprudence beyond the intended change.

If this were to get through the legislature I suspect it would have a decent chance of being ratified by the states. (assuming it is written narrowly enough)

a1c
08-04-2010, 2:28 PM
Keep in mind that all the European countries which over the past half century got rid of jus solis didn't solve ANY of their own immigration issues.

All that resulted in is creating a group of disenfranchised kids with no national identity (many of whom never even visited their parents' countries of origin), who feel denied the very right of belonging to the country where they grew up. It creates resentment, and it divides instead of building national pride.

Revising the previous SCOTUS decisions on this very topic (which even the current, relatively conservative court would refuse to do) would not achieve anything in solving the current illegal immigration issue. It would actually make things even worse.

vantec08
08-04-2010, 2:41 PM
No way in hell would both houses of Congress get a two-thirds vote on anything, must less a Constitutional Amendment. And that's just the first step before getting three fourths of State Legislatures to pass it.

This doesn't open up any Pandora's boxes. Congress does not get to get their sneaky fingers in the Constitution, the proposed Amendment would be simple, cut and dried. Everyone has to agree on the exact same language, no last minute changes or funny business.


The one consideration that I don't hear much in the debate over Immigration Control or Immigration Reform is "How much of your Rights and Freedoms are you willing to give up to achieve your goal here?" How much of our deficit spending you want to blow on putting 3 Army Divisions on the border to "Seal the Border" or Control the Borders". Anyone remember the Iron Curtain? Multiple barbed wire fences, guard towers, machine guns, mine fields, "Shoot On Sight Orders" - How far are you willing to go? "Whatever it takes?" How many billions of dollars that we don't have?

I think we gave up way too much Liberty to "Homeland Security" and "TSA bulls$&@#"t airport body searches/scans." How about proposed National Identity Cards? How about warrentless wiretaps? Secret National Security Letters used to get secret access to your personal information/banking records? How about keeping prisoners without charges or trial for 8 years? Who's next? Are you gonna speak up now or when you're the last ones to be hauled away?

Are you willing to be prepared every minute of every day to prove your citizenship status to whatever Officer or Bureaucrat demands your papers?

How much of your Rights and Freedoms are you willing to give up?



. . . .. gonna make it simple. It is already a requirement for aliens to carry papers. How much of our deficit spending is needed? None. Use what we formerly gave away to ACORN, half of the Dept. of Ed. budget, and half of what we spend on environmental nonsense. What we are confronting on the southern border is far more important than redistributing school district's budgets for the fantasy "level playing field" or other special interest group crap. If school districts need more funding, then they can peddle bonds or otherwise come up with their own funding. Our school districts did quite well for many, many years that way. Then tell the interest groups publicly that we are going to redirect funding to projects that benefit ALL Americans -- not just interest groups pet projects. There are so freaking many ways to fund it. Its about priorities and the moxie to set them. As Sarah Palin and the Sheriff from AZ have correctly noted - just take the cajones to do it.

ScottB
08-04-2010, 2:45 PM
What's abhorent about it? It would align us with the law in most other countries in the world.

We should change our immigration policies and secure the border, and prosecute employers of illegals too. We also need to create a fair and effective guest worker program where migrant workers can come and go safely and work under decent conditions while they are here. Don't fall into the trap of an either/or argument. It all needs to be done.

However, anchor babies effectively negate our immigration policies for any woman (and her citizen child) who manages to give birth in this country.

The borders will always be somewhat porous (and its more than just the physical border with Mexico) and as long as anchor babies and amnesty are held out as a possibility, people will come here and stay by any means necessary waiting for the day they get legal residency and citizenship.

And a technical point: Nothing would "change" or repeal or rewrite the 14th Amendment or the case law around it. It would exist in the Constitution as it always has. There would be an entirely new amendment (#28)added to the Constitution which would redefine natural born citizen and it would generate its own case law that would supercede or add to previous rulings on the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment.

vantec08
08-04-2010, 2:50 PM
The idea of suddenly denying people born here citizenship approaches a dangerous precedent.


So what exactly is the "danger"? I got a huge flash for you - - there are things that are FAR more dangerous and are here RIGHT FREAKIN NOW.

joedogboy
08-04-2010, 3:43 PM
How many undocumented aliens can use that to keep from getting arrested? 0. Move along.

:popcorn: Xenophobia FTW!

-Gene

Here's one criminal who was allowed to return to the streets - where he murdered three innocent people - largely due to his being an illegal alien in a "sanctuary city".

Local and federal authorities in San Francisco are pointing the figure at each other over who is to blame for the March release of an illegal immigrant now charged with triple murder.

Officials from Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the San Francisco Sheriff's Department are blaming each other for the release of Edwin Ramos, 21, the Salvadoran national charged with the murders last month of Anthony Bologna and his two sons as they were returning home from a picnic.

The case prompted public outcry after it emerged that when Ramos was 17, because of the city's sanctuary policy, local officials did not contact the feds to determine his immigration status when he was convicted on two gang-related felonies. He also was arrested with an acquaintance earlier this year on a gun charge. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,389147,00.html


Again, Ramos' status as an illegal alien in a "sanctuary city" kept the law from being applied to him.

The SFPD records, obtained pursuant to the provisions of the California Public Records Act, identify Ramos, "based on . . . numerous documented contacts" as being an active member of the MS-13 street gang. The records, which document that he is not a U.S. citizen, also show Ramos's previous March 30, 2008 , arrest related to weapons and gang charges. San Francisco prosecutors declined to charge Ramos. He was released on April 2, 2008 .

Reports in the San Francisco Chronicle revealed that Ramos is an illegal alien who was found to have committed two (2) felonies at the age of 17 - a gang-related assault and an attempted robbery of a pregnant woman.

Despite his violent criminal behavior Ramos, a Salvadoran native, was not turned over by San Francisco juvenile justice officials to federal immigration authorities. San Francisco law prohibits local officials from cooperating with federal officials in deporting illegal aliens.
http://www.sanctuarybusters.org/San_Francisco_Illegal_Alien_Sanctuary_Case.php


More recently: It doesn't sound like the law was being fully applied to this DUI murderer either, who was repeatedly released after being arrested, rather than being deported - as the court expected. It seems like he was habitually breaking the law because it didn't seem to apply to him.

But this week, a tragic accident involving three Benedictine sisters from Richmond offered the right a story of how deportation gridlock hurts real people. One of the nuns was killed and two were left in critical condition after their vehicle collided with a car driven by 23-year-old Carlos A. Martinelly-Montano, an apparently illegal immigrant who was charged in the accident with DUI for the third time.http://voices.washingtonpost.com/local-opinions/2010/08/victims_exist_on_both_sides.html

The young man originally from Bolivia has been arrested twice before and charged with drunk driving, and has other arrests for other traffic-related offenses, say police.

As a result of at least one of these offenses, Montano was turned over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement and was expected to be deported; however, the Department of Homeland Security released Montano in 2008 pending a review of his case.

Corey Stewart, chairman of Prince William County's Board of Supervisors, is wondering why Montano had not been deported and why he was still able to drive.

"We handed him over to the feds assuming he would be deported, but instead federal authorities released him back into the neighborhood and he killed a nun," Stewart said. "We feel like we are beating our heads against the wall.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20012650-504083.html

Sunday’s crash marked his third drunken driving arrest in five years. He is also charged with involuntary manslaughter and felony driving on a revoked license.

“How he could be out of jail with this many offenses on his record, and be wanted by Immigrations and Customs enforcement is beyond me. I foresee him serving many years in the penitentiary,” said Prince William County Commonwealth Attorney Paul B. Ebert.

Montano was cited by ICE for alien removal in March 2009, said Ebert. But since that time, his record contains a litany of driving-related citations and alcohol convictions.

“This is someone who thumbed their nose at the law because he said he had to take his children to daycare,” said Ebert.

In July of 2007, Montano was charged with drunken driving and later convicted. In December, he was charged with being drunk in public. A judge convicted him on that charge in March 2008.

On Oct. 4, 2008, Martinelly was back in front of a judge after being stopped in the area of Va. 28 and Kincheloe Drive for driving 55 in a 35 mph zone, according to court records.

The police officer made him get out of the car, saw that he had “glassy eyes,” and then made him walk in a straight line to test his sobriety, according to court records.

He told the officer that he had three to six beers to drink that night, court records show.

He was arrested and later tested positive for alcohol use during a breathalyzer test, blowing a .17 per 210 liters of alcohol in his blood, well above Virginia’s .08 legal driving limit, according to court records.

After an April 2009 jury trial, Montano was sentenced to 363 days in jail but served only 20 of them. He was also fined $5,000, was sentenced to three years of probation and had his driver’s license revoked for the same amount of time, court records show.

Later that month, he was caught driving without a license and was convicted of the crime in June, according to court records.

He was also found guilty in Fairfax last year for driving on a revoked license.

ICE officials late Monday said they were preparing a statement on Martinelly’s deportation case, but it had not been released at press time.

Corey Stewart, chairman of the Prince William Board of Supervisors, called the nun’s death “appalling.“

“The despicable thing is that this criminal was … handed over to ICE twice, and released by ICE twice. He’s gone out an killed a nun. That’s a perfect example of what’s wrong with immigration enforcement in this country,”
http://www2.insidenova.com/isn/news/local/article/man_charged_in_fatal_crash_was_being_deported/61613/





If you have accepted that you are subject to the jurisdiction of United States law, then you would show it by:

* getting a valid driver's license before operating a motor vehicle on public roadways.
* getting a valid social security card before taking any kind of employment.
* getting the proper papers before entering, or remaining in, the country.

If you are doing these things in defiance of the law, it is difficult to then argue that you are "subject to the law".



There is a difference between jurisdiction based on location, and jurisdiction based on person.

For example, as a military LEO, I had jurisdiction over military members wherever they were, and also had jurisdiction over anyone who was on the military installation. My authority over subjects was very different depending on what type of jurisdiction applied.

joedogboy
08-04-2010, 3:45 PM
Of course, the simple solution to the "anchor baby" situation is to expedite the deportation of illegal immigrants who are pregnant, and to grant citizenship to infants that are proven to be born within the United States, but offer to find such infants a home in the United States, where people who aren't going to be deported or placed in jail can care for and raise the child.

Yes, I am saying that the child should remain in the U.S., while the parent/s are removed. It is probably far better for the baby to have adoptive parents than to be raised by criminals.

dfletcher
08-04-2010, 4:41 PM
Unfortunately, this is the point at which alot of folks question whether or not that "leaning toward voing Republican" is such a good idea. Republicans get a whiff of "hey, we could be in charge" and propose changing the Constitution on a contentious issue.

Passing a constitutional amendment takes alot of time so discussion now is simply pandering to the Nov 2010 elections. The Republicans presume folks who are strict on immigration will support this sort of thing, I am but do not. I'd imagine middle of the road Independents are turned off by this sort of thing also. Riding the wave of tough immigration sentiment is fine and smart, proposing a constitutional amendment now takes it too far. Address immigration and no constitutional amendment is needed, the issue will diminish.

I've read the private papers of a forbear who helped pass the 14th (Rep Stevens - PA) and although it's clear the focus is granting citizenship to blacks alive then there's nothing to suggest the law doesn't apply in perpetuity. I suppose a full debate or court case on the matter would be interesting.

Passing a constitutional amendment to address immigration is like banning sweets from the home because of one fat kid - Mom & Dad need to control the kid, let the others enjoy their treats.

RRangel
08-04-2010, 4:52 PM
This is not a Second Amendment topic.

Vox
08-04-2010, 5:53 PM
I think people can still be anti illegal immigration without being pro-butchering the constitution. Yeah, many of us understand the problems associated with criminal immigration like the case mentioned in San Francisco but that situation wouldn't have been rectified by amending the 14th amendment.

Vox
08-04-2010, 5:56 PM
So what exactly is the "danger"? I got a huge flash for you - - there are things that are FAR more dangerous and are here RIGHT FREAKIN NOW.

Since when is opening the door to later danger a good way to close the window to a current danger.

This proposed amendment change would only have the affect of keep ing people who are as of now American citizens out of the polls and out of schools. Is that something you REALLY want, I'd rather have an educated electorate and an educated populous especially given that something like 40% of illegal immigrants aren't border hoppers but people on overstayed visas, people we cleared to come in and stayed. That means that 40% of "Anchor babies" parents could have been legitimately in the United States in the first place

Furthermore, the risk of letting the government arbitrarily decide you're not a citizen can be problematic. If there is no birthright citizenship in this country how will we do it? A test? Must you be landed gentry? What?

vantec08
08-04-2010, 6:00 PM
Since when is opening the door to later danger a good way to close the window to a current danger.

This proposed amendment change would only have the affect of keep ing people who are as of now American citizens out of the polls and out of schools. Is that something you REALLY want, I'd rather have an educated electorate and an educated populous especially given that something like 40% of illegal immigrants aren't border hoppers but people on overstayed visas, people we cleared to come in and stayed. That means that 40% of "Anchor babies" parents could have been legitimately in the United States in the first place

Furthermore, the risk of letting the government arbitrarily decide you're not a citizen can be problematic. If there is no birthright citizenship in this country how will we do it? A test? Must you be landed gentry? What?


Nothing "arbitrary" about it . . .. birth to an illegal immigrant couple is very specific. "Arbitrary" would be far removed from that. So . . .what again is this "later danger?" Is denying citizenship to those born of illegal immigrants what I want?? HELL YES

Colt
08-04-2010, 6:02 PM
I know this from when my daughter was born in England while my now ex was stationed there. Since we were both Americans she was designated an American born abroad. Although she had to be registered with the British Government and did receive a National health number she was in no other way considered a British Citizen, although it was explained it would be easier for her if she ever chose to do so.


Actually, the term is British Subject - and it's one of the reasons we have that document dated 7/4/1776...

And meddling with the Constitution ain't that easy, as pointed out by others. And in my opinion, that's a very good thing.

Vox
08-04-2010, 6:26 PM
Nothing "arbitrary" about it . . .. birth to an illegal immigrant couple is very specific. "Arbitrary" would be far removed from that. So . . .what again is this "later danger?" Is denying citizenship to those born of illegal immigrants what I want?? HELL YES

If you change the 14th amendment and eliminate the clause declaring all people born in the United States are citizens it means we have to come up with a new way to become a citizen, that citizenship method could be anything and it could leave you and yours subjects. That should be danger enough but if you want I'll elaborate.

The country has been for the last decade engaged in a debate as to the nature ofthe 8th amendment. Do non-citizens have 8th amendment protections if they're "unlawful combatants" what is an "unlawful combatant"? Forgive me while I adjust my tinfoil hat but is it hard to imagine an America in the not too distant future where "Rabblerousers" are rounded up for "security purposes" and since they are not "US Citizens" because they haven't taken or failed some arbitrary test they are no longer granted their habeas corpus protection and tortured? That may be a bit much, I understand it's far fetched but why give Big Brother any quarter?

PsychGuy274
08-04-2010, 6:43 PM
It really doesn't matter. His only excuse is that, in Connecticut, he has already had his three martini lunch.

Mmmmmmmm.....I love martinis!

bohoki
08-04-2010, 7:14 PM
This is not a Second Amendment topic.


well the section title is a bit ambigious

it it was titled "politics and laws surrounding the second amendment" it would be better understood

but as it is written it looks like it is about the second amendment, politics and laws

ScottB
08-04-2010, 7:56 PM
If you change the 14th amendment and eliminate the clause declaring all people born in the United States are citizens it means we have to come up with a new way to become a citizen, that citizenship method could be anything and it could leave you and yours subjects. That should be danger enough but if you want I'll elaborate.

Please do ... Because that claim is nothing but complete hysterical crap.

Citizenship was well defined before the 14th Amendment. The 14th expanded the definition, perhaps a bit too broadly. Now it is time to refine that revision to the original Constitution. There is nothing magical about the 14th. The Constitution contains within the original document the means and methods to change it and it has been done 17 times and we are still here.

Chill.

PS: The connection to the 2nd was McDonald, but the topic has evolved beyond that

hoffmang
08-04-2010, 8:01 PM
Here's one criminal who was allowed to return to the streets - where he murdered three innocent people - largely due to his being an illegal alien in a "sanctuary city".


Here's one gun owner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleveland_School_massacre) that caused the banning of the most guns in California. Keep you anecdotes to yourself and we'll all have a better conversation.

We better hurry up and deport illegal immigrants like this once illegal:

http://theaterofmine.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/charlize-theron-esquire-sexy-03.jpg

Be careful what you wish for...

-Gene

vantec08
08-04-2010, 8:03 PM
If you change the 14th amendment and eliminate the clause declaring all people born in the United States are citizens it means we have to come up with a new way to become a citizen, that citizenship method could be anything and it could leave you and yours subjects. That should be danger enough but if you want I'll elaborate.

The country has been for the last decade engaged in a debate as to the nature ofthe 8th amendment. Do non-citizens have 8th amendment protections if they're "unlawful combatants" what is an "unlawful combatant"? Forgive me while I adjust my tinfoil hat but is it hard to imagine an America in the not too distant future where "Rabblerousers" are rounded up for "security purposes" and since they are not "US Citizens" because they haven't taken or failed some arbitrary test they are no longer granted their habeas corpus protection and tortured? That may be a bit much, I understand it's far fetched but why give Big Brother any quarter?

Our society, like many others, has the right and obligation to determine what and whom citizenship is conferred upon. That is not "arbitrary" when encoded into statuatory law. Your constant use of fantasy clearly isnt productive.

Nessal
08-04-2010, 8:05 PM
They should just make it so that if a child is born from illegals, the parents get their asses deported and the kid gets put into foster care. There are a lot of couples out there that would love to have a baby but can't.

That should at least deter 90% of the illegals.

Want to lose your baby? Then have a child here in the USA.

Vox
08-04-2010, 8:05 PM
Please do ... Because that claim is nothing but complete hysterical crap.

Citizenship was well defined before the 14th Amendment. The 14th expanded the definition, perhaps a bit too broadly. Now it is time to refine that revision to the original Constitution. There is nothing magical about the 14th. The Constitution contains within the original document the means and methods to change it and it has been done 17 times and we are still here.

Chill.

PS: The connection to the 2nd was McDonald, but the topic has evolved beyond that
I'm not wholly opposed to changing the constitution, that's not what I'm saying at all. What I AM saying is that our system of establishing citizenship is now a good one. the one we had prior to 1868 was varied among the states and it was often limited to, as i said, land owners. It's slightly hyperbolic but it's not hysterical. I see no reason to change the 14th amendment to deal with immigration when there are easier ways to deal with the problem that don't require opening another can of worms. It's the change the constitution so the brown people cant become citizens stuff that strikes me as hysterical.

ScottB
08-04-2010, 8:25 PM
I'm not wholly opposed to changing the constitution, that's not what I'm saying at all. What I AM saying is that our system of establishing citizenship is now a good one. the one we had prior to 1868 was varied among the states and it was often limited to, as i said, land owners. It's slightly hyperbolic but it's not hysterical. I see no reason to change the 14th amendment to deal with immigration when there are easier ways to deal with the problem that don't require opening another can of worms. It's the change the constitution so the brown people cant become citizens stuff that strikes me as hysterical.

Who's talking solely about brown people? I am a blond haired blue eyed anchor baby.

turbogg
08-04-2010, 9:30 PM
Republicans won't have the votes for it.

And the lib-dems will scream bloody murder, and somehow turn it into a racially biased issue.

dfletcher
08-04-2010, 9:33 PM
We better hurry up and deport illegal immigrants like this once illegal:

http://theaterofmine.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/charlize-theron-esquire-sexy-03.jpg



Justice must always be tempered with mercy - I suggest confinement to quarters and a polite spanking .....:rolleyes:

Skidmark
08-04-2010, 9:45 PM
Why are Republicans so itchy to change the Constitution? With all the new amendments they're championing, and changes to existing amendments, and outright elimination of others, you'd think they've become downright activist...

http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/76748/constitutional-conservatism

http://theusconstitution.org/blog.history/?p=1722

I like the Constitution fine just the way it is, especially the 14th amendment.

Vox
08-05-2010, 1:24 AM
Who's talking solely about brown people? I am a blond haired blue eyed anchor baby.

I thought you were only an anchor baby if you use your citizenship to help get family members legally into the US.

Honestly though, what's the problem with allowing everyone who wants to come into the country come in pending a criminal history screening and a health examination? Why can't we have open but secure borders?

E Pluribus Unum
08-05-2010, 1:45 AM
It will never happen.

taperxz
08-05-2010, 6:35 AM
Wow my thread took a left turn!! Since it's all about illegals we may as well throw in the fact that, (and i don't know if this is fact or not but was told) that 65 percent of the stolen firearms in CA are stolen by illegals and then sent back to Mexico. Feel free to correct me! I was told this by a gun store owner in San Bruno!!

a1c
08-05-2010, 6:54 AM
Wow my thread took a left turn!! Since it's all about illegals we may as well throw in the fact that, (and i don't know if this is fact or not but was told) that 65 percent of the stolen firearms in CA are stolen by illegals and then sent back to Mexico. Feel free to correct me! I was told this by a gun store owner in San Bruno!!

Oh, since you heard it in a gun store, it must be true...
:rolleyes:

ScottB
08-05-2010, 7:10 AM
I thought you were only an anchor baby if you use your citizenship to help get family members legally into the US.

Honestly though, what's the problem with allowing everyone who wants to come into the country come in pending a criminal history screening and a health examination? Why can't we have open but secure borders?

"Open but secure borders" is an oxymoron

If you are going to argue for open borders, this isn't the right forum, but in a nutshell, there are 6 billion people in the world, most of them are good and most of them would love to live here and most of those are poor, with little education or marketable skills. Where would YOU draw the line?

To answer your question, an anchor baby enables the parents to remain. My parents were married and most suppose that would do it, but not necessarily. One of my parents was here on an expired visa. Eventually they went through their coutry of origin and got things straightened out and became a permanent resident and assimilated to the point nobody would guess they werent born here. Times were different then. It was in the 50's and it was just an overlooked detail. illegal immigration then was a few thousand people a year, mainly european and Canadian, in a country of 150 million that was still developing. The farm workers came worked and went back home seasonally under the Bracero program

Today, illegal immigration is a few million a year, mainly Mexican and mainly poor and uneducated. Their intent is to stay and benefit from our society, but not assimilate. They want us to assimilate to their culture. Long ago the situation stopped accomodating our needs and flipped to us accomodating their presence. They work hard, I'll agree, but often for cash and they do not pay enough taxes to cover their cost in social and governmental services. Moreover, they send some $9 billion per year back to Mexico from California alone. That is a huge "tax" on our economy. Its raked right off the top. I would estimate that their presence in CA (3-4 million) accounts for nearly all of the budget deficit.

The recent wave of anchor babies is deliberate act by people who never intended to immigrate legally and the baby is intended to thwart deportation. Sponsoring other relatives used to be part of draw, but I am told that's much more difficult now. Mainly today, its an intentional tactic by illegals to get here and stay here without ever bothering with the paperwork.

Man, did this thread get jacked ...

gewgaw
08-05-2010, 7:14 AM
What is the difference between the so-called activist judiciary "twisting" and "distorting" the original meaning of the Constitution through its interpretation as a "living document"...

...and a so-called conservative "strict constructionist" who doesn't "distort" the Constitution with "judicial activism", but instead feels completely comfortable changing and amending the Constitution as they see fit?

Answer: NOTHING.

Gray Peterson
08-05-2010, 7:18 AM
Dred Scott Republicans. John Bingham and Charles Sumner would weep seeing their party try to destroy the hard work they did to make the bill of rights apply to all people.

Code7inOaktown
08-05-2010, 8:28 AM
I'm not one to quote from Alan Keyes who can be truly nutty as a fruit cake at times but he sums it up nicely in a way that should make those fearful of government control fear this idea: Take away the right of a person to become a citizen by birthright and you are giving that decision to the government. Do you really want the government to decide if you are a citizen or not? He said it's the first step toward fascism and totalitarianism.

Leave the freaking Constitution alone. Yes, it has been changed in the past and generally for the better, but this is not something to muck with the Constitution over. If you want to change the Constitution, take out that blasted "militia" thing that people get so mixed up over so those people understand that the founding fathers meant the people -- just like they did for the first amendment.

Keyes on the topic here:

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/08/alan-keyes-lindsey-grahams-calls-to-scrap-birthright-citizenship-are-too-crazy.php?ref=fpblg

Code7inOaktown
08-05-2010, 8:49 AM
Wow my thread took a left turn!! Since it's all about illegals we may as well throw in the fact that, (and i don't know if this is fact or not but was told) that 65 percent of the stolen firearms in CA are stolen by illegals and then sent back to Mexico. Feel free to correct me! I was told this by a gun store owner in San Bruno!!

I don't see this thread taking a left turn. I see it taking a turn of those who defend the Constitution and those who don't see that some Senators grand standing to change the Constitution is a dangerous situation.

So let me get this right: When someone steals a weapon, they, what? Report it to the ATF so that they track that weapon right? "Hey, I stole this 1911. I am also an illegal so please also mark that down on the form so it can be tracked. I really want to make sure that the stolen weapon database is accurate and based on current data."

I understand that ATF is increasing fines for people who steal weapons and do not report it on time. In fact, there's a new DROS form for that. All stolen weapons must be properly DROS'ed. A 14-day wait period must also be observed. Please bring said stolen weapon to an FFL to process your paper work. Oh, and the fine is double for illegal immigrants who steal weapons who do not have the stolen weapon properly DROS'ed using the 1043/3-L form with an illegal immigrant FFL of course.

With that said, I'm sure the information is just being distorted. It's no secret that Mexico is two steps away from a failed state. So, this creates a market for the Cartels and since Mexicans are not allowed to defend themselves with anything larger than a .38 or .380 , I suspect the average Mexican is also looking to defend himself from the violence in Mexico. They probably soak up a small amount of the stolen weapons as well.

So what you probably have is a huge market for weapons -- legal and illegal. The Cartels have enough money that they probably buy military weapons on the real arms black market but they probably still soak up stolen weapons as well. It's a big market and there is a huge demand.

Again, I would LOVE to see any stats that 65 percent of burglaries where weapons are stolen are by illegal Mexican immigrants. Living in Oaktown, I suspect it is my fellow American who is doing the stealing and then turning around and selling it, which in turn, eventually ends up in Mexico due to the above conditions.

ScottB
08-05-2010, 8:54 AM
Some of you guys need to can the hysteria and fear mongering and get the facts. Maybe start with reading the Constitution itself (you know, all the parts other than the 2nd Amendment). You will find that the Framers intended for it to be changed as may become necessary, provided specific mechanisms for that and it has been changed ("amended") many times. The process requires an extraodinary amount of approval.

We already have lots of rules for deciding who is and is not a citizen and how a person can become one. All the current discussion is about is clarifying a rule that was added to the constitution (i.e. changed the Constitution) in 1868. (for you folks that were absent that day in school, the original document was adopted in 1787)

A 28th Amendment would merely say that if a woman is in this country illegally and gives birth, her child will inherit her citizenship. That's it.

There's nothing that says thie kid and/or his mother could not pursue naturalization like any other resident alien, though they would have to secure legal status first. If the father is an American citizen, then, under our laws, the child would inherit his citizenship and possibly the mother's as well, depending on the laws of her country.

bigstick61
08-05-2010, 10:21 AM
I recall someone posting transcripts either here or on ARFCOM of the Congressional sessions during the time the 14th Amendment was debated. What I got from that is that it was never meant for people such as the children of those unlawfully in the country or temorarily here to have birthright citizenship. My impression was that the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" portion was meant to deal with that. If this is the case then technically speaking the Constitution need not be amended, but since I doubt the courts will anytime in the foreseeable future agree with this then we do need such an amendment and need it ASAP. If the Republicans win enough seats I could see this possibly passing in the future and if it passed Congress I think a majority of States ratifying the amendment can be gotten; what will be tough is getting the required supermajority, but if the public gets any more upset over this issue, I feel it is quite possible.

Illegal immigration is a huge problem, whether some wish to see that or not, or whether they wish to call that xenophobia and other stupid things like that or not. And really, what people are concerned about and rightfully so is hispanic illegal immigration. If they can get their offspring to be citizens and able to vote and everything then we have a huge demographic problem, as many of their children and grandchildren do not assimilate. What we have here is a large group of people coming here, anchoring and propagating themselves and thus gaining to some degree political power, while refusing to assimilate to our culture all the while possessing a culture that is harmful to the ends our country is founded upon (liberal and good governance; there is a reason why hispanic countries, most of all the less Europeanized ones, do so badly in this regard and consistently have poor government). Most of this group are citizens of an adjacent country which used to have political control over a major portion of what is now our country. They are in effect extending the border northwards in every way but in a political sense. This has never been good for a country and tends to result in violent conflict, sometimes even some atrocious stuff, and even war, with it not being unusual for such regions becoming separated or incorporated into adjacent states (Kosovo is an example). I really don't think some people realize the implications of our problem.

While ensuring birthright citizenship is only for those lawfully in the country on a permanent basis, to include citizens, and also to those born abroad to our citizens, will not by itself correct the problem, it is a significant and necessary part of the solution, in part by cutting back on the demographics problem and its political implications and also by making it easier to deport a number of people found to be illegally in the country, and perhaps even reducing some costs. Because of this I place my full support behind any effort to create and ratify a well-written constitutional amendment to this effect.

SDJim
08-05-2010, 11:10 AM
Why can't we do here what a lot of other countries do. If you have a child while in that country and neither parent is a legal citizen of that country they are deemed child born abroad from their home country not a citizen of the country they are born in.

I know this from when my daughter was born in England while my now ex was stationed there. Since we were both Americans she was designated an American born abroad. Although she had to be registered with the British Government and did receive a National health number she was in no other way considered a British Citizen, although it was explained it would be easier for her if she ever chose to do so.

The PIIGS in Europe see things a little differently . . . My grand-daughter born of US Citizens in the Naval Hospital in Rota, Spain is considered by the Spanish government to be a Spanish Citizen. My SIL a FED Fireman working for DOD in Italy recently had to renew all of their "papers" when they transferred from Naples to Sigonella. He was told by the people processing his paperwork that due to the fact they have lived in Italy for over 5 years, they are qualified to apply for Italian citizenship.

The story is that those countries are looking at bolstering their population numbers to qualify for more EU funds.

dantodd
08-05-2010, 11:42 AM
The problem with that argument is that if she were deported the chance of me "sticking it to" her would be roughly the same as it is now.

However....
Here's one gun owner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleveland_School_massacre) that caused the banning of the most guns in California. Keep you anecdotes to yourself and we'll all have a better conversation.

We better hurry up and deport illegal immigrants like this once illegal:

http://theaterofmine.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/charlize-theron-esquire-sexy-03.jpg

Be careful what you wish for...

-Gene

If HE were deported the chances of him "sticking it to" me would have been greatly diminished.....

http://ebonytamu.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/arnold_governator1.jpg?w=400&h=663

joedogboy
08-05-2010, 12:07 PM
Here's one gun owner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleveland_School_massacre) that caused the banning of the most guns in California. Keep you anecdotes to yourself and we'll all have a better conversation.

We better hurry up and deport illegal immigrants like this once illegal:

http://theaterofmine.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/charlize-theron-esquire-sexy-03.jpg

Be careful what you wish for...

-Gene

So if someone looks good, then they are above the law?

Vox
08-05-2010, 12:11 PM
"open but secure" is not an oxymoron because they describe two different things. open means we let who want to come in come on with very small limits, whereas secure means we know who is coming in and we can keep out the sick and the violent.


I don't see the problem with letting in everybody who wants to make a life for themselves. My great grandfather was a dirt poor Irish street performer in Boston his grand children are all professionals now. It's not about the marketable skills you have it's about how hard you're willing to work. Allowing those who are willing to work hard into the country is what made America great. If we weren't subsidizing the chaff then what WAS the American "Can-do" mentality is what would separate them from the wheat.

As to your other point, Scott, this isn't a forum for closed bordered xenophobia either. This is a 2a forum and people have divergent thoughts about other issues here. I'm sure if we opened it up we'd find people on either side of the gay marriage dispute here as well.

Vox
08-05-2010, 12:17 PM
Some of you guys need to can the hysteria and fear mongering and get the facts. Maybe start with reading the Constitution itself (you know, all the parts other than the 2nd Amendment). You will find that the Framers intended for it to be changed as may become necessary, provided specific mechanisms for that and it has been changed ("amended") many times. The process requires an extraodinary amount of approval.

We already have lots of rules for deciding who is and is not a citizen and how a person can become one. All the current discussion is about is clarifying a rule that was added to the constitution (i.e. changed the Constitution) in 1868. (for you folks that were absent that day in school, the original document was adopted in 1787)

A 28th Amendment would merely say that if a woman is in this country illegally and gives birth, her child will inherit her citizenship. That's it.

There's nothing that says thie kid and/or his mother could not pursue naturalization like any other resident alien, though they would have to secure legal status first. If the father is an American citizen, then, under our laws, the child would inherit his citizenship and possibly the mother's as well, depending on the laws of her country.

The framers did intend it to be changed, yes, but they made it difficult enough that it's only been done 17 times since we've become a country. We've been at war more often then we've changed the constitution. It's hard enough to require that most of us agree that it needs to be done. If you can convince us it's a good change we're on your side but simply saying "it was designed to be changed and don't fear change" makes me think of Obama's "Hope and Change"

(BTW the original constitution wasn't law until 1788, while it was written in 1787 it wasn't law for more than a year and a full two before all the states adopted it. because people were given ample time to debate it and ensure it was something that would REALLY help the country.)

Your 28th amendment allows for a very worrisome ability for the US government to adopt a form of corruption of blood. I guess it's those of us that are distrustful of the government that want to see the chains we placed on it left as alone as possible.

dragonbait1a
08-05-2010, 12:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vox
I thought you were only an anchor baby if you use your citizenship to help get family members legally into the US.

Quote: Orginally Posted By ScottB
Honestly though, what's the problem with allowing everyone who wants to come into the country come in pending a criminal history screening and a health examination? Why can't we have open but secure borders?
"Open but secure borders" is an oxymoron

If you are going to argue for open borders, this isn't the right forum, but in a nutshell, there are 6 billion people in the world, most of them are good and most of them would love to live here and most of those are poor, with little education or marketable skills. Where would YOU draw the line?

I think what Vox meant was Secured borders open to immigrants. Make immigration so easy that it's a better solution then coming here illegally. At the same time enforce the borders against unauthorized incursions (civil and military). That's my personal position as it happens.

A country that is has a decline in immigration (lawful or not) is doing something wrong. A country that is LOSING population to ex-migration (net v. immigration, not necessarily losing total population) is doing something VERY wrong and is probably on in decline. We've got the room, let them in if they want to come here as long as they aren't criminals (political 'criminals' may be decided case by case for asylum?) and aren't carrying contagious disease.

If they are here legally they can enjoy the lawful protections for wage, hour and discrimination. They can go to the cops if they are victims of crimes. They'd pay taxes (to the extent owed, I doubt many currently illegal aliens earn enough to be eligible for income tax). Yes there would be job competition, but wouldn't the "supply and demand" concept take care of that? If there isn't a supply of jobs, immigration would slow/stop. The demand for workers is there, and prices are kept artificially low by paying illegal immigrants unlawful wages for work in unlawful environments.

The remaining issue I've seen is social programs. There are several answers to "preventing further drain" here, and few are good. The easiest would be to deny services to immigrants until they attain citizenship. The others would be to enforce minimum work hours rules, to better coordinate workers with available jobs posted and/or enforce other benefit reductions.

Of course there is the old standby of eliminate benefits programs, but I see several problems there. Feeding the hungry (ANY hungry, people are people regardless of country of origin) is a good thing. There was a recent OT thread about stealing food when hungry. Preventing hunger can be better handled at a government level. 2. The poor are are greater risk for infectious disease, less likely to afford medical care and the least able to take time off of work. They are also disproportionately employed handling food. Medical care for the poor inhibits this vector of infection for everybody. Thus Public health is a good thing. Further, public health makes it more likely that the poor will have access to effective contraception (condoms are pretty ineffective) and/or sterilization which will lower the birth rate of the poor.

So making legal immigration easier while defending the borders is a possible solution to this issue, but it's not the answer that politicians will embrace. They will go with the old standby's of fear and further regulation.

RGB

gewgaw
08-05-2010, 12:43 PM
The framers did intend it to be changed, yes, but they made it difficult enough that it's only been done 17 times since we've become a country. We've been at war more often then we've changed the constitution.

Agree, and might I add, we've had a number of immigration panics (Irish after the potato famine, Chinese in 1880's, Eastern Europeans in the early 20th century, Hispanic today) in the last 200+ years as well, none of which resulted in a Constitutional amendment.

And we survived and flourished. As we continue to do so once this most recent immigration panic subsides as well.

dantodd
08-05-2010, 1:06 PM
Your 28th amendment allows for a very worrisome ability for the US government to adopt a form of corruption of blood. I guess it's those of us that are distrustful of the government that want to see the chains we placed on it left as alone as possible.

What do you mean a "corruption of blood?" It is pretty straightforward. You currently have 3 ways to become a citizen, be born to U.S. citizens, naturalize, or be born in the U.S. to non-citizens. His proposal seems to suggest only changing the 3rd mode to only include those who are born to non-citizens legally present in the country. Not that I think it is a good proposal but I don't see a slippery slope or corruption of "citizenship."

Vox
08-05-2010, 1:28 PM
not coruption of Citizenship but corruption of blood. It makes those born to foreign parents a second class. Honestly if you live in the USA, if you were born and raised here you should be the same class of person. Just because my parents were born here doesn't make me any more american than you just because your parents were born elsewhere. A better way to end the "anchor baby" problem would simply be to end preferential treatment to famlies of citizens.

joedogboy
08-05-2010, 2:11 PM
not coruption of Citizenship but corruption of blood. It makes those born to foreign parents a second class. Honestly if you live in the USA, if you were born and raised here you should be the same class of person. Just because my parents were born here doesn't make me any more american than you just because your parents were born elsewhere. A better way to end the "anchor baby" problem would simply be to end preferential treatment to famlies of citizens.

An amendment that categorizes a difference between the legal status of children whose foreign parents are here legally, and children whose foreign parents are here illegally does not diminish the status of those born to foreign parents whoa re here legally.

Your argument is a farce.

Vox
08-05-2010, 2:33 PM
that may be so but I find it troubling none the less.

ScottB
08-05-2010, 3:09 PM
"open but secure" is not an oxymoron because they describe two different things. open means we let who want to come in come on with very small limits, whereas secure means we know who is coming in and we can keep out the sick and the violent.


I don't see the problem with letting in everybody who wants to make a life for themselves. My great grandfather was a dirt poor Irish street performer in Boston his grand children are all professionals now. It's not about the marketable skills you have it's about how hard you're willing to work. Allowing those who are willing to work hard into the country is what made America great. If we weren't subsidizing the chaff then what WAS the American "Can-do" mentality is what would separate them from the wheat.

As to your other point, Scott, this isn't a forum for closed bordered xenophobia either. This is a 2a forum and people have divergent thoughts about other issues here. I'm sure if we opened it up we'd find people on either side of the gay marriage dispute here as well.

Umm what year was that that your great grandfather came here? What was the population of the country then? What was the level of government provided social benefits? What was the education and skill level of the average American then? The country today is a fundamentally different place than it was 3 generations ago. We have different needs and different resources.

Did your great grandfather come here legally? I am betting yes, and if so, his situation is not what is under discussion and the path to citizenship for legal residents is well established. No one is saying close the border. We are saying close the windows and the back door and let people come through the front door with permission as the law requires.

You keep trying to restate the issue in extremes and false arguments. No one is discussing anything that could be construed in such extreme ways. We are all children and decendants of immigrants. I think your fears about revising the Citizenship Clause are unfounded.

Vox
08-05-2010, 3:25 PM
I might be more sympathetic to the cause if the path to legal residency wasn't so absurd

http://i.imgur.com/VG2cb.jpg

RRangel
08-05-2010, 3:35 PM
well the section title is a bit ambigious

it it was titled "politics and laws surrounding the second amendment" it would be better understood

but as it is written it looks like it is about the second amendment, politics and laws

It's not ambiguous and the title is clear what it is. Which is that it's not a Second Amendment topic. There's not even an attempt at an explanation putting it in the context of the Second Amendment.

I wish people would follow the rules. We'd all be better off for it as it concerns gun rights.

Uxi
08-05-2010, 3:51 PM
While I think it would be a valid interpretation of the 14th to distinguish between preventing abuses from the former Confederate traitors on their newly freed slaves versus illegal Latinos coming from the south, illegal Asians getting smuggled in cargo containers on either coast, and illegal Honkeys coming from the north, I'd prefer a new Amendment that 1) says a child born from at least one parent citizen at the time of birth is a citizen (also gets rid of the "birther" business), 2) explicity authorizes profiling of any type with 'probable cause' to be defined by the 'appropriate legislation' etc and 3) has a clause with Shall Issue explicitly defined. :D

joedogboy
08-05-2010, 4:51 PM
that may be so but I find it troubling none the less.

While I do not share your views about the proposed Amendment, I also agree that it is not a good idea.

Far better to use deportation and existing laws to minimize the number of illegal invaders who are allowed to give birth in American hospitals and clinics.

A hospital could even have a portion of their maternity ward declared to be foreign soil (like an embassy or consulate) to keep the 14th Amendment from attaching to such a child. Maybe Doctors Without Borders could work there. ;)

When illegal invaders do have a child in an American hospital, the child has citizenship, but the illegal still needs to be incarcerated or deported. In this case, there may be a compelling case for the state to take custody of the child, to protect it's health, safety, and rights. This allows the American citizen child to be raised by adoptive parents, here in the United States, but doesn't allow the lawbreaking parent to gain from their crimes.

Vox
08-05-2010, 5:18 PM
I still don't see the problem with letting everyone in who wants to come in so long as they're clean and have no history of criminal activity. If we got rid of the current social support architecture as it stands, completely cutting at 18 any monetary aid then the lazy will die off and the hard workers will survive, if they don't die the lazy will find out that it is worth it to work hard. just because we have 300 million people now doesn't mean that it's any harder than when there were 150 million people, we still have a huge amount of land that can be further developed and better utilized and even gentrified if we weren't subsidizing failure.

ScottB
08-05-2010, 5:35 PM
Vox, I think you over estimate the carrying capacity of a post-industrial economy or the amount of available resources such as water or the quality and way of life that we Americans want to maintain. Most people think we at or close to max population and even under current growth rates we are still growing. I don't think you appreciate the impacts of what you advocate and I'm curious why you are for unlimited immigration? What is the benefit? Have you ever traveled to any third world countries?

hoffmang
08-05-2010, 5:41 PM
Vox, I think you over estimate the carrying capacity of a post-industrial economy or the amount of available resources such as water or the quality and way of life that we Americans want to maintain. Most people think we at or close to max population and even under current growth rates we are still growing. I don't think you appreciate the impacts of what you advocate and I'm curious why you are for unlimited immigration? What is the benefit? Have you ever traveled to any third world countries?

Zero sum economics or Malthusianism is about as valid as flat earth theory. People create productivity, not scarcity. The reason third world countrries remain third world has everything to do with corruption and little to do with population.

-Gene

RRangel
08-05-2010, 5:42 PM
I still don't see the problem with letting everyone in who wants to come in so long as they're clean and have no history of criminal activity. If we got rid of the current social support architecture as it stands, completely cutting at 18 any monetary aid then the lazy will die off and the hard workers will survive, if they don't die the lazy will find out that it is worth it to work hard. just because we have 300 million people now doesn't mean that it's any harder than when there were 150 million people, we still have a huge amount of land that can be further developed and better utilized and even gentrified if we weren't subsidizing failure.

It would appear then that you have diminished reasoning ability. A country like ours left to unchecked immigration, especially at this point, is very destructive.

One of the big factors when people come here is that they assimilate. This is basic. We're seeing this less and less. If open borders and unchecked immigration was so wonderful there wouldn't be need for borders or immigrations laws. You're sidestepping common logic.

dragonbait1a
08-05-2010, 6:13 PM
Respectfully disagree. The reason we don't have open borders is based heavily in fearmongering and supply and demand.

An applicable paraphrase from "Gangs of New York":

"These darn immigrants fresh off the boat will do a job for a nickel that a "Negro" would do for a dime and we would ask a quarter for! That's why we're all poor and jobless."

Job protectionism, xenophobia and old fashioned bigotry shaped laws that are still in effect. Similar to gun control...

While I agree that assimilation "melting pot" is important, first generation immigrants have usually clung to their culture. This isn't changing. The first generation is still upon us. I do believe that there should be border control, but I also believe immigration should be easier. Let that "supply and demand" rule have a shot at the problem. Since there is so much demand it is being serviced illegally.

RGB

dantodd
08-05-2010, 8:14 PM
not coruption of Citizenship but corruption of blood. It makes those born to foreign parents a second class.

No it doesn't. It is no different than if they were born in another country and came here with their parents as an infant. One is not "second class" simply because their citizenship is not U.S.

Vox
08-05-2010, 9:26 PM
No it doesn't. It is no different than if they were born in another country and came here with their parents as an infant. One is not "second class" simply because their citizenship is not U.S.

It creates in them a secondary level of existence in the USA because they're born and likely raised here but the American friends are actually entitled to things like voting rights.

joedogboy
08-05-2010, 10:48 PM
It creates in them a secondary level of existence in the USA because they're born and likely raised here but the American friends are actually entitled to things like voting rights.

Actually, no. If they are born here to parents who are illegals, and immigration laws are enforced, their families will be deported.

Even without effective immigration enforcement, they may not be raised here for their entire childhood, or may spend part of each year in another country (this is actually a common reason that Mexican students do poorly in our schools - many Mexican families go back to Mexico from Thanksgiving until Easter every year, and their kids miss most of the school year - I say "Mexican" rather than "Hispanic" here because moist of the families that I know of who do this are from Mexico, rather than other Central or South American countries).

Pont
08-06-2010, 12:56 AM
Easier and cheaper than amending the constitution...

...donate the hospital grounds to the Mexican/Canadian embassy.

james03
08-06-2010, 1:10 AM
I think we gave up way too much Liberty to "Homeland Security" and "TSA bulls$&@#"t airport body searches/scans." How about proposed National Identity Cards? How about warrentless wiretaps? Secret National Security Letters used to get secret access to your personal information/banking records? How about keeping prisoners without charges or trial for 8 years? Who's next? Are you gonna speak up now or when you're the last ones to be hauled away?
Very well said, I dont believe it is the governments job to give me security. I can handle that all on my own. So surely I do not believe that it is the governments job to take away my freedoms in order to provide me with security that i don't want.

My freedoms are not currency that I will trade in exchange for Government services.

Pont
08-06-2010, 1:35 AM
Very well said, I dont believe it is the governments job to give me security.
Well, it's their job to not botch things up so badly that I need to spend every moment of my life worrying about my security.

JDay
08-06-2010, 1:44 AM
Republicans won't have the votes for it.

And the Democrats will not vote for it.

RRangel
08-06-2010, 6:15 AM
Respectfully disagree. The reason we don't have open borders is based heavily in fearmongering and supply and demand.

An applicable paraphrase from "Gangs of New York":

"These darn immigrants fresh off the boat will do a job for a nickel that a "Negro" would do for a dime and we would ask a quarter for! That's why we're all poor and jobless."

Job protectionism, xenophobia and old fashioned bigotry shaped laws that are still in effect. Similar to gun control...

While I agree that assimilation "melting pot" is important, first generation immigrants have usually clung to their culture. This isn't changing. The first generation is still upon us. I do believe that there should be border control, but I also believe immigration should be easier. Let that "supply and demand" rule have a shot at the problem. Since there is so much demand it is being serviced illegally.

RGB

It's a preposterous notion that our borders are "xenophobic." Borders are one of th basic principles of sovereignty. What you are proclaiming to the world is that you believe our nation should have none. As you use it the term is more a codeword that represents those with questionable political positions. Statements like yours leave little wonder shy we've lost so many gun rights in California.

ScottB
08-06-2010, 9:24 AM
Zero sum economics or Malthusianism is about as valid as flat earth theory. People create productivity, not scarcity. The reason third world countrries remain third world has everything to do with corruption and little to do with population.

-Gene

Simplistic reasoning. Importing masses of uneducated, unskilled laborers only displaces local labor and causes labor market distortions (look at Switzerland for a comparison or even Austalia or New Zealand - all of whom control the type of person allowed to enter their countries). When i was a kid, a drywaller could make a living and even raise a family. Today, they are below the povery level and use various forms of public assistance to cover the shortfall. Why? Because the wage scale was destroyed by cheap foreign labor. And no, we did not benefit by getting cheaper houses. The excess profits flowed to the builders and ultimately to the land sellers. That is just a representative example.
If you are talking about bringing in IIT grads to fill slots that we are no longer producing enough engineers and physicists in the US to fill, then the argument has merit and speaks to the problem with our schools. But that's not what's driving things here. We are accomodating a 3rd world presence, they are not accommodating our 1st world needs. We have actually reshaped much of our economy because of, among other factors, the presence of millions of unskilled workers and yes it does look a lot like the 3rd world. We have a tiny class of super wealthy (403 billionaires at last count), an vast and growing underclass and a middle class, the true backbone of American prosperity, that is serious decline. The classic 3rd world bottom heavy hour glass or candlestick shape.

The sort of growth we have had has been crap. I remember when CA had fewer than 20 million people. We are now pushing 40 million Orange County had less than a million its now close to 4 million. Back then, the state was solvent, the schools were among the best in the country (they are now among the worst)and public services were free - that is taxes paid for them, not a zillion additional fees on top of much higher taxes. Something like 50% of income taxes in this state are paid by 116,000 people and they are leaving/retiring/dying (this is per Karen Bass, former Speaker of the Assembly, in a recent PBS interview)

More importantly, the quality of life back then was enormously better and less restricted. There was not so much pressure on the land and the water. Population in and of itself does not drive economic growth. It drives need. Absent the means to create the prosperity to satisfy those needs, it drives poverty - and CA, as well as the US as a whole, is poorer in real terms and relative to the rest of the world than we were 30+ years ago. Our currency is worth about 10% of what it was in 1970 (The Economist, last week)

a1c
08-06-2010, 9:58 AM
Simplistic reasoning. Importing masses of uneducated, unskilled laborers only displaces local labor and causes labor market distortions (look at Switzerland for a comparison or even Austalia or New Zealand - all of whom control the type of person allowed to enter their countries). When i was a kid, a drywaller could make a living and even raise a family.

Those countries are poor examples. Switzerland has a large illegal immigrant population, and Australia and New Zealand are islands where protecting borders is a much easier job - nature takes care of it.

Not to mention, however, that Australia does have an immigration problem, but it goes the other way around: they could use "unskilled" labor to work their vineyards, for instance, but they can't attract it. So they relied heavily on mechanization. It actually resulted in very large investments that many companies are having a hard time repaying - many Australian wineries are currently filing for bankruptcy, being acquired or consolidating.

Lack of unskilled labor can lead to destruction just as well. If you think CA would survive without its Mexican farm workers - many of whom, if not a majority, are illegals - I think you need to investigate the ag business of this state a little closer.

KALIDAWG8996
08-06-2010, 10:43 AM
Those countries are poor examples. Switzerland has a large illegal immigrant population, and Australia and New Zealand are islands where protecting borders is a much easier job - nature takes care of it.

Not to mention, however, that Australia does have an immigration problem, but it goes the other way around: they could use "unskilled" labor to work their vineyards, for instance, but they can't attract it. So they relied heavily on mechanization. It actually resulted in very large investments that many companies are having a hard time repaying - many Australian wineries are currently filing for bankruptcy, being acquired or consolidating.

Lack of unskilled labor can lead to destruction just as well. If you think CA would survive without its Mexican farm workers - many of whom, if not a majority, are illegals - I think you need to investigate the ag business of this state a little closer.

A1C is correct about Australia, I considered becomming an expat there when I was transitioning out of service 2 years ago. Australia is in dire need of low-mid skilled immigrants working everything from Mc Donalds to mechanics to IT due to a population shortage. I was considering work in the aviation/security industry there.

dragonbait1a
08-06-2010, 11:35 AM
It's a preposterous notion that our borders are "xenophobic." Borders are one of th basic principles of sovereignty. What you are proclaiming to the world is that you believe our nation should have none. As you use it the term is more a codeword that represents those with questionable political positions. Statements like yours leave little wonder shy we've lost so many gun rights in California.


Not what I said, borders and protection thereof are necessary to a sovereign state. The immigration LAWS are based on a xenophobic and bigoted PAST. I think that the borders should be well patrolled and defended. I ALSO believe that LEGAL entry to the US should be simpler.

Job protectionism, xenophobia and old fashioned bigotry shaped laws that are still in effect. Similar to gun control... I also have a longer previous post in this thread where I discuss details and flaws in my opinion.

The problem with illegal immigration is not immigrants, its that it is illegal. Illegal immigrants, faced with a difficult and unclear path to legitimate US residency choose to break the law. There is a market for unskilled/semiskilled labor at rockbottom prices. The income goes farther in Mexico (and other countries) so they send a majority "home." While here they are locked into the "shadow economy." The work is off the books so wage and safety rules go out the window. Unable (or unlikely) to use a bank, they carry cash, making them choice targets for robbery. Since they don't earn Minimum wage+ they often work several jobs, which sometimes leads to amphetamine abuse, and another link to the criminal world. They don't pay taxes or report crimes to minimize contact with the police.

My solution (which isn't perfect, admitted) is to ease restrictions on legal immigrants, including them in the regular economy. This builds wealth all around (assuming they work). At the same time work harder to prevent unauthorized border crossings of any kind. Sovereign nations NEED secure borders. but a nation that no one wants to come to is not doing well.

http://www.lp.org/platform
3.4 Free Trade and Migration
We support the removal of governmental impediments to free trade. Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders. However, we support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a credible threat to security, health or property.


One of the platform positions of Libertarians I agree with. You are entitled to your opinion. I know my position isn't a popular one. But it makes sense to me. And these threads would be pretty boring if everyone agreed. :)

RGB

joedogboy
08-06-2010, 11:41 AM
A1C is correct about Australia, I considered becomming an expat there when I was transitioning out of service 2 years ago. Australia is in dire need of low-mid skilled immigrants working everything from Mc Donalds to mechanics to IT due to a population shortage. I was considering work in the aviation/security industry there.

Perhaps Australia should open a labor recruiting office in Mexico.

hoffmang
08-06-2010, 7:38 PM
Why? Because the wage scale was destroyed by cheap foreign labor. And no, we did not benefit by getting cheaper houses. The excess profits flowed to the builders and ultimately to the land sellers. That is just a representative example.

You're funny. Those locals couldn't compete with unskilled and uneducated people? Then why should we cartelize our labor force for the citizens who can't compete with the uneducated? Then you turn to Marxism to defend your Xenophobia. Too funny!

-Gene

taperxz
08-06-2010, 8:11 PM
Simplistic reasoning. Importing masses of uneducated, unskilled laborers only displaces local labor and causes labor market distortions (look at Switzerland for a comparison or even Austalia or New Zealand - all of whom control the type of person allowed to enter their countries). When i was a kid, a drywaller could make a living and even raise a family. Today, they are below the povery level and use various forms of public assistance to cover the shortfall. Why? Because the wage scale was destroyed by cheap foreign labor. And no, we did not benefit by getting cheaper houses. The excess profits flowed to the builders and ultimately to the land sellers. That is just a representative example.
If you are talking about bringing in IIT grads to fill slots that we are no longer producing enough engineers and physicists in the US to fill, then the argument has merit and speaks to the problem with our schools. But that's not what's driving things here. We are accomodating a 3rd world presence, they are not accommodating our 1st world needs. We have actually reshaped much of our economy because of, among other factors, the presence of millions of unskilled workers and yes it does look a lot like the 3rd world. We have a tiny class of super wealthy (403 billionaires at last count), an vast and growing underclass and a middle class, the true backbone of American prosperity, that is serious decline. The classic 3rd world bottom heavy hour glass or candlestick shape.

The sort of growth we have had has been crap. I remember when CA had fewer than 20 million people. We are now pushing 40 million Orange County had less than a million its now close to 4 million. Back then, the state was solvent, the schools were among the best in the country (they are now among the worst)and public services were free - that is taxes paid for them, not a zillion additional fees on top of much higher taxes. Something like 50% of income taxes in this state are paid by 116,000 people and they are leaving/retiring/dying (this is per Karen Bass, former Speaker of the Assembly, in a recent PBS interview)

More importantly, the quality of life back then was enormously better and less restricted. There was not so much pressure on the land and the water. Population in and of itself does not drive economic growth. It drives need. Absent the means to create the prosperity to satisfy those needs, it drives poverty - and CA, as well as the US as a whole, is poorer in real terms and relative to the rest of the world than we were 30+ years ago. Our currency is worth about 10% of what it was in 1970 (The Economist, last week)

You might say a drywaller can't make a living because the unions in socal are non existent. Regardless of race drywallers are doing fine up here in norcal if you can find work. Up here the unions dictate the wage.

Now with that being said, If you are a drywall guy and can get around and be smart enough you can open your own business and take advantage of the cheaper labor force. I know this may sound pretty brutal but it is called capitalism and it is what generates revenue and more jobs in this country. If you can't then you will be at the mercy of what the prevailing wage in your area is. Thats just the way the ball bounces.

taperxz
08-06-2010, 8:18 PM
You're funny. Those locals couldn't compete with unskilled and uneducated people? Then why should we cartelize our labor force for the citizens who can't compete with the uneducated? Then you turn to Marxism to defend your Xenophobia. Too funny!

-Gene

Actually he may be right to a point. Where you an i live, we really have lost unskilled labor locally that can afford to live here. When i first got into the trades we were all over the peninsula. Now most of the guys in the trades commute from the central valley because that is what they can afford. They are not at the poverty level though!! The folks living here on the peninsula, even if they are out of work will not even consider the trades as they, even though out of work, will not do manual labor. Personally i think we have lost our will to learn how to work hard and with our hands. Hard to believe that this was one of the hardest working and most productive areas in the world.