U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Illegal Immigration
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-17-2010, 07:00 AM
 
4,271 posts, read 7,887,141 times
Reputation: 1551

Advertisements

There is a viewpoint that the constitution is a "flexible" document that can adapt to changing times and circumstances- this is why the 14th amendment is being interpreted in this way - It is being used to protect children in unfavorable circumstances (in this case being a child of an illegal immigrant). Plyler v. Doe was decided in a manner so the children of illegals were protected.

Quote:
Originally Posted by malamute View Post
Except the 14th Amendment was never intended to be a way to get around the immigration laws to access the giant welfare system.

It wasn't written for illegal foreigners at all. It was written for the children of slaves.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-17-2010, 07:29 AM
 
14,307 posts, read 11,149,569 times
Reputation: 2130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vicman View Post
There is a viewpoint that the constitution is a "flexible" document that can adapt to changing times and circumstances- this is why the 14th amendment is being interpreted in this way - It is being used to protect children in unfavorable circumstances (in this case being a child of an illegal immigrant). Plyler v. Doe was decided in a manner so the children of illegals were protected.
Why should children of illegal aliens be protected by giving them our citizenship? I am arguing from a common sense and logic point of view here.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-17-2010, 07:35 AM
 
Location: Littleton, CO
20,894 posts, read 13,114,767 times
Reputation: 3949
Quote:
Originally Posted by chicagonut View Post
Why should children of illegal aliens be protected by giving them our citizenship?
They're not. You are confabulating two different issues; citizenship vs. equal protection. Both are contained in the 14th Amendment, but are not otherwise connected in the Plyler v. Doe decision.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chicagonut
I am arguing from a common sense and logic point of view here.
"Common sense" and logic are often mutually exclusive.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-17-2010, 07:44 AM
 
349 posts, read 394,109 times
Reputation: 161
There are numerous considerations here. First any talk of allegiance is irrelevant to this discussion. It isn't in the law and not a subject for review.

The legislature may write laws narrowly or broadly. The 14th Amendment was written far more broadly than just a correction of Dred Scott. Had the Congress only intended that, then the law would have reflected that. We're mainly concerning ourselves with Section 1.

Quote:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
This is written in an extremely broad fashion, intentionally so I believe. The legislature did not want any more possible problems akin to Dred Scott. It makes no difference the Framers original intent because immigration was not regulated at that time and they allowed for Amendments. The 14th Amendment was written nearly 80 years after adoption.

The Court may also consider legal questions narrowly or broadly. Plyler dealt with education narrowly, however, the opinion left no doubt (the dissent also) that all persons are entitled to 14th Amendment protections for due process and equal protection.

It is fairly inarguable at this point that the only way to change birthright citizenship is a Constitutional Amendment. Really all other options seem like political posturing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-17-2010, 07:46 AM
 
Location: SouthCentral Texas
3,855 posts, read 4,086,323 times
Reputation: 957
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fox Terrier View Post
Gosh, you sound so law-abiding...except when it comes to illegal aliens. It seems to be OK with you if THEY break and ignore our laws.

It seems to me the tone of this thread is to speculate on what CAN change, not what IS right now. Go with the flow.
Sir, Ive never advocated anyone break or ignore any laws. One can be Law-abiding and still point out inconsistancies in proposed laws, regardless if the law deals with illegal immigration or not.

One can speculate all they like, but it is also important to understand real legal practices. Speculate form a point of reality.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-17-2010, 10:02 AM
 
Location: Metropolis
1,144 posts, read 3,256,335 times
Reputation: 640
Quote:
Originally Posted by mauiwowie View Post
There are numerous considerations here. First any talk of allegiance is irrelevant to this discussion. It isn't in the law and not a subject for review.

The legislature may write laws narrowly or broadly. The 14th Amendment was written far more broadly than just a correction of Dred Scott. Had the Congress only intended that, then the law would have reflected that. We're mainly concerning ourselves with Section 1.

This is written in an extremely broad fashion, intentionally so I believe. The legislature did not want any more possible problems akin to Dred Scott. It makes no difference the Framers original intent because immigration was not regulated at that time and they allowed for Amendments. The 14th Amendment was written nearly 80 years after adoption.

The Court may also consider legal questions narrowly or broadly. Plyler dealt with education narrowly, however, the opinion left no doubt (the dissent also) that all persons are entitled to 14th Amendment protections for due process and equal protection.
It is fairly inarguable at this point that the only way to change birthright citizenship is a Constitutional Amendment. Really all other options seem like political posturing.


Illegal aliens have protections and enjoy due process rights. That doesn't mean that they are allowed to stay here because of these rights. The fact that illegal immigration was not really considered when the 14th was adopted, it can be addressed and clarified for modern times.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-17-2010, 11:30 AM
 
Location: New Jersey
12,775 posts, read 7,380,841 times
Reputation: 13043
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1751texan View Post
Sir, Ive never advocated anyone break or ignore any laws. One can be Law-abiding and still point out inconsistancies in proposed laws, regardless if the law deals with illegal immigration or not.

One can speculate all they like, but it is also important to understand real legal practices. Speculate form a point of reality.
Well, it's the law NOW that people are not allowed to cross our borders illegally. You don't want to impede their crossing..you don't want them deported; you want to change the laws.

Yet you have the nerve to speak about 'reality'.

People can recognize existing laws and, to use your term, 'point out inconsistancies' in those laws. Do you consider that 'speculating from a point of reality'? I just don't see the difference between 'pointing out inconsistancies' and 'speculating' about how laws can be changed.

Apples and apples. Have a cup of coffee before posting!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-17-2010, 12:03 PM
 
Location: SouthCentral Texas
3,855 posts, read 4,086,323 times
Reputation: 957
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fox Terrier View Post
Well, it's the law NOW that people are not allowed to cross our borders illegally. You don't want to impede their crossing..you don't want them deported; you want to change the laws.

Yet you have the nerve to speak about 'reality'.

People can recognize existing laws and, to use your term, 'point out inconsistancies' in those laws. Do you consider that 'speculating from a point of reality'? I just don't see the difference between 'pointing out inconsistancies' and 'speculating' about how laws can be changed.

Apples and apples. Have a cup of coffee before posting!
Again sir you're basing your agrgument on assumptions. I never on this forum or anywhere else called for open borders. I have pointed out the ridiculousness of proposing a 2200 mile physical barier fence between Mexico and the US. I have also called for more "boots on the ground" BP agents.

As for deportation, I point out the realistic, logistical nightmare of arresting, trying, housing, feeding and deporting 15 million aliens form all over the world. Next time you have your moring coffee, contemplate that senario...deporting 15 million people.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-17-2010, 12:24 PM
 
14,307 posts, read 11,149,569 times
Reputation: 2130
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1751texan View Post
Again sir you're basing your agrgument on assumptions. I never on this forum or anywhere else called for open borders. I have pointed out the ridiculousness of proposing a 2200 mile physical barier fence between Mexico and the US. I have also called for more "boots on the ground" BP agents.

As for deportation, I point out the realistic, logistical nightmare of arresting, trying, housing, feeding and deporting 15 million aliens form all over the world. Next time you have your moring coffee, contemplate that senario...deporting 15 million people.
A physical barrier fence assists the BP immensely in being able to be more effective on their jobs. A 2200 mile fence was never contemplated so I don't know what you are talking about. The physical fence was to be built along only about 700 miles of our southern border some of which has been completed and where is was completed was most effective. It is only for the most porous areas of the border.

As I have said before most of us anti's are for voluntary deportations through attrition. If there are no jobs or benefits for them most will leave and fewer will continue to come here. The Arizona law alone has encouraged many illegals to leave that state even before it has gone into effect. Eventually many if not most states will follow suit and there will be no place for them to go but back home where they belong.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-17-2010, 12:39 PM
 
Location: OCEAN BREEZES AND VIEWS SAN CLEMENTE
19,899 posts, read 15,291,186 times
Reputation: 6451
Quote:
Originally Posted by malamute View Post
It's about time. It won't end the anchor baby route around the laws, but the pregnant illegals coming only for the purpose of giving birth and then getting on welfare handouts will have to bypass Arizona.
Very well stated, but as you say, this we do have to start some place. I would like to think that this news will make illegals coming here for the purpose of having children, think twice, but know we cannot get this lucky.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Illegal Immigration
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top