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 06-16-2010, 07:46 AM
 
351 posts, read 395,267 times
Reputation: 171

Advertisements

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.
Except immigration was not restricted at the writing of the 14th.

We had no immigration restrictions until 1875 during the economic hardships following the Civil War.

The framers would have understood English Common Law, which like in the 400 year old Calvin case used jus solis. The 14th Amendment reinstated what had previously been before the horrendous Dred Scott decision.

Elk v Wilkins
as has been noted by HistorianDude primarily concerned itself with tribal affiliation. Based on treaties between tribes and the Federal government they were not completely under US jurisdiction.

Remember, Horace Gray wrote the opinion in Elk and Wong Kim Ark. Wong Kim Ark didn't actually address legal or illegal aliens as it still wasn't a looming question, however, Kim Ark's parents could never become citizens yet he was entitled to full birthright citizenship.

If any questions lingered, then they were answered affirmatively in Plyler v Doe which held the 14th Amendment makes no distinction between even lawful or unlawful entry.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-16-2010, 07:50 AM
 
Location: Where I live.
9,191 posts, read 18,570,184 times
Reputation: 4767
If any questions lingered, then they were answered affirmatively in Plyler v Doe which held the 14th Amendment makes no distinction between even lawful or unlawful entry.

Very possibly one of the worst rulings ever. School systems all over the US (especially Texas and the other border states) are paying through the nose for it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-16-2010, 07:58 AM
 
351 posts, read 395,267 times
Reputation: 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cathy4017 View Post
If any questions lingered, then they were answered affirmatively in Plyler v Doe which held the 14th Amendment makes no distinction between even lawful or unlawful entry.

Very possibly one of the worst rulings ever. School systems all over the US (especially Texas and the other border states) are paying through the nose for it.
On what legal grounds was it one of the worst rulings ever? Have you read the majority opinion? Or the dissent?

I agree it has dramatically increased costs in some school districts. I would just like to see your reasoning on legal grounds.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-16-2010, 08:00 AM
 
Location: Small Town USA Population about 15,000
442 posts, read 815,710 times
Reputation: 202
[LEFT]"One Phoenix-area school district is suing the state over the new immigration law that allows police to stop suspected illegal immigrants, contending that families with mixed immigration status would be split up — a concern that opponents would continue to highlight if Pearce’s bill were brought to a vote." Don't they take that chance when they cross the border????

In response to the suit, Brewer said during the interview, “We are a nation of laws. That is why we are American. And there are consequences, unfortunately.”
AMEN!!!!!

Read more: Arizona targets 'anchor baby' citizenship - Andy Barr - POLITICO.com
[/LEFT]
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-16-2010, 08:03 AM
 
364 posts, read 185,022 times
Reputation: 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1751texan View Post
change thru amendment as is how the constitution instructs. Im sorry that you can not comprehend that AZ has no right to write a citizen law. I guess you like to learn thru experience. There will never be a Az citizenship law, and the AZ citizenship law will not amend the 14th amendment of the US constitution. I understand that...It will just take you longer to.
tha 2nd admendment
tha right to carry arms one
many places ban ppl from
ownin guns
what makes tha 14th any diferent?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-16-2010, 08:51 AM
 
351 posts, read 395,267 times
Reputation: 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobertJackson1980 View Post
tha 2nd admendment
tha right to carry arms one
many places ban ppl from
ownin guns
what makes tha 14th any diferent?
Getting sidetracked here, but can you name a US place that has banned people from owning guns?

I know there have been some specific weapons bans, however, I'm unaware of any complete ban on gun ownership. Can you enlighten me?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-16-2010, 09:38 AM
 
Location: Where I live.
9,191 posts, read 18,570,184 times
Reputation: 4767
Quote:
Originally Posted by mauiwowie View Post
On what legal grounds was it one of the worst rulings ever? Have you read the majority opinion? Or the dissent?

I agree it has dramatically increased costs in some school districts. I would just like to see your reasoning on legal grounds.
You mean that it is not enough that it has driven costs through the roof in many districts?

From the ruling: Plyler v. Doe

"The children who are plaintiffs in these cases are special members of this underclass. Persuasive arguments support the view that a State may withhold its beneficence from those whose very presence within the United States is the product of their own unlawful conduct. These arguments do not apply [p220] with the same force to classifications imposing disabilities on the minor children of such illegal entrants. At the least, those who elect to enter our territory by stealth and in violation of our law should be prepared to bear the consequences, including, but not limited to, deportation. But the children of those illegal entrants are not comparably situated. Their "parents have the ability to conform their conduct to societal norms," and presumably the ability to remove themselves from the State's jurisdiction; but the children who are plaintiffs in these cases "can affect neither their parents' conduct nor their own status." Trimble v. Gordon, 430 U.S. 762, 770 (1977). Even if the State found it expedient to control the conduct of adults by acting against their children, legislation directing the onus of a parent's misconduct against his children does not comport with fundamental conceptions of justice..."

IOW, that is basically the reason for the ruling....children have no control over what their illegal parents have done.

But the activist judges also ignore the fact that a free public education is one of the major draws for illegals--with it comes one or two free meals a day (including the summers!!), medical care/referral by school nurses, etc.

Add to that is the fact that illegals cost far more because of their extra needs (language, etc) to educate than average American students, and they don't pay any substantial amount into the property tax, which supports schools in Texas.

When you have cases where numbers of illegals are crammed into one house/apartment, it just does not come close!

The Robin Hood setup in Texas means that wealthy districts have to send money to poorer districts, and many of those poorer districts are along the US-Mexico border, with a disproportionate number of illegal children enrolled.

The property taxes are higher in wealthy districts. My home county in Texas is a small town in West Texas that had to send millions of "excess" funds to the state to be doled out to these poorer districts, who pay far less in property taxes.

I resent the hell out of this, and I resent the fact that we have to educate children who have NO right to be here in the first place.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-16-2010, 10:53 AM
 
4,803 posts, read 3,146,442 times
Reputation: 1103
Dr. John Eastman, Dean of Chapman University School of Law, on October 30, 2007. Dr. Eastman is a constitutional law professor and scholar.

In this interview, Dr. Eastman discusses the Fourteenth Amendment and Birthright Citizenship. He contrasts the intentions of the Founding Fathers and the Constitution with current high levels of illegal immigration which essentially fosters ignoring the rule of law, stating, "We are embarked upon a very dangerous experiment at the moment."

Copyright 2007 Californians for Population Stabilization. Reproduced with permission.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czHjtJuu3s4&feature=player_embedded#!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czHjtJuu3s4&feature=player_embedded#!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-16-2010, 10:55 AM
 
4,803 posts, read 3,146,442 times
Reputation: 1103

YouTube - Anchor Babies, Birthright Citizenship and the 14th Amendment


YouTube - Bullet-proof case on birthright citizenship
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-16-2010, 11:01 AM
 
1,891 posts, read 2,185,408 times
Reputation: 909
Quote:
Originally Posted by mauiwowie View Post
Getting sidetracked here, but can you name a US place that has banned people from owning guns?

I know there have been some specific weapons bans, however, I'm unaware of any complete ban on gun ownership. Can you enlighten me?
Owning and possession are two different things.

You cannot legally posses a handgun anywhere in Chicago. It's been this way since 1982.

D.C. had the same ban, but it was overturned.

Wilmington, Del. recently withdrawn from poropsing a handgun ban in public housing around Wilmington & Newark, Del.
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