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 03-16-2009, 04:59 AM
 
Location: San Diego, CA
12 posts, read 21,823 times
Reputation: 31

Advertisements

I'm pretty certain that mostly NO ONE, well no one who thinks reasonably, would agree that the children of illegal aliens should be granted US citizenship. Yet they do receive it because of the ambiguous language of the 14th Amendment.

But why doesn't any politician challenge this interpretation? Ron Paul and Duncan Hunter are strongly anti-illegal alien yet they don't seem to do much about that specific constitutional loophole.

I'm sure that if you asked most Americans if the children of illegal aliens should be entitled to US citizenship they'd say no.

Is it because of the legal bureaucracy and/or political correctness?

Last edited by norberto; 03-16-2009 at 05:13 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-16-2009, 06:57 AM
 
4,828 posts, read 6,803,388 times
Reputation: 620
Because only the nutjobs would even try to challenge it in court. As we all know, the nutjubs always lose in court.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-16-2009, 08:17 AM
 
Location: Mesa, Az
21,148 posts, read 36,704,952 times
Reputation: 3785
Quote:
Originally Posted by blacknight04 View Post
Because only the nutjobs would even try to challenge it in court. As we all know, the nutjubs always lose in court.
Going by your standards: 'nutjobs' challenged--------and won against the Jim Crow laws in court.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-16-2009, 08:34 AM
 
4,828 posts, read 6,803,388 times
Reputation: 620
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArizonaBear View Post
Going by your standards: 'nutjobs' challenged--------and won against the Jim Crow laws in court.
Apples and oranges.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-16-2009, 10:20 AM
 
8,973 posts, read 14,647,167 times
Reputation: 2983
Quote:
Originally Posted by norberto View Post

Is it because of the legal bureaucracy and/or political correctness?
Political correctness; The charge of "racist", today, is far and away the most feared of ALL labels, and politicians, at their hearts, are 'kept' people...they are ultra-sensitive to their image, in a way that you and I are never called on to be.

Today, angry, frustrated, 'fed-up' people can attack politicians for any number of well-founded reasons..."crook....elitist...liar....philanderer. ..wishy-washy....in bed with big business...adulterer....child molester...rest-room pervert....drunk...tax evader...." and on, and on, and on, and on. These 'labels', whether well-founded or NOT, seldom elicit anything more than a 'grin', or a 'no comment'....or they're simply ignored. In today's world, these things just don't 'sting' anymore...and they apply to both politicians AND anyone else in the public eye.

But even HINT that someone in the public eye MIGHT be a racist...or even be a FRIEND of those who are racist....or GOLF with a racist...and suddenly, the knees go weak, the lips go dry, and the heart starts to flutter. "Racist", particularly when applied to a White Male, is far and away the most devastating, damaging, and career-ending charge that can POSSIBLY be leveled; it instantly puts the person's whole character into question, and removes his credibility. From that point ON, everything he does or says will simply be regarded as the irrelevant ramblings of a 'racist'. "Racist" is a label to be avoided at ALL costs; in that regard, it's unique among labels.

And, as we ALL know, ANY subject having ANY remote connection with race, however insignificant, WILL, in today's PC world, be made out to be a "racial issue". Illegal immigration is a CLASSIC example of such an issue. It's a plain, black-and-white matter of illegal trespass and violation of our national borders. But what "drives" the issue, and gives it its "punch"? 80% of that is due to "race"....on BOTH sides of the issue.

Illegal immigration, for all practical purposes, today is a racial issue...every bit as much as if it was an issue of segregation in the Deep South 50 years ago. It SHOULDN'T be, but it is...that's what this debate is "all about". And ANYONE seeking to do ANYTHING that might impact upon illegal immigrants, in this scenario, WILL BE CALLED a "racist"...WILL BE accused of "hating Hispanics"...and WILL BE called "anti-immigrant". That's just the way it is...and politicians, more than anyone else, are ACUTELY aware of this; and they want to continue their carreers, and they are willing to "do what it takes" to ensure they remain in office....and that includes going to ANY length to avoid the carreer-ending charge of "racist"; whether it's actually true or not is of little importance.

WE can forgive a politician who's been caught with a young boy in his bed; or who 'accidentally' forgot to pay his taxes; or who drives drunk, or hides his income...but NOBODY forgives a racist. Once that label's applied, it's "goodby, career". And THAT'S why they do what they do.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-16-2009, 12:46 PM
 
Location: San Diego, CA
12 posts, read 21,823 times
Reputation: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by blacknight04 View Post
Because only the nutjobs would even try to challenge it in court. As we all know, the nutjubs always lose in court.
So, are you implying that if an illegal alien mother sneaks across the border and gives birth to who-knows-how-many children, even if she did it for the purpose of getting free government welfare subsidies for her to use, it's perfectly acceptable in your mind?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-16-2009, 03:03 PM
 
Location: Lake Norman, North Carolina
1,213 posts, read 1,400,973 times
Reputation: 392
Default Why doesn't anyone challenge the 14th Amendment's interpretation(s)?

Quote:
Originally Posted by macmeal View Post
Political correctness; The charge of "racist", today, is far and away the most feared of ALL labels, and politicians, at their hearts, are 'kept' people...they are ultra-sensitive to their image, in a way that you and I are never called on to be.

Today, angry, frustrated, 'fed-up' people can attack politicians for any number of well-founded reasons..."crook....elitist...liar....philanderer. ..wishy-washy....in bed with big business...adulterer....child molester...rest-room pervert....drunk...tax evader...." and on, and on, and on, and on. These 'labels', whether well-founded or NOT, seldom elicit anything more than a 'grin', or a 'no comment'....or they're simply ignored. In today's world, these things just don't 'sting' anymore...and they apply to both politicians AND anyone else in the public eye.

But even HINT that someone in the public eye MIGHT be a racist...or even be a FRIEND of those who are racist....or GOLF with a racist...and suddenly, the knees go weak, the lips go dry, and the heart starts to flutter. "Racist", particularly when applied to a White Male, is far and away the most devastating, damaging, and career-ending charge that can POSSIBLY be leveled; it instantly puts the person's whole character into question, and removes his credibility. From that point ON, everything he does or says will simply be regarded as the irrelevant ramblings of a 'racist'. "Racist" is a label to be avoided at ALL costs; in that regard, it's unique among labels.

And, as we ALL know, ANY subject having ANY remote connection with race, however insignificant, WILL, in today's PC world, be made out to be a "racial issue". Illegal immigration is a CLASSIC example of such an issue. It's a plain, black-and-white matter of illegal trespass and violation of our national borders. But what "drives" the issue, and gives it its "punch"? 80% of that is due to "race"....on BOTH sides of the issue.

Illegal immigration, for all practical purposes, today is a racial issue...every bit as much as if it was an issue of segregation in the Deep South 50 years ago. It SHOULDN'T be, but it is...that's what this debate is "all about". And ANYONE seeking to do ANYTHING that might impact upon illegal immigrants, in this scenario, WILL BE CALLED a "racist"...WILL BE accused of "hating Hispanics"...and WILL BE called "anti-immigrant". That's just the way it is...and politicians, more than anyone else, are ACUTELY aware of this; and they want to continue their carreers, and they are willing to "do what it takes" to ensure they remain in office....and that includes going to ANY length to avoid the carreer-ending charge of "racist"; whether it's actually true or not is of little importance.

WE can forgive a politician who's been caught with a young boy in his bed; or who 'accidentally' forgot to pay his taxes; or who drives drunk, or hides his income...but NOBODY forgives a racist. Once that label's applied, it's "goodby, career". And THAT'S why they do what they do.
Well said. However, I think that your argument applies only to a few moderate conservatives but to most moderate liberals all the way to the far left. And let's face it, there are millions of Americans who don't consider themselves racist and have been able go on and ignore the proillegal's charges of racism.

As for anyone changing the 14th amendment, conservative politicians try every year to present amendments to do just that, but these amendments are always stopped by career Democratic politicians who don't want to change the way the 14th amendment is currently interpreted, because it's working so well for them. Most anchor babies, won't everyone agree, will grow up to be Democratic voters.........

That's the real reason the 14th amendment won't be changed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-16-2009, 10:46 PM
 
1,117 posts, read 1,750,943 times
Reputation: 966
Quote:
Originally Posted by norberto View Post
I'm pretty certain that mostly NO ONE, well no one who thinks reasonably, would agree that the children of illegal aliens should be granted US citizenship. Yet they do receive it because of the ambiguous language of the 14th Amendment.

But why doesn't any politician challenge this interpretation? Ron Paul and Duncan Hunter are strongly anti-illegal alien yet they don't seem to do much about that specific constitutional loophole.

I'm sure that if you asked most Americans if the children of illegal aliens should be entitled to US citizenship they'd say no.

Is it because of the legal bureaucracy and/or political correctness?
I'm pretty sure Tom Tancredo tried to challenge the 14th Amendment, but got nowhere with it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-16-2009, 11:42 PM
 
Location: Metropolis
1,164 posts, read 3,268,053 times
Reputation: 649
In the near future there are a few states trying to put
it on a ballot initiative to restrict citizenship to children
born of people legally in the country. This will naturally
trigger a court challenge, then it would be persued all
the way to the Supreme court and we all cross our fingers.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-17-2009, 01:21 AM
 
2,381 posts, read 4,420,945 times
Reputation: 475
Quote:
Originally Posted by norberto View Post
I'm pretty certain that mostly NO ONE, well no one who thinks reasonably, would agree that the children of illegal aliens should be granted US citizenship. Yet they do receive it because of the ambiguous language of the 14th Amendment.

But why doesn't any politician challenge this interpretation? Ron Paul and Duncan Hunter are strongly anti-illegal alien yet they don't seem to do much about that specific constitutional loophole.

I'm sure that if you asked most Americans if the children of illegal aliens should be entitled to US citizenship they'd say no.

Is it because of the legal bureaucracy and/or political correctness?
If I read correctly, your family did come to this country legally. So, under your request to change the 14th Amendment, (turn the clock back before your parents were citizens). This would mean you would be born a legal resident and not a citizen. The amendment would not protect you and every time the US decides to return foreign nationals back to their countries, like it did in the 30's, that would put you in the same pool. Are you okay with that? Or are you saying, who cares, I already have citizenship anyway.
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
Similar Threads
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