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.
Location: Oklahoma(formerly SoCalif) Originally Mich,
13,387 posts, read 19,428,052 times
Reputation: 4611
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1AngryTaxPayer
That is why a much easier venue is to take up a bill like
Quote:
four other State
have. They have been successful in driving out the horde and their is nothing the "Illegal Alien Gravy Train" supporters can do to stop it. These bills have been challanged and defeated multiple times.
Despite your best efforts, the words, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” cannot be ignored, and are a salient requisite for Birthright Citizenship according to Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Of course “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” cannot be ignored. Please don't ignore that there were many people born in the United States during the Reconstruction Amendment debates (and before and after) that were not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. They are referred to elsewhere in the Constitution as "Indians not taxed" and were subject to the jurisdiction of sovereign American Indian nations within our borders. There have been the occasional children born on our soil as children of foreign service officers or even military personnel serving alongside (not in) our armed forces. How do these children differ from the children of illegal aliens? "Invasion" and "reconquista" are metaphors, right? Y'all see the difference between agents of foreign governments and economic (illegal) migrants, no?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benicar
Foreign nationals are not citizens of this country, hold no allegiance to this country, and are not afforded equal protection of the laws of this country. Otherwise, illegal aliens would be entitled to work in this country simply by virtue of establishing residence in a state, notwithstanding their immigration status. They would also be entitled to receive a social security number. Moreover, they would be protected by DOL and EEOC regulations, and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Thus, employers could not exploit them by paying them below minimum wage, no overtime, and excessive hours. Illegal aliens would be protected, and could demand equal pay, and all of the rights citizens enjoy.
Foreign nationals legally authorized to work in our country are permitted to work, but they are no more "entitled to work" than a natural born citizen or anyone else is "entitled to work". Illegal aliens were not prohibited from working nationally before 1986. Not sure what that has to do with 14th Amendment "jurisdiction" debates in the 1860's. I don't suppose that Sen. Howard & co. anticipated Social Security and the all-pervasiveness of the SSN some 140 years later.
Surely you're not suggesting that "DOL and EEOC regulations, and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act" contain language exempting employers of illegal aliens or other black market workers (more below). Not only illegal aliens, but non-citizen aliens and persons who have lost their civil rights are ineligible to vote. There is also a history of alien voting. Privileges or public benefits (and licenses as well) and immunities are state matters, not rights. I can't think of any privilege, public benefit, license, or immunity (other than the franchise and right to hold office) that is consistently applied to, respectively as a class, citizens, non-citizen aliens, and illegal aliens across the several states. Can you?
As to the rights citizen workers "enjoy", when official unemployment hovers at around 10%, would you advise a non-union employee that wasn't given time on-the-clock to review occupationally-relevant Hazardous Material Safety Data Sheets to file an OSHA complaint? [sarc]Sounds like a real litigation winner to me[/sarc]
"An immigrant from the Zhejiang Province of China with no English skills, [Zhen Zhong] Zhang wasn't aware he was entitled to both minimum wage and overtime pay, regardless of his immigration status."
"Zhang, 59, has since received $11,000 in unpaid wages from the central New Jersey restaurant where he worked. He also has found a better job."
"'They may feel that because they don't speak English, they'll have nowhere to turn for help or won't ask for help because of their immigration status,' [Alexander Saingchin, a lawyer with the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund] said. And if they don't have legal status, they fear their employer "can use that as a sword to not pay them overtime or a legal wage...."
Illegal aliens and the EEOC: [First Google hit (retrieved 7/7/09) for "eeoc illegals", entitled "EEOC will start protecting illegal immigrants" (Human Events, Nov. 1999)
"The federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has decided that it will apply the same system of de facto quotas to illegal immigrants as it does to legal American workers...."
Illegal Aliens and Title VII: [Fifth Google hit (retrieved 7/7/09) for ""Civil Rights Act" illegals", entitled "Immigration Status Not A Bar To Illegal Aliens Filing Civil Rights Claims Against Their Employers"
Immigration Status Not A Bar To Illegal Aliens Filing Civil Rights Claims Against Their Employers. - Free Online Library (http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Immigration+Status+Not+A+Bar+To+Illegal+Aliens+Fil ing+Civil+Rights...-a0167124028 - broken link)
"In opposition to the EEOC and Torres' motion for summary judgment motion for summary judgment a written request for a judgment in the moving party's favor before a lawsuit goes to trial and based on recorded (testimony outside court) affidavits (or declarations under penalty of perjury), depositions, admissions of fact, answers , the defendant argued that Torres had lack of standing to bring suit under the federal civil rights laws as an undocumented alien. Since under the Immigration Reform and Control Act, 8 U.S.C. s.1324a(a)(2), an employer is compelled to discharge employees upon discovery of their undocumented status, the defendant asserted that Torres was not an "employee" protected by Title VII. The defendant further argued that Torres was not entitled to any form of damages that would not have accrued but for her initial misconduct that led to her being hired. In rejecting these arguments, the U.S. District Court noted that Congress intended to empower individuals to act as private attorneys general in enforcing the provisions of Title VII and that every court that considered the issue concluded that undocumented workers have standing in their own right to obtain relief.
Under which jurisdiction is the child born to a foreign mother who dies in childbirth under our flag?
Under which jurisdiction is the child born under our flag and living on our soil subject when he or she is subject to gross abuse or neglect by a foreign (illegal) parent(s)?
These are real questions that have to be asked all too often in our hospitals and child welfare offices. The former is a tragedy, and, y'know, I think it might be part of the reason that some states provide pre-natal care. Pre-natal care works. That child is one of us. The latter is also a tragedy, and the child's parent(s) can suffer the penalties of our criminal justice system and catch the first bus or plane back to their countr(ies) of origin on their release date. The child, however, is ours, if that is in his or her best interest.
Anyone that writes off our children because of whatever their parent(s) did should be ashamed of herself or himself. Our children are among our most precious resource.
Benicar, you cite one U.S. senator against the whole of the Common Law and U.S. Constitutional Law from Calvin to Hamdi. How about the name of one person that was born in the United States that was denied the rights of citizenship by law because of his or her parent's alienage. The more pervasive means by which state's denied the rights of citizenship prior to the Civil War was by free/slave and white/other. Please name one "white" person born of "free" parent(s) that was ever denied their federally-guaranteed rights in this country because of their parent's alienage.
Despite your best efforts, the words, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” cannot be ignored, and are a salient requisite for Birthright Citizenship according to Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Foreign nationals are not citizens of this country, hold no allegiance to this country, and are not afforded equal protection of the laws of this country. Otherwise, illegal aliens would be entitled to work in this country simply by virtue of establishing residence in a state, notwithstanding their immigration status. They would also be entitled to receive a social security number. Moreover, they would be protected by DOL and EEOC regulations, and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Thus, employers could not exploit them by paying them below minimum wage, no overtime, and excessive hours. Illegal aliens would be protected, and could demand equal pay, and all of the rights citizens enjoy.
If EVERYONE born on U.S. soil is considered a U.S. citizen, citizenship could not be denied the U.S.-born children of diplomats and their staff. It defies simple logic to believe the U.S. would deny citizenship to the U.S.-born children of foreigners who have a legal presence in this country, yet grant citizenship to those here in violation of our laws.
Illegal aliens are ineligible to work, vote, and other privileges and benefits afforded those “under the jurisdiction thereof” of the United States; in other words, “citizens” of the US. First, and foremost, a parent must qualify for citizenship. If the parents do not qualify for U.S. citizenship, their children do not qualify for U.S. citizenship. The primary purpose of the 14th Amendment was to ensure citizenship to the offspring of CITIZENS; not to provide a means for foreigners to take advantage of tax-funded benefits, and to anchor themselves to this country through their children. I really don’t know how much simpler this can be.
Clearly, as many have stated, the 14th Amendment has been deliberately misinterpreted. It will not take an amendment to the Constitution; it will only take enforcement of the law. Likewise, we have immigration laws which do not need to be reformed. They too, are clearly being ignored to facilitate the cheap labor industry. It’s all a travesty, and I simply do not understand how any U.S. citizen could embrace the reprehensible tactics being used to circumvent our laws, and scam the taxpayers of this country.
If you don’t mind my asking, are you a citizen of this country born to U.S. citizens/legal immigrants; or, are you a non-citizen? I’m simply trying to understand the impetus for your relentless defense of illegal aliens.
Do you know why the administration of George W. Bush decided to hold prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba and call them enemy combatants? To skirt around the 14th ammendment's equal protection clause. Excerpt from last sentence of part 1 of the 14th ammendment: "....nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Synonyms for the word jurisdiction from "Webster's Collegiate Thesaurus" : bounds, confines, or limits. Which means that if you are on American soil you are subject to the laws of the United States of America regardless of how you got here. You can be prosecuted if you are an illegal alien but due process must be observed. GWB did not want to bring Al-Queda members into the USA and let them be subject to our laws and protections so he stuck them at Guantanamo Bay and called them enemy combatants, hoping to keep them there forever without due process (ironically, the Supreme Court decided that even they were entitled to due process) He also did not call them prisoners of war because then they would have been entitled the protections under the Geneva Convention, hence the moniker "enemy combatants."
Now you may say what does this example have to do with "anchor babies." The US Supreme court decided to grant Al-Queda members due process as provided for by the 14th ammendment. Do you think there is even a remote chance that any kind of attempt to deny children born of illegal parents on American soil will stand up against the Constitution and the Supreme Court? The 14th ammendment states that they are citizens automatically. Any attempt to change that will take another constitutional ammendment and that will not happen anytime soon.
Under which jurisdiction is the child born to a foreign mother who dies in childbirth under our flag?
Under which jurisdiction is the child born under our flag and living on our soil subject when he or she is subject to gross abuse or neglect by a foreign (illegal) parent(s)?
These are real questions that have to be asked all too often in our hospitals and child welfare offices. The former is a tragedy, and, y'know, I think it might be part of the reason that some states provide pre-natal care. Pre-natal care works. That child is one of us. The latter is also a tragedy, and the child's parent(s) can suffer the penalties of our criminal justice system and catch the first bus or plane back to their countr(ies) of origin on their release date. The child, however, is ours, if that is in his or her best interest.
A young child should be with his or her parents. It is in the child's best interest that they catch the first bus or plane back to their parent's homeland along with them.
Quote:
Anyone that writes off our children because of whatever their parent(s) did should be ashamed of herself or himself. Our children are among our most precious resource.
Any woman who is in the US illegally and has an anchor baby knowing full well that the US will now bear the responsibility for her kid that we neither need or want in perpetuity should be even more ashamed of herself. Who does she think pays the hospital bill when she skips out on it? Her anchor baby is enrolled in Medicaid at birth so the US taxpayer is on the hook for his or her medical care for the next 18 years. US taxpayers are also going to be responsible for providing education, meals and god only knows what else for her kid. And best of all, once her anchor baby comes of age he or she can sponsor madre and padre for citizenship. Once they are citizens, they can then begin dragging over the entire familia, none of whom have any meaningful education or discernible job skills. Which was the purpose of having an anchor in the US to begin with.
Type this into google and read the article.
My little Jamerican bundle of joy - JAMAICAOBSERVER.COM
Read about how these women lie about how far along their pregnancy is so the airlines will let them travel. Read about how once in the Land of the Freebies they show up at some doctors office and pretend to be shocked when the MD tells them they are 4 weeks further along in the pregnancy then they had claimed. And you are telling US citizens we should be ashamed of ourselves? Oh no, honey. There are people who should be ashamed of themselves, real ashamed, but they are not the hapless American who are forced to tolerate this nonsense.
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.
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.
Thank you for the correction my fellow American.
It's a federal law
