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)
 
Old 05-24-2010, 07:26 AM
 
Location: San Diego North County
4,800 posts, read 7,687,743 times
Reputation: 3010

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hombre57 View Post
Yes, even YOU are here illegally, because Natives of this land did NOT ask your previous generations to come to this land, I rest my case.

NO. But racial profiling is illegal, even in Arizona buddy.
There are no indigenous people to the North American continent. Even the First Nation's peoples migrated from the area of present day Siberia.

Ever since homo sapien sapien first stepped out of Africa, human beings have competed for land and resources. It is the nature of the beast. I doubt that there are many countries on Earth that have not, at one time or another, been the victim of an invasion, been conquered, or have conquered other civilizations. The vast majority of the (then) known world didn't ask to be conquered by the Romans. The Persian Empire didn't lay out the red carpet for Alexander the Great. Russia certainly didn't extend a written invitation to Napolean and few were happy to welcome Nazi Germany.

History is full of the conquerors and the conquered--yet America is the only country derided for its less than auspicious beginnings. Europeans (and by Europeans, I mean the Spanish) began the conquering of the New World in the late 15th century. It is now more than 500 years later. Where sovereign law was once non-existent, a Republic now stands--a sovereign country with laws which must be obeyed--whether YOU agree with them or not.

Arizona seeks merely to enforce immigration law which has been in place since the 1940s, re-ratified by President Bill Clinton in 1996 when he signed the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996.

Arizona is doing the job the Federal government refuses to do.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-24-2010, 07:57 AM
 
Location: Southcentral Kansas
44,924 posts, read 27,028,059 times
Reputation: 4269
Quote:
Originally Posted by mom2ten View Post
They HAVE TO buy illegal papers???? Which law is that? What is the penalty for not buying those illegal papers?
The penalty is, obviously, not having them. I think you will find that if you go among illegals they do, in fact, buy all kinds of false identities.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-24-2010, 08:10 AM
 
Location: Littleton, CO
20,894 posts, read 13,112,272 times
Reputation: 3947
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jayarcy View Post
<<Strange. The 14th Amendment never mentions "parents" or "allegiance" once.>>

It mentions the 'children of' various groups instead.
Sorry, no. It does not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jayarcy
Senator Jacob Howard, one of the authors of the 14th Ammnedment, on clarifying the intent said, "This does not of course include (among others) the children of aliens."
Your quotation here is a lie. Howard did not say that.

Here is the actual quotation.

"This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons."

He never mentions "the children of aliens" anywhere in that comment.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-24-2010, 08:16 AM
 
14,307 posts, read 11,146,155 times
Reputation: 2130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hombre57 View Post
Yes, even YOU are here illegally, because Natives of this land did NOT ask your previous generations to come to this land, I rest my case.

NO. But racial profiling is illegal, even in Arizona buddy.
My ancestors came here in accordance with U.S. immigration law in the early 1900's way after any native indian conflicts with the Europeans. You have no case.

Did I ever say that racial profilng is legal? The Arizona law prohibits racial profiling. I am a female so don't call me "buddy". Again, you have no case.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-24-2010, 08:20 AM
 
Location: Keonsha, Wisconsin
2,480 posts, read 2,794,599 times
Reputation: 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kele View Post
There are no indigenous people to the North American continent. Even the First Nation's peoples migrated from the area of present day Siberia.

Ever since homo sapien sapien first stepped out of Africa, human beings have competed for land and resources. It is the nature of the beast. I doubt that there are many countries on Earth that have not, at one time or another, been the victim of an invasion, been conquered, or have conquered other civilizations. The vast majority of the (then) known world didn't ask to be conquered by the Romans. The Persian Empire didn't lay out the red carpet for Alexander the Great. Russia certainly didn't extend a written invitation to Napolean and few were happy to welcome Nazi Germany.

History is full of the conquerors and the conquered--yet America is the only country derided for its less than auspicious beginnings. Europeans (and by Europeans, I mean the Spanish) began the conquering of the New World in the late 15th century. It is now more than 500 years later. Where sovereign law was once non-existent, a Republic now stands--a sovereign country with laws which must be obeyed--whether YOU agree with them or not.

Arizona seeks merely to enforce immigration law which has been in place since the 1940s, re-ratified by President Bill Clinton in 1996 when he signed the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996.

Arizona is doing the job the Federal government refuses to do.
Native American Tribes
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-24-2010, 08:24 AM
 
Location: San Diego North County
4,800 posts, read 7,687,743 times
Reputation: 3010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hombre57 View Post
Hello...let me introduce myself.

I am an archaeologist--field of study--Paleoindian archaeology, with a minor in history and Native American studies. I am one quarter Apache as well. I am not ignorant of Native American history.

I am well aware of Native American origin myth--just as I am well aware of Judeo-Christian origin myth. They are just that....myths.

There is NO archaeological evidence whatsoever which puts humans in the North American continent before 15,000 B.P.

Sorry. A link regarding Native American origin myth does not negate anything I posted.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-24-2010, 08:32 AM
 
Location: Littleton, CO
20,894 posts, read 13,112,272 times
Reputation: 3947
Quote:
Originally Posted by tulani View Post
It reads:
"...will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners,..."
"... will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are aliens,..."
it also says:
"...will not, of course, include persons in the United States...who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers ..."

It actually says, "foreigners, illegals, and families of ambassadors or foreign ministers". It does NOT say that ONLY children born to the last two groups are not given automatic citizenship. It includes ALL the groups mentioned.
No. You don't get to rewrite what was said by adding words that change the otherwise clear meaning. You may wish this was what he said. You may even believe deeply that this is what he meant.

But it is not what he said.

Your first problem is that he never once refers to the "children of" foreigners or "children of" aliens (not, btw, "illegals.") He refers to the children themselves as foreigners and aliens.

This poses a problem for you. Unless the third clause is a definition of the first two, he makes no reference whatsoever to the citizenship of parents as having anything to do with making a person born here a Foreigner" or an "alien." And that is the crux of your interpretation of this comment. It is a crux that proves completely flaccid.

We all know that "foreigners" and "aliens" are synonymous. He offers no conjunction (of the sort you feel compelled to add) between them as if they are in any way different classes of person. The comma between them can only be the pause between presenting a first and a second name for the same class of person.

And this is the exact same thing we find between "aliens" and "who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers." There is no conjunction, there is only a comma. He is not presenting an additional class of person at all... he is simply providing a third synonym for the single class he is discussing. This third synonym is the most important one, because it constitutes the clarifying the definition he offers for the previous two; foreigner and alien.

He formally is defining "foreigner" and "alien" in this sentence to mean those born in the US "who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers." And he is exempting them, and only them for citizenship at birth while allowing "every other class of persons."

He is saying something that we've all known forever and has been part of the common law for a half millennium. Children of diplomats are not subject to the jurisdiction of their host countries, and therefore their children have no jus soli claim to citizenship under common law or the US Constitution.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-24-2010, 11:35 AM
 
358 posts, read 332,648 times
Reputation: 107
[quote=Hombre57;14310887]CBP is working, but with a 2,000 mile long border, they say about one million illegals enter the U.S. every year.
This is a great series to watch
Explorer | No End in Sight | National Geographic Channel (http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/series/explorer/3107/Overview - broken link)

Thats California, with double fencing.
Border Fence Fraud
(Thanks for the info Mouser)
How about Arizona and Texas? while crossings in California are down, throughout the border crossings have grown.


it tells American Citizens what they do not know.
There are no more food stamps, recipients are issued a EBT card nearly countrywide, and the recipients must meet certain guidelines. So, black market? I don't think so, unless merchants where the cards are used do illegal things, such as giving cash in lieu of food items, in that case, both the recipient and merchant are taking a big risk.

GBI Investgates EBT Card Fraud Ring 040610 | myfoxatlanta.com (http://www.myfoxatlanta.com/dpp/news/gbi-investgates-ebt-card-fraud-ring-040610 - broken link)
Welfare fraud still occurs, only now the person fraudulently gives the EBT card to someone willing to pay a discount for the food, in exchange for cash. If anything it's easier to fraud than actual food stamps, if you know the PIN number for the card cashiers will not ask for ID. You are right about guidelines, people migrate over here illegally, have a couple kids, say the husband is back in Mexico, they have no money and kids to support- their kids are United States citizens and now they are able to collect full till on our social safety net programs. Meanwhile the husband is working somewhere under a false ID, or working under the table. I had an employee that wanted a check split one time, you see him and his spouse messed up and both of them on the welfare application. He was making about 800 a week, and would not qualify for the food stamps and medical his family was enjoying. Come to find out he was here illegally, using a false ID, and got a job down the road after I could not accommodate his request. Here is some info on EBT so you can understand how it works: Electronic Benefits Transfer (EBT) & Immigrants in California (http://www.nilc.org/ciwc/ciwc_ce/ebt.htm - broken link)


Employers can do certain things to make sure a person is here legally, but, there are those employers who continue to circumvent the legal system and pay undocumented workers slave wages (less than min. wages)
Until this stops, you will never see the end of illegals.
Several years ago, Walmart was found guilty of hiring illegal floor care workers, yes, your favorite place to shop.
Wal-Mart Settles Illegal Immigrant Case for $11M - Business And Money | Business News | Financial News - FOXNews.com

You don't get it.. they use ID's from people here legally, with matching ssn's and DL numbers. They can buy these right down the road from me at Mac Arthur park for the low low price of $125. You try to hire people that are here legally, but it's not that simple. Should I profile? say.. you know.. you have limited English, kinda look third world.. so I'm not gonna hire you. The next dozen people you interview are the same way.. that's all the employees you can find in So. Cal. for collision repair. Over the decades Illegal workers have created a huge supply for limited demand, driving down the wages and making a job you could once support a family on pay nothing. The whole "paying them less" is mostly B.S., the issue is simple supply and demand if you want to stop the flow, break up the union's that are organizing them as "subcontractors" to circumvent the law, and are constantly fighting for amnesty of union members.
Unions get behind illegal workers - Aug. 17, 2006
New immigrants, old unions: organizing undocumented workers in Los Angeles. | North America > United States from AllBusiness.com (http://www.allbusiness.com/human-resources/workforce-management/598331-1.html - broken link)
Beautiful: SEIU organizing rally for illegal immigration on 3/21 in DC
ICE Chills Union Organizing at FreshDirect | The Daily Gotham (http://www.dailygotham.com/forum/teamsterpower_culturekitchen_com/ice_chills_union_organizing_at_freshdirect - broken link)
I could go on all day...


So, the problem is not entirely DC's fault, there is plenty of finger pointing to go around.

There is plenty to go around, but if the Fed's would enforce existing laws this would be a non-issue.

If anyone watches the Natgeo border wars series, you might begin to understand the complexity and dangers of being a CBP officer.

There is one more thing about Illegal Immigrants. the peso is worthless, in 1983 it was devalued and Mexicans experienced hyperinflation. 1994 it happened again. during this time the birthrate was 4.1 in Mexico (double the replacement rate). so what did Mexico have? huge population, no jobs for young workers, worthless currency, people living in destitute poverty. Just north of the border is the U.S., where the dollar goes a long way in Mexico. I would do whatever it takes to get over that border as well, right or wrong. It's not America's fault Illegal Immigrants keep flooding our borders, bringing down the quality of life for Americans, I blame it on Mexico. The Mexicans need to fix their own country, instead of fleeing here to take from our great country.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-24-2010, 12:32 PM
 
Location: central Oregon
1,856 posts, read 2,025,508 times
Reputation: 2377
Quote:
Originally Posted by HistorianDude View Post
No. You don't get to rewrite what was said by adding words that change the otherwise clear meaning. You may wish this was what he said. You may even believe deeply that this is what he meant.

But it is not what he said.

Your first problem is that he never once refers to the "children of" foreigners or "children of" aliens (not, btw, "illegals.") He refers to the children themselves as foreigners and aliens.

This poses a problem for you. Unless the third clause is a definition of the first two, he makes no reference whatsoever to the citizenship of parents as having anything to do with making a person born here a Foreigner" or an "alien." And that is the crux of your interpretation of this comment. It is a crux that proves completely flaccid.

We all know that "foreigners" and "aliens" are synonymous. He offers no conjunction (of the sort you feel compelled to add) between them as if they are in any way different classes of person. The comma between them can only be the pause between presenting a first and a second name for the same class of person.

And this is the exact same thing we find between "aliens" and "who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers." There is no conjunction, there is only a comma. He is not presenting an additional class of person at all... he is simply providing a third synonym for the single class he is discussing. This third synonym is the most important one, because it constitutes the clarifying the definition he offers for the previous two; foreigner and alien.

He formally is defining "foreigner" and "alien" in this sentence to mean those born in the US "who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers." And he is exempting them, and only them for citizenship at birth while allowing "every other class of persons."

He is saying something that we've all known forever and has been part of the common law for a half millennium. Children of diplomats are not subject to the jurisdiction of their host countries, and therefore their children have no jus soli claim to citizenship under common law or the US Constitution.
Ok, Ok, I ADMIT I did use the word illegal when I should have written alien. My bad. The two are so connected in my mind.
I added not one word to anything I wrote (except the aforementioned). I just pulled one sentence apart to show that it refers to ALL those groups.

You can take it however you want. I look at the word alien as someone who is illegal... sorry, I know it means the same as foreigner, but, to me, a foreigner is someone who is here legally and an alien is not.
We have many, many foreigners living in the US. Their children ARE NOT granted citizenship. We have ambassadors and such, but they are not the only foreigners whose children are denied citizenship.
Why, if we do not grant citizenship to people we know are here legally, do you think it's written we should give citizenship to people who are here illegally? Makes NO SENSE at all!
All this pc crap has the big bad USA rewarding bad behaviors. This needs to stop.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-24-2010, 12:49 PM
 
Location: Littleton, CO
20,894 posts, read 13,112,272 times
Reputation: 3947
Quote:
Originally Posted by tulani View Post
Ok, Ok, I ADMIT I did use the word illegal when I should have written alien. My bad. The two are so connected in my mind.
I added not one word to anything I wrote (except the aforementioned). I just pulled one sentence apart to show that it refers to ALL those groups.
It's not the word "illegal" that I objected to. That was just a funny and revealing Freudian slip.

It was you attempt to slip in the conjunction "and" in the attempt to make it look like he was saying something that he was not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tulani
You can take it however you want.
Actually, no. You cannot. Everybody is entitled to their own opinions. But nobody is entitled to their own facts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tulani
I look at the word alien as someone who is illegal... sorry, I know it means the same as foreigner, but, to me, a foreigner is someone who is here legally and an alien is not.
So... you think you can redefine the meaning of a comment made a century and a half ago just because you personally have an anomalous definition of the word "alien?" Sorry, it really does not work that way.

There is no color of illegality on the term "alien."

Quote:
Originally Posted by tulani
We have many, many foreigners living in the US. Their children ARE NOT granted citizenship.
If those children were born here, they are already citizens. Why would a grant be needed?

Quote:
Originally Posted by tulani
We have ambassadors and such, but they are not the only foreigners whose children are denied citizenship.
Actually... yes they are. Now, children of a hostile army would also be exempt. But we kicked the Japanese off our territory back in 1945.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tulani
Why, if we do not grant citizenship to people we know are here legally, do you think it's written we should give citizenship to people who are here illegally? Makes NO SENSE at all!
You appear to be confused. We do grant citizenship to people who are here legally. That's called "naturalization." But children born here don't need to be naturalized. They are already citizens at birth. Regardless of whether or not their parents are legal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tulani
All this pc crap has the big bad USA rewarding bad behaviors. This needs to stop.
I have no idea what you're on about regarding "pc crap." I actually have no great energy at all on the issue, and if you want to change the US Constitution to eliminate birthright citizenship, go for it.

But I do have a lot of energy on the defense of the Constitution itself. And currently, it grants American citizenship to anybody born on US soil who is not the child of a foreign diplomat or hostile occupying army. That includes the children of illegal aliens.
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