Man AZ just keeps on smacking at em

[olevetonahill]

Now they gonna try to deny Birth Certificates to the Babies of the Illegals :cool:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20100611/us_time/08599199606400

[Leroy Lizard]

They may have overextended themselves with this one.

[olevetonahill]

Yea that dayum 14th is gonna be a little tuff to get by
But that thing needs to be reworked also

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Yea that dayum 14th is gonna be a little tuff to get by
But that thing needs to be reworked alsoYes, on both points!

[olevetonahill]

Hell Ima startin to think you Folks out there just dont like messicans :eek: :D

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Hell Ima startin to think you Folks out there just dont like messicans :eek: :Dyou goin' PC?

[olevetonahill]

you goin' PC?

Not I :eek: :D
I really dont have a Prob with em even if they cant speak English. As long as they are LEGAL:pop:

When I was running My shop a mexican would come by wanting a part or me to fix something . Hell I couldnt understand nuthin they was sayin
I even started a messican language thingy on the innerwebs to learn Spanish
then said **** it let em learn English or bring an Interpreter :pop:

[SanJoaquinSooner]

Yea that dayum 14th is gonna be a little tuff to get by
But that thing needs to be reworked also

But Juanita says you're the daddy.

[olevetonahill]

But Juanita says you're the daddy.

Give me Pics to prove I nailed it .:pop:

[yermom]

seems to me you should be a citizen or permanent resident to be able to have a kid and it be a citizen

[Leroy Lizard]

We need an amendment.

[Frozen Sooner]

seems to me you should be a citizen or permanent resident to be able to have a kid and it be a citizen

That's something that should be left up to Congress, though. Not states. Failure to issue birth certificates to US Citizens based on residency status of the parent is a pretty easy 14th Amendment Equal Protection claim.

[yermom]

i'm talking in a "what is right" sense, not in a legal sense

[Frozen Sooner]

I know you are. In the context of the discussion here, though, I was saying that if you want that change to the current citizenship rules, that change needs to come through Congress, not random states denying equal protection to citizens.

[Flagstaffsooner]

I know you are. In the context of the discussion here, though, I was saying that if you want that change to the current citizenship rules, that change needs to come through Congress, not random states denying equal protection to citizens.I

Jezzus, what a stupid statement. I used to respect you, no more.

Citizens not illegals.

[Frozen Sooner]

I

Jezzus, what a stupid statement. I used to respect you, no more.

Citizens not illegals.

People born in the United States ARE citizens. Denying citizens a birth certificate is a violation of equal protection to citizens.

Frankly, after reading your posts over the last couple of years, I worry very little about whether you respect me.

Slowly, one more time, just so you can understand it:

The United States Constitution says that people born in the United States are citizens.
Citizens are entitled to equal protection under the law.
Denying a CITIZEN a birth certificate because their PARENT is an illegal immigrant is unconstitutional.
Beyond that, CONGRESS has the sole authority under the Constitution (beyond what the Constitution itself says about who is a citizen) to say who is a citizen. NOT state governments.

[Okla-homey]

Now they gonna try to deny Birth Certificates to the Babies of the Illegals :cool:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20100611/us_time/08599199606400

Why stop there? They oughtta go real old-school on 'em and require that a baby born in the United States cannot be a US citrizen unless its grandfathers are. That grandfather clause stuff is a classic useage by American racists to deny other Americans their rights.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

Why stop there? They oughtta go real old-school on 'em and require that a baby born in the United States cannot be a US citrizen unless its grandfathers are. That grandfather clause stuff is a classic useage by American racists to deny other Americans their rights.

And while we're at it, maybe we should also require fluency in at least two languages before full citizenship rights are granted.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I know you are. In the context of the discussion here, though, I was saying that if you want that change to the current citizenship rules, that change needs to come through Congress, not random states denying equal protection to citizens.Of course. Hence Olevet's comment. Pick up the pace, Froze!;)

[Leroy Lizard]

Why stop there? They oughtta go real old-school on 'em and require that a baby born in the United States cannot be a US citrizen unless its grandfathers are. That grandfather clause stuff is a classic useage by American racists to deny other Americans their rights.

Big difference between that and requiring that one's parents reside here LEGALLY.

[Okla-homey]

Big difference between that and requiring that one's parents reside here LEGALLY.

How so? I see no difference whatsoever. If a person emerges from his or her mama and first sees the light of day in the United States, that person my friend, is an American citizen. That's been universally true since the passage of the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 when American Indians were granted citizenship.

Noted at the time:
"The Indian, though a man without a country, the Indian who has suffered a thousand wrongs considered the white man's burden and from mountains, plains and divides, the Indian threw himself into the struggle to help throttle the unthinkable tyranny of the Hun. The Indian helped to free Belgium, helped to free all the small nations, helped to give victory to the Stars and Stripes. The Indian went to France to help avenge the ravages of autocracy. Now, shall we not redeem ourselves by redeeming all the tribes?"

Similarly, why deny a child citizenship who was born in the United States to parents who bust their butts every day doing the dirty and tough jobs we won't do? What if that kid's parent(s) are serving in our military? Citizenship is not a requirement of service you know.

IMHO, folks who would deny citizenship to innocent children born in the US, who don't get to choose where they are born is hate of the first order. Sieg Heil! Particularly when that citizenship may well be the only decent break that kid will ever get growing up.

[Leroy Lizard]

How so? I see no difference whatsoever. If a person emerges from his or her mama and first sees the light of day in the United States, that person my friend, is an American citizen. That's been universally true since the passage of the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 when American Indians were granted citizenship.

And once we change it, we will say:

"If a person emerges from his or her mama and first sees the light of day in the United States, that person my friend, is an American citizen if his parents were here legally."

C'mon, you employed an obvious fallacy. We already know what it's like NOW. We want to change it for the FUTURE.


Similarly, why deny a child citizenship who was born in the United States to parents who bust their butts every day doing the dirty and tough jobs we won't do? What if that kid's parent(s) are serving in our military? Citizenship is not a requirement of service you know.

Homey, you're a lawyer. You know damn well that such appeals to emotion are worthless from a legal standpoint. It doesn't matter if the child is born to a welfare mom high on heroin or a Medal of Honor winner.

Now, if you want to argue for an exemption for exceptional circumstances, fine. (Although the exceptional circumstance will likely be "Propensity to vote Democrat.")

Besides, I am not advocating that the child be born to U.S. citizens, just legal residents.


IMHO, folks who would deny citizenship to innocent children born in the US, who don't get to choose where they are born is hate of the first order. Sieg Heil! Particularly when that citizenship may well be the only decent break that kid will ever get growing up.

What about all the poor children born in the Sudan every year? Where's their break? What about all the homeless in Nigeria?

Do you advocate giving them citizenship too? After all, they're (1) innocent and (2) didn't get to choose where they are born.

[StoopTroup]

You shut him down Leroid. You go gerl.

[yermom]

i hate agreeing with Leroy :(

:D

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

And once we change it, we will say:

"If a person emerges from his or her mama and first sees the light of day in the United States, that person my friend, is an American citizen if his parents were here legally."

C'mon, you employed an obvious fallacy. We already know what it's like NOW. We want to change it for the FUTURE.



Homey, you're a lawyer. You know damn well that such appeals to emotion are worthless from a legal standpoint. It doesn't matter if the child is born to a welfare mom high on heroin or a Medal of Honor winner.

Now, if you want to argue for an exemption for exceptional circumstances, fine. (Although the exceptional circumstance will likely be "Propensity to vote Democrat.")

Besides, I am not advocating that the child be born to U.S. citizens, just legal residents.



What about all the poor children born in the Sudan every year? Where's their break? What about all the homeless in Nigeria?

Do you advocate giving them citizenship too? After all, they're (1) innocent and (2) didn't get to choose where they are born.See Froze. You have the capability to post something like this! Good goin'. LL!!

[Leroy Lizard]

You shut him down Leroid. You go gerl.

Just protectin' the American workers' right to earn a decent living free from the mass importation of cheap, illegal labor.

[Okla-homey]

Homey, you're a lawyer. You know damn well that such appeals to emotion are worthless from a legal standpoint. It doesn't matter if the child is born to a welfare mom high on heroin or a Medal of Honor winner.



Legal standpoint? YGBSM. The law is my side of this. Totally. Are you aware it would take an Amendment to the US Constitution to do the hateful thing you propose? The XIVth says, among other things; born in the US, you're a citizen. Any half-baked law out of AZ, or any other state, denying citizenship to some people born in th US would be struck down by the first federal judge who hears the lawsuit to enjoin its enforcement.

Now, as to the emotional aspect of the thing, do you actually believe 66% of the House and Senate, and 75% of the states would vote to ratify such an Amendment denying citizenship to certain people who were born in the US? That's a slippery slope my friend. Who's next?

Do you not believe emotional response to such a hateful thing would play a role in voters' hearts when they consider such a thing at the polls if it ever got out of Congress?

[Leroy Lizard]

Legal standpoint? YGBSM. The law is my side of this. Totally. Are you aware it would take an Amendment to the US Constitution to do the hateful thing you propose?

Yeah, which is why I said "We need an amendment " earlier in this thread.

:rolleyes:


Now, as to the emotional aspect of the thing, do you actually believe 66% of the House and Senate, and 75% of the states would vote to ratify such an Amendment denying citizenship to certain people who were born in the US?

I don't know. There is only one way to find out.


Do you not believe emotional response to such a hateful thing would play a role in voters' hearts when they consider such a thing at the polls if it ever got out of Congress?

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2010/04/29/Poll-Most-support-Arizona-immigration-law/UPI-55921272544207/

To answer your question, ****in' A.

BTW:


In 2004, by constitutional referendum, Ireland revoked the automatic right to citizenship by territorial birth (jus soli).

http://muse.jhu.edu/login?uri=/journals/american_quarterly/v060/60.3.mancini.html

Are the Irish hateful? No, they're smart.

For once, let's do the smart thing instead of the emotional thing. I'm tired of seeing the U.S. play the role of world dummy and having everyone take advantage of it.

[Okla-homey]

Just protectin' the American workers' right to earn a decent living free from the mass importation of cheap, illegal labor.

Oh yeah, Americans are lining up to pick lettuce in those vast irrigated lettuce fields in 105 degree heat in Arizona, even if they were offered 10 bucks and hour instead of half that which is the going rate paid to illegal pickers.

Or spinach in eastern Oklahoma. Or canteloupes and watermelons in Texas.

[Leroy Lizard]

Oh yeah, Americans are lining up to pick lettuce in those vast irrigated lettuce fields in 105 degree heat in Arizona, even if they were offered 10 bucks and hour instead of half that which is the going rate paid to illegal pickers.

My ancestors from Cimarron County did it. Americans have done it before.

Well, that was before the big social programs came along and gave them money for sitting around on their dead ***. We can do something about that too.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Oh yeah, Americans are lining up to pick lettuce in those vast irrigated lettuce fields in 105 degree heat in Arizona, even if they were offered 10 bucks and hour instead of half that which is the going rate paid to illegal pickers.

Or spinach in eastern Oklahoma. Or canteloupes and watermelons in Texas.Give it up, Homey You are on the wrong side of this one. You do pretty well for a loyer, usually, but you're just wrong on this issue. Those folks are here illegally, and are undocumented, or have fake ID's.

[Leroy Lizard]

You do pretty well for a loyer, usually...

Boy, did I misread that sentence the first time I saw it.

[Okla-homey]

Give it up, Homey You are on the wrong side of this one. You do pretty well for a loyer, usually, but you're just wrong on this issue. Those folks are here illegally, and are undocumented, or have fake ID's.

When do the round-up's begin? You okay with one of the thousands of internment camps we'll need to corral 15 million people being built near your house?

Or do we just have mass executions?

The nativist bunch are big on hate and woefully small as to the practicalities of finding, capturing, processing and eliminating a group of human beings twice this state's population in size.

[olevetonahill]

Homester , I agree that the logistics of getting rid of the ones here now are astronomical.
But can we not start stemming the flow of new ones ?

[Okla-homey]

Homester , I agree that the logistics of getting rid of the ones here now are astronomical.
But can we not start stemming the flow of new ones ?

Sure. Stem away. That's fine. Srsly. I just don't think the Federal government, specifically the people running it, care anything about stemming the flow.

Moreover, I'm not sure they know how even if they were inclined to do so. Like I said, any attempt to cap the flow with a realistic chance of success would necessarily involve the threat of deadly force and occasional use of deadly force.

[olevetonahill]

I really dont understand the Deadly force part unless the illegals force that option , then its on them not us .JMHO

[Frozen Sooner]

Being in Switzerland (the country, not Norman) for the last month or so I've been getting an interesting perspective on immigration, illegal or no.
The majority of people in Swiss jails are immigrants. Not illegals, just immigrants of all stripes. Their immigrants tend to be Kosovars and Eastern Bloc people, though they have their share of Middle Eastern immigrants.

Immigrants throughout US history have gravitated somewhat to crime-at least anecdotally out of proportion to the general population. Gangs of New York and whatnot. The Irish Mob, the Italian Mob, the Russian Mob, the Mexican gangs, etc.

Just tickling my brain a little bit here, but I wonder if there's something in the psychological profile of someone who's willing to abandon their homeland for something else that makes them more susceptible to anti-social behavior.

[yermom]

or maybe there is a reason they are leaving their country ;)

[Curly Bill]

When do the round-up's begin? You okay with one of the thousands of internment camps we'll need to corral 15 million people being built near your house?

Or do we just have mass executions?

The nativist bunch are big on hate and woefully small as to the practicalities of finding, capturing, processing and eliminating a group of human beings twice this state's population in size.

Gets my vote.

I'm guessing that once those started we'd not have to worry about rounding em up, as they'd likely leave and go back to wherever the hell they came from. ;)

[SanJoaquinSooner]

Yeah, which is why I said "We need an amendment " earlier in this thread.


OK, please allow me to understand what you have in mind.

1. Would it require both parents to be legally present or just one?

2. Just legally present or do they need to be citizens or permanent residents? For example, how about H1B visa holders who are here under non-immigrant visas but often adjust status to permanent residency later? How about those here under one of the numerous temporary visas?

3. Lizroy, I know you oppose lifetime tenure for professors. What is your feeling about lifetime tenure for citizenship? Maybe one should risk losing "citizenship tenure" if one tests positive for drugs a second or third time. While we're doing the amendment thing to solve the illegal immigration problem, let's solve the drug problem at the same thing. Kill two birds with one amendment. If you test positive a second time you lose citizenship temporarily. A third time and you're shipped off to some island like the one Steve McQueen went to in the movie Papillion.

It may be overwhelming to test everybody on a random basis, so let's just limit it to those of you who receive gov't checks.... welfare checks, pension checks, "employment" checks, etc, .. any gov't check. If the taxpayers are supporting you, they have a right to demand you are drug free.

http://www.brycezabel.com/.a/6a00d83451c49869e201053648ff57970c-500wi

[Leroy Lizard]

When do the round-up's begin? You okay with one of the thousands of internment camps we'll need to corral 15 million people being built near your house?

We can use the same argument for any crime:

"I think we need to put criminals in jail."

"Oh, so you don't mind having the jail built next to your home?!?!"

What kind of reasoning is that? You don't have to build these internment camps (as you call them), next to people's homes, just like you don't have to build jails and prisons next to people's homes.



Or do we just have mass executions?

At this point, you are starting to slip into hyperbole, which is a good indication you haven't thought these things through. After all, it is quite possible to enforce laws without resorting to mass executions.


The nativist bunch are big on hate and woefully small as to the practicalities of finding, capturing, processing and eliminating a group of human beings twice this state's population in size.

And those that oppose the nativist bunch are big on using wild logic to rationalize their unwillingness to even try and solve a problem (because solving the problem doesn't serve their own hidden political agenda).

[Leroy Lizard]

OK, please allow me to understand what you have in mind.

1. Would it require both parents to be legally present or just one?

That would be something worth debating. My feeling is that the mother needs to be a legal resident. That would be the simplest rule from a practical standpoint.


2. Just legally present or do they need to be citizens or permanent residents? For example, how about H1B visa holders who are here under non-immigrant visas but often adjust status to permanent residency later? How about those here under one of the numerous temporary visas?

Requiring citizenship brings in a Catch-22 situation that can be used to discriminate, so I do not favor that option. Instead, I think they should be legally permanent residents. If we want to extend the privilege to those that are legally in the country but not permanently, that would be worth discussing.


3. Lizroy, I know you oppose lifetime tenure for professors. What is your feeling about lifetime tenure for citizenship? Maybe one should risk losing "citizenship tenure" if one tests positive for drugs a second or third time. While we're doing the amendment thing to solve the illegal immigration problem, let's solve the drug problem at the same thing. Kill two birds with one amendment. If you test positive a second time you lose citizenship temporarily. A third time and you're shipped off to some island like the one Steve McQueen went to in the movie Papillion.

It may be overwhelming to test everybody on a random basis, so let's just limit it to those of you who receive gov't checks.... welfare checks, pension checks, "employment" checks, etc, .. any gov't check. If the taxpayers are supporting you, they have a right to demand you are drug free.

I like it, but I don't want to go there just yet. We need to focus. If we try to expand the reach of the law to solve too many problems, we will just encounter more barriers to success, which is a classic mistake of reformers.

The idea of drug testing for those who receive government checks is something I favor, and we can do it now. But I don't want to tie it to citizenship. At least, not yet.

BTW, I favor reforming tenure for professors and removing it for public school teachers. Professors need tenure to protect their right to publish controversial material; they don't need tenure to protect their right to be horrible people.

Public school teachers do not need it at all. At the K-12 level, tenure is nothing more than a warrantless perk.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

We can use the same argument for any crime:

"I think we need to put criminals in jail."

"Oh, so you don't mind having the jail built next to your home?!?!"

What kind of reasoning is that? You don't have to build these internment camps (as you call them), next to people's homes, just like you don't have to build jails and prisons next to people's homes.



At this point, you are starting to slip into hyperbole, which is a good indication you haven't thought these things through. After all, it is quite possible to enforce laws without resorting to mass executions.



And those that oppose the nativist bunch are big on using wild logic to rationalize their unwillingness to even try and solve a problem (because solving the problem doesn't serve their own hidden political agenda).You must be a businessman, 'cause you sure don't sound like a loyer!:)

[Leroy Lizard]

You must be a businessman, 'cause you sure don't sound like a loyer!:)

Are you saying that I'm a lousy lover, er loyer?

[yermom]

you may be a loyer, but you ain't no dancer

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Are you saying that I'm a lousy lover, er loyer?You are acting like loyers SHOULD act, instead of the way most of them do act.

[Leroy Lizard]

You are acting like loyers SHOULD act, instead of the way most of them do act.

Ethically?

[Okla-homey]

I really dont understand the Deadly force part unless the illegals force that option , then its on them not us .JMHO

The threat of and occasional use of deadly force is essential to seal our porous borders from illegals. We've been over this before. You can't just build a fence, dust off your hands and walk away.

You have to surveill that border, its entire length, and you have to have it covered by supporting fires. You also would generally need a mixed density minefield out front, and a mechanized and airborne screening force able to respond in real time to penetrations wherever they occur and bring to bear overwhelming firepower.

Otherwise, you have the situation we have now. A fence, that folks go over, dig under or cut through. We catch about 1 out of 4. The other 75% make it. The 25% we catch, we take their mugshot, fingerprint them, and return them to the Mex side. They try it again a couple nights later, and the odds favor their making it on the subsequent attempt.

What kind of deterrent is that? Its no deterrent at all. What it is, is a mat on our front door that says, NOT WELCOME. That's a joke, especially since we don't keep the door locked or shoot intruders who make it in the house. Instead, we just shoo them out and sternly tell them not to come back.:rolleyes:

[SanJoaquinSooner]

That would be something worth debating. My feeling is that the mother needs to be a legal resident. That would be the simplest rule from a practical standpoint.


Ok, a Law of Matrilineal Descent, like that used by Orthodox Jews to determine who is Jewish.

[Okla-homey]

Being in Switzerland (the country, not Norman) for the last month or so I've been getting an interesting perspective on immigration, illegal or no.
The majority of people in Swiss jails are immigrants. Not illegals, just immigrants of all stripes. Their immigrants tend to be Kosovars and Eastern Bloc people, though they have their share of Middle Eastern immigrants.

Immigrants throughout US history have gravitated somewhat to crime-at least anecdotally out of proportion to the general population. Gangs of New York and whatnot. The Irish Mob, the Italian Mob, the Russian Mob, the Mexican gangs, etc.

Just tickling my brain a little bit here, but I wonder if there's something in the psychological profile of someone who's willing to abandon their homeland for something else that makes them more susceptible to anti-social behavior.

In truth, I thinks its more a manifestation of the majority's reluctance to incorporate the new arrivals into the existing economic and civil structure. The big exception are Asian immigrants who generally didn't seek long-term employment upon arrival, but didn't turn to crime. Instead, they demonstrated a remarkable degree of entrepenuership and started their own small businesses. Among Asians in the southern tier of states with which I'm most familiar; convenience stores, restaurants, motels and nail places come to mind.

[Okla-homey]

Ok, a Law of Matrilineal Descent, like that used by Orthodox Jews to determine who is Jewish.

Tracing one's status exclusively through mama is kinda old-fashioned given our advanced DNA technology today. Before DNA testing, a person only knew who his daddy was because his mama told him. Today, we can prove fatherhood to about a 97% probability.

[Okla-homey]

And those that oppose the nativist bunch are big on using wild logic to rationalize their unwillingness to even try and solve a problem (because solving the problem doesn't serve their own hidden political agenda).

I have no hidden political agenda. In fact, I'm not a member of the political party that would benefit by granting citizenship to the folks already here. I regret the fact my GOP has completely boofed this opportunity to incorporate a huge number of folks who tend to have more in common with an Okie 'Pub than a NY or FL Donk.

What I am, is a pragmatist. I find it's generally best to consider possible courses of action and discard the ones that are not feasible, acceptable and suitable. We called that doing a "FAS Check" of "COA's" when I did deliberate military planning in my former life -- and that happens to be one of the secrets to the US military's historic ability to adapt to a new, unusual or difficult situation and prevail.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Ethically?and rationally

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I have no hidden political agenda. In fact, I'm not a member of the political party that would benefit by granting citizenship to the folks already here. I regret the fact my GOP has completely boofed this opportunity to incorporate a huge number of folks who tend to have more in common with an Okie 'Pub than a NY or FL Donk.

What I am, is a pragmatist. I find it's generally best to consider possible courses of action and discard the ones that are not feasible, acceptable and suitable. We called that doing a "FAS Check" of "COA's" when I did deliberate military planning in my former life -- and that happens to be one of the secrets to the US military's historic ability to adapt to a new, unusual or difficult situation and prevail.We have yet to try the thingy called "law enforcement." It might work. it's worth a try.

[Leroy Lizard]

The threat of and occasional use of deadly force is essential to seal our porous borders from illegals. We've been over this before. You can't just build a fence, dust off your hands and walk away.

You have to surveill that border, its entire length, and you have to have it covered by supporting fires. You also would generally need a mixed density minefield out front, and a mechanized and airborne screening force able to respond in real time to penetrations wherever they occur and bring to bear overwhelming firepower.

We're not trying to exterminate any chance of one getting through.

Homey, you keep playing this straw man up -- that enforcing a law means mass executions, internment camps, and minefields.

Just enforce the law and remove those things that tempt them to come across. That's all you need to do. Gas chambers are unnecessary.

[Leroy Lizard]

Tracing one's status exclusively through mama is kinda old-fashioned given our advanced DNA technology today.

I don't care about that. I just want a practical law, and enforcing that one's mother must be a legal resident to establish citizenship is the easiest way to do it.

Why are we trying to make this harder than necessary?

[Leroy Lizard]

I have no hidden political agenda. In fact, I'm not a member of the political party that would benefit by granting citizenship to the folks already here. I regret the fact my GOP has completely boofed this opportunity to incorporate a huge number of folks who tend to have more in common with an Okie 'Pub than a NY or FL Donk.

What I am, is a pragmatist. I find it's generally best to consider possible courses of action and discard the ones that are not feasible, acceptable and suitable. We called that doing a "FAS Check" of "COA's" when I did deliberate military planning in my former life -- and that happens to be one of the secrets to the US military's historic ability to adapt to a new, unusual or difficult situation and prevail.

Making it a requirement for a mother to be a legal resident in order to obtain citizenship is perfectly pragmatic. There are no barriers to such an amendment.

So are you in favor?

[Okla-homey]

Making it a requirement for a mother to be a legal resident in order to obtain citizenship is perfectly pragmatic. There are no barriers to such an amendment.

So are you in favor?

No. I oppose. It's a damned slippery slope. Born here = citizen. Period.

Think about kids who will grow up here, as millions have, born here to illegals, and who, by the time they're in school, only know the US and may or may not even speak Spanish. How is denying those kids citizenship proper?

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

No. I oppose. It's a damned slippery slope. Born here = citizen. Period.

Think about kids who will grow up here, as millions have, born here to illegals, and who, by the time they're in school, only know the US and may or may not even speak Spanish. How is denying those kids citizenship proper?STOP IT! A new law wouldn't be retroactive, like democrats do laws...and BUILD THE DANG FENCE, as McLame says. We have to stop(or SEVERELY curtail) the flow.

[Okla-homey]

We're not trying to exterminate any chance of one getting through.

Homey, you keep playing this straw man up -- that enforcing a law means mass executions, internment camps, and minefields.

Just enforce the law and remove those things that tempt them to come across. That's all you need to do. Gas chambers are unnecessary.

Its not a straw man. You cannot eliminate "the things that tempt them to cross" without denying public education to their children, closing our ER's to their sick and injured, and making it a felony to rent them a place to stay or to give them a buck for days work.

And changing all of those things would require a reversal of Supreme Court precedent in the case of the first two, and a change of federal law for the second two*.

And neither of those things is about to happen. It follows then, the only way to stem the tide is to seal the border. And we aren't doing that either. So quit b1tching about it and lets move forward on dealing with the fact they're here, they aren't leaving, and more are on the way.

*And that's not to mention the social services many states provide them regardless of their illegal status, as well as services provided by various Roman Catholic parishes.

[Leroy Lizard]

No. I oppose. It's a damned slippery slope. Born here = citizen. Period.

Can't be too slippery, since you would need a constitutional amendment to change it. Did you think about that?

I would also argue that granting citizenship by birth is far, far slippier, especially when one borders a country that has millions of uneducated, poverty-stricken people with enormous birth rates. Mexico's economy has always been poor. What happens if Mexico's economy goes completely belly up? What are you going to do then?


Think about kids who will grow up here, as millions have, born here to illegals, and who, by the time they're in school, only know the US and may or may not even speak Spanish. How is denying those kids citizenship proper?

Ask their parents. They are the ones that took the actions that led them down the path.

[Okla-homey]

STOP IT! A new law wouldn't be retroactive, like democrats do laws...and BUILD THE DANG FENCE, as McLame says. We have to stop(or SEVERELY curtail) the flow.

You ever heard of little Constitutional principle called "equal protection" under the law? You can't deny a class of people a fundamental right based on race, national origin or religion. Therefore, you cannot decide that henceforth, certain people born here aren't citizens because of the national origin of their parents. Unless you amend the US Constitution. And good luck with that.:rolleyes:

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

You ever heard of little Constitutional principle called "equal protection" under the law? You can't deny a class of people a fundamental right based on race, national origin or religion. Therefore, you cannot decide that henceforth, certain people born here aren't citizens because of the national origin of their parents. Unless you amend the US Constitution. And good luck with that.:rolleyes:Pls read post #61, above

[Leroy Lizard]

Its not a straw man. You cannot eliminate "the things that tempt them to cross" without denying public education to their children, closing our ER's to their sick and injured, and making it a felony to rent them a place to stay or to give them a buck for days work.

But you were talking about exterminations and massive violence. What happened to that argument?


And changing all of those things would require a reversal of Supreme Court precedent in the case of the first two, and a change of federal law for the second two*.

Give them the medical treatment, then arrest them. As for public education, they are Mexico's people; therefore, they are Mexico's responsibility to educate.

Sounds pretty pragmatic to me. I thought you were a pragmatic person.

Right now there are kids in the Ivory Coast that are not getting a proper education. That is not our responsibility. Crossing our borders illegally doesn't make it our responsibility.


And neither of those things is about to happen. It follows then, the only way to stem the tide is to seal the border. And we aren't doing that either. So quit b1tching about it and lets move forward on dealing with the fact they're here, they aren't leaving, and more are on the way.

None of that negates the argument for a Constitutional amendment changing naturalization requirements. In fact, you really haven't put up much of an argument against that amendment, other than to play the Emotional Card.

[Leroy Lizard]

Here's my plan:

1. Change the naturalization requirement. If your mother was here illegally when she had you, you cannot be a declared a citizen at birth. Requires a Constitutional Amendment that I think could pass.

BTW, not all countries allow jus soli citizenship, so this is hardly an extreme measure.


1986 : The Australian Citizenship (Amendment) Act 1986 provided that children born in Australia on or after 20 August 1986 would only be Australian citizens if at least one parent is an Australian citizen or permanent resident

Read that again:


1986 : The Australian Citizenship (Amendment) Act 1986 provided that children born in Australia on or after 20 August 1986 would only be Australian citizens if at least one parent is an Australian citizen or permanent resident

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_nationality_law

But noooooo, Australians are like Hitler and Nazis and Fascists!!!

BTW, who else are evil Fascists who want to mass exterminate entire races of people? Why, the New Zealanders, of course:


Children born in New Zealand on or after 1 January 2006 will acquire New Zealand citizenship by birth only if at least one parent is a New Zealand citizen or permanent resident (including Australian citizens).


2. Grant 4-month work visas for all foreigners willing and able to work. If you are not old enough to work or cannot work, no visa.

3. All such foreigners are given the same minimum wage and benefits as all other workers in the U.S.

4. Penalties for overstaying the visa are severe: incarceration and loss of future visa privileges for (say) two years. Employers get hit hard too.

[Curly Bill]

Let me sum up Homey's take on this: Homey loves him some messicans.

[Leroy Lizard]

Pls read post #61, above

But what about the children?

http://www.villainouscompany.com/vcblog/home/cassandr/vcblog/archives/Struthers.jpg

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

But what about the children?

http://www.villainouscompany.com/vcblog/home/cassandr/vcblog/archives/Struthers.jpgHaven't we been talking about that? yeah, I think so...

[SanJoaquinSooner]

Just protectin' the American workers' right to earn a decent living free from the mass importation of cheap, illegal labor.

Leroy fightin' for the rights of the proletariat!!!

Leroy, this is something I'd expect to hear from a bureaucrat of a cradle-to-grave welfare state. I guess Ronald Reagan's spirit is dead.

If a worker isn't anymore productive than an illegal laborer, then he/she deserves no more than what cheap, illegal labor is paid.

If lots of illegal labor is undesirable, then reforming visa laws opening more legal avenues to worker visas was a much better way to go. The politicians blew it.

Let no one think they are forever restricted to a proletariat class. Let one dream of being an entrepreneur, with access to an adequate supply of labor.

Instead of putting your energy into a Matrilineal Descent Amendment, put it into shrinking welfare, making public employee unions impotent, and fighting the burdensome regulations and fees that inhibit entrepreneurship.

[SCOUT]

If a worker isn't anymore productive than an illegal laborer, then he/she deserves no more than what cheap, illegal labor is paid.


Productivity is only one component. If an employer is willing to pay an illegal, they also don't pay a fair amount of taxes, benefits, vacations, etc. They are not likely on the hook for worker's compensation, unemployment benefits, etc. Oh, and the wages are likely lower too.

Contrast that with the legal high school kid trying to get a job at that employer. He will not be competitive because of the burden associated with the legal employment, not because of his productivity.

This scenario helps drive down labor wages for legal workers making those jobs seem like no legal resident wants them. If that artificial drag on wage rates weren't there they would be jobs Americans would take, just as they have for hundreds of years.

[yermom]

Leroy fightin' for the rights of the proletariat!!!

Leroy, this is something I'd expect to hear from a bureaucrat of a cradle-to-grave welfare state. I guess Ronald Reagan's spirit is dead.

If a worker isn't anymore productive than an illegal laborer, then he/she deserves no more than what cheap, illegal labor is paid.

If lots of illegal labor is undesirable, then reforming visa laws opening more legal avenues to worker visas was a much better way to go. The politicians blew it.

Let no one think they are forever restricted to a proletariat class. Let one dream of being an entrepreneur, with access to an adequate supply of labor.

Instead of putting your energy into a Matrilineal Descent Amendment, put it into shrinking welfare, making public employee unions impotent, and fighting the burdensome regulations and fees that inhibit entrepreneurship.

Mexicans: The New Slaves

[Okla-homey]

I am happy to report that my denomination, the Southern Baptist Convention, America's largest Protestant denomination and Oklahoma's largest Christian body I might add, calls for realistic immigration reform allowing those now here illegaly a reasonable path to citizenship that does not involve deportations or changing the US Constitution to deny citizenship to persons born in the US to illegal aliens.

We thus stand with the Roman Catholic Church in the US on the issue.

Take that Mexican haterz.:D



Religions wrestle with immigration reform

By CHRIS CASTEEL NewsOK.com
Published: 6/14/2010 2:27 AM
Last Modified: 6/14/2010 4:37 AM

WASHINGTON — Citing moral and biblical reasons, Southern Baptist and evangelical church leaders are pressing members of Congress and the White House to pass comprehensive immigration reform that includes a citizenship process for those in this country illegally.

"We need to transcend all the political nonsense,'' Richard Land, the president of the Southern Baptist Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, said last week.

As Hispanics become an increasing part of congregations — and immigration continues to generate fierce debate in the country — religious organizations have begun addressing the issue.

For some time, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has been advocating immigration reform that includes a path to citizenship. In recent years, the Southern Baptist Convention, the National Association of Evangelicals and the National Council of Churches USA have adopted resolutions in favor of immigration reform.

By CHRIS CASTEEL NewsOK.com

[Leroy Lizard]

Leroy fightin' for the rights of the proletariat!!!

Leroy, this is something I'd expect to hear from a bureaucrat of a cradle-to-grave welfare state. I guess Ronald Reagan's spirit is dead.

If a worker isn't anymore productive than an illegal laborer, then he/she deserves no more than what cheap, illegal labor is paid.

That's ridiculous. I could load up boatloads of immigrants who will work for 50 cents an hour and dump them off in Norman. That doesn't mean that the work they perform is only worth 50 cents an hour.

It is a misconception to think that people are paid what they are worth. They are paid according to what they can negotiate.

[Leroy Lizard]

I am happy to report that my denomination, the Southern Baptist Convention, America's largest Protestant denomination and Oklahoma's largest Christian body I might add, calls for realistic immigration reform allowing those now here illegaly a reasonable path to citizenship that does not involve deportations or changing the US Constitution to deny citizenship to persons born in the US to illegal aliens.

We thus stand with the Roman Catholic Church in the US on the issue.

Take that Mexican haterz.:D

Only the United States is so stupid as to find ways to grant citizenship to those that willfully break our laws.

[yermom]

"it's illegal, that's why it's wrong"

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Take that Mexican haterz.:Dare you dense?

[Okla-homey]

Only the United States is so stupid as to find ways to grant citizenship to those that willfully break our laws.

Okay, so now you're anti-Christian too. Got it. Be careful. You might get smited.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Okay, so now you're anti-Christian too. Got it. Be careful. You might get smited.That's pretty good. I get it, now.

[Leroy Lizard]

Okay, so now you're anti-Christian too. Got it. Be careful. You might get smited.

I love Christians, but they often forego common sense for the emotional argument.

It makes no sense whatsoever to find ways to allow waves of uneducated, largely unskilled populations into a country that is already overpopulated and hurting financially. It's beyond stupid.

But people fall for it for two reasons: The Sally Struthers emotional appeal and gains in political power.

The Baptist Church you attend either hangs out on the Left end of the spectrum or is composed of total morons. If you want to increase the Christian voice, the last thing you want to do is grant citizenship to those that will place people in power that oppose you.

So here is how it goes:

"We brought in Jose and made him a citizen. He voted for Obama. Obama placed a liberal on the Supreme Court who is forcing us to take down the Ten Commandments from the public library. Duh, what happened?"

[King Barry's Back]

seems to me you should be a citizen or permanent resident to be able to have a kid and it be a citizen

You do that you are opening a whole can of worms.

Here in Germany they have immigrants who are fourth generation German residents. They have never been back "home," and they have no identification with their "nation of origin".

However, they have no right to German citizenship.

I am not an expert. I guess they are not "men without countries," as they probably can obtain passports from their home countries.

But they are second class citizens in the only country they have known, the only country their parents have known, etc.

i just don't think this is a good situation, long-term, for anybody.

And I am also skeptical of the whole "anchor baby" phenomenon.

Having a family member who is a US citizen does not entitle you to legal status in the United States.

A close family member can sponsor you for a green card, but the catch is that a family member must be 18 yrs old in order to sponsor anybody.

It doesn't seem a real good strategy to sneak into the US, hide out for a while, hope you can find a decent doctor to take care of you, give birth while on US soil -- all in the hope that in 18 years you might want to live here.

But I am probably missing something as otherwise the Arizonans probably wouldn't be outlawing this.

EDIT: In Germany's case, the first generation immigrants came here legally, so that's a key distinction.

[Leroy Lizard]

And I am also skeptical of the whole "anchor baby" phenomenon.

Having a family member who is a US citizen does not entitle you to legal status in the United States.

Can the U.S. deport a woman who has a U.S. citizen child?

Is the U.S. just as willing to deport a woman who has a U.S. citizen child?

If the answer is no to either question, then you have no choice but to acknowledge the existence of anchor babydom.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

Can the U.S. deport a woman who has a U.S. citizen child?

Is the U.S. just as willing to deport a woman who has a U.S. citizen child?

If the answer is no to either question, then you have no choice but to acknowledge the existence of anchor babydom.

The answer is yes to both. In recent years there have been around 400,000 to 500,000 deportations/year. Women with children are probably underrepresented because they're probably less likely to be involved breaking other laws that get them turned in to the feds.

But yes, women with U.S. citizen children are deported.

Now, if one can hire a good immigration attorney, been here 10 years, and the attorney can show your child has a medical condition that can't be treated in the home country, then maybe her stay of deportation will be granted.... or at least drawn out for several years in court.

Here's the law:


Section 240A(b)
of the Act provides that the Attorney General may cancel the removal of, and
adjust to the status of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence, an
alien who is inadmissible or deportable from the United States if the alien: (A)
has been physically present in the United States for a continuous period of not
less than 10 years immediately preceding the date of such application; (B) has
been a person of good moral character during such period; (C) has not been
convicted of specified criminal offenses; and (D) establishes that removal would
result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to the alien’s spouse,
parent, or child, who is a citizen of the United States or an alien lawfully
admitted for permanent residence. Section 240A(b) of the Act;

[SanJoaquinSooner]

And then, Leroy, on this thing about illegals working for 50 cents per hour....

Is that what you guys in Arizona pay them? No wonder you get the bottom of the barrel variety. Pay here in the San Joaquin Valley is much better. But seriously, who would work for 50 cents per hour? The only ones I thought of were babysitting/domestics/housekeepers who also receive room and board -thus their compensation is really more than 50 cents per hour. And that is independent of being illegal. Someone might have a niece on the farm and you bring into the city to stay with you and help out with the kids and housekeeping. Some college students actually accept room and board with no pay in exchange for watching the kids after school and doing some chores.

One of my colleagues has a son who graduated from Stanford recently and is working in D.C. for a politicial magazine and makes nothing. Not even room and board. He's a volunteer intern. Helps maintain the website and has a blog. I guess he's robbing someone of a real job, right Leroy?

[Leroy Lizard]

The answer is yes to both. In recent years there have been around 400,000 to 500,000 deportations/year. Women with children are probably underrepresented because they're probably less likely to be involved breaking other laws that get them turned in to the feds.

But yes, women with U.S. citizen children are deported.

You didn't substantiate your answer to the second question.

What if the child is grown up? Can you deport an adult U.S. citizen?


And then, Leroy, on this thing about illegals working for 50 cents per hour....

Is that what you guys in Arizona pay them?

No, I offered the 50-cent figure for sake of argument.


One of my colleagues has a son who graduated from Stanford recently and is working in D.C. for a political magazine and makes nothing. Not even room and board. He's a volunteer intern. Helps maintain the website and has a blog. I guess he's robbing someone of a real job, right Leroy?

There are severe restrictions on the use of interns because of the reasons I stated. If you own a private business, you are going to have a very hard time convincing the feds that your hiring of an intern doesn't violate federal law. An internship must be tied to the intern's education and be provided for the benefit of the intern, not the company.



Not sure what education Monica Lewinsky received from her boss.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

You didn't substantiate your answer to the second question.

What if the child is grown up? Can you deport an adult U.S. citizen?

U.S. citizens aren't deported.

The mom can be and a decision is made by her and maybe the father of the child if the child should stay in the U.S. or go with mom.

It's not uncommon for one parent to be legal and the other not. So it's possible the child and other parent stays. In other cases, the whole family leaves but the legal ones are doing so voluntarily.

Also it could be a legal grandparent who keeps the child. If there are no legal relatives in the U.S., it's possible a the deported mom might find a caregiver to keep the child.

Sometimes one child is a citizen and one is not - so they have to decide whether to stay intact or split the family.

Usually if it's an infant or toddler, the child will leave with the mom. The child can return when older because he/she will always be a U.S. citizen.

[SCOUT]

U.S. citizens aren't deported.

The mom can be and a decision is made by her and maybe the father of the child if the child should stay in the U.S. or go with mom.

It's not uncommon for one parent to be legal and the other not. So it's possible the child and other parent stays. In other cases, the whole family leaves but the legal ones are doing so voluntarily.

Also it could be a legal grandparent who keeps the child. If there are no legal relatives in the U.S., it's possible a the deported mom might find a caregiver to keep the child.

Sometimes one child is a citizen and one is not - so they have to decide whether to stay intact or split the family.

Usually if it's an infant or toddler, the child will leave with the mom. The child can return when older because he/she will always be a U.S. citizen.

It is a sad reality that deportation can cause various problems for the families affected. A good way of preventing those difficulties is to abide by the law and not subject your family to the problems associated with being a criminal. I have found that not breaking the law has been a good way of reducing the difficulty in my life.

Feel free to pass this nugget of knowledge along as you see fit.

[Leroy Lizard]

Okay, I see your point.

My concern is with the child itself, not the parents. To me, granting automatic citizenship based purely on location of birth is nuts. But that's another argument entirely.

[Curly Bill]

It is a sad reality that deportation can cause various problems for the families affected. A good way of preventing those difficulties is to abide by the law and not subject your family to the problems associated with being a criminal. I have found that not breaking the law has been a good way of reducing the difficulty in my life.

Feel free to pass this nugget of knowledge along as you see fit.

Following the law...pffffft, how passe. ;)

[SanJoaquinSooner]

It is a sad reality that deportation can cause various problems for the families affected. A good way of preventing those difficulties is to abide by the law and not subject your family to the problems associated with being a criminal. I have found that not breaking the law has been a good way of reducing the difficulty in my life.

Feel free to pass this nugget of knowledge along as you see fit.

Well, the issue raised in this thread is about a U.S. citizen child, who didn't break the law, and whether the law should be changed so that he/she is not granted citizenship.

If Arizona chooses to deny (or purposely hinder) citizenship to children born in the U.S., then many believe the state of Arizona would be in violation of constitutional law.

I too am for changing the law - so that there are more reasonable legal avenues for worker visas, less burdensome business regulations (including a free market of labor), and fewer legal avenues for people living off gov't checks. I too am in favor of fewer people breaking the law. More reasonable legal avenues to worker visas would help accomplish that. I don't have any illusions, however, that this is likely during a recession.

Scout, deportation is not a civil proceeding not a criminal proceeding.

[Okla-homey]

Contrast that with the legal high school kid trying to get a job at that employer. He will not be competitive because of the burden associated with the legal employment, not because of his productivity.



Scout. I respect you immensely. You know that. Since that time we roasted on the Fock end zone watching Adrian Peterson beat Tulsa.

But here's the thing. I don't see any American high school kids, at least up here in NE Oklahoma, clamoring for jobs laying block, pouring concrete, painting, hanging drywall, working with commercial lawn care outfits and landscaping businesses, roofing, poultry processing, hauling hay or doing frame carpentry. Heck, you don't even see a kid pulling a push-mower behind his bike through suburbia looking for grass-cutting jobs like we used to do 35 years ago.

Maybe those kids are out there, but I sure as heck don't see 'em or hear about them camped out on these small businessmens' doorsteps begging for a gig.

I do see them hanging out, getting fat, driving rice burners and playing x-box. Heck, I don't even see too many kids working fast food anymore. I mostly see middle-aged black and white women and hispanics doing that too.

[Okla-homey]

I too am for changing the law - so that there are more reasonable legal avenues for worker visas, less burdensome business regulations (including a free market of labor), and fewer legal avenues for people living off gov't checks. I too am in favor of fewer people breaking the law. More reasonable legal avenues to worker visas would help accomplish that. I don't have any illusions, however, that this is likely during a recession.



^^^^^^^THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11!!1

[Okla-homey]

If Arizona chooses to deny (or purposely hinder) citizenship to children born in the U.S., then many believe the state of Arizona would be in violation of constitutional law.


No two ways about it. It's a constitutional law slam-dunk.

[SCOUT]

Scout. I respect you immensely. You know that. Since that time we roasted on the Fock end zone watching Adrian Peterson beat Tulsa.

But here's the thing. I don't see any American high school kids, at least up here in NE Oklahoma, clamoring for jobs laying block, pouring concrete, painting, hanging drywall, working with commercial lawn care outfits and landscaping businesses, roofing, poultry processing, hauling hay or doing frame carpentry. Heck, you don't even see a kid pulling a push-mower behind his bike through suburbia looking for grass-cutting jobs like we used to do 35 years ago.

Maybe those kids are out there, but I sure as heck don't see 'em or hear about them camped out on these small businessmens' doorsteps begging for a gig.

I do see them hanging out, getting fat, driving rice burners and playing x-box. Heck, I don't even see too many kids working fast food anymore. I mostly see middle-aged black and white women and hispanics doing that too.

I will first say that your generosity gave us great seats vs. mediocre seats, so I am forever grateful. Second, your respect is misplaced and you know it :)

As to the point at hand, you are generally right. There aren't kids lined for those types of jobs but that is, at least in part, caused by the suppression of the prevailing wage due to illegal activity. If the playing field were even, I propose that there would quite a bit more interest from the youth of today.

[SCOUT]

Well, the issue raised in this thread is about a U.S. citizen child, who didn't break the law, and whether the law should be changed so that he/she is not granted citizenship.

If Arizona chooses to deny (or purposely hinder) citizenship to children born in the U.S., then many believe the state of Arizona would be in violation of constitutional law.

I too am for changing the law - so that there are more reasonable legal avenues for worker visas, less burdensome business regulations (including a free market of labor), and fewer legal avenues for people living off gov't checks. I too am in favor of fewer people breaking the law. More reasonable legal avenues to worker visas would help accomplish that. I don't have any illusions, however, that this is likely during a recession.

Scout, deportation is not a civil proceeding not a criminal proceeding.

I am one of those that believe that they would be in violation of constitutional law.

I don't really disagree with your second paragraph either. My problem is that people aren't following the rules now. If we make them more lax, are we suggesting that people will suddenly care about the rule of law? History tells a different story. The adage, give an inch and they will take a mile comes to my mind.

When I used the word criminal, I wasn't referring to the type of offense but rather to the description, "a person who engages in an action or an instance of negligence that is deemed injurious to the public welfare or morals or to the interests of the state and that is legally prohibited."

[Leroy Lizard]

I will first say that your generosity gave us great seats vs. mediocre seats, so I am forever grateful. Second, your respect is misplaced and you know it :)

As to the point at hand, you are generally right. There aren't kids lined for those types of jobs but that is, at least in part, caused by the suppression of the prevailing wage due to illegal activity. If the playing field were even, I propose that there would quite a bit more interest from the youth of today.

Part of the problem is our desire to push every kid into college. So many kids now look at college as a four-year hideaway from the reality of wage-earning.

[Leroyt]

There aren't kids lined for those types of jobs but that is, at least in part, caused by the suppression of the prevailing wage due to illegal activity.
As someone who runs a business (70 employees) that employs people who come to me with very little skill as a rule (and I start 'em all at $10/hour + benefits), I can't let that pass. The minimum wage is often cited by small and medium sized-businesses (and conservatives) as an artificially HIGH wage. In truth, it's about what an unskilled teenager or adult deserves until they prove themselves. Unskilled laborers, no matter the country of origin, can only really increase their value by gaining skills. That comes from work. I doubt many of us said as teenagers "I'd rather have no money that make minimum wage." I worked for crap money as a kid not to get rich, but because I wanted to be a man. If teens don't want to act like adults, they will see a longer wait to get paid like them.

[SCOUT]

As someone who runs a business (70 employees) that employs people who come to me with very little skill as a rule (and I start 'em all at $10/hour + benefits), I can't let that pass. The minimum wage is often cited by small and medium sized-businesses (and conservatives) as an artificially HIGH wage. In truth, it's about what an unskilled teenager or adult deserves until they prove themselves. Unskilled laborers, no matter the country of origin, can only really increase their value by gaining skills. That comes from work. I doubt many of us said as teenagers "I'd rather have no money that make minimum wage." I worked for crap money as a kid not to get rich, but because I wanted to be a man. If teens don't want to act like adults, they will see a longer wait to get paid like them.

I am afraid that we are discussing two different topics. I am not referring to the minimum wage at all. I am referring to a wage that is suppressed not only by an illegal alien's willingness to accept a low wage, or just the unscrupulous employer who will agree to pay it. I am referring to the cost that employer has in terms of lower taxes, benefits, liability etc. As I mentioned before, skill becomes less of the driver due to an uneven playing field.

[Leroyt]

I am afraid that we are discussing two different topics. I am not referring to the minimum wage at all. I am referring to a wage that is suppressed not only by an illegal alien's willingness to accept a low wage, or just the unscrupulous employer who will agree to pay it.
I hear you, but in 20 years working in food (restaurants, bakeries, caterers..) it's actually far more common for illegals to work under a wrong or stolen or bought SS# than to work for cash under the table. So those guys still pay taxes, get bennies, etc. The jobs that pay cash and absurdly low wages are, I believe, jobs that really wouldn't be filled even at $10/hour. Outside construction helper, meatpacking plant, farm worker sorta gigs - these are not jobs high schoolers or most adults will take, and it seems if we really let the bidding go until they were attractive, it would all move overseas in a flash. Even house cleaners usually make more than $10/hour based on what it costs down in Texas.

[SCOUT]

I hear you, but in 20 years working in food (restaurants, bakeries, caterers..) it's actually far more common for illegals to work under a wrong or stolen or bought SS# than to work for cash under the table. So those guys still pay taxes, get bennies, etc. The jobs that pay cash and absurdly low wages are, I believe, jobs that really wouldn't be filled even at $10/hour. Outside construction helper, meatpacking plant, farm worker sorta gigs - these are not jobs high schoolers or most adults will take, and it seems if we really let the bidding go until they were attractive, it would all move overseas in a flash. Even house cleaners usually make more than $10/hour based on what it costs down in Texas.

Identity theft is yet another topic all together! The job that has been consistently referenced is lettuce picker. Anything related to farming or agriculture is unlikely to move over seas for obvious reasons.

My overall point is that paying an illegal worker $10 an hour is the equivalent of paying a legal worker $13-$15. Verifying a worker using an I-9 and E-Verify isn't that tough. But again, if you have an unscrupulous worker and employer, it is easy to buck the system.

[Okla-homey]

The jig is almost up on the unconstitutional new anti-Mexican law in AZ. HRC announced yesterday the Federal government is suing AZ to enjoin enforcement.

[olevetonahill]

Well there they go , gonna **** off more of the Public
a ABC/ Washington post pole says 58 % of Americans are in favor of Az new law.

Now Homester I got a Legal type ? for you or any other legal type mind

How is this Law any Different than the States pasing a Law about the legality of Marijuana?
The Feds declared it ilegal so the States followed suit .


Heres the link to the Pole

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/20100617/ts_ynews/ynews_ts2661

[Frozen Sooner]

Well there they go , gonna **** off more of the Public
a ABC/ Washington post pole says 58 % of Americans are in favor of Az new law.

Now Homester I got a Legal type ? for you or any other legal type mind

How is this Law any Different than the States pasing a Law about the legality of Marijuana?
The Feds declared it ilegal so the States followed suit .


Heres the link to the Pole

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/20100617/ts_ynews/ynews_ts2661

Recognizing that you've addressed the question to Homey and not me...

Article I Section 8 of the Constitution delegates the regulation of immigration to Congress. Anything that Article I Section 8 specifically delegates to Congress is forbidden to the states-most of the jurisprudence on this has to do with interstate commerce, but it applies to all of the section 8 powers. As such, states have no power to regulate interstate commerce in marijuana, nor do they have the right to create immigration law. The substantive dispute on SB1070 is whether they are creating law or simply facilitating the enforcement of the federal law.

Now, as to how the feds have the concurrent power to regulate intrastate marijuana use:

The federal government has the ability to regulate intrastate commerce in marijuana as being necessary and proper to regulate interstate commerce in marijuana-so long as the intrastate activity being regulated has to be regulated in order that a comprehensive statutory plan regulating interstate commerce be effective, then the Court has said that's OK. Wickard v. Filburn and Gonzales v. Raich. Not saying I agree with the Court's reasoning, by the way, that's just what they've said. Take it up with Justice Scalia. :D

The states, however, have a general "police" power to regulate health, safety, and welfare within their jurisdiction, and banning intrastate sale or consumption of a narcotic falls under that power. Since the Fed power isn't specifically delegated, the Feds don't occupy the field.

[olevetonahill]

Mike , I said "Homey or any other legal type mind" :P

Now can I have the coloring book version of what ya just said ?
As I understand the AZ law its not setting a law but extending the Fed Law to Local PoPos :pop:

[Frozen Sooner]

Constitution give Congress explicit power=States no can do.
Constitution give Congress implied power=States can still do.
That's the difference between states regulating marijuana and states regulating immigration.

And yeah, whether the State is simply providing an enforcement mechanism for federal law or whether the State is arrogating federal power to itself will be the substantive argument in the suit.

[olevetonahill]

Now wernt that easier than all that other gibberish Ya typed ?v:D :P

[olevetonahill]

Constitution give Congress explicit power=States no can do.
Constitution give Congress implied power=States can still do.
That's the difference between states regulating marijuana and states regulating immigration.

And yeah, whether the State is simply providing an enforcement mechanism for federal law or whether the State is arrogating federal power to itself will be the substantive argument in the suit.

So Basically its gonna come down to AZ "Intent " ?

[Okla-homey]

Now wernt that easier than all that other gibberish Ya typed ?v:D :P

He's a law student. I can relate. However, in practice, you quickly learn people with legal questions just want answers, and don't want to pay for all the background stuff.;)

[Frozen Sooner]

Possibly. I think they'll more likely decide that it's facially an attempt to regulate immigration and won't even get to the issue of intent.

[Frozen Sooner]

He's a law student. I can relate. However, in practice, you quickly learn people with legal questions just want answers, and don't want to pay for all the background stuff.;)

Yeah yeah. I took a final yesterday. Gimme a break.

[Okla-homey]

So Basically its gonna come down to AZ "Intent " ?

In my humble, but considered and informed opinion, states have no authority to legislate or regulate immigration policy because the Consitution says that's the Federal government's bowl of chili. That's also precisely why the Federal government is suing AZ and it will win.

[olevetonahill]

Ok , But from that Pole i posted 58% of the American Peeps are in favor of the AZ law.
If da feds win its gonna **** off a bunch of folks that maybe the Dems. aint already pissed off.
jes sayin

[Okla-homey]

Ok , But from that Pole i posted 58% of the American Peeps are in favor of the AZ law.
If da feds win its gonna **** off a bunch of folks that maybe the Dems. aint already pissed off.
jes sayin

Vetster,
I expect about the same percentage of folks were fine with racial segregation in 1960. Higher than 58% in many states. That didn't make segregation right. That's what the Federal judiciary is for. To interpret and and apply the Constitution and laws to a set of facts and to order whomever is messing up, to knock that shat off -- even if it is a whole state.

[olevetonahill]

Still gonna **** em off bro ;)

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

The jig is almost up on the unconstitutional new anti-Mexican law in AZ. HRC announced yesterday the Federal government is suing AZ to enjoin enforcement.That MIGHT be the Archduke Ferdinand moment...

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

The federal law is in place, and there's FAR too little federal enforcement. The people know it, and want the enforcement. Big problem!

[Leroy Lizard]

Outside construction helper, meatpacking plant, farm worker sorta gigs - these are not jobs high schoolers or most adults will take, and it seems if we really let the bidding go until they were attractive, it would all move overseas in a flash.

I can't wait to see the landscaping jobs move overseas. That would be really sumthin'.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

Ok , But from that Pole i posted 58% of the American Peeps are in favor of the AZ law.


I was cutting across the South Oval one day, on my way to an Intro to Logic class in Kaufman Hall. I stopped at the restroom and noticed some graffiti on the wall, which said "Eat Sh*t. Ten Billion Flies Can't Be Wrong."

[yermom]

if the majority got to make decisions we'd never pay taxes, and President Camacho would be in his 5th term about now

[Leroy Lizard]

I was cutting across the South Oval one day, on my way to an Intro to Logic class in Kaufman Hall. I stopped at the restroom and noticed some graffiti on the wall, which said "Eat Sh*t. Ten Billion Flies Can't Be Wrong."

Which is why you're taking INTRO to Logic.