how do you "interpret" the 14th Amendment?

[mgsooner]

Oklahoma Senate panel OKs tough anti-immigration bills

by: Associated Press
Tuesday, February 15, 2011


OKLAHOMA CITY — A Senate committee has approved bills denying Oklahoma citizenship to babies born to illegal immigrants and one dubbed "Arizona-plus" that would allow police to confiscate property, like homes and vehicles, belonging to those in the country illegally.

The Senate Judiciary Committee approved both bills on Tuesday on a straight party-line vote, with Democrats opposing the measures.

Freshman Sen. Ralph Shortey, who wrote the bills, said he disagrees with the current interpretation of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that babies born in the U.S. automatically become American citizens. The Oklahoma City Republican said his bill on asset forfeiture and seizure would give law enforcement an incentive to capture and jail illegal immigrants.


Actual text from the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (Section 1):

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

[DIB]

Yay! Another unconstitutional state law.

[OutlandTrophy]

C&C Dean is a State Senator? Sweet!

[pphilfran]

If both parents are in the US illegally then the young un shouldn't be a US citizen...

[OutlandTrophy]

If both parents are in the US illegally then the young un shouldn't be a US citizen...

according to the US Constitution?

[mgsooner]

If both parents are in the US illegally then the young un shouldn't be a US citizen...

I'm not sure what you mean by "should". I'm not talking about what "should" or should not happen. I'm simply stating from what the 14th Amendment states I have no idea how someone could read it and "interpet" it any way other than what it actually says. So until the 14th Amendment is changed, please stop wasting time and money on these idiotic laws that are blatantly unconstitutional and will just cost the taxpayers even MORE money in legal fees.

[Midtowner]

I'd like to circulate an initiative petition, requiring legislators to have to reimburse the state for the costs of defending unconstitutional legislation. This is totally absurd.

[DIB]

If both parents are in the US illegally then the young un shouldn't be a US citizen...

I don't disagree. Unfortunately, we would have to amend the constitution. I doubt that the founding fathers foresaw the type of immigration problem that we have now. But, at the same time, we can't pick and chose which parts of the constitution we follow and which parts we don't.

[cccasooner2]

Sounds like the legislation is attempting to make an imaginary problem much, much, much,........ more expensive. Get rid of the true traitors to this country (they are concentrated in our state and country capitols).

[mgsooner]

I think the state legislature should pass a law exempting all Oklahoma residents from paying Federal income tax.

[sappstuf]

I'd like to circulate an initiative petition, requiring legislators to have to reimburse the state for the costs of defending unconstitutional legislation. This is totally absurd.

Do you mean you support a "loser pays" system? Interesting concept.

[KantoSooner]

That is essentially what the Brits have. And why they have less litigation.

[AlboSooner]

What's an Oklahoma citizenship?

[OUMallen]

What's an Oklahoma citizenship?

The unalienable right to have to dedicate your tax dollars to defending unconstitutional state laws.

[jkjsooner]

Do you mean you support a "loser pays" system? Interesting concept.

I don't think what she/he said had anything to do with a "loser pays" system. If it were a loser pays system, the state would reimburse the fees of whoever challenged this law. What she/he suggested is that the congressmen reimburse the state.

I recognize the original post was probably meant to be taken tongue-in-cheek.

[mgsooner]

The unalienable right to have to dedicate your tax dollars to defending unconstitutional state laws.

nice

[pphilfran]

I don't disagree. Unfortunately, we would have to amend the constitution. I doubt that the founding fathers foresaw the type of immigration problem that we have now. But, at the same time, we can't pick and chose which parts of the constitution we follow and which parts we don't.


Not a simple task...

When the Constitution was written there was little or no concern about illegal immigration...we wanted labor, as much as we could get...

That is not the case today...the immigration system is being abused and disregarded by both the illegals and the businesses that knowingly hire them....

[diverdog]

I don't disagree. Unfortunately, we would have to amend the constitution. I doubt that the founding fathers foresaw the type of immigration problem that we have now. But, at the same time, we can't pick and chose which parts of the constitution we follow and which parts we don't.

Agreed. If you have a problem with the Constitution then change it according to the rules of the Constitution.

[diverdog]

Not a simple task...

When the Constitution was written there was little or no concern about illegal immigration...we wanted labor, as much as we could get...

That is not the case today...the immigration system is being abused and disregarded by both the illegals and the businesses that knowingly hire them....

Phil any idea how big a problem this is for the US?

[pphilfran]

Phil any idea how big a problem this is for the US?


Not off the top of my head...okie probably knows...

How ya been?

[SouthCarolinaSooner]

Immigration laws are a threat to the free market, the less restrictions on immigration the better.

[soonercoop1]

I'm not sure what you mean by "should". I'm not talking about what "should" or should not happen. I'm simply stating from what the 14th Amendment states I have no idea how someone could read it and "interpet" it any way other than what it actually says. So until the 14th Amendment is changed, please stop wasting time and money on these idiotic laws that are blatantly unconstitutional and will just cost the taxpayers even MORE money in legal fees.

Actual intent of the 14th Amendment when enacted?

[Okla-homey]

For the record, Representative Shortey, if that is his real name, is a twit of the first order.

All this silly bill does, if enacted and signed by our Trooper Schtooper guv, is buy lawsuits which wil result in the state wasting money on legal fees to no good purpose.

Such a law will go down on XIV Amendment grounds faster than a Poke frat boy on a sheep's hiney.

[Okla-homey]

Actual intent of the 14th Amendment when enacted?

Easy. To prevent former Confederate states from denying civil rights to people because their mama or daddy was a slave. Google "Jim Crow laws"

Even here in Oklahoma, for instance, anyone qualified to vote before 1866, or related to someone qualified to vote before 1866, was exempted from the literacy requirement; the only Americans who could vote before that year were white Americans, such that all white Americans were effectively excluded from the literacy testing, whereas all black Americans were effectively singled out by the law.

And, for the record, how is denying a child born in this state civil rights because of the status of his mama and daddy any different?

[Midtowner]

That is essentially what the Brits have. And why they have less litigation.

Less litigation isn't necessarily a good thing. It means people who have been injured are choosing not to be compensated for their injuries because the deck is stacked against them.

[delhalew]

Sounds like the legislation is attempting to make an imaginary problem much, much, much,........ more expensive. Get rid of the true traitors to this country (they are concentrated in our state and country capitols).

I would say if these bills bring enough attentionto the problem to get an amendment passed, than they are not a waste.

The 14th amendment was not well thought out. We simply wanted to prevent the children of slaves from being persecuted. Our Representatives didn't take into account that we might one stop enforcing border security.

Our immigration has always been controlled. The influx of illegals this century is a game changer.

[olevetonahill]

It says What it says, Aint no "Interpretation"
Dont Like it, Petition you Representatives to change it .
Personally Id like to see it changed ;)

[jkjsooner]

I would say if these bills bring enough attentionto the problem to get an amendment passed, than they are not a waste.


It's not the role of the state legislature to pass unconstitutional laws to "bring attention to the problem." In some cases there is a role for individuals to practice civil disobedience but a law making body has a moral obligation to uphold the constitution.

[SunnySooner]

Anchor babies are a HUGE part of the immigration problem, I understand why this amendment was needed, but the time for change has come. My sis in law was an OB in Texus for a few years, she can tell you stories that make your blood boil at the abuse of the system.

Aren't we like the only major country to have this "right"? My BFF was born in Italy, but she's never been an Italian citizen. It was on a US Navy base, though, so IDK if that's why.

[delhalew]

It's not the role of the state legislature to pass unconstitutional laws to "bring attention to the problem." In some cases there is a role for individuals to practice civil disobedience but a law making body has a moral obligation to uphold the constitution.

Normally, I would agree. However, the federal government has abdicated it's responsibilities. It is not listening to the citizenry, which is adversely affecting the states. I can see the justification more in the border states, but the problem affects us all.

[SC Sooner]

The context of the 14th Amendment was written for the slaves brought to this country against their will. Illegal aliens should not be able to enjoy those same protections. I don't think the 14th needs to be abolished, but it certainly should be modified, so that its intent is more clearly stated. Also, regarding States' passage of immigration laws, there is a provision in the Constitution for States States taking action when and if they feel the federal government isn't adequately protecting them.

[TUSooner]

It's good to know that all of Oklahoma's problems can solved by kicking Pedro and his kids in the asz and taking away their stuff. Hey, it's what patriotic God-fearing Christian conservatism is all about, right? Why else would OK's conservative politicians find this issue so pressing (aside from the fact that they are hateful and ignorant)?

[Viking Kitten]

Hateful and ignorant gets fat, sweaty f**kcsticks like Senator Ralph Shortey elected in his South OKC district. His campaign materials included the message, "The candidate NOT endorsed by the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce!" (An organization that did not endorse any candidate.)

Though this legislation has cleared the committee hurdle, it will be really interesting to see whether it gets a hearing on the floor. Leadership makes that decision, and leadership is beholden to the State Chamber of Commerce. The State Chamber does not like this stuff.

[DIB]

Does the state legislature have a constitutional law consultant? Someone who reviews these proposed laws and lets legislators know whether a law is likely to be considered unconstitutional. If not, they should probably hire someone. It would be cheaper than paying for all the lawsuits the state has faced of the last several years.

[Viking Kitten]

They don't care that they are passing unconstitutional legislation, they don't care what it costs the state. It gets them elected, and that is all that matters.

[Soonerfan88]

Just for argument's sake & not that it's a great argument:

"..and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.." If the parents are in the U.S. illegally, therefore not subject to U.S. jurisdiction, and said parents are legally responsible for minor children, are the children also not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. and not eligible for citizenship? If so, babies born to illegals would have to become official wards of the government and taken from their illegal parents to receive their citizenship. This would also mean that their illegal parents are no longer eligible for any social services based upon their children. This would also solve the issue of splitting up families when the parents get deported.





On another note, their are active and profitable entities that do nothing but arrange tourist or temporary visas for pregnant women to ensure their children are born in the United States. Sorry, don't think these babies should be granted citizenship either.

[jkjsooner]

Just for argument's sake & not that it's a great argument:

"..and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.." If the parents are in the U.S. illegally, therefore not subject to U.S. jurisdiction, and said parents are legally responsible for minor children, are the children also not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. and not eligible for citizenship? If so, babies born to illegals would have to become official wards of the government and taken from their illegal parents to receive their citizenship. This would also mean that their illegal parents are no longer eligible for any social services based upon their children. This would also solve the issue of splitting up families when the parents get deported.

I believe this clause was meant to apply to children of foreign dignitaries or persons who are in the US acting as a representative of their own country. This does not apply to illegal immigrants who are not here by the authority of their home country.

Immigrants, whether here legally or illegally, are fully subject to the jurisdiction of the US. Native Americans (American Indians), on the other hand, are not. An ambassador is also not fully subject to the jurisdiction of the US. The clause merely excludes those who are not subject to our laws.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

[AlboSooner]

Does the state legislature have a constitutional law consultant? Someone who reviews these proposed laws and lets legislators know whether a law is likely to be considered unconstitutional. If not, they should probably hire someone. It would be cheaper than paying for all the lawsuits the state has faced of the last several years.

This makes sense.

[jkjsooner]

Does the state legislature have a constitutional law consultant? Someone who reviews these proposed laws and lets legislators know whether a law is likely to be considered unconstitutional. If not, they should probably hire someone. It would be cheaper than paying for all the lawsuits the state has faced of the last several years.

In the normal case this makes sense. In this case, do they really need a constitutional law consultant? This is nothing but a political stunt and it makes our lawmakers appear billigerent.

[TUSooner]

They don't care that they are passing unconstitutional legislation, they don't care what it costs the state. It gets them elected, and that is all that matters.

This!!!! ^^^^

These shabby doooshes are pandering to the basest sentiments of ignorant hicks. And if you're one of the latter, too bad for you.

[Ike]

Does the state legislature have a constitutional law consultant? Someone who reviews these proposed laws and lets legislators know whether a law is likely to be considered unconstitutional. If not, they should probably hire someone. It would be cheaper than paying for all the lawsuits the state has faced of the last several years.

That would be pretty expensive. An easier solution would be to have a house or senate page whose sole job is to give the lawmaker who files a bill a swift kick in the rear upon filing.


Actually, we might need 2 or 3 guys for that.


Still probably cheaper than a lawyer.

[SoCaliSooner]

I think there should be an amendment stating that children only gain citizenship if one or both of their parents are U.S. citizens.

[bmrsnou]

Has anyone really stopped and thought about all of this anti immigration thinking? I know I don't post a lot, but I do have an opinion on this issue.

First off, the law that Oklahoma wants to pass (along with a few other states: AZ, MT) are totally unconstitutional. They won't stand up at all.

Another thing to think about with all of this anti immigration thinking is: The "illegals" are a huge part of the economy. The large majority of them are here to make a better life for themselves and their family. 99% of them are decent people. Plus, to them minimum wage is like a kings salary.

Seriously, and this isn't meant to be racist, but the next time you need a roof put on your house, get ready to pay a whole lot more. If you use a landscaping service for your yard, it will increase exponentially. Grocery prices will rise dramatically. Why? Because of who does most of the work. The jobs that have traditionally been held by the "lower classes" are what makes a lot of the economy go. Without people willing to work for minimum wage, goods and services will skyrocket in price. Trust me, the people who run these companies aren't going to fork out higher wages, but they will be forced to without the labor pool that the immigrant population provides.

I'm not saying illegal immigration is right, or defending it. I'm just looking at it from the view of my wallet.

[Lawton4Life]

Anchor babies are a HUGE part of the immigration problem, I understand why this amendment was needed, but the time for change has come. My sis in law was an OB in Texus for a few years, she can tell you stories that make your blood boil at the abuse of the system.

Aren't we like the only major country to have this "right"? My BFF was born in Italy, but she's never been an Italian citizen. It was on a US Navy base, though, so IDK if that's why.

If your parents are American citizens it doesnt matter where you are born, you're an American citizen. You get a nifty form from the secretary of state about birth of a us citizen abroad. Being born on a military base or an embassy is no different than being born in the states. It is considered soverign us soil.

Its a bit different that going to Italy illegally, having a child and then that child being Itailian.

[pphilfran]

Has anyone really stopped and thought about all of this anti immigration thinking? I know I don't post a lot, but I do have an opinion on this issue.

First off, the law that Oklahoma wants to pass (along with a few other states: AZ, MT) are totally unconstitutional. They won't stand up at all.

Another thing to think about with all of this anti immigration thinking is: The "illegals" are a huge part of the economy. The large majority of them are here to make a better life for themselves and their family. 99% of them are decent people. Plus, to them minimum wage is like a kings salary.

Seriously, and this isn't meant to be racist, but the next time you need a roof put on your house, get ready to pay a whole lot more. If you use a landscaping service for your yard, it will increase exponentially. Grocery prices will rise dramatically. Why? Because of who does most of the work. The jobs that have traditionally been held by the "lower classes" are what makes a lot of the economy go. Without people willing to work for minimum wage, goods and services will skyrocket in price. Trust me, the people who run these companies aren't going to fork out higher wages, but they will be forced to without the labor pool that the immigrant population provides.

I'm not saying illegal immigration is right, or defending it. I'm just looking at it from the view of my wallet.

So you are ok with millions of illegals working in the US while we have millions on the unemployment roles?

You are also ok with low wages being further depressed due to the market of illegal cheap labor?

You do realize that if those illegals were made legal they would no longer be working for those lower pay scales?

The cost of food would not skyrocket...labor costs are a small part of the overall cost of groceries...there is a Florida labor study out there that shows orange and melon labor costs would cause those prices to go up 10-15%..other items were far less than 10%, with little or no impact to most other foods...

[SouthCarolinaSooner]

So you are ok with millions of illegals working in the US while we have millions on the unemployment roles?


To be honest, I don't see millions of these unemployed lining up to put on roofs or pick 10 hour days in the fields.

[okie52]

To be honest, I don't see millions of these unemployed lining up to put on roofs or pick 10 hour days in the fields.

You probably won't for minimum wage. Now if you remove millions of illegals then the wages would rise enough to attract US citizens. Of course, it has to rise enough to be better than unemployment and welfare benefits.

[okie52]

Do you mean you support a "loser pays" system? Interesting concept.

:D

Imagine that.

[pphilfran]

You probably won't for minimum wage. Now if you remove millions of illegals then the wages would rise enough to attract US citizens. Of course, it has to rise enough to be better than unemployment and welfare benefits.

Thank you Okie...

[okie52]

Thank you Okie...

Not that you needed any help.

[SouthCarolinaSooner]

You probably won't for minimum wage. Now if you remove millions of illegals then the wages would rise enough to attract US citizens. Of course, it has to rise enough to be better than unemployment and welfare benefits.
Wages would also rise enough to attract inflation and negate whatever increase there was

[SoCaliSooner]

Another thing to think about with all of this anti immigration thinking is: The "illegals" are a huge part of the economy. The large majority of them are here to make a better life for themselves and their family. 99% of them are decent people. Plus, to them minimum wage is like a kings salary.

You must not live in a border state. Our jails and prisons are overcrowded with illegals committing crime. One of my best friends when I was a deputy was shot in the face by an illegal, a gang banger previously incarcerated and deported. Once he shot this deputy, he walked up and shot him twice more in the head and fled to Mexcio.

The gang populations are swelling with illegals and most of the mexican/salvadoran gangs claim 70% illegals and the anchor babies of illegals born in the last 20 years. Over 90% of all murder warrants for L.A. county are for illegals. Less than 2% work agricultural jobs yet over 30% are on welfare.

People in SoCal, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas are at wits end with hospitals, ER's being filled on a daily basis with illegals using them as primary care physicians, not paying or using stolen social security numbers.

[pphilfran]

Wages would also rise enough to attract inflation and negate whatever increase there was

So you are fine with illegals getting paid a non living wage while holding other legal workers wages at lower levels?

[okie52]

Wages would also rise enough to attract inflation and negate whatever increase there was

BS. You must believe that $7 an hour to a $10 to $11 an hour wage (if not more) would cause a 50% inflation rate.

[Aldebaran]

Not a simple task...

When the Constitution was written there was little or no concern about illegal immigration...we wanted labor, as much as we could get...

That is not the case today...the immigration system is being abused and disregarded by both the illegals and the businesses that knowingly hire them....

It's not like people who got here illegally got here illegally in a vaccuum. Obviously there was a labor need and a labor performed, but a desire to grant citizenship? Not so much for the non-euros.

[SpankyNek]

You must not live in a border state. Our jails and prisons are overcrowded with illegals committing crime. One of my best friends when I was a deputy was shot in the face by an illegal, a gang banger previously incarcerated and deported. Once he shot this deputy, he walked up and shot him twice more in the head and fled to Mexcio.

People in SoCal, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas are at wits end with hospitals, ER's being filled on a daily basis with illegals using them as primary care physicians, not paying or using stolen social security numbers.

There are no illegals in Texas prisons, they are summarily deported...in jails, I can see an issue, but the cost is offset by federal funds for the ICE screening process.

Any illegals that make it to prison (In theory) should have been returned to Mexico..if your state is doling out money to incarcerate them, it is a problem to be handled at the state level.

Somehow, hospitals are still being erected at a blistering pace...even though they carry the burden of care for the undocumented...every hospital has a portion of it's budget dedicated to benevolence...this is nothing new.

Why do you care if private hospital X spends that money on poor American or poor Mexican? They are supposed to be in the field of public service...I sure as hell expect a doctor to treat me to the highest standard be I in Germany, Turkey, or OKC.


The gang populations are swelling with illegals and most of the mexican/salvadoran gangs claim 70% illegals and the anchor babies of illegals born in the last 20 years. Over 90% of all murder warrants for L.A. county are for illegals. Less than 2% work agricultural jobs yet over 30% are on welfare.


Do you happen to have a credible source to cite this information?

What percent of the 70% are "anchor babies"(citizens)?

There is not a single entity that I can find that claims that 30% of illegals are on welfare....in fact, there is no way that is possible, as citizenship is a requirement to receive welfare benefits (at least a social security card), and if the person has a SS card, then they are contributing into many other entitlement programs that they will never obtain benefit from (economy neutral or positive)

[okie52]

It's not like people who got here illegally got here illegally in a vaccuum. Obviously there was a labor need and a labor performed, but a desire to grant citizenship? Not so much for the non-euros.

Did we get 12,000,000 plus euros?

Were euros granted more citizenships than the noneuros?

There wasn't a labor shortage. There was a cheap labor shortage...which there almost always will be.

[SoCaliSooner]

Do you happen to have a credible source to cite this information?

What percent of the 70% are "anchor babies"(citizens)?

There is not a single entity that I can find that claims that 30% of illegals are on welfare....in fact, there is no way that is possible, as citizenship is a requirement to receive welfare benefits (at least a social security card), and if the person has a SS card, then they are contributing into many other entitlement programs that they will never obtain benefit from (economy neutral or positive)

Illegals having anchor babies entitles them to receive the benefits for their dependents. The 70% comes from the LAPD and L.A. County sheriff's crime states regarding hispanic gangs.

You can probably check snopes on some of what I've stated...

http://www.snopes.com/politics/immigration/taxes.asp

[jkjsooner]

To be honest, I don't see millions of these unemployed lining up to put on roofs or pick 10 hour days in the fields.

Exactly because you're not paying them a true market price. Instead your subsidizing the labor cost by allowing an influx of foreign workers.

These same foreign laborers are in many cases living 5-10 grown adults per household breaking most city's regulations on the number of unrelated adults who can live in a dwelling. They do so because the wages are suppressed and that is what they must do to afford to live here.

[jkjsooner]

Wages would also rise enough to attract inflation and negate whatever increase there was

From a purely mathematic standpoint, this argument makes no sense.

Let's say low income wages are inflated by 30%. To negate this increase in buying power goods and services would have to be inflated by 30% because of this wage inflation.

I don't think it's takes a rocket scientists to determine that a 30% increase in a fraction of the cost of producing a good or supplying a service would not yield a 30% increase in the overall cost of the good or service.

[jkjsooner]

Illegals having anchor babies entitles them to receive the benefits for their dependents. The 70% comes from the LAPD and L.A. County sheriff's crime states regarding hispanic gangs.

You can probably check snopes on some of what I've stated...

http://www.snopes.com/politics/immigration/taxes.asp

And none of this in any way entitles the State of Oklahoma to pass a law that is unconstitutional. This thread isn't (or at least originally wasn't) about the repeal of the 14th amendment. It's about the state legislature wasting tax payer dollars and essentially looking like fools.

Edit: Sorry, I wrote this before I saw that the post I quoted was in response to another post.

[pphilfran]

And none of this in any way entitles the State of Oklahoma to pass a law that is unconstitutional. This thread isn't (or at least originally wasn't) about the repeal of the 14th amendment. It's about the state legislature wasting tax payer dollars and essentially looking like fools.

I agree....but if our fearless leaders in DC would make immigration a priority we wouldn't see this type dumbazz legislation...

It doesn't take a mental giant to put together a plan...there are very limited options...attempt to deport them all...build a fence...give them a path to citizenship...fine employers...accurate database for employers to use...

That is about it...if our leaders can't come up with a workable plan with such limited options then it looks to me that they are incompetent/don't care/care more about their "job" instead of the good of the country...pick your choice...

[soonercruiser]

The unalienable right to have to dedicate your tax dollars to defending unconstitutional state laws.

Apparently it is OK for Obama and the Demoncrats to waste our federal tax dollars on things that the majority of American opose?
:rolleyes:

[soonercruiser]

It's not the role of the state legislature to pass unconstitutional laws to "bring attention to the problem." In some cases there is a role for individuals to practice civil disobedience but a law making body has a moral obligation to uphold the constitution.

In this day and time, the initiation of a nationwide movement to ammend the Constitution starts at the grass roots level in the states. If enough states agree, a Constitutional Ammendment can be passed by a majority of the states. And, by then, hopefully a conservative Congress and WH!
That's how it's done.
(probably reverse order...)

[soonercruiser]

They don't care that they are passing unconstitutional legislation, they don't care what it costs the state. It gets them elected, and that is all that matters.

Might even be a chance that they are doing what the majority of their constituents desired....thus electing them?
YOU, might be in the minority opinion!
But, you are free to rant on. Maybe include some Demoncratic legislative waste. ....like Obamacare!

[soonercruiser]

To be honest, I don't see millions of these unemployed lining up to put on roofs or pick 10 hour days in the fields.

They might if we stopped unemployment payments; or made made folks do some work for welfare!
:rolleyes:

[SouthCarolinaSooner]

They might if we stopped unemployment payments; or made made folks do some work for welfare!
:rolleyes:
I can agree with this, but I still think many Americans consider themselves above minimum wage work.

[soonercruiser]

It's not like people who got here illegally got here illegally in a vaccuum. Obviously there was a labor need and a labor performed, but a desire to grant citizenship? Not so much for the non-euros.

Hasn't the Obama administration stopped all workplace immigration enforcement?

[oudavid1]

How about if you come here illegally, and you have a baby, the baby gets to stay and you have to go. (i know its harsh and unreasonable, im not really being serious). Or you can take it with you back to where ever your from.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

How about if you come here illegally, and you have a baby, the baby gets to stay and you have to go. (i know its harsh and unreasonable, im not really being serious). Or you can take it with you back to where ever your from.

That's what the present law is. If you are subject to deportation and you have a U.S. citizen minor, the minor can stay or leave.

[GKeeper316]

i honestly don't have a problem with asset forfeiture, but the other thing... well the fact that the political climate in this country is such that this is now the "popular" sentiment speaks volumes to how selfish we've become as a nation.

[oudavid1]

That's what the present law is. If you are subject to deportation and you have a U.S. citizen minor, the minor can stay or leave.

shows how much i know.

[Midtowner]

Apparently it is OK for Obama and the Demoncrats to waste our federal tax dollars on things that the majority of American opose?
:rolleyes:

This isn't a Democracy. It's a Republic.

The founders wanted that way because mob rule is a recipe for disaster.

At any rate, Mr. Conservative, true to form, don't let facts get in your way or anything.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/144447-poll-majority-disapprove-of-defunding-health-reform

The above is a link to a blog citing a poll where 51% of Americans either strongly or somewhat oppose defunding healthcare reform.

[The Profit]

They might if we stopped unemployment payments; or made made folks do some work for welfare!
:rolleyes:




Or get rid of those, who have been on the government tit their entire working career, but still see fit to complain about the government.

[jkjsooner]

Might even be a chance that they are doing what the majority of their constituents desired....thus electing them?
YOU, might be in the minority opinion!
But, you are free to rant on. Maybe include some Demoncratic legislative waste. ....like Obamacare!

So you're in favor of unconstitutional legislation as long as the majority desires it?

[OUMallen]

Apparently it is OK for Obama and the Demoncrats to waste our federal tax dollars on things that the majority of American opose?
:rolleyes:

Oh, that's right, the Constitution was created only to enforce popular will.

Take a civics class.

[Viking Kitten]

On this issue in particular, I am extremely proud to count myself among those holding the minority opinion. I'd rather be right than popular. I also thank God we have a third branch of government that protects us from people like Sen. Ralph Shortey and the mouth breathers in his district.

[SunnySooner]

If your parents are American citizens it doesnt matter where you are born, you're an American citizen. You get a nifty form from the secretary of state about birth of a us citizen abroad. Being born on a military base or an embassy is no different than being born in the states. It is considered soverign us soil.

Its a bit different that going to Italy illegally, having a child and then that child being Itailian.

I know that. I was wondering if any other country had the 14th amendment rule, i.e., if you're born in France to someone who is there illegally, are you automatically a citizen of France (or GB, Germany, Switzerland, Spain, etc.)? Capisce?

[Sooner_Bob]

according to the US Constitution?

according to common sense . . . :)

[Sooner_Bob]

This!!!! ^^^^

These shabby doooshes are pandering to the basest sentiments of ignorant hicks. And if you're one of the latter, too bad for you.

What exactly makes one an ignorant hick?

Am I an ignorant hick because I don't feel anyone in the US illegally (including any children they have here) should have the same rights as legal citizens?

[jkjsooner]

What exactly makes one an ignorant hick?

Am I an ignorant hick because I don't feel anyone in the US illegally (including any children they have here) should have the same rights as legal citizens?

Not necessarily but if you think it's the role of the state legislature to make these decisions in direct violation of the constitution then, yes, you are.

State and federal laws are overturned quite often on constitutional grounds. Usually they're borderline cases where arguments can be made both ways. This is not one of those cases. Despite a statement to the contrary, this law is can't be considered anything but a direct attempt to violate the 14th amendment.

Even if there was an appropriate leeway to believe that the 14th amendment should not cover those born in the U.S. to illegal immigrants, it still would not be within the role of the state legislature to define who is and is not a U.S. citizen. That is explicitly given to the U.S. congress via article 1, section 8, clause 4. Any challenge to the 14th amendment would have to originate from the U.S. congress. The Oklahoma state law should be overturned before even considering the 14th amendment.

[soonercoop1]

Easy. To prevent former Confederate states from denying civil rights to people because their mama or daddy was a slave. Google "Jim Crow laws"

Even here in Oklahoma, for instance, anyone qualified to vote before 1866, or related to someone qualified to vote before 1866, was exempted from the literacy requirement; the only Americans who could vote before that year were white Americans, such that all white Americans were effectively excluded from the literacy testing, whereas all black Americans were effectively singled out by the law.

And, for the record, how is denying a child born in this state civil rights because of the status of his mama and daddy any different?

Its all about intent...was never intended to be used as it has been for the last 60+ years...any child born here to illegal alien parents doesn't get citizenship....period...

[cccasooner2]

Its all about intent...was never intended to be used as it has been for the last 60+ years...any child born here to illegal alien parents doesn't get citizenship....period...

Wow, now we have to prove that a child was conceived with fraudulent intent? You must be an out of luck attorney looking for a handout.

[SoonerStormchaser]

My view on this is simple...illegal is illegal. What part of that don't folks understand?

But this will take an amendment to the US Constitution to better define this...cause we all know the ACLU and 9th Circuit Court of Appeals are gonna do everything they can to protect all those illegals.

[SanJoaquinSooner]

My view on this is simple...illegal is illegal. What part of that don't folks understand?

But this will take an amendment to the US Constitution to better define this...cause we all know the ACLU and 9th Circuit Court of Appeals are gonna do everything they can to protect all those illegals.

SSC, those born here are U.S. citizens for exactly the same reason most of us are: we were born in the U.S.

Legal is legal. What part of legal don't you understand?

[SanJoaquinSooner]

the only reason the citizenship of a parent is checked and verified is if the child is NOT born in the U.S. Otherwise it's not checked and never has been. Birth certificates sometimes have the birthplace of the parents, but that is self-reported, not verified, and does not distinguish between those who are naturalized and those who are not.

[SoonerStormchaser]

SSC, those born here are U.S. citizens for exactly the same reason most of us are: we were born in the U.S.

Legal is legal. What part of legal don't you understand?

Jaun...so you're telling me that it's ok for the egg even though the chicken committed a crime? Yah the kid did nothing wrong...but what the parents did was wrong...and the consequences are unfortunate...deport em.
My great-grandparents somehow managed to come into this country legally from Sicily...

[okie52]

the only reason the citizenship of a parent is checked and verified is if the child is NOT born in the U.S. Otherwise it's not checked and never has been. Birth certificates sometimes have the birthplace of the parents, but that is self-reported, not verified, and does not distinguish between those who are naturalized and those who are not.

A law that has been abused and misused. The fact that parents can smuggle themselves into this country illegally to abuse this law and thereby count on the support of open border supporters is really sickening. There should be no rewards for their misconduct, including the free healthcare for their pregnancies and the anchor babies that follow.

[sperry]

A law that has been abused and misused. The fact that parents can smuggle themselves into this country illegally to abuse this law and thereby count on the support of open border supporters is really sickening. There should be no rewards for their misconduct, including the free healthcare for their pregnancies and the anchor babies that follow.



Then tell call your congressman and tell them to propose a constitutional amendment. As is, this violates the Constitution, and as a result, its just embarassing to our state, as well as costing taxpayers a significant amount of money in legal fees, as has been pointed out many times.

[jkjsooner]

My view on this is simple...illegal is illegal. What part of that don't folks understand?

But this will take an amendment to the US Constitution to better define this...cause we all know the ACLU and 9th Circuit Court of Appeals are gonna do everything they can to protect all those illegals.


So we're going to villify the ACLU and the 9th circuit because they have the audacity to read and interpret the constitution?

Like I said before, what Oklahoma is doing shouldn't even get to the argument over the interpretation of the 14th amendment. Simply put, the 14th amendment aside, the federal legislature has sole authority over this matter.

But, by all means, since you don't like it let's just villify the ACLU and courts for following the constitution...

To make you happy we'll ignore the consitution, allow each state to set their own U.S. citizenship rules, and ignore the complete cluster f' that would cause...

[Skysooner]

This is the dumbest thing I have read in a long while. He is promoting a state law that will fail and will cost the state money in defense in courts. What a tool.

[okie52]

Then tell call your congressman and tell them to propose a constitutional amendment. As is, this violates the Constitution, and as a result, its just embarassing to our state, as well as costing taxpayers a significant amount of money in legal fees, as has been pointed out many times.

Well we have lawyers on this board that think all of those legal fees are just a cost of doing business...no matter how unnecessary.

Yeah, its the law and the state is stupid to waste money in this manner just like Obama is wasting our tax dollars to fight AZ employment laws.

[Sooner_Havok]

Jesus f*cking Christ... When did protecting the Constitution of these United States become "liberals protecting those damned illegals?" When did the mantra of the right go from "Read the constitution as it is written. IT IS NOT A LIVING DOCUMENT!" to "Times have changed, and the wording of this particular law no longer makes sense. Let's make the plain language mean something completely different!"

[okie52]

Jesus f*cking Christ... When did protecting the Constitution of these United States become "liberals protecting those damned illegals?" When did the mantra of the right go from "Read the constitution as it is written. IT IS NOT A LIVING DOCUMENT!" to "Times have changed, and the wording of this particular law no longer makes sense. Let's make the plain language mean something completely different!"

I don't know, when did border security and enforcing laws lose their relevance?

Had that been taken care of this debate over the 14th would be moot.

[Sooner_Havok]

I don't know, when did border security and enforcing laws lose their relevance?

Had that been taken care of this debate over the 14th would be moot.

Jesus, what you f*cking people are talking about is an insurrection against these United States! This isn't a trivial matter, this is the mother f*cking Constitution of the United States of America! Following it is not optional! Is that clear? It is not F*CKING OPTIONAL!

I am sorry if you don't like the way the federal government has dealt with certain issues, but deciding to opt out of the Constitution is not the way to try and fix the problem. Remember the last time a state tried to opt out of the Constitution?

[SouthCarolinaSooner]

Jesus, what you f*cking people are talking about is an insurrection against these United States! This isn't a trivial matter, this is the mother f*cking Constitution of the United States of America! Following it is not optional! Is that clear? It is not F*CKING OPTIONAL!

I am sorry if you don't like the way the federal government has dealt with certain issues, but deciding to opt out of the Constitution is not the way to try and fix the problem. Remember the last time a state tried to opt out of the Constitution?
Really hope you're trolling but,

If the states membership in the Constitution is not optional or at least up to the peoples of those states, then everything this country was founded on has been lost. Period.

[Sooner_Havok]

Really hope you're trolling but,

If the states membership in the Constitution is not optional or at least up to the peoples of those states, then everything this country was founded on has been lost. Period.

All "trolling" aside I think that there was once something the old timers called the "War of Northern Aggression" that decided that. I believe it was decided against being able to take your ball and go home when things don't go your way.

[SouthCarolinaSooner]

All "trolling" aside I think that there was once something the old timers called the "War of Northern Aggression" that decided that. I believe it was decided against being able to take your ball and go home when things don't go your way.
Might doesn't make right. I do not defend the south's motives for the civil war, as they are almost all slave related. But the Constitution is a contract by the people for the people which can be nullified if it is breached.

[okie52]

Jesus, what you f*cking people are talking about is an insurrection against these United States! This isn't a trivial matter, this is the mother f*cking Constitution of the United States of America! Following it is not optional! Is that clear? It is not F*CKING OPTIONAL!

I am sorry if you don't like the way the federal government has dealt with certain issues, but deciding to opt out of the Constitution is not the way to try and fix the problem. Remember the last time a state tried to opt out of the Constitution?

Good Lord where do you get insurrection? Wanting to eliminate anchor babies and unwarranted citizenship is hardly an act against the US but rather it is an action to protect the US. I am not talking about OK's approach but an amendment to our amendment.

And by all means follow the laws of the land rather than ignore them which seems to have you so upset. Secure our damn border and run off these illegals and this issue is moot. But for some reason you don't seem nearly as concerned about enforcing existing laws.

[SouthCarolinaSooner]

A little rebellion now and then is a good thing, right TJ?

[okie52]

Jesus, what you f*cking people are talking about is an insurrection against these United States! This isn't a trivial matter, this is the mother f*cking Constitution of the United States of America! Following it is not optional! Is that clear? It is not F*CKING OPTIONAL!

I am sorry if you don't like the way the federal government has dealt with certain issues, but deciding to opt out of the Constitution is not the way to try and fix the problem. Remember the last time a state tried to opt out of the Constitution?

Good Lord where do you get insurrection? Wanting to eliminate anchor babies and unwarranted citizenship is hardly an act against the US but rather it is an action to protect the US. I am not talking about OK's approach but an amendment to our amendment.

And by all means follow the laws of the land rather than ignore them which seems to have you so upset. Secure our damn border and run off these illegals and this issue is moot. But for some reason you don't seem nearly as concerned about enforcing those laws rather just maintaining some open border policy and passing out citizenship like it was a coupon in the Sunday paper.

[okie52]

All "trolling" aside I think that there was once something the old timers called the "War of Northern Aggression" that decided that. I believe it was decided against being able to take your ball and go home when things don't go your way.

We're bigger and stronger than the north is now. Their just a tired old rust bucket.

[SouthCarolinaSooner]

We're bigger and stronger than the north is now. Their just a tired old rust bucket.
This is interesting, who are you referring to as "we"? Do you consider Oklahoma part of the south?

[Sooner_Havok]

There is no exit clause to be found in the Constitution...I and my fellow southerners have looked.

Oh, and while comparing the Constitution to a simple contract is nice, it's not really apt. The only way out of this Union by war. The federal government is not compelled to act by the constitution (aside from setting up the courts and what not) it is compelled to not act.

Again don't like the way the Feds are doing things, vote for different people in Washington. Not enough of "your" people in Washington to affect change? Democracy and the Republican form of government can be a bitch.

[Sooner_Havok]

Good Lord where do you get insurrection? Wanting to eliminate anchor babies and unwarranted citizenship is hardly an act against the US but rather it is an action to protect the US. I am not talking about OK's approach but an amendment to our amendment.

And by all means follow the laws of the land rather than ignore them which seems to have you so upset. Secure our damn border and run off these illegals and this issue is moot. But for some reason you don't seem nearly as concerned about enforcing existing laws.

The Oklahoma law is blatantly inverse to the Constitution. Whomever drafted it, and introduced it should be brought up on charges of treason.

Don't like anchor babies, fine change the Constitution, but don't pass a state law that is so clearly against the Constitution. If you can get an amendment passed that says babies born to illegals are to be thrown into a wood chipper, I will be the first to buy a DR. Chipper, but until that day, we must respect the what the constitution says, like it our not.

And again, yes openly supporting a law that is such a clear violation of the United States Constitution is insurrection, and anyone who swore to uphold the Constitution of the United States, and also voted for this bill is in clear violation of their oath, and should be charged with treason at the minimum.

[okie52]

This is interesting, who are you referring to as "we"? Do you consider Oklahoma part of the south?

Sure, don't you? Or do you think if the South left again we would be standing with the North?

We turned down an invite to the SEC but our Indian tirbes fought with the south.

[SouthCarolinaSooner]

The Oklahoma law is blatantly inverse to the Constitution. Whomever drafted it, and introduced it should be brought up on charges of treason.

Don't like anchor babies, fine change the Constitution, but don't pass a state law that is so clearly against the Constitution. If you can get an amendment passed that says babies born to illegals are to be thrown into a wood chipper, I will be the first to buy a DR. Chipper, but until that day, we must respect the what the constitution says, like it our not.

And again, yes openly supporting a law that is such a clear violation of the United States Constitution is insurrection, and anyone who swore to uphold the Constitution of the United States, and also voted for this bill is in clear violation of their oath, and should be charged with treason at the minimum.
This is seriously disturbing

[Sooner_Havok]

This is seriously disturbing

What? My willingness to throw dirty illegal babies into a wood chipper, or my view that subverting the Constitution of the United States of America constitutes treason?

[SouthCarolinaSooner]

What? My willingness to throw dirty illegal babies into a wood chipper, or my view that subverting the Constitution of the United States of America constitutes treason?
Is subverting the Constitution to protect the Constitution acceptable?

[okie52]

There is no exit clause to be found in the Constitution...I and my fellow southerners have looked.

Oh, and while comparing the Constitution to a simple contract is nice, it's not really apt. The only way out of this Union by war. The federal government is not compelled to act by the constitution (aside from setting up the courts and what not) it is compelled to not act.

Again don't like the way the Feds are doing things, vote for different people in Washington. Not enough of "your" people in Washington to affect change? Democracy and the Republican form of government can be a bitch.

Well that's kind of the bich of it all. The people want secure borders but we are never offered candidates that will do it.

And, if the feds are not bound to act by the constitution then why such outrage over a state's proposition? The feds can ignore it or defeat it in court. Yet no outrage over 12,000,000 plus intruders in our country?

Are you an open borders guy?

[delhalew]

There is no exit clause to be found in the Constitution...I and my fellow southerners have looked.

Oh, and while comparing the Constitution to a simple contract is nice, it's not really apt. The only way out of this Union by war. The federal government is not compelled to act by the constitution (aside from setting up the courts and what not) it is compelled to not act.

Again don't like the way the Feds are doing things, vote for different people in Washington. Not enough of "your" people in Washington to affect change? Democracy and the Republican form of government can be a bitch.

Well, this is supposed to be a voluntary union. Lincoln being a tyrant doesn't change that.

[Sooner_Havok]

Well that's kind of the bich of it all. The people want secure borders but we are never offered candidates that will do it.

And, if the feds are not bound to act by the constitution then why such outrage over a state's proposition? The feds can ignore it or defeat it in court. Yet no outrage over 12,000,000 plus intruders in our country?

Are you an open borders guy?

No, I am a "respect the law" guy. The feds won't lace the border with landmines and razor wire, I am sorry. But, the Constitution doesn't say they have to. It does however say (or has been interpreted as saying) that on matters such as this, even in the absence of action by the federal government, that state governments are barred from acting.

Sorry, it is the Constitution man. If you don't like it, then it is time to pass an amendment or leave. Those are your two options, cause like I said, the Constitution is not optional.

[Sooner_Havok]

Well, this is supposed to be a voluntary union. Lincoln being a tyrant doesn't change that.

The Articles of Confederation had a way out.

The Constitution doesn't.

Same people made both.

If they knew how to do it once, they could have done it again.

So, either the framers are forgetful Fred's, or they left the opt out language out for a reason.

[sooner ngintunr]

What? My willingness to throw dirty illegal babies into a wood chipper, or my view that subverting the Constitution of the United States of America constitutes treason?

It was disturbing because DR wood chippers are crap. Asplundh seems to have the right **** though.:pop:

[Sooner_Havok]

It was disturbing because DR wood chippers are crap. Asplundh seems to have the right **** though.:pop:

noted

[okie52]

No, I am a "respect the law" guy. The feds won't lace the border with landmines and razor wire, I am sorry. But, the Constitution doesn't say they have to. It does however say (or has been interpreted as saying) that on matters such as this, even in the absence of action by the federal government, that state governments are barred from acting.

Sorry, it is the Constitution man. If you don't like it, then it is time to pass an amendment or leave. Those are your two options, cause like I said, the Constitution is not optional.

Yeah, its too bad about the razor wire and landmines, probably the most efficient way to go.

You're a respect the law kind of guy but ignoring our laws (and the consequences from such inaction) doesn't seem to disturb you near as much as some meaningless, inconsequential (although costly) act by a state that will have absolutely no bearing on our country's or our children's future.

I'm all for passing the amendment, but as you have pointed out, the feds can just ignore it anyway.

[delhalew]

The Articles of Confederation had a way out.

The Constitution doesn't.

Same people made both.

If they knew how to do it once, they could have done it again.

So, either the framers are forgetful Fred's, or they left the opt out language out for a reason.

Actually, within the Constitution has a mechanism to undo anything up to dissolving the whole thing and starting over. I don't have to tell you that.

Not that anyone would want to...lol.

[MR2-Sooner86]

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

We see "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" above. We have illegal aliens who are unlawfully in the United States. So, we could say that their native country has a claim of allegiance on the child. Then the completeness of their allegiance to the United States could be impaired and that messes up their automatic citizenship.

Really about the only way you can try to do anything besides having Congress go in, make a for sure definition of the amendment, and then say, "Yeah, we meant slaves and not taco children."

[Sooner_Havok]

Is subverting the Constitution to protect the Constitution acceptable?

I don't think that is possible. Something about the time space continuum.

No but really, were you aware that for a citizen child to immigrate his parents into American said child must be over the age of 21. So there is a 21 year gap between having an "anchor baby" and getting to get in line to become a citizen.

[sooner ngintunr]

Aren't we like the only country that gives birthright citizenship? Seems backwards to me.

This is one of the major things that ****ed California up. You see it in the papers everyday in the baby section. Single mom collecting the benefits, single dad working for cash. It's complete bull****.

[okie52]

I don't think that is possible. Something about the time space continuum.

No but really, were you aware that for a citizen child to immigrate his parents into American said child must be over the age of 21. So there is a 21 year gap between having an "anchor baby" and getting to get in line to become a citizen.

Wow. Good to know they won't be getting any benefits during that time for themselves or for their new born citizen.

[Sooner_Havok]

Yeah, its too bad about the razor wire and landmines, probably the most efficient way to go.

You're a respect the law kind of guy but ignoring our laws (and the consequences from such inaction) doesn't seem to disturb you near as much as some meaningless, inconsequential (although costly) act by a state that will have absolutely no bearing on our country's or our children's future.

I'm all for passing the amendment, but as you have pointed out, the feds can just ignore it anyway.

A law is one thing. A Constitution is a completely different animal. It should be noted that the feds are not "ignoring" any law. Are there border patrol agents? Are there deportations? Of Course. Is there perfect application of the law, no. And believe me, the shredding of our Constitution, and the protections it grants us, has a huge bearing on your children's future.

So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!

Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!

Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, And if you cut them down, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!


Actually, within the Constitution has a mechanism to undo anything up to dissolving the whole thing and starting over. I don't have to tell you that.

Not that anyone would want to...lol.

Again, you can change things, but the union is like the hotel California...

[Sooner_Havok]

Wow. Good to know they won't be getting any benefits during that time for themselves or for their new born citizen.

Yup, they can't even use their child to game the system for 21 years.



BYW. You care to go pick lettuce in 105 degree heat for $2.50/hr?

Just asking? Oh, and just wondering...Those illegals who get these allusive benefits for which you speak, they got like fake Social Security cards and **** right? So these people are paying into our programs...think Pedro is ever going to cash a SS check?

[okie52]

A law is one thing. A Constitution is a completely different animal. It should be noted that the feds are not "ignoring" any law. Are there border patrol agents? Are there deportations? Of Course. Is there perfect application of the law, no. And believe me, the shredding of our Constitution, and the protections it grants us, has a huge bearing on your children's future.

So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!

Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!

Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, And if you cut them down, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!



Again, you can change things, but the union is like the hotel California...

I am sure you feel as violated as I do with Sanctuary cities that are in open defiance of the law. Have you written your congressman about it?

[Sooner_Havok]

I am sure you feel as violated as I do with Sanctuary cities that are in open defiance of the law. Have you written your congressman about it?

Nope, I write my congressman begging him to protect my rights, not lay the hammer down on people who have little or no meaning to me what so ever.


He never does. Says we have to give up some of our liberties and protections to keep the terrorists from winning. I tell him I think they already won. :(

Our Constitution has already been shredded enough, don't you think it is time to stop undermining it? Or is making sure Pedo Jr. ain't the same as you worth more than getting your rights back?

[sooner ngintunr]

Yup, they can't even use their child to game the system for 21 years.



BYW. You care to go pick lettuce in 105 degree heat for $2.50/hr?



Wait. You're serious with this ****?

I thought you the master of sarc. If you are somehow being serious, you don't have a ****ing clue.

[okie52]

Yup, they can't even use their child to game the system for 21 years.



BYW. You care to go pick lettuce in 105 degree heat for $2.50/hr?

Just asking? Oh, and just wondering...Those illegals who get these allusive benefits for which you speak, they got like fake Social Security cards and **** right? So these people are paying into our programs...think Pedro is ever going to cash a SS check?

They actually don't need the anchor baby to game the system. Their illegal children are entitled to an education under our "laws" which strangely seems to be enforced. And those illegal parents and their illegal kids can go to any hospital and receive medical attention. Alll at taxpayer expense. California has been kind enough to even provide websites to let the illegals know where to go for benefits. Of coursse they are also bankrupt.

And many okies have ancestors that picked lettuce and about anything else in the 30's when they needed the work. Americans would do it again if the wages got to be more than their unemployment benefits, etc...

The fact that illegals pay into SS is the only thing that even allows their intrusion to approach a revenue neutral situation. Their citizenship would absolutely destroy SS.

[okie52]

Nope, I write my congressman begging him to protect my rights, not lay the hammer down on people who have little or no meaning to me what so ever.


He never does. Says we have to give up some of our liberties and protections to keep the terrorists from winning. I tell him I think they already won. :(

Our Constitution has already been shredded enough, don't you think it is time to stop undermining it? Or is making sure Pedo Jr. ain't the same as you worth more than getting your rights back?

Yeah, the patriot act was a horrible measure that has ruined my life. I am afraid to leave my house because of big brother. But I am quite comfortable with Pedro and his gang who don't speak English being right across the street mowing someone's lawn and paying into some dead guys SS account because this is America and we have our priorities in order.

[Sooner_Havok]

They actually don't need the anchor baby to game the system. Their illegal children are entitled to an education under our "laws" which strangely seems to be enforced. And those illegal parents and their illegal kids can go to any hospital and receive medical attention. Alll at taxpayer expense. California has been kind enough to even provide websites to let the illegals know where to go for benefits. Of coursse they are also bankrupt.

And many okies have ancestors that picked lettuce and about anything else in the 30's when they needed the work. Americans would do it again if the wages got to be more than their unemployment benefits, etc...

The fact that illegals pay into SS is the only thing that even allows their intrusion to approach a revenue neutral situation. Their citizenship would absolutely destroy SS.

Actually most economists I have read tend to say that overall, illegals are a net positive for this country. Are there areas where they are a drain, no doubt. But, the country taken as a whole is better off with them. But that diverges from the point of this...

I don't care about human life (other than my own of course). I do care about the rule of law. Read my little dialogue up there? Eh, doubt it. Look, your goals and ambitions for this country aren't being realized. I am sorry. What you want for America is not getting done. You complain about not getting anyone elected who will do anything to steer the country in the direction you want it to go. Well, that might tell you something about the direction you want to head, but that is not for me to say. This is a Republic, a republic of laws. No what separates us from everyone else, our laws. You may not agree with all of them, hell I know I don't, I sure as hell respect them. We are lucky to be protected by what was once one of the greatest documents ever written. It is a little worse for wear now, but she is still a damn fine Constitution. I am sorry that one provision in it brings so much hatred and vitriol forth in you. My suggestion is the same now as it was earlier, love it, leave it, or change it. There are protocols for amending the constitution. You clearly hate what it says, so try and get it changed. Dedicate your life to introducing a constitutional amendment. Do that, or GTFO of my country. Please.

[Sooner_Havok]

They actually don't need the anchor baby to game the system. Their illegal children are entitled to an education under our "laws" which strangely seems to be enforced. And those illegal parents and their illegal kids can go to any hospital and receive medical attention. Alll at taxpayer expense. California has been kind enough to even provide websites to let the illegals know where to go for benefits. Of coursse they are also bankrupt.

And many okies have ancestors that picked lettuce and about anything else in the 30's when they needed the work. Americans would do it again if the wages got to be more than their unemployment benefits, etc...

The fact that illegals pay into SS is the only thing that even allows their intrusion to approach a revenue neutral situation. Their citizenship would absolutely destroy SS.

He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither.

What was that thing Sic 'Em used to always say? The Republic Weeps? Something like that. Well, forget civil liberties and centuries of common law, screw the constitution, and kick those damn mexicans out!

[okie52]

Actually most economists I have read tend to say that overall, illegals are a net positive for this country. Are there areas where they are a drain, no doubt. But, the country taken as a whole is better off with them. But that diverges from the point of this...

I don't care about human life (other than my own of course). I do care about the rule of law. Read my little dialogue up there? Eh, doubt it. Look, your goals and ambitions for this country aren't being realized. I am sorry. What you want for America is not getting done. You complain about not getting anyone elected who will do anything to steer the country in the direction you want it to go. Well, that might tell you something about the direction you want to head, but that is not for me to say. This is a Republic, a republic of laws. No what separates us from everyone else, our laws. You may not agree with all of them, hell I know I don't, I sure as hell respect them. We are lucky to be protected by what was once one of the greatest documents ever written. It is a little worse for wear now, but she is still a damn fine Constitution. I am sorry that one provision in it brings so much hatred and vitriol forth in you. My suggestion is the same now as it was earlier, love it, leave it, or change it. There are protocols for amending the constitution. You clearly hate what it says, so try and get it changed. Dedicate your life to introducing a constitutional amendment. Do that, or GTFO of my country. Please.

Well I am glad you aren't afraid to show your hypocrisy. You give us your righteous indignation over OK proposing a law to do away with birthright citizenship but have no problem with Cities not only declaring an open defiance to federal law but acting on it. Brilliant.

So it really comes down to your values and priorities regardless of your sanctimonious talk about the constitution. Well, this is a republic and you'll just have to live with those of us that don't share your views. And I know that is a lot harder for you to swallow than living with 12,000,000 people that are here illegally even though you are a man of "law".

[okie52]

He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither.

What was that thing Sic 'Em used to always say? The Republic Weeps? Something like that. Well, forget civil liberties and centuries of common law, screw the constitution, and kick those damn mexicans out!

What are you worried about? The feds can just ignore it. I feel better already.

[ouflak]

That is essentially what the Brits have. And why they have less litigation.

However here in Britain, it isn't up to one of these counties to decide immigration law (a rather obvious point I think). It is up to the nation (Parliament).

If this country want to change its immigration laws to be in line with what they have here in United Kingdom by changing the U.S. Constitution, then fine. There is a process to do this. It is well outlined and has been implemented many times.

Unless I am posting this message from an alternate universe, and in the universe these state legislatures exist in, the Civil War turned out far differently than it did in my universe, the state of Oklahoma, nor any individual state, has no authority or jurisdiction to decide national immigration law except as part of the process where all states decide such matters..

[ouflak]

That is essentially what the Brits have. And why they have less litigation.

Actually, there is loads of litigation regarding immigration. People are trying to come in, they feel they are treated unfairly, especially if they are asked to leave, and if they've got a case, it goes to court. You don't get away from litigation just by changing your laws, you just get away from what *was* being litigated to what will *now* be litigated. Same lawyers ofcourse.

[Sooner_Bob]

Not necessarily but if you think it's the role of the state legislature to make these decisions in direct violation of the constitution then, yes, you are.


See . . . I never mentioned anything about the State taking any action related to this. The Feds should take the initiative to deal with it.

[Midtowner]

The Oklahoma law is blatantly inverse to the Constitution. Whomever drafted it, and introduced it should be brought up on charges of treason.

Don't like anchor babies, fine change the Constitution, but don't pass a state law that is so clearly against the Constitution. If you can get an amendment passed that says babies born to illegals are to be thrown into a wood chipper, I will be the first to buy a DR. Chipper, but until that day, we must respect the what the constitution says, like it our not.

And again, yes openly supporting a law that is such a clear violation of the United States Constitution is insurrection, and anyone who swore to uphold the Constitution of the United States, and also voted for this bill is in clear violation of their oath, and should be charged with treason at the minimum.

You don't really know what treason is.

I'd propose he be booted from the legislature for failure to abide by his oath to protect and defend the Constitutions of the state of Oklahoma and of the United States.

[jkjsooner]

Good Lord where do you get insurrection? Wanting to eliminate anchor babies and unwarranted citizenship is hardly an act against the US but rather it is an action to protect the US. I am not talking about OK's approach but an amendment to our amendment.

And by all means follow the laws of the land rather than ignore them which seems to have you so upset. Secure our damn border and run off these illegals and this issue is moot. But for some reason you don't seem nearly as concerned about enforcing existing laws.

Plenty of us are concerned about enforcing existing laws and some of us may agree to a new amendment on the issue. Neither of these points are what this thread is about. This thread is about ths stupidity of Oklahoma lawmakers and how they're willfully ignoring the constitution.

[jkjsooner]

If the states membership in the Constitution is not optional or at least up to the peoples of those states, then everything this country was founded on has been lost. Period.

Are you suggesting Oklahoma secede from the U.S.? If so, I'd suggest a new thread on that as that surely deserves it's own thread.

If that's your plan, by all means push for it. The proper course of action would be to secede and take up arms. Passing an unconstitutional law is not the proper way to do so.

My guess is, like most Americans you've defended the constitution. It's quite pathetic that the first time you're confronted with something in the Constitution you dislike you all of a sudden start talking about taking your ball and going home.

[jkjsooner]

We see "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" above. We have illegal aliens who are unlawfully in the United States. So, we could say that their native country has a claim of allegiance on the child. Then the completeness of their allegiance to the United States could be impaired and that messes up their automatic citizenship.

Really about the only way you can try to do anything besides having Congress go in, make a for sure definition of the amendment, and then say, "Yeah, we meant slaves and not taco children."

I think I've addressed this. Illegal aliens are subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. when they are here. If they get caught they can be deported. If they speed they can get a ticket.

This phrase was added to exclude Indians and other people who are here on behalf of their country (example diplomats). Neither of these groups are fully subject to the jurisdiction of the US. Indians were later given citizenship by an act of congress. And that leads me to the second point...

Matters of US citizenship are to be decided by the US Congress. This is explicit in the Constitution and has nothing to do with the amendment you cited. States have no authority to redefine what congress has defined.

You know what, I now live in North Carolina. I'm going to push for a state law that claims that MR2-Sooner86 is no longer a U.S. citizen. You'll be just fine so long as you never step foot in North Carolina. Otherwise, you might be shipped to Mexico or Cuba or somewhere. See what kind of a cluster f' you just asked for? I'm clearly joking but I think my point is made.

[jkjsooner]

See . . . I never mentioned anything about the State taking any action related to this. The Feds should take the initiative to deal with it.

Perfectly fair but the hicks we're referring to are the ones pushing the STATE to take action. That is, afterall, what this thread is about.

[SouthCarolinaSooner]

I don't think that is possible. Something about the time space continuum.

No but really, were you aware that for a citizen child to immigrate his parents into American said child must be over the age of 21. So there is a 21 year gap between having an "anchor baby" and getting to get in line to become a citizen.
Lincoln and every president since have defeated the space time continuum since.



Are you suggesting Oklahoma secede from the U.S.? If so, I'd suggest a new thread on that as that surely deserves it's own thread.

If that's your plan, by all means push for it. The proper course of action would be to secede and take up arms. Passing an unconstitutional law is not the proper way to do so.

My guess is, like most Americans you've defended the constitution. It's quite pathetic that the first time you're confronted with something in the Constitution you dislike you all of a sudden start talking about taking your ball and going home.
Well thats for citizens of Oklahoma to decide, but it would be pretty difficult for you to secede unless Texas went as well. Secession is taking it a little bit too far, however nullification is not.

[okie52]

Plenty of us are concerned about enforcing existing laws and some of us may agree to a new amendment on the issue. Neither of these points are what this thread is about. This thread is about ths stupidity of Oklahoma lawmakers and how they're willfully ignoring the constitution.

This thread, as they often do, morphed into something else.

But, to your point, it was a waste of time and money by our legislators to propose such a law. But I find "insurrection" a laughable comment.

[DIB]

This thread, as they often do, morphed into something else.

But, to your point, it was a waste of time and money by our legislators to propose such a law. But I find "insurrection" a laughable comment.

This state legislator swore to uphold the constitution. He wrote a law in direct opposition to the constitution. Insurrection or treason may be too strong, but he should probably be expelled for breaking his oath of office.

The Constitution is this country. We cannot chose what parts to follow. If our government does not abide by the constitution, it is our responsibility to do something about it.

Attacking the Constitution to "protect" the Constitution is the most absurd thing I have ever heard.

[SoCaliSooner]

Attacking the Constitution to "protect" the Constitution is the most absurd thing I have ever heard.

Whoa...we should be attacking people, brown people, not the constitution...

[jkjsooner]

Lincoln and every president since have defeated the space time continuum since.



Well thats for citizens of Oklahoma to decide, but it would be pretty difficult for you to secede unless Texas went as well. Secession is taking it a little bit too far, however nullification is not.

How exactly do you plan to use nullification? What federal law do you think the State of Oklahoma should deem as unconstitutional and thus be ignored? You can't nullify an amendment as it is not a law but part of the Constitution itself and by definition is constitutional.

Are you talking about getting rid of the constitution itself? If so, would you at least agree that the actions of the Oklahoma legislature is wrong? They aren't pushing for to remove, replace, or amend the constitution. They're simply ignoring the Constitution. That is not an option given to the states.

I'm going to attempt to make you declare your position here. Since it seems to be what you're suggesting, are you in favor of removing the Constitution because of this one issue? If not, then why are we arguing over this? It seems rather than admitting that the Oklahoma legislature as grossly overstepped its bounds, you bring up dropping the "nuclear bomb" which I doubt you even want. It really muddies the argument.

[DIB]

When Ron Paul gets elected president, all you Constitution haters better run for the hills.

Liberty is never easy and often uncomfortable. Liberty is not the easy road. It is better to have laws that indirectly protect things that we hate, than throw out laws that protect things that we love.

There are a lot of things wrong with this country, but the Constitution isn't one of them. If you don't like something in the document, amend it. If you don't like how it is being enforced, vote in a different government or peaceably assemble. If, and only if, the government ignores the Constitution and becomes tyrannical, then overthrow it. Those are your options.

Passing unconstitutional state laws is, at best, pissing in the wind and, at worse, treason.

[okie52]

This state legislator swore to uphold the constitution. He wrote a law in direct opposition to the constitution. Insurrection or treason may be too strong, but he should probably be expelled for breaking his oath of office.

The Constitution is this country. We cannot chose what parts to follow. If our government does not abide by the constitution, it is our responsibility to do something about it.

Attacking the Constitution to "protect" the Constitution is the most absurd thing I have ever heard.

Expelled? Now that is funny. He11, we have mayors and city councilmen voting to throw Marines out of their communities. These same people will
openly defy the feds and declare themselves sanctuary cities.

Pelosi tells an audience that included illegal immigrants that enforcement of America's immigration law is "un-American."

States write laws all of the time that are found to be "unconstitutional". This proposal is stupid because it has no chance of becoming law. But I get a kick out of it if it pizzes off our selective issue "consititutionalists".

[Leroy Lizard]

This state legislator swore to uphold the constitution. He wrote a law in direct opposition to the constitution. Insurrection or treason may be too strong, but he should probably be expelled for breaking his oath of office.

What about those that voted for it?

So every time a law gets declared unconstitutional, a mass expulsion is to follow?

Wow.

[okie52]

What about those that voted for it?

So every time a law gets declared unconstitutional, a mass expulsion is to follow?

Wow.

Just a good flogging for those "traitors".

[DIB]

Expelled? Now that is funny. He11, we have mayors and city councilmen voting to throw Marines out of their communities. These same people will
openly defy the feds and declare themselves sanctuary cities.

Pelosi tells an audience that included illegal immigrants that enforcement of America's immigration law is "un-American."

States write laws all of the time that are found to be "unconstitutional". This proposal is stupid because it has no chance of becoming law. But I get a kick out of it if it pizzes off our selective issue "consititutionalists".

Yep. Because being pro-constitution is bad.

Your argument is very confusing, though. I don't know if you assume that I am for sanctuary cities or think that this is the only law I have ever opposed. I am against anything that weakens the constitution. I'm not sure why you are trying to throw Pelosi in my face. She is a champion of destroying the Constitution. I can only assume that you think I am a liberal, which is almost as insulting as neo-cons claiming to be conservative.

Anyone that attacks the Constitution should be opposed. This includes everyone from city councilors to the president.

[DIB]

What about those that voted for it?

So every time a law gets declared unconstitutional, a mass expulsion is to follow?

Wow.


Just a good flogging for those "traitors".

You two obviously have no reading comprehension, which is to be expected from people that hate the Constitution. There is a difference between a law that is found unconstitutional (happens all the time) and a law that is in direct opposition of the Constitution. This law is in direct opposition of the Constitution. This isn't about wording or even legal precedent. This is an attack on the Constitution of the United States.

[Bourbon St Sooner]

He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither.


I've decided that I'm officially sick of this quote. Don't get me wrong, it's a good quote, it's just been overplayed the past several years. It's like a good song that's played so much on the radio that you get sick of it.

I used to like "the road to Hell is paved with good intentions", but I got sick of that one too. Somebody please find a new good quote we can harp on until it's overused.

[okie52]

Yep. Because being pro-constitution is bad.

Your argument is very confusing, though. I don't know if you assume that I am for sanctuary cities or think that this is the only law I have ever opposed. I am against anything that weakens the constitution. I'm not sure why you are trying to throw Pelosi in my face. She is a champion of destroying the Constitution. I can only assume that you think I am a liberal, which is almost as insulting as neo-cons claiming to be conservative.

Anyone that attacks the Constitution should be opposed. This includes everyone from city councilors to the president.

I don't know your politics but I have noticed on this board many so called "constitutionalists" are very selective about the issues they find "treasonous".

If you are one that maintains a consistent approach to upholding the constitution then I can appreciate that and say good for you. I wish more people were as consistent in their positions.

[okie52]

You two obviously have no reading comprehension, which is to be expected from people that hate the Constitution. There is a difference between a law that is found unconstitutional (happens all the time) and a law that is in direct opposition of the Constitution. This law is in direct opposition of the Constitution. This isn't about wording or even legal precedent. This is an attack on the Constitution of the United States.

So now we're constitution haters. :D Did I say I supported Shortey's measure?

[DIB]

I don't know your politics but I have noticed on this board many so called "constitutionalists" are very selective about the issues they find "treasonous".

If you are one that maintains a consistent approach to upholding the constitution then I can appreciate that and say good for you. I wish more people were as consistent in their positions.

Then I would argue that they are not Constitutionalists. It seems that they are merely using the Constitution as a shield to protect their own beliefs.

[DIB]

So now we're constitution haters. :D Did I say I supported Shortey's measure?

If you can make wildly off base assumptions about me, why can't I do the same about you?

[okie52]

Then I would argue that they are not Constitutionalists. It seems that they are merely using the Constitution as a shield to protect their own beliefs.

Amen.

[okie52]

If you can make wildly off base assumptions about me, why can't I do the same about you?

It is your constitutional right.

[jkjsooner]

States write laws all of the time that are found to be "unconstitutional". This proposal is stupid because it has no chance of becoming law. But I get a kick out of it if it pizzes off our selective issue "consititutionalists".

While that is true, usually they boil down to a debatable issue that needs to be settled by the courts. It might be the role of the commerce clause. It might be about the feds using its power to tax and spend to control the states. These are all nuanced things - some more so than others.

Rarely are laws made that so clearly and blatantly violate any and all possible interpretations of the constitution. Simply put, the constitution does not give states the right to define state or federal citizenship status. There's no other way around it.

[jkjsooner]

What about those that voted for it?

So every time a law gets declared unconstitutional, a mass expulsion is to follow?

Wow.

I would say the intent to subvert the constitution is about as clear in this case as I've ever seen (which admittedly my knowledge in the area is limited).

This hardly can be compared to a law where there is legitimate differences of opinions about the constitutionality of the law.

[saucysoonergal]

What I don't understand it that the State of Oklahoma is short on cash, so the these yahoos are passing clearly unconstitutional laws that will require the spending of money to defend. Really?

[jkjsooner]

I've decided that I'm officially sick of this quote. Don't get me wrong, it's a good quote, it's just been overplayed the past several years. It's like a good song that's played so much on the radio that you get sick of it.

This quote also shows the hypocrisy we have in our political spectrum. Back in the '90s you heard a lot of conservatives quote this over and over. Liberals rarely if ever mentioned it. Then came 2001 and the patriot act and all of a sudden liberals were quoting it and conservatives seemed to disappear (not all by any stretch but many did).

[okie52]

While that is true, usually they boil down to a debatable issue that needs to be settled by the courts. It might be the role of the commerce clause. It might be about the feds using its power to tax and spend to control the states. These are all nuanced things - some more so than others.

Rarely are laws made that so clearly and blatantly violate any and all possible interpretations of the constitution. Simply put, the constitution does not give states the right to define state or federal citizenship status. There's no other way around it.

I agree. There is no chance for this to become law. It is a waste of time and money. It would have been much better if the state legislature simply denounced the 14th amendment and by resolution supported its repeal/amending. Wouldn't have done anything but we wouldn't waste any time or money in the courts with it, either.

[jkjsooner]

The funny thing is that Oklahoma has an agriculture based economy. I'm guessing much more than Arizona. If you've talked to a lot of farmers who use Mexican labor, they're pretty defensive of the practice and of the need for a labor pool from Mexico.

This legislator is from OKC but I think when it gets down to the rural areas there is going to be a lot of fighting on this issue and it's going to come from Republicans.

About the asset forfeiture, if someone uses my car to buy drugs, my car can be forfeited. Is it going to be the same with illegal immigrants? I'd say a farmer isn't going to want his truck put at risk if his workers are caught driving around in it.

It's a separate issue but I hate the concept of asset forfeture whether it's applied to illegal immigrants or drug users. It's so easy for the punishment to be completely disproportional to the crime and it's a practice that can be abused so easily.

I think Juan should be subject to our laws. If he gets caught he should be deported. If Juan happened to work for 40 years, saved his money and invested it wisely, he shouldn't lose his life savings of hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of assets just because he's not here legally. That seems to be a cruel measure.


We'll never solve the immigration problem with only border security and deportation. The only real way to solve the problem is to go after the employers. Unfortunately, this is where you get a lot of pushback even from the conservatives.

[soonercruiser]

What I don't understand it that the State of Oklahoma is short on cash, so the these yahoos are passing clearly unconstitutional laws that will require the spending of money to defend. Really?

Darn those politicians.
How dare they keep there election promises to the voters!
HOW DARE THEY KEEP THEIR PROMISES?????
(They should just lie like the libs and Obama are used to...) :rolleyes:

[saucysoonergal]

Darn those politicians.
How dare they keep there election promises to the voters!
HOW DARE THEY KEEP THEIR PROMISES?????
(They should just lie like the libs and Obama are used to...) :rolleyes:

Go suck the teat.

[DIB]

Darn those politicians.
How dare they keep there election promises to the voters!
HOW DARE THEY KEEP THEIR PROMISES?????
(They should just lie like the libs and Obama are used to...) :rolleyes:

If his campaign promise was to attack the constitution, then I take back what I said earlier. He is a traitor.

[okie52]

The funny thing is that Oklahoma has an agriculture based economy. I'm guessing much more than Arizona. If you've talked to a lot of farmers who use Mexican labor, they're pretty defensive of the practice and of the need for a labor pool from Mexico.

This legislator is from OKC but I think when it gets down to the rural areas there is going to be a lot of fighting on this issue and it's going to come from Republicans.

About the asset forfeiture, if someone uses my car to buy drugs, my car can be forfeited. Is it going to be the same with illegal immigrants? I'd say a farmer isn't going to want his truck put at risk if his workers are caught driving around in it.

It's a separate issue but I hate the concept of asset forfeture whether it's applied to illegal immigrants or drug users. It's so easy for the punishment to be completely disproportional to the crime and it's a practice that can be abused so easily.

I think Juan should be subject to our laws. If he gets caught he should be deported. If Juan happened to work for 40 years, saved his money and invested it wisely, he shouldn't lose his life savings of hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of assets just because he's not here legally. That seems to be a cruel measure.


We'll never solve the immigration problem with only border security and deportation. The only real way to solve the problem is to go after the employers. Unfortunately, this is where you get a lot of pushback even from the conservatives.

I have a number of home builder friends that feel the same way about illegal labor. Certainly all of the feed lots and swine farms in the pahandle will hate to see illegals deported.

As to asset forfeiture I haven't even read the bill since it seems so preposterous that it will ever become law. However, if asset forfeiture does punish those that "knowingly" employed illegals then I have no problem with some draconian measures being applied to reverse a trend that snowballed to 12,000,000 plus intruders being in this country.

I don't particularly care how cruel a measure seems to an illegal. We have their President decrying AZ laws in congress and receiving a standing ovation from the Dems in the house. You have Mexican border provinces aiding illegal immigration. We have sanctuary cities that welcome illegals with open arms.

As to stopping illegal immigration we will not get it done without border security, deportation and punishing employers who knowingly hire illegals.
Yet, our own president is currently fighting an AZ employment law passed in 2007 that yanked the licenses from employers who hired illegals in AZ. Guess who signed that law? None other than our own secretary of homeland security, Janet Napolitano. Fortunately the Pres has lost his first 2 court battles on this issue, including one in the 9th Circuit court of appeals. But it is hard to hope for any real border security and meaningful immigration enforcement when your own president seeks to continually undermine such efforts.