PDA

View Full Version : Border Wall



Stoop Dawg
10/26/2006, 02:44 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20061026/wl_canada_afp/canadausmexico_061026183406


Calderon said the fence would be expensive to US taxpayers and lead to more Mexican deaths. Some 400 Mexicans died trying to cross the border last year, he noted.

Why doesn't he focus on improving his own country instead of bitching about ours? It's evidently so bad over there that people will die trying to get out.

soonersweetie
10/26/2006, 02:46 PM
agreed

BlondeSoonerGirl
10/26/2006, 02:47 PM
I've always wondered why we don't work more with Mexico to get their country to be not such a $hithole.

Does their government not want help? Do they like things the way they are?

Wouldn't have to worry about people risking their lives to get out of there if they didn't want to leave.

Mjcpr
10/26/2006, 02:49 PM
We've sent them all of our well-paying factory jobs, what more do they wanto?

TexasSooner01
10/26/2006, 02:49 PM
I dont think that they care that they are risking their lives to get out. But once they are in the US they get to live here illegally, get a fake SS# and live off of our $$$.

BlondeSoonerGirl
10/26/2006, 02:50 PM
We've sent them all of our well-paying factory jobs, what more do they wanto?


Yeah! And we import all their illegal steroids!

Where's THAT money going?

IB4OU2
10/26/2006, 02:51 PM
I've always wondered why we don't work more with Mexico to get their country to be not such a $hithole.

Does their government not want help? Do they like things the way they are?

Wouldn't have to worry about people risking their lives to get out of there if they didn't want to leave.

They need some taco bells........that would help.

leavingthezoo
10/26/2006, 02:51 PM
Does their government not want help? Do they like things the way they are?


they are corrupt on massive levels. they already have the means to help their citizens but it benefits them more to funnel everyone into America while packing their own pockets full.

SoonerInKCMO
10/26/2006, 02:53 PM
they are corrupt on massive levels.

:les: REGIME CHANGE!!!

GottaHavePride
10/26/2006, 02:53 PM
Yeah, you've all seen Desperado, right? Mexico is like that, but with less Antonio Banderas and Salma Hayek. ;)

proud gonzo
10/26/2006, 02:56 PM
man, i need to go to mexico to buy a guitar case!

soonersweetie
10/26/2006, 02:57 PM
They need some taco bells........that would help.

That's just too funny :)

NormanPride
10/26/2006, 02:58 PM
As much as I gripe about our government, at least it's not like theirs.

Petro-Sooner
10/26/2006, 02:59 PM
Build the wall!!!

leavingthezoo
10/26/2006, 03:03 PM
man, i need to go to mexico to guy a guitar case!

WHY DON'T YOU LEARN ENGLISH YOU HOKIE OKIE!

critical_phil
10/26/2006, 03:16 PM
I've always wondered why we don't work more with Mexico to get their country to be not such a $hithole.

Does their government not want help? Do they like things the way they are?

umm, the same could be said for 10th street.

King Crimson
10/26/2006, 03:17 PM
a lot of people in this country think Oklahoma is a ****hole. i'm not one of them....but the PRI has devastaed Mexico for so many years.

jk the sooner fan
10/26/2006, 03:24 PM
what are the odds that some of the labor to put up the fence/wall will be done by the very types we're trying to "keep out"

i'm all for the fence/wall

proud gonzo
10/26/2006, 03:35 PM
WHY DON'T YOU LEARN ENGLISH YOU HOKIE OKIE!
technically....i'm not an okie ;)

leavingthezoo
10/26/2006, 03:50 PM
technically....i'm not an okie ;)

so you're a fake okie? :mad:

BlondeSoonerGirl
10/26/2006, 03:51 PM
A 'fauxkie'?

TheHumanAlphabet
10/26/2006, 04:12 PM
I've always wondered why we don't work more with Mexico to get their country to be not such a $hithole.

Does their government not want help? Do they like things the way they are?

Wouldn't have to worry about people risking their lives to get out of there if they didn't want to leave.

First, you don't really understand history...;) Any place colonized by the Spaniards is messed up with corruption and egotistical people who think they know better than the process. So there is no stable government anywhere...

2nd, "european" spanish are better than indigenous spanish and therefore, they are most interested in keeping the "european" spanish elite and everyone else down...

3rd, Mexico wants these poeple to leave and bring home money as it releases the "revolutionary" pressure on the government, maintaining #2 and providing money that bulks up messican economy.

So why would messico want the U.S. to help them helpthemselves? They would likely lose the power, and besides, now the U.S. has to deal with all these people and provide services...

proud gonzo
10/26/2006, 04:25 PM
First, you don't really understand history...;) Any place colonized by the Spaniards is messed up with corruption and egotistical people who think they know better than the process. So there is no stable government anywhere...

2nd, "european" spanish are better than indigenous spanish and therefore, they are most interested in keeping the "european" spanish elite and everyone else down...

3rd, Mexico wants these poeple to leave and bring home money as it releases the "revolutionary" pressure on the government, maintaining #2 and providing money that bulks up messican economy.

So why would messico want the U.S. to help them helpthemselves? They would likely lose the power, and besides, now the U.S. has to deal with all these people and provide services...huh?

IronSooner
10/26/2006, 04:53 PM
First, you don't really understand history...;) Any place colonized by the Spaniards is messed up with corruption and egotistical people who think they know better than the process. So there is no stable government anywhere...

2nd, "european" spanish are better than indigenous spanish and therefore, they are most interested in keeping the "european" spanish elite and everyone else down...

3rd, Mexico wants these poeple to leave and bring home money as it releases the "revolutionary" pressure on the government, maintaining #2 and providing money that bulks up messican economy.

So why would messico want the U.S. to help them helpthemselves? They would likely lose the power, and besides, now the U.S. has to deal with all these people and provide services...

Yep. Dead-on assessment.

King Crimson
10/26/2006, 04:58 PM
First, you don't really understand history...;) Any place colonized by the Spaniards is messed up with corruption and egotistical people who think they know better than the process. So there is no stable government anywhere...



would you like to offer some colonial experiences that are not like this...?;)

BlondeSoonerGirl
10/26/2006, 04:59 PM
would you like to offer some colonial experiences that are not like this...?

What? You don't understand history, either?

:D

Mixer!
10/26/2006, 05:02 PM
Castillian - the euro spaniards who conquered and rule Mexico.

Mestizos - The native population (think Aztecs) who are kept at the bottom of their society, and who've been crossing the border for years seeking a better life.


Or something like that.

picasso
10/26/2006, 05:55 PM
they are corrupt on massive levels. they already have the means to help their citizens but it benefits them more to funnel everyone into America while packing their own pockets full.
yep. you gotta grease pockets there to get anything done.

the politicos there are ****ed because with the wall they'll have to deal more with the poverty problemo.

Sooner_Bob
10/26/2006, 06:02 PM
Build it and they will climb it.

OUHOMER
10/26/2006, 06:45 PM
I think a wall or fence would be a waste of time and money. They would just dig a tunnel under it. Climb over it, use a ladder. Best suggestion would be to lay a mine field. Put up signs ‘This is a mine field, you cross it you could die”.

Simple solution, less man power to watch; just replace a few mines every now and than.

Vaevictis
10/26/2006, 06:49 PM
Pfft, sooner or later, some enterprising Mexican will start stealing the mines and selling them on the black market.

OUHOMER
10/26/2006, 06:56 PM
Pfft, sooner or later, some enterprising Mexican will start stealing the mines and selling them on the black market.

:mad: :mad: Your right, OK, deadly lazer beams from a mile away.

Soonrboy
10/26/2006, 10:47 PM
Pfft, sooner or later, some enterprising Mexican will start stealing the mines and selling them on the black market.


Or some American will sell them the map on how to get around the land mines for a few thousand dollars.

TheHumanAlphabet
10/27/2006, 10:39 AM
would you like to offer some colonial experiences that are not like this...?;)

I would offer the US of A as an area not messed. Canada and Australia as well and to some extent India. Seems the Brits were a bit better at the colonization than Spain or France...

Widescreen
10/27/2006, 10:49 AM
Put up signs ‘This is a mine field, you cross it you could die”.
They speak Spanish so they couldn't read those signs.

Frozen Sooner
10/27/2006, 10:54 AM
Dang it, I had a whole post written out about the literacy tendencies in nations colonized by Catholic nations vs. nations colonized by Protestant nations as well as the decentralized vs. authoritarian natures of the two different flavors of Christianity, but my computer ate it.

Anyhow, the Catholic church wasn't big on encouraging literacy in the laity, while the Protestant churches historically have been. Vatican II changed that, I think, but there's several decades of head start that the Protestants have on that.

Stoop Dawg
10/27/2006, 02:11 PM
Anyhow, the Catholic church wasn't big on encouraging literacy

You paint too kind a picture.

They actually murdered scientists and burned their work. The early Catholics set humanity back several centuries.

But let's back to the border wall, everyone seems to agree on that one....

jk the sooner fan
10/27/2006, 02:15 PM
everybody but the mexicans

Stoop Dawg
10/27/2006, 02:28 PM
Yeah, but they can't vote.

Or can they? I'm all confused.....

TheHumanAlphabet
10/27/2006, 02:35 PM
Well they would and could if the dims have their way...

What's so wrong about a photo id to vote and requiring you to be a citizen or legal resident, hummm?

Widescreen
10/27/2006, 02:55 PM
Well they would and could if the dims have their way...

What's so wrong about a photo id to vote and requiring you to be a citizen or legal resident, hummm?
Because that disenfranchises them of their right to illegally vote. The dead-voter lobby is all over this issue too.

NormanPride
10/27/2006, 03:04 PM
Are we really going to spend all that money just to pile some earth in their way? You don't get the massive numbers of illegals without people helping them in. A wall will not matter at all.

Gandalf_The_Grey
10/27/2006, 03:10 PM
My theory is that in theory this is a great idea. However to quote someone alot smarter than me "Life finds a way" If they want into our country to help their family live...they will find a way. However, isn't there a certain sort of irony in the Republican/Conservative movement trying to build a wall when one of the greatest Republicans of all time stood less than 30 years ago in Berlin and was trying to tear down walls.

Vaevictis
10/27/2006, 05:47 PM
Less than 30 years ago, we also were against torture and gulags.

Stoop Dawg
10/27/2006, 06:15 PM
Because that disenfranchises them of their right to illegally vote. The dead-voter lobby is all over this issue too.

http://fixavote.com/

Widescreen
10/27/2006, 06:55 PM
My theory is that in theory this is a great idea. However to quote someone alot smarter than me "Life finds a way" If they want into our country to help their family live...they will find a way. However, isn't there a certain sort of irony in the Republican/Conservative movement trying to build a wall when one of the greatest Republicans of all time stood less than 30 years ago in Berlin and was trying to tear down walls.
That's about as apples and oranges as you can get. I've heard the same argument from the communist radicals in SanFran.

trwxxa
10/27/2006, 07:06 PM
We've sent them all of our well-paying factory jobs, what more do they wanto?

And many of those jobs have either been shipped to China, India etc. or, in the case of the U.S. auto makers, terminated all together.

Gandalf_The_Grey
10/27/2006, 07:50 PM
That's about as apples and oranges as you can get. I've heard the same argument from the communist radicals in SanFran.

Well it just seems funny that one was built for political reasons and the other they want to build is for Economic reasons. So I realize there is a difference. However a wall isnt' going to fix anything except cost us money to build. The only way it somewhat works is if the fence is electrical and kills.

SCOUT
10/27/2006, 09:29 PM
Well it just seems funny that one was built for political reasons and the other they want to build is for Economic reasons. So I realize there is a difference. However a wall isnt' going to fix anything except cost us money to build. The only way it somewhat works is if the fence is electrical and kills.

Yeah and one was built to keep people in and the other would be to keep people out. That seems like a relevant difference too.

The wall in Southern California supposedly has made some improvement. Perhaps a larger scale would provide larger results.

Gandalf_The_Grey
10/27/2006, 09:47 PM
Well that depends on how you look at it. You are a Mexican lady who wants to come to this country so her baby doesn't starve to death...suddenly that wall is built to keep in poverty(As in keep it in Mexico). However I can see how if we figured out a way to keep them there, Mexico would reform within 10 years because their people would revolt. The problem is that no matter how big they build the fence...people are going to find a way across it. The only true way to put a stop to it, is to start shooting them...and I don't suppose any of you want to see a mother and her 2 kids being shot down by our military on our own borders.

Stoop Dawg
10/27/2006, 09:56 PM
The problem is that no matter how big they build the fence...people are going to find a way across it.

I don't think the goal is to prevent even one person from crossing. I think the goal is to make it more difficult and stem the tide.


The only true way to put a stop to it, is to start shooting them...

That's pretty dramatic. I think there are reasonable measures that can make an impact that fall short of actually killing women and children. A wall/fence is one such item. Barbaric? Perhaps. But illegal immigration *is* a problem, and as you noted killing people is not an option.


Well that depends on how you look at it. You are a Mexican lady who wants to come to this country so her baby doesn't starve to death...suddenly that wall is built to keep in poverty(As in keep it in Mexico).

If we're not allowed to enforce "regime change", we should at least be able to protect our borders. Not just from military threats, but economic ones as well. You can't give the US responsibility for eliminating poverty around the world but not allow the US to take the action necessary to accomplish such a feat. (And yes, I realize that YOU didn't say or even imply such a thing. I meant the universal "you")

SCOUT
10/27/2006, 10:22 PM
Well that depends on how you look at it. You are a Mexican lady who wants to come to this country so her baby doesn't starve to death...suddenly that wall is built to keep in poverty(As in keep it in Mexico). However I can see how if we figured out a way to keep them there, Mexico would reform within 10 years because their people would revolt. The problem is that no matter how big they build the fence...people are going to find a way across it. The only true way to put a stop to it, is to start shooting them...and I don't suppose any of you want to see a mother and her 2 kids being shot down by our military on our own borders.

If I am Mexican lady who wants to come to this country so my baby doesn't starve, I should probably respect the laws of my destination country. Entering a country illegally is illegal regardless of my medical or economic condition.

It is also not the responsibility of the US to make sure every country in the world is hospitable to ensure that their citizens don't break our immigration laws.

A wall is not an absolute answer but it is certainly a deterrent. I am hoping that you are not advocating 100% open borders.

And I still think the Berlin wall comparison is very weak.

Gandalf_The_Grey
10/27/2006, 10:32 PM
In my opinion...NAFTA is the biggest problem. What we need to do is start taxing the ever lasting **** out of every company that headed south to save money. I guarentee within a year's time all of these closed Wrangler, Ethan Allen, and others that were closed would be up and running again. This would also eliminate the Mexican government getting fatter off of these cheap factories and perhaps they would start managing their affairs better.

Gandalf_The_Grey
10/27/2006, 10:38 PM
I know you think the Berlin Wall thing is weak. However, one will be built for Socio-Economic reasons and the other was built for Socio-Political reasons. I honestly believe that neither will work. Yes the wall would be a deterrent and slow them down for a week, month, heck maybe even a year. But it has become increasingly evident that in our society that we want everything RIGHT now. Instead of trying to fix an underlying problem and perhaps slowly causing the change needed to effectively fix the situation. We are going to throw up a wall that will have a short term effect. I am going to tell you, They are going to build the wall...then guess what..they are going to build ladders, and then we will build biggers walls...they will build tunnels, then we will be forced to bury barbed wire...do you see how long of a fruitless battle this could be.

TheHumanAlphabet
10/28/2006, 05:15 AM
Fixing the dropped baby citizenship issue will go a long way to prevent the immigration tide be denying anchor babies. This rule put into place in the late 1800s was designed to help fill up the country. We don't need it today and can easily take the rule away. Why the dims don't want to help fix an issue that helps continue a broken policy - I have no idea, yeah I do. It helps fosters the their power and the "dead" votes of which was spoken earlier.

Frozen Sooner
10/28/2006, 06:00 AM
You mean the granting of citizenship to anyone born in the US? Amending the Constitution isn't exactly an "easy" fix.

BudSooner
10/28/2006, 06:26 AM
I think a wall or fence would be a waste of time and money. They would just dig a tunnel under it. Climb over it, use a ladder. Best suggestion would be to lay a mine field. Put up signs ‘This is a mine field, you cross it you could die”.

Simple solution, less man power to watch; just replace a few mines every now and than.

Will we get to watch the crossings on YouTube?:O

OUinFLA
10/28/2006, 07:14 AM
they are corrupt on massive levels. they already have the means to help their citizens but it benefits them more to funnel everyone into America while packing their own pockets full.


ding, ding, ding. you are the winner of this quiz.

corruption, payoffs, bribes..........are a way of life.
even with ligetimate businessmen.

I have experienced a potential customer who would prepay with cash, want his product shipped to texas, a fake invoice for less than half of the actual value, and his proceedure would be to bribe the Mexican customs to let it through. Even though I could have shipped the product direct into Mexico City.

This business was a sideline to him, his profession was a Doctor. He even had the money to put in his own production facilities in Mexico, but didnt think he could afford the bribes necessary to build the facility, nor did he think he could find trustworthy employees (geez, now why would he think that? being the fine example he was).

I chose not to do business with him. Others in my industry did.

OUinFLA
10/28/2006, 07:32 AM
Instead of a wall, I think we should consider a "Panama Canal" between the Pacific at California, and the Gulf at Texas. Make it about 400 yards wide and 50 feet deep.

Yep, it would cost 20 gazillion, but the long term economic benefit added to the nearly uncrossable border it would create is potentially overpowering.
Besides, we could tap the cheap labor market to the south to do all the digging. Kinda like when the mob makes the future dead guy dig his own grave.

One container ship pays Panama 250K to pass through the canal that "we" built.

And imagine a "port" in Arizona, New Mexico, and west Texas. Industrial and warehouse expansion would boom. Job demand would go through the roof in those areas....................oh, wait, we'd have to import some workers.

OklahomaTuba
10/28/2006, 09:45 AM
We should have just annexed Mexico after the Mexican War.

Mexico would probably be way better off.

Okla-homey
10/28/2006, 10:00 AM
IMHO, building a new wall at the most-used crossing sites makes everyone feel better. I posit that is why Congress is doing so. Also, don't forget, this project still leaves approximately 1300 miles of our southern border un-walled.

As others here have posted, I don't think the new wall will materially stem the flow of folks struggling norte for a better life.

It will, however, be a tangible example for politicians to point at and loudly proclaim, "See, we feel your pain and have done something about it!" and that, more than anything else, is what they feel is really important. Heck, we need these people to do the crap citizens won't do.

Collosal waste of money if you ask me.

Homey's super-excellent solution? <trumpets> Sh1t-can income, payroll, estate, capital gains and social security taxes and substitute a flat ten-percent federal VAT on everything (goods and services - from candy bars to manicures to homes) that everybody buys.

No exceptions, not means-tested. Absolute. Under Homey's scheme, the legal incidence of the tax would be placed on the buyer and the money must be collected, accounted for, and submitted by the seller. That way, the illegals (and everyone else who operates on a cash basis) pay their way. The effect on the rest of us would be a win-win. Lower taxes with greater revenue for the gubmint!

Frozen Sooner
10/28/2006, 10:03 AM
Why a VAT and not a sales tax?

The only issue I have with either-and I'm not saying that I disagree with you-is that such a tax tends towards the regressive side, as people in higher income brackets tend to spend more actual dollars but a smaller percentage of their income on consumer goods.

I'm all for encouraging saving, mind you. There's just people out there who literally can't afford to save. Perhaps an exemption for food and clothing?

royalfan5
10/28/2006, 10:07 AM
In my opinion...NAFTA is the biggest problem. What we need to do is start taxing the ever lasting **** out of every company that headed south to save money. I guarentee within a year's time all of these closed Wrangler, Ethan Allen, and others that were closed would be up and running again. This would also eliminate the Mexican government getting fatter off of these cheap factories and perhaps they would start managing their affairs better.
except for that protectionism doesn't work a whole hell of a lot better than socialism. Taking that step would be incredibily inflationary, and that isn't good for anyone. Free trade is the best thing for the global community as a whole, sure some individuals will lose, but societies around the world will gain as a whole. It will then be up to the societies to help displaced workers, but protectionism isn't the answer. The United States has to compete in a global society, or accept being a declining world power.

And seriously folks, if we get rid of migrant farm workers, I don't want to hear anybody bitching about food costing more. Because it would be inflationary to food prices. Just so we're clear on that.

Okla-homey
10/28/2006, 10:18 AM
Why a VAT and not a sales tax?

The only issue I have with either-and I'm not saying that I disagree with you-is that such a tax tends towards the regressive side, as people in higher income brackets tend to spend more actual dollars but a smaller percentage of their income on consumer goods.

I'm all for encouraging saving, mind you. There's just people out there who literally can't afford to save. Perhaps an exemption for food and clothing?

Yes, the "regressive" argument can be made, but that's why we have food stamps. The only way this works is if it's absolute. Otherwise, you start down the slippery slope of making "exceptions" for all sorts of sacred cows.

Heck, I don't think it would ever happen mainly because it would wreck the sacred "mortgage interest" deduction. The residential construction industry and industries that supply it would freak. Also, the building trades (including the "home improvement" industry -- people like "Lowes" and "Home Depot" )and the vast middle class who do most of the voting in this country would be apoplectic.

Under my scheme, renting wouldn't have a tax downside. Scary!

Frozen Sooner
10/28/2006, 10:20 AM
Hm. That's a good point about the mortgage interest deduction and tax advantages to home ownership. That sounds like a decent horse trade to eliminate the income advantages.

Okla-homey
10/28/2006, 10:28 AM
Hm. That's a good point about the mortgage interest deduction and tax advantages to home ownership. That sounds like a decent horse trade to eliminate the income advantages.

Glad you agree. Problem is, you are no longer in the lending business and neither of us are homebuilders so maybe we can't accurately gauge the angst over such a proposal.

As an aside, I'm old enough to remember when credit card interest was deductible. When the federal tax code changed to disallow it, retailers went nuts because they believed it would wreck the consumer lending industry and people would stop using plastic to buy stuff. As we now know, they were wrong.

Frozen Sooner
10/28/2006, 10:29 AM
True, I'm not. The homebuilders will be doubly ****ed about a VAT, as it would impose an additional cost on their side of production.

Mixer!
10/28/2006, 01:31 PM
So what about property taxes? Stay or go?

Frozen Sooner
10/28/2006, 01:37 PM
Facemask coming up.

Or not. Please let that not be in the end zone.

Frozen Sooner
10/28/2006, 01:38 PM
Wrong thread. Oops.

Okla-homey
10/28/2006, 02:42 PM
So what about property taxes? Stay or go?

Prolly got to have property taxes which are local in order to pay for the crappy gubmint schools for the kiddies and other local services.

As far as state income tax goes, I'd favor giving the states the option to add a cent or two to the federal VAT in lieu of state income taxes under the Superexcellent Homey's Overall Tax Lowering and Illegal Immigration Remedy Plan.

Frozen Sooner
10/28/2006, 02:57 PM
I really do have to ask again, though, why a VAT instead of a sales tax? If I remember correctly, VAT taxes unsold inventory, which seems unnecessarily punitive towards business.

Frozen Sooner
10/28/2006, 02:59 PM
I really do have to ask again, though, why a VAT instead of a sales tax? If I remember correctly, VAT taxes unsold inventory, which seems unnecessarily punitive towards business.

Never mind, it doesn't. The tax is only applied on sale.

1stTimeCaller
10/28/2006, 03:19 PM
Homey, what will we do with all of these accountants that we will no longer have a use for?

Okla-homey
10/28/2006, 03:28 PM
Homey, what will we do with all of these accountants that we will no longer have a use for?

Yet another reason why the Homey plan will not be implemented. The CPA's and "HR Block" would combine forces and spread all manner of mistruths to frighten the folks.

Thus, since Congress wouldn't touch it, the Homey Plan would require a little known (or used) codicil in the US Constitution. The Congressionally-dreaded and hardly evar used Article V "Conventions" in 3/4's of the states. Thus, Congress would'nt even be able to stop it.

Vaevictis
10/29/2006, 02:33 AM
Apparently, there are smugglers that get paid as much as $5k just to smuggle people over the border.

... I say we undercut them and sell work visas to all reasonable comers -- ie, law abiding foreigners willing to pay their fair share of income taxes -- at a competitive price.

Follow it up with aggressive prosecution of businesses who hire illegal immigrants, possibly applying the same fruits-of-illegal activity principles that we apply to drug dealers.

And illegal immigrants who are caught get relatively short labor prison terms prior to deportation. (Hey, they wanted to work here, right?) We can use these for government jobs (license plates) or pimp them out as cheap workshop labor to the highest bidder.

TheHumanAlphabet
10/29/2006, 05:56 AM
You mean the granting of citizenship to anyone born in the US? Amending the Constitution isn't exactly an "easy" fix.

Not so fast my friend...Is it REALLY in the constitution as you perceived it? There is some debate about the meaning and intent... (http://federalistblog.us/2005/12/birthright_citizenship_fable.html) This is a good site.

In summary...


Ever since the subject of Congress taking up Birthright Citizenship have we seen the power of ignorance at work through the MSM. It is difficult to find any editorial or wire story that correctly gives the reader an honest and accurate historical account of the Fourteenth Amendment in regards to children born to foreign parents within the United States. Most often the media presents a fabled and inaccurate account of just what the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment means…

During the reconstruction period following the civil war the view on citizenship was that only children born to American parents owing allegiance to no other foreign power could be declared an American Citizen upon birth on U.S. soil. This is exactly the language of the civil rights bill of 1866: "All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States."…

Already before we get to the Fourteenth Amendment Citizenship Clause we have Congress declaring only children born to parents who owe no foreign allegiance shall be citizens. We also have the author of the Fourteenth Amendment declaring this as the law of the land along with the US Attorney General. It just gets worst for advocates who want to either believe or, revise history, to support their fable that the Fourteenth Amendment somehow magically makes anyone born in the United States regardless of the allegiance of their parents a natural born citizen…

You cannot simply revise he Fourteenth's Citizenship Clause to mean yes, it really was the intent of the Congress to grant citizenship to alien children born on US soil when the same Congress enacted law that did just the reverse. Try and explain why Congress would pass a Constitutional Amendment that grants citizenship to ANYONE born in the US that would in return instantly nullify their recent enacted civil rights law? Because you cannot, only leads us back to the exact construction of the clause for which it was intended and written to mean...and for which national law was based upon.

Another question arises for pro-alien birthright citizenship advocates: national law having always required direct allegiance to the United States by a child's parents before that child could be declared an American citizen -- why would a Congress who clearly acknowledged this "law of the land" want to change it and not one soul raised one voice of concern or protest to such a drastic reversal of national law?
The answer should be obvious by now: the Fourteenth Amendment did not change national law of birthright citizenship to aliens or foreigners, just as Sen. Howard confirmed.

Vaevictis
10/29/2006, 07:07 AM
According to my understanding, when the language is ambiguous, the courts will go back to the Congressional record and look at the debate.

But, look at the language in the Fourteenth Amendment.


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.

The language is not in any shape or form ambiguous.

I can't cite any cases, but I believe that it has occured before that the courts have ruled that irrespective of what Congress meant to happen, the law has said something completely different, and as such, that is how the law must be applied, and that if Congress has a problem with it, it can go back and change it.

Also, I would submit that the intent of Congress -- or even the author of the amendment -- is not the paramount consideration with respect to the interpretation of the Amendment, because Congress may propose amendments, but it is the states that ratify them. The ratifying state's understanding of the Amendment is at least as important as Congress' or the authors; I would suggest that it is far more important.

Vaevictis
10/29/2006, 07:22 AM
In so far as the "subject to the jurisdiction" argument the blog makes, I ask the following question: Is there actually a real difference in jurisdiction these days between citizens and non-citizens within the United States?

I understand the distinction between merely being present within the nation and being subjects of the nation, which may be the intended goal of the "subject to the jurisdiction" part, but we seem to have done away with most of -- if not all of -- the differences between the jurisdiction that a full citizen is subject to and the jurisdiction that a non-citizen is subject to.

(I could be wrong about that, which is why I say "it seems." Also, if you assume the "owing no allegiance to foreign powers" argument is true, are the children of dual citizens not then citizens of the USA?)

BajaOklahoma
10/29/2006, 07:44 AM
A friend of my son is a Canadian citizen, as are his parents and siblings. He is legal, green card and all. He has no intention of ever becoming a US Citizen. He is 25 years old and not in a specialized field.
As long as he doesn't cause problems, he may renew his green card forever, correct?
I'm thinking that there should be a limit on the number of years you can get a green card. Either become a Citizen or go back home.

Okla-homey
10/29/2006, 09:32 AM
A friend of my son is a Canadian citizen, as are his parents and siblings. He is legal, green card and all. He has no intention of ever becoming a US Citizen. He is 25 years old and not in a specialized field.
As long as he doesn't cause problems, he may renew his green card forever, correct?
I'm thinking that there should be a limit on the number of years you can get a green card. Either become a Citizen or go back home.

As I understand it, if he's here on some kind of visa (as it would appear from your description,) eventually that visa will expire. He will then have to reapply.

olevetonahill
10/29/2006, 10:03 AM
Homey an even simpler solution would be to just tax the hell out of toilet paper . every one wipes their azz . legal and illegal ;)

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
10/29/2006, 11:23 AM
except for that protectionism doesn't work a whole hell of a lot better than socialism. Taking that step would be incredibily inflationary, and that isn't good for anyone. Free trade is the best thing for the global community as a whole, sure some individuals will lose, but societies around the world will gain as a whole. It will then be up to the societies to help displaced workers, but protectionism isn't the answer. The United States has to compete in a global society, or accept being a declining world power.

And seriously folks, if we get rid of migrant farm workers, I don't want to hear anybody bitching about food costing more. Because it would be inflationary to food prices. Just so we're clear on that.Beauty post!

Frozen Sooner
10/29/2006, 12:24 PM
Not so fast my friend...Is it REALLY in the constitution as you perceived it? There is some debate about the meaning and intent... (http://federalistblog.us/2005/12/birthright_citizenship_fable.html) This is a good site.

In summary...

Aren't you a constructionist?

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.

I can't see any possible way to make this mean what those guys want it to mean. Congress doesn't get to pass legislation directly in opposition to a ratified amendment to the Constitution, no matter how quickly afterwards they do so.

TheHumanAlphabet
10/30/2006, 10:33 AM
There is debate on what eactly the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means. I bet that congress tried to get fnacy and appeal to everyone and ended up biting themselves in the arse. I suspect they didn't intend to have anchor babies...If you look at the wording, it appears that they wanted to give citizenship to children of people who are citizens and those going through the naturalization process, something I believe should be done. However, illegals do not get that right in my reading and understanding as they are not naturalizing...

Oh and yes, I tend to be a strict constitutionalist.

RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!
10/30/2006, 11:04 AM
Congress doesn't get to pass legislation directly in opposition to a ratified amendment to the Constitution, no matter how quickly afterwards they do so.How do you then explain the McCain-Feingold Act, now Law, restricting the first amendment?

Frozen Sooner
10/30/2006, 11:20 AM
How do you then explain the McCain-Feingold Act, now Law, restricting the first amendment?

Has it passed judicial review yet? Another case where Congress has done this is the Defense of Marriage Act.

I'm not saying that they don't DO it, I'm just saying that passing legislation contrary to the Constitution isn't really within Congress' power even though they do it every so often. That's why we need the judiciary.