Quote: (11-19-2014 10:42 PM)WD-40 Wrote:  

Quote: (11-19-2014 09:44 PM)Matt Forney Wrote:  

But they can't deport a few million illegal aliens (and retroactively strip their anchor baby children of citizenship) because, um, they just can't!

Are you sure you understand the implications of what you are suggesting here?

Denying certain American-born children birthright citizenship would already constitute a historically unprecedented reversal of the long-standing Wong Kim Ark ruling's interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment's Citizenship Clause ... but retroactively stripping birthright citizenship that has already been legally granted?!?

While there are certain countries that practice this in cases where a citizen by birthright acquires another nationality, there are only a few countries that spring to mind when it comes to having stripped birthright citizens of their citizenship even if they didn't acquire another citizenship - and those are the Soviet Union as well as- cue Godwin's law- the German Reich (pre-WWII).

The Soviet Union was notorious for stripping regime critics and dissidents of their citizenship.

In the Reich, you could be stripped of your citizenship if you refused military service, and in the Third Reich, your citizenship could also be stripped if you were Jewish and you left German territory.

I love a good troll job as much as anybody on this forum, but I am slowly beginning to worry that certain people in this thread actually believe what they are saying!

Revoking the citizenship of the children of illegal aliens is the best of a bunch of bad choices.

Think about it. There are only three ways to deal with the situation as it is:

1. Give illegal aliens amnesty, rewarding people for breaking the law, diluting the concept of U.S. citizenship, increasing poverty and ethnic strife, driving down wages for low-income Americans, and worsening an already poor economy for no other reason than "We don't want to break up families!" and "What about the CHIIILLLDDDRRREEENNN???!!!11"
2. Deport the illegal aliens only, leaving their children behind to grow up without their parents in foster homes and/or on the government teat, which is inhumane, will lead to dysfunctional upbringings and will further strain government resources.
3. Strip the kiddies of their citizenship and send them packing with mommy and daddy, which will thrust them into an unfamiliar culture, but at least they'll stay with their families and have a helping hand in acclimating to the society they should have been born into.

This womanish, emotion-driven thinking is part of why this country is going down the tubes. Yes, it sucks to rip kids out of the only culture they've ever known, but tough shit: mami and papi should have never been allowed here to begin with and any kids they had should never have been granted citizenship. Canada, Ireland, and other countries have been restricting/eliminating jus soli precisely because immigrants have been abusing it in the same way they do here.

A nation has to make hard choices if it wants to survive. You can either live in a prosperous first-world country or you can continue arguing that the children of criminals deserve special privileges. You can't have both.

Quote: (11-19-2014 11:13 PM)MidWest Wrote:  

.I can know Spanish now, but history has shown us that my son will probably know a little Spanish and his son will know no Spanish and so on. My father taught me Spanish as a kid, but its still not as good as his. The language gets lost as time goes by.

Your son will have to speak Spanish if he wants to procreate with a pleasant woman.

He'll learn it one way or another.

^^ @Forney *slow clap*

This isn't the fucking Brady Bunch someone's feelings may get hurt.

Quote: (11-19-2014 11:27 PM)Matt Forney Wrote:  

mami and papi should have never been allowed here to begin with and any kids they had should never have been granted citizenship. Canada, Ireland, and other countries have been restricting/eliminating jus soli precisely because immigrants have been abusing it in the same way they do here.

Passing a law to restrict jus soli going forward is a legitimate discussion to have, and IMO a totally different ballgame than changing the rules retroactively and stripping innocent people of their birthright citizenship validly granted under previous law.

I write this before reading the posts before me in this thread. I do this because I do not desire that any here think that I am altering my views to favor whatever the majority of the forum supports. So I will not know the views of the forum until this posts has been made. Any word I write in this post are not made in jest. I do not write them lightly. Indeed it pains me greatly to live in a world where I must comment on the erosion of liberty in my nation.

The President has to all effects declared war upon the Congress of the United States. He has taken upon himself the powers of a king, and the mantle of a tyrant. The President cannot legally override any law or part of a law that has been legally made. His powers are Constitutionally restricted to Executing laws. Executive orders are meant only to affect the executive branch of government and assist in carrying out his Constitutional duties.

The great argument of the President's supporters is that Bush Jr. and many other Presidents have expanded the powers of their office . That may be so, and if those tyrants were afflicting the nation today I would speak against them with the same righteous fury I do against the current. None of the Presidents before now have acted with such disdain for the Congress, or so obviously disregarded the Constitution. Some will say Regan offered amnesty, but he did only with regards to a law passed by Congress.

A government ruled by decree is by its very nature authoritarian. Such a style of ruling was to have gone out from this land with the triumph of the Revolution. That it is has returned now with such seeming inevitability and we have not even the honor to know that we were bested in manly war before shackled into the chains of servitude causes me to weep. That we were not allow to manfully contest it causes me more pain than the harshest bondage.

They will say that there were many Presidents before Obama who abused their powers and that is so. They will rue their words one day. For even as there were many Presidents before Obama there were many tyrants before Caesar. It was many a Marius and Sulla who trampled upon the rights of good Romans before Caesar tore the foundations of the Republic to ruin, and was cheered by the people as he did so.

It is the Duty of Congress to hold this President accountable for his crimes against the nation. Were they worthy of their positions they would declare the President an Enemy of the United States and raise the legions against him as the Roman Senate did of old against Caesar. But our representatives seem to be made of far weaker mettle than the Ciceros' and Brutiis' of old.

I saddens me to say, but we are in the twilight of the Republic. We are entering the long dark of the Empire.

I do not despair though, and I will never cease the fight. For I believe with all my heart in the words of Patrick Henry "Is life so sweet or liberty so dear as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it Almighty God! I know not what course others may take but as for myself, Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death!

Anyone else notice how we talk about going around the entire planet in search of bettering ourselves, but when people want to come to the US to better themselves a lot of the dudes here get angry.

Half my family came here illegally from Ireland, got rejected and came across the Canadian border into North Dakota. Should I self deport to Ireland?

Ezekiel 18:20

Quote:Quote:

The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity.

Quote: (11-19-2014 11:40 PM)Osiris Wrote:  

Half my family came here illegally from Ireland, got rejected and came across the Canadian border into North Dakota. Should I self deport to Ireland?

If it were up to guys like scorpion, he'd already have you on a plane out:

Quote:scorpion Wrote:

if it was up to me I would pass a retroactive grandfather law. If you can't provide proof that your grandparents were born in the United States or that your parents or grandparents immigrated here legally, you're no longer a citizen and face deportation.

I don't think a restricted jus soli where a US-born child with two foreign national parents would only receive US citizenship if, say, both parents can prove that they are legal residents would be inherently problematic - though implementing it would require significant changes to US citizenship law.

But calling for such a rule to be applied retroactively to people that are already US citizens is definitely opening the gates of evil.

Quote: (11-19-2014 11:40 PM)Osiris Wrote:  

Anyone else notice how we talk about going around the entire planet in search of bettering ourselves, but when people want to come to the US to better themselves a lot of the dudes here get angry.

That's not accurate. I don't think anyone here blames people for trying to improve their lives by coming to the US. They just don't think they should just be allowed to come here illegally and abuse what's basically a loophole in the law in order to stay.

Saying they should be given amnesty because they're just trying to better themselves is like saying theft should be forgiven because some people are stealing food to feed their families.

Osiris your fine because you look white haha..Seriously I suspect that a lot of people get so upset because these people look different and they can not understand them. Just my .02...

It's funny because this country is based on a set of ideals and a belief that through hard work anything is possible. Plenty of people that meet Scorpion's criteria do not embrace or possess any of the qualities that this country was built on.

I would prefer to have it be based on some merit test. Kick out everyone that is useless.

I think it's a slap in the face of legal immigrants who have to go through a million loopholes to live in America.

Typically these legal immigrants are highly educated, earn high incomes, pay taxes, and have low crime rates.

Asian Americans have it bad especially, they are actively discriminated against in admissions and suffer from affirmative action-

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/201...nst-asians

However, America has to take some responsibility, it's the nation's appetite for drugs and drug policy that's driving the cartels which are making some parts of Mexico war zones. That's a major issue, and if its between being killed in the crossfire of a cartel war, or illegally immigrating to America, it's pretty clear what the better option is.

Quote: (11-19-2014 11:40 PM)Osiris Wrote:  

Anyone else notice how we talk about going around the entire planet in search of bettering ourselves, but when people want to come to the US to better themselves a lot of the dudes here get angry.

I think the fundamental difference here is that most of us aren't going to these places penniless competing with the existing underclass, demanding handouts, preparing to drop 5 illegitimate kids, and forming violent street gangs to commit crimes.

Quote: (11-19-2014 11:27 PM)Matt Forney Wrote:  

Revoking the citizenship of the children of illegal aliens is the best of a bunch of bad choices.

It's some seriously fucked up crazy shit talk and you know it full well.

Let's boil it down again: revoking people's citizenship for crimes they didn't commit- this is really what you are talking about here. It's sick shit.

^^ We drop money in those places, often times in their currency serious money.

They come here and send money back home.

Quote: (11-20-2014 12:09 AM)El Chinito loco Wrote:  

I think the fundamental difference here is that most of us aren't going to these places penniless competing with the existing underclass, demanding handouts, preparing to drop 5 illegitimate kids, and forming violent street gangs to commit crimes.

Do you think all 5 million will do that?

^ Pick a random 3 bag of those 4. Your odds are lookin' good.

A lot of people have been pushing the argument that "Latinos will assimilate just like the Irish and Italians did!" and "America has taken in immigrants before and things turned out just fine!"

Allow me to advance a radical counter-argument: maybe the Irish, Italian and other immigrant groups shouldn't have been allowed to come here either.

The history of how European Catholic immigrants---and their political handlers---made America poorer and more corrupt in the 1800's has been completely erased from common knowledge. For example, everyone knows Tammany Hall as the corrupt Democratic political machine that ran New York (city and state) from the 1850's up to the Great Depression. What you don't know is that Tammany Hall maintained power through buying the votes of immigrants and white ethnics (Irish, Italians, Poles etc.) through patronage, graft and gimmedats. Sound familiar? Pretty much every other major Northern city (Chicago, Boston etc.) was controlled by machines who played the exact same game.

Tammany Hall was swept from power in the 1930's only because Fiorello LaGuardia, Thomas Dewey and other Republicans forged an electoral alliance with the crypto-communist American Labor Party, since there weren't enough Republicans in NYC to win on their own. Let me repeat that: a Democratic political machine powered by immigrant and ethnic votes was so powerful that the GOP had to ally with COMMUNISTS to get them out of office. Additionally, the anti-Tammany Republicans were supported by FDR; even the national Democrats had gotten sick of Tammany's antics. I'd argue that the immigration reforms passed in the 1920's also helped crush ethnic political machines by drying up their supply of potential votes and forcing the remaining ethnics to assimilate.

Not only that, as Jim Goad wrote in The Redneck Manifesto, corporations have been using immigrants to drive down wages and dilute the power of organized labor since the 19th century. During the Industrial Revolution, coal-mining companies, railroads and other corporations promoted immigration as a way to break the power of unions and ensure themselves a never-ending supply of scabs who would work for next to nothing.

Labor is a commodity, and like all commodities, it's subject to the law of supply and demand. By flooding the country with immigrants (workers), the price of labor (wages) goes down and vice versa. Labor laws and minimum wages can mitigate this somewhat, but there's no escaping the basic laws of economics. This is why in places where labor is scarce, such as North Dakota and Alaska, wages are higher than the national average. This is why unions such as the AFL-CIO used to viciously oppose immigration.

I imagine most of the pro-amnesty/pro-immigrant folks here are of a leftist bent, meaning you support unions, workers' rights and a higher minimum wage. Agitating for workers' rights while supporting adding 20 million workers to the labor pool is like trying to heal a broken leg by shooting yourself in the head. Every amnesty/immigration proponent is a tool for increased corporate power and wealth inequality, and most of them don't even know it.

The Ellis Island mythology is just that: a lie. Your "legal" immigrant ancestors came here for exactly one reason: to make the rich richer and the poor poorer. Immigration restriction in the 1920's was part of what made the "American Dream" and the middle-class prosperity of the post-World War II era possible. If corporations get their way (and thanks to the idiocy of the modern left, they will), your children will be just as poor and living in just as much squalor as the ethnics of the Gilded Age.

Viva la Estados Unidos de America!

Quote: (11-20-2014 12:04 AM)Saladin Wrote:  

Asian Americans have it bad especially, they are actively discriminated against in admissions and suffer from affirmative action-

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/201...nst-asians

I go to a school where 40% of the student body is Asian. Only 6% is Black and 4% Latino and the rest is white. Schools in California have very similar student body demographics. Affirmative action? Please!!

^^ Finally a clear thought on why immigration is not always good and never was always good.

Only people allowed in should pass strict requirements.

Quote: (11-20-2014 12:14 AM)WD-40 Wrote:  

Quote: (11-19-2014 11:27 PM)Matt Forney Wrote:  

Revoking the citizenship of the children of illegal aliens is the best of a bunch of bad choices.

It's some seriously fucked up crazy shit talk and you know it full well.

Let's boil it down again: revoking people's citizenship for crimes they didn't commit- this is really what you are talking about here. It's sick shit.

What's your solution? Do we deport illegal aliens and leave their kids to grow up in foster homes or at the mercy of Social Services? Do we grant amnesty to everyone hoping that that will solve the problem (the logic that Reagan used when he signed amnesty into law, and shocker, it didn't work).

Seriously, I'd like an answer that doesn't consist of girlish emoting.

@Midwest

Asians I have known complain how hard it is to get into Berkeley, UCLA, UCI, UCSD etc... even if their grades are stellar due to so many high achieving Asians.

An Asian struggling to get into UCI would be a Hispanic kid getting into Berkely with flying colors.

Quote: (11-20-2014 12:18 AM)Matt Forney Wrote:  

A lot of people have been pushing the argument that "Latinos will assimilate just like the Irish and Italians did!" and "America has taken in immigrants before and things turned out just fine!"

Allow me to advance a radical counter-argument: maybe the Irish, Italian and other immigrant groups shouldn't have been allowed to come here either.

I don't think that is radical at all. Most Americans at the time agreed and marched in the streets until the laws were changed to keep the ethnics out. Basically that 30 year window (1890-1920) was America's first experience of large scale immigration from outside the wealthy Northern European countries. The idea that America has a long history of importing the uneducated lower classes from around the world is a complete myth.

Quote: (11-20-2014 12:16 AM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  

Quote: (11-20-2014 12:09 AM)El Chinito loco Wrote:  

I think the fundamental difference here is that most of us aren't going to these places penniless competing with the existing underclass, demanding handouts, preparing to drop 5 illegitimate kids, and forming violent street gangs to commit crimes.

Do you think all 5 million will do that?

You don't need all doing that just many or a lot for it to be a net drag on society. Not to mention this creates a bad policy precedent and there is a large foreign population with a significant underclass sharing a landborder.

When you witness entire neighborhoods deteriorate right before your eyes in the LA area or other parts of CA it's quite different. It becomes a serious reality.

Both Republicans and Democrats want citizenship for the 10 million undocumented migrants and also a large-scale guest worker program, but pushback from voters has limited their ability to enact that legislation.

I really question why, in the midst of a painful recession with high unemployment, we should bring in large numbers of foreign guest workers to compete against American workers.

Quote: (11-20-2014 12:14 AM)WD-40 Wrote:  

Quote: (11-19-2014 11:27 PM)Matt Forney Wrote:  

Revoking the citizenship of the children of illegal aliens is the best of a bunch of bad choices.

It's some seriously fucked up crazy shit talk and you know it full well.

Let's boil it down again: revoking people's citizenship for crimes they didn't commit- this is really what you are talking about here. It's sick shit.

Yeah, I'm 100% in favor of ending all future citizenship for the children of illegals, but this talk of revoking people's citizenship who already were born with it and been here all their lives is tin foil hat talk.

That's never going to happen in a million years anyway so it amounts to nothing but mental masturbation.