Anchor babies

[woolfe9999]

Bullshit. You said "since 51-49 is pretty clear." In fact, it's not a clear decision either way.


You have no reason to be "scared" of someone sponsoring their parents. Whether it's fiscally responsible on a large scale is another matter. Old people tend to use infrastructure and social services and not put anything into them. It's one thing if they've been paying taxes all their lives.


Ok, I must have misunderstood you. You think that those who are for changing the 14th amendment are xenophobic bigots but you think those who want to crackdown on illegals generally are nice people of all colors? Riiiight...

I think what's bolded is what First disagrees with. He said quite clearly that he knows it happens but claims there is no evidence of it happening on a large scale. It being on a "large scale" is sort of critical to your argument so it probably needs to be established who is correct on that point.

 

[Infohawk]

I think what's bolded is what First disagrees with. He said quite clearly that he knows it happens but claims there is no evidence of it happening on a large scale. It being on a "large scale" is sort of critical to your argument so it probably needs to be established who is correct on that point.

There's a couple different lines of discussion going on here.

The sponsoring parents thing is going on on a large scale in this country.

And "large scale" is not critical to my argument about vacation babies. I've already explained that it's not fair to people who use the lottery system. And even if it's not as massive a loss of money as some other areas doesn't mean it's not worth addressing.

 

[woolfe9999]

There's a couple different lines of discussion going on here.

The sponsoring parents thing is going on on a large scale in this country.

And "large scale" is not critical to my argument about vacation babies. I've already explained that it's not fair to people who use the lottery system. And even if it's not as massive a loss of money as some other areas doesn't mean it's not worth addressing.

Scale and scope are always an issue, especially if you're going to argue an economic or "fiscal" impact. Sure, from a moral perspective even one single case can be objectionable, but there's an awful lot of attention paid to this issue IF it isn't on a "large scale."

"Sponsoring parents" may be going on in "large scale," but that isn't the same thing as "vacation babies," which is quite obviously a subset.

- wolf

 

[Infohawk]

but there's an awful lot of attention paid to this issue IF it isn't on a "large scale."

So you're upset people are talking about it? I don't really know what to say. We shouldn't discuss something until something becomes a huge problem? Anyway this is something we're going to be seeing more of as more and more people can afford a trip to the US.

 

[Svnla]

...... Only people who really support amendment are old white people, .......It's fringe right-wing stuff.

Speak for yourself.

<<---- young, non white Independent LEGAL immigrant and always supports sensible LEGAL immigration, not the current open border for the hordes of invaders mess that we are having now, and there are plenty of LEGAL immigrants around that agree with me.

 

[woolfe9999]

So you're upset people are talking about it? I don't really know what to say. We shouldn't discuss something until something becomes a huge problem? Anyway this is something we're going to be seeing more of as more and more people can afford a trip to the US.

It's funny, because I agree with your opinions more often than not, but man you really have a penchant for straw manning and goal post shifting. Just like First didn't say that this never occurs, which you claimed he did, I never said that it isn't appropriate to discuss the matter. I am trying to establish that there is no evidence that this occurs on a large scale, or at least that none has been adduced in this thread. And I rather think the scale of it does matter. If you want to talk about it as a moral concern or for whatever reason, fine. But economic arguments are being bandied about, to wit, your own:

You have no reason to be "scared" of someone sponsoring their parents. Whether it's fiscally responsible on a large scale is another matter. Old people tend to use infrastructure and social services and not put anything into them. It's one thing if they've been paying taxes all their lives.

"Large scale" here is begging the very question that First actually raised, isn't it?

I am contributing to this discussion, not trying to stiffle it, and my point stands.

- wolf

 

[Infohawk]

It's funny, because I agree with your opinions more often than not, but man you really have a penchant for straw manning and goal post shifting. Just like First didn't say that this never occurs, which you claimed he did, I never said that it isn't appropriate to discuss the matter.

Straw man? Maybe I just misunderstood you when you said: "but there's an awful lot of attention paid to this issue IF it isn't on a "large scale." So let's say it isn't on a large scale, aren't you saying there's an awful lot of attention paid to this issue? What else do you mean by that other than you think there's too much attention?

I am trying to establish that there is no evidence that this occurs on a large scale, or at least that none has been adduced in this thread.

Okay, let's say vacation babies is not large scale.

And I rather think the scale of it does matter.

It's still a net loss to taxpayers when these students come back to get their subsidized higher education and then sponsor their extended family here who have never paid taxes in America. A little bit of a waste of money is still a waste of money.

If you want to talk about it as a moral concern or for whatever reason, fine.

I do. Is it really fine? Because it seems like that's not good enough for you.

I am contributing to this discussion, not trying to stiffle it, and my point stands.
- wolf

So far you haven't added anything. All you've done is make me rehash things that might be more clear to you if you hadn't try to jump into a discussion that spans two threads and many posts with First. You seem to be confused about my statement about sponsoring extended family. I was addressing immigration generally. That was not limited to vacation babies. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear but you haven't "got me" on anything.

 

[Freshgeardude]

Anchor babies is just one of the many political debates today that no matter what, won't change.

None of these make or break elections on their own.

Toss it up with abortion rights and tax loopholes.

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

14th amendment won't ever be changed, that's pie in the sky, it's supported by Americans and especially Hispanics, who will comprise 1 in 3 people in the U.S. by 2050. Only people who really support amendment are old white people, who will be long gone soon enough. It's like Roe v. Wade being repealed. It's fringe right-wing stuff.

i cannot begin to imagine america in 2050.
unfortunately i'll still be alive for it.

 

[Macamus Prime]

Shoot them.

All of them,.... YEEEEEEEEEE-HAAAAAAAAAWWWWW!!!!!

 

[her209]

Right. Time is now before it's too late to save America.

Save America from what?

 

[piasabird]

We should bill Mexico for every live birth and deport them both to the southern tip of Mexico. Either that or the southern tip of South America.

Another Idea I have is to relocate them all to Alaska. They can work in a mine with hand tools till they die for free.

 

[OutHouse]

Heh. We wouldn't have needed the 14th amendment if Southern Conservatives hadn't insisted on keeping black people as slaves...

http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/politicalcartoons/ig/Political-Cartoons/Take-America-Back.htm

??????? By 1868 there were no slaves. So how did white southerns inscist on keeping slaves?

You really have no idea why thr 14th was established do you?

 

[BoomerD]

??????? By 1868 there were no slaves. So how did white southerns inscist on keeping slaves?

You really have no idea why thr 14th was established do you?

Just so he understands...

Its Citizenship Clause provides a broad definition of citizenship that overruled the decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which held that blacks could not be citizens of the United States.

Section 1 formally defines citizenship and protects a person's civil and political rights from being abridged or denied by any state. This represented the Congress's overruling of the Dred Scott decision's ruling that black people were not, and could not become, citizens of the United States or enjoy any of the privileges and immunities of citizenship.[1] The Civil Rights Act of 1866 had already granted U.S. citizenship to all persons born in the United States, as long as those persons were not subject to a foreign power; the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment added this principle into the Constitution to prevent the Supreme Court from ruling the Civil Rights Act of 1866 to be unconstitutional for lack of congressional authority to enact such a law and to prevent a future Congress from altering it by a mere majority vote.

This section was also in response to the Black Codes that southern states had passed in the wake of the Thirteenth Amendment, which ended slavery in the United States.[2] Those laws attempted to return freed slaves to something like their former condition by, among other things, restricting their movement, forcing them to enter into year-long labor contracts, prohibiting them from owning firearms, and by preventing them from suing or testifying in court.[3]

Finally, this section was in response to violence against black people within the southern states. A Joint Committee on Reconstruction found that only a Constitutional amendment could protect black people's rights and welfare within those states.[4]

For more info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

 

[First]

Bullshit. You said "since 51-49 is pretty clear." In fact, it's not a clear decision either way.

I'm sorry to tell you, but the numbers are clear and the odds of it being majority support in the other direction, in that poll, is against you. It's small.

You have no reason to be "scared" of someone sponsoring their parents. Whether it's fiscally responsible on a large scale is another matter. Old people tend to use infrastructure and social services and not put anything into them. It's one thing if they've been paying taxes all their lives.

Please cite numbers showing sponsored parents of immigrants cost more than they put in or that the scale of this is anywhere near "fiscally irresponsible". I'm anxious for your response.

Ok, I must have misunderstood you. You think that those who are for changing the 14th amendment are xenophobic bigots but you think those who want to crackdown on illegals generally are nice people of all colors? Riiiight...

They're two different discussions. One is about cracking down on illegals (something we aren't discussing, maybe you and other people are), while the topic of this thread was about the 14th amendment, which goes further than just cracking down on illegals by outcasting children from U.S. citizenship despite having no control over their parent's decisions.

 

[nixium]

Speak for yourself.

<<---- young, non white Independent LEGAL immigrant and always supports sensible LEGAL immigration, not the current open border for the hordes of invaders mess that we are having now, and there are plenty of LEGAL immigrants around that agree with me.

Agree ++++

 

[finglobes]

It's telling that more recent laws could botch up the meaning of an amendment when the authors own words explain it:<br><br>


"Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."


Constitutional Scholar explains what 14th means and how it went wrong


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czHjtJuu3s4