More states may target birthright citizenship..aka..Anchor babies

[Fern]

If you're here you are subject to the jurisdiction. Well almost everyone, diplomats excluded which is why it was inserted.

As an accountant you should know this. Try with an illegal client and tell IRS "he's not subject to your jurisdiction"

Well, since you bring it up (and I almost added this bit yesterday) -

Illegal aliens have a judictional difference under tax law. While citizens and green cards are automatically subject to US tax on world-wide income (we can and do tax thier income from foreign countries), that's not the case with illegal aliens. We generally don't have the jurisdiction to tax their foreign earnings.

Fern

 

[HumblePie]

Just to be a bit of a douche, as I really don't care about this topic in one way or another, but its very easy to leave the law as is and still "solve" the anchor baby problem. "How humblepie?" is what you might be thinking of my too good to be true solution. Let me break it down.

The law states that all persons BORN in the US are US citizens. It's plain, simple, and clear cut. So how does one circumvent this law? Easy, don't let them be born here.

But how do you prevent them from being born in the US? Easy, when the pregnant parents come to a US hospital to have a baby and can't provide proof of citizenship, send them to the shed outback designated as NON US SOIL. Give it away to some other sovereignty. Problem solved. We have embassies of other countries here that are not considered US soil anymore, and vice versa. We have laws setup just for these particular cases.

So if states want to still be legal and not change the constitution? Do what I said, just make sure wherever they are born is not considered part of the US. Once they are born they are illegal, and it is easy to then just deport them all.

 

[werepossum]

Well, since you bring it up (and I almost added this bit yesterday) -

Illegal aliens have a judictional difference under tax law. While citizens and green cards are automatically subject to US tax on world-wide income (we can and do tax thier income from foreign countries), that's not the case with illegal aliens. We generally don't have the jurisdiction to tax their foreign earnings.

Fern

True. There are many jurisdictional differences between illegal aliens and legal aliens or citizens. But that only works on their American-born offspring if it's applied in a circular fashion, i.e. we declare these people are not citizens, so there are differences.

I'd love to say children of illegals are not automatically citizens, I just can't read the Constitution that way. I'm totally in favor of amending the Constitution to say what I think it should say, and totally against pretending the Constitution already says it.

 

[Steeplerot]

The whole assumption you all are making that Mexicans are coming to squat and have kids who get citizenship is bullshit in reality and law. This is why people think you all are mislead once again into showing what discriminatory assholes a segment of Americans can be if fed garbage that fits a segments rather paranoid worldview.

 

[chucky2]

It doesn't matter if they're purposefully coming to squat or not. The fact is they're either bringing kids, and/or, going to have kids. When you let in 13 Million (or however many multiple millions we've let, and continue to let, in) illegals, somewhere around 1/2 are going to be pumping out babies. Worse, they're not pumping out babies at 1 per woman, they're bringing and/or pumping out more than 2.

All those become citizens. Along with the illegals that are never kicked out.

Then those 3, 4, 5 kids all have 2, 3, 4 kids of their own.

Exactly why would anyone that already lives here ever want to see that happening? Why create more congestion and resource drain, which is already an issue, or fastly becoming a major issue.

 

[Infohawk]

Red and Earl, not sure why you think the French have big families either now or traditionally. They have a low birth rate. Sure, birth control and catholocism have something to do with it but the biggest factor is being from a ghetto poor counry. France and Austria were not ghetto and poor during the history of the US. Ireland was. Mexico has always been. Poor people tend to have higher birth rates and emmigration rates.

Anyway, do you dispute that Mexicans have a higher birth rate? Who cares if other groups have been accused of the same things in the past? That's not the issue. The issue is that they're now an entrenched group and no change in citizenship rules is going to change that. We'll all see how their immigration turns out in the long run. The current problems with southwestern states don't seem to be a good indicator though.

 

[Steeplerot]

It doesn't matter if they're purposefully coming to squat or not. The fact is they're either bringing kids, and/or, going to have kids. When you let in 13 Million (or however many multiple millions we've let, and continue to let, in) illegals, somewhere around 1/2 are going to be pumping out babies. Worse, they're not pumping out babies at 1 per woman, they're bringing and/or pumping out more than 2.

All those become citizens. Along with the illegals that are never kicked out.

Then those 3, 4, 5 kids all have 2, 3, 4 kids of their own.

Exactly why would anyone that already lives here ever want to see that happening? Why create more congestion and resource drain, which is already an issue, or fastly becoming a major issue.

America was indebted to immigration for her settlement and prosperity. That part of America which had encouraged them most had advanced most rapidly in population, agriculture and the arts.
-James Madison


It is always the same argument since the beginning and America always gets stronger despite. But having second class citizens running around is not good for anyone. (But the wealthy)

 

[Steeplerot]

Red and Earl, not sure why you think the French have big families either now or traditionally. They have a low birth rate. Sure, birth control and catholocism have something to do with it but the biggest factor is being from a ghetto poor counry. France and Austria were not ghetto and poor during the history of the US. Ireland was. Mexico has always been. Poor people tend to have higher birth rates and emmigration rates.

Anyway, do you dispute that Mexicans have a higher birth rate? Who cares if other groups have been accused of the same things in the past? That's not the issue. The issue is that they're now an entrenched group and no change in citizenship rules is going to change that. We'll all see how their immigration turns out in the long run. The current problems with southwestern states don't seem to be a good indicator though.

People are not disputing anything, it is plain science that socio economic classes on a lower scale have more children. In this country it has always gone down considerably since Social Security. (no need for as many kids to take care of you -more children already survive to adulthood)

You assimilate a group and it stabilizes the population. It is human nature. Second class citizens and newer migrants tend to isolate at the fringes.

The thing about USA's strength is we have always taken in large groups and let them work to make it with opportunity for all.

Unfortunately the other side is always there hiding behind nativist arguments looking to divide Americans because as always :

The rich require an abundant supply of the poor. - Voltaire

 

[chucky2]

America was indebted to immigration for her settlement and prosperity. That part of America which had encouraged them most had advanced most rapidly in population, agriculture and the arts.
-James Madison


It is always the same argument since the beginning and America always gets stronger despite. But having second class citizens running around is not good for anyone. (But the wealthy)

That's nice, but that was then, and this is now. Then they had unlimited space, natural resources (until they/we started consuming them all), and a need for everyone who could work.

Today we have none of that: We don't have unlimited land around our major metro areas, we have gridlock/hugely expensive infrastructre to reduce gridlock. We don't have unlimited natural resources, we consume a f*ckton - much/most of it not easily replaceable once consumed. We don't have the need for millions of immigrants, if anything, we have way too many legal workers for the work that needs to be done.

Comparing our past to the present is useless: It's not in any way the same situation.

Chuck

 

[Steeplerot]

That's nice, but that was then, and this is now. Then they had unlimited space, natural resources (until they/we started consuming them all), and a need for everyone who could work.

Today we have none of that: We don't have unlimited land around our major metro areas, we have gridlock/hugely expensive infrastructre to reduce gridlock. We don't have unlimited natural resources, we consume a f*ckton - much/most of it not easily replaceable once consumed. We don't have the need for millions of immigrants, if anything, we have way too many legal workers for the work that needs to be done.

Comparing our past to the present is useless: It's not in any way the same situation.

Chuck

Same disproven arguments as back in the day, did you know in the 1920 Los Angeles county said they had reached "critical saturation" of 100,000 registered of those new-fangled auto-mobiles? There are something like 11 million now just in the county alone.

As far as the overpopulation aspect, this is silly, we use so little of our land in the US lower 48. What we do use densely is very outdated as far as urban planning. You seem to be interested in the subject, you should look into it in your local area. That is a very important aspect of future for the US. It also ties directly into the critical problem of fuel you speak of after.

Scientists say the human race with the pace of technology is fine until about 20 trillion carrying capacity. About until we need to hit up Mars or another solar system or something.

We have time still if people think farther then the next quarter.


It could be perfectly feasible to feed the whole planet a good diet. Even now -if we were so inclined as a species.

 

[chucky2]

I'm not worried about feeding the planet, just the US. I'm not worried about housing the entire planet, just those currently - and legally - in the US. I'm not worried about restructuring entire metropolitan areas just so we can cram as many immigrants - legal and illegal - into the US as possible so they can be happy.

The short is, it takes anywhere from an hour to two hours just right now for millions of commuters - that's not getting better as tons more people are added. Water tables are down significantly in just 100 years - where will that water that took many (as in thousands of) years to collect come from once we have even more people living in the same area? How about energy and material consumption? Increased urban sprawl?

Doubling down while having basically no realistic solutions for these problems - at the current population levels no less - is foolhardy.

All for what?

So people that aren't even in this country, and/or, in this country <edit>illegally</edit>, can be happy?

Sorry...their happiness is not our problem, it's theirs.

Chuck

 

[Orignal Earl]

Red and Earl, not sure why you think the French have big families either now or traditionally. They have a low birth rate. Sure, birth control and catholocism have something to do with it but the biggest factor is being from a ghetto poor counry. France and Austria were not ghetto and poor during the history of the US. Ireland was. Mexico has always been. Poor people tend to have higher birth rates and emmigration rates.

Anyway, do you dispute that Mexicans have a higher birth rate? Who cares if other groups have been accused of the same things in the past? That's not the issue. The issue is that they're now an entrenched group and no change in citizenship rules is going to change that. We'll all see how their immigration turns out in the long run. The current problems with southwestern states don't seem to be a good indicator though.

I grew up around a lot of French who had HUGE families.
Mexicans have a higher birth rate then who? Americans?
I guess that will depend on whether the Americans were originally from Ireland, Mexico, or France, and if they are Catholic, Muslim, or Jewish.
Lol
So did you find a legit site to back up your claims of who breeds the most?

 

[Zebo]

It is always the same argument since the beginning and America always gets stronger despite.

lol every metric is we are getting weaker.

 

[Steeplerot]

Increased urban sprawl?

The short is, it takes anywhere from an hour to two hours just right now for millions of commuters - that's not getting better as tons more people are added.

This is addressed by cutting down on suburban sprawl which is a long term drain. Trends are showing people moving back into the cities nowadays with higher gas prices.

Companies could simply work together for a big picture while developing areas that have public transit and even so simple a thing as strategically located shopping areas within walking distance cuts down on energy use considerably. We are stuck in stuck in a oil mindset but this is only still happening by corruption of the government by the big energy industries (and the industries incompetence). Sooner or later (sooner hopefully) big energy will adapt or people will move on to something else.

Water tables are down significantly in just 100 years - where will that water that took many (as in thousands of) years to collect come from once we have even more people living in the same area? How about energy and material consumption?

You can buy your answer today, nuke powered!
http://www.rdwaterpower.com/pipelines/portable-nuclear-power-desalination-plants/

Doubling down while having basically no realistic solutions for these problems - at the current population levels no less - is foolhardy.

If we really want to get serious after mass desalinization of our own oceans which will of course only last so long -we have plenty of hydrogen in this very solar system to harvest. (just think how much the liberals will hate the giant private water shipping corporation barges floating through space!)
We are getting 75-100 years from now as you mentioned. But not unrealistic when you say we are doomed, we will carry on.