Repubs say they want to end birthright citizenship - bye, bye, 2016 election

[Cozarkian]

You're still woefully confused. Nowhere was the legal residency of the Chinese parents a determining factor in the 1898 Wong ruling. The actual Supreme Court justices didn't consider it. Get it? I don't know how I can be clearer to you.

Ah, now I see the problem. You don't understand that cases can be distinguished by their facts and are not binding precedent on issues of law that the court does not need and is not asked to resolve.

 

[Victorian Gray]

So, no solution then. Got it.

you have a solution for punching straw?

 

[Victorian Gray]

Don't you ever get tires of posting nothing? No answers, no questions, no debate. You're just a twitterhead, living 140 characters at a time.

1) never had a twitter account

2 What's to answer/question/debate when all you post are references to various creatures constructed from straw?

American borders are not wide open. No one is calling for wide open borders or unfettered immigration. All that shit is just that, shit.

Come back to the real world and there might actually be room for an honest discussion.

 

[nixium]

1) never had a twitter account

2 What's to answer/question/debate when all you post are references to various creatures constructed from straw?

American borders are not wide open. No one is calling for wide open borders or unfettered immigration. All that shit is just that, shit.

Come back to the real world and there might actually be room for an honest discussion.

IIRC, the last CIR attempt (2013), had the CBO predicting illegal immigration to only decrease by 30% - 50%, while increasing legal immigration numbers by having a lot of cap-free provisions. For example, graduate STEM degree holders (foreign students) were not subject to cap. Although they eliminated the diversity visa quota and adult siblings of US Citizens quota, there was overall increase, I believe.

 

[First]

I missed that post of yours in the other thread. Anyway we'll have to agree to disagree, again. There are many classes of people who would be deemed "second class citizens" and yet there are no problems with them. Convicted felons can't vote in some cases, legal immigrants on a green card can't vote, people on work visas, after declaring immigration intent, can't vote. Same for illegals. I just don't see what disaster will happen if they don't get these rights. On the contrary, I can clearly see that providing voting rights = vote bank for the party that does so. That alone is enough to prevent this.

Huh? Convicted felons not being able to vote is hotly debated, and certainly can (and should) be changed by Congress if they meet certain requirements. They are indeed 2nd class citizens. I'm not sure how you can even debate this.

Two, there are good reasons to not give enfranchisement to certain types of immigrants immediately, as it's part of a temporary process that ideally is completed in 20 years or less. You're not relegated to 2nd class status by not being able to vote in the meantime when the reasons mostly stem from wanting the immigrants to become legal permanent residents, with incentives to shorten the naturalization/citizenship process if you marry an American or join the military. That's a reasonable process to ensure you're giving citizenship to immigrants that really want to physically be here and have some minimum level of love of country.

By the same standards, there is no sensible reason to deny the vote to illegal immigrants that, like many legal immigrants (over 40% illegals were formerly legal), have lived and worked here for decades. If there's no substantial difference between the legal and illegal immigrant groups, then the need to deny them citizenship is transparently obvious (denying potential voters to a party/ideology you disagree with).

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

They're just setting up Jeb is all. No big deal.

 

[Svnla]

You're clueless if you think illegal aliens come into this country knowing there have supposedly been 7 amnesties (most of those were reinforcing the 86 Reagan amnesty, they weren't new ones).

Again, there is simply no evidence, except in your head, that they come here for anything other than jobs and a better life. Amnesty? I can't believe you to be that daft but hey, maybe you are.

Well, per your own words, there were no amnesty for 2 decades and from my link, it was not true. Let see, you = all empty words. Me = link to back up my statement and shot down your bullcrap.

Oh, don't forget about numerous executive orders from Obama for Dreamers and all the bull craps happened recently that were not included in my link.

So you want it spell out AMNESTY before you would admit there was one? LOL. Let see, there were about 5-6 ILLEGALS back in 86, and now at least 11 -12 million of ILLEGALS. Yup, sure not because of AMNESTY, not at all, just because you say so.

It's cute you believe they are working and somehow applicable to our Constitution, lol.

Since when the ILLEGALS and foreigners are protected by US Constitution? Fail much? ROTFLMAO. Still NOTHING about my request for ONE SINGLE developed country that offers AMNESTY or has such stupid immigration policy as the US. Of course, none because they don't have people that love to lick the nuts of ILLEGALS as you. More bullcrap excuses.

So you continue to bash my links yet you are still UNABLE to provide anything, NOTHING to back up your statement about hispanics and high tech industry.

Talk is cheap. Put up or shut up and so far, you are unable to put up. Provide link(s) to backup your statements or don't bother to reply/quote me.

 

[First]

Well, per your own words, there were no amnesty for 2 decades and now it is 7?

Nope, it's still not 7.

Oh, don't forget about numerous executive orders from Obama for Dreamers and all the bull craps.

Huh? What about them? Dreamers are about as American as you can get, they just usually came here before they could remember anything, obviously by no fault of their own. Accommodating them offers incentives only in the sense that we treat them with dignity and respect, so sure, that's "incentivizing", lol.

So you want it spell out AMNESTY before you would admit there was one? LOL. Let see, there was about 5-6 ILLEGALS back in 86, and now at least 11 -12 ILLEGALS. Yup, sure not because of AMNESTY, not at all, just because you say so.

Firstly, if the same failed immigration policy has been in place for 30 years, it would be odd if the number of illegal immigrants didn't go up simply as a result of population arithmetic (though it has gone up faster). Secondly, you just admitted millions of illegal immigrants existed before the 1986 amnesty....so tell me again how non-existent amnesties before 1986 incentivized illegal immigrants? Wanna square that round hole?

Since when the ILLEGALS and foreigners are protected by US Constitution? Fail much? ROTFLMAO. Still NOTHING about my request for ONE SINGLE developed country that offers AMNESTY or has such stupid immigration policy as the US. Of course, none because they don't have people that love to lick the nuts of ILLEGALS as you. More bullcrap excuses.

Oh my lord, no wonder you're having such trouble in this conversation. They are fully protected by the Constitution by law.

You are one dumb cookie.

 

[First]

So you continue to bash my links yet you are still UNABLE to provide anything, NOTHING to back up your statement about hispanics and high tech industry.

Talk is cheap. Put up or shut up and so far, you are unable to put up. Provide link(s) to backup your statements or don't bother to reply/quote me.

3rd and 4th generation Hispanics have the same educational attainment as the 2nd generation Hispanics of illegal immigrants parents, so your whole notion that 1st generation illegal immigrants are low skilled is (less than) half of the whole picture; their (2nd generation) children do just as well as other Hispanics who have been here far longer. Yet you asininely linked to a study about Hispanics overall that didn't distinguish between 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc. generation Hispanics, essentially linking useless information I never disputed, since it is well known Hispanics do worse than whites, but that doesn't have anything to do with immigration, ya dunce.

 

[Svnla]

Nope, it's still not 7.

So how many was it ? Zero for 20 years as you claimed? 1, 2, 3, what? Give me a number here.

Firstly, if the same failed immigration policy has been in place for 30 years, it would be odd if the number of illegal immigrants didn't go up simply as a result of population arithmetic (though it has gone up faster). Secondly, you just admitted millions of illegal immigrants existed before the 1986 amnesty....so tell me again how non-existent amnesties before 1986 incentivized illegal immigrants? Wanna square that round hole?

You mean more AMNESTY = successful? So 5-6 millions of them then, gave 1 HUGE AMNESTY and now we have a least double that number (or more) and that is successful? And we are going to do ANOTHER AMNESTY? LOL. Something about do the same thing over and over again and expect different result = crazy/stupid.

Oh my lord, no wonder you're having such trouble in this conversation. They are fully protected by the Constitution by law.

From your link -

the courts have ruled that, while they are within the borders of the United States, illegal aliens are granted the same fundamental, undeniable constitutional rights granted to all Americans.

See my link above about Australia, they intercepted and stopped the ILLEGALS way before the border, why we have to wait until them sneaked onto our border to act? That's why I posted links about other countries. Be PRO ACTIVE and not wait until the barbarians at the gate and then try to stop them.

Still NOTHING to back up your statement about hispanic and high tech? Wonder why you did not quote my statement about that.

 

[First]

So how many was it ? Zero for 20 years as you claimed? 1, 2, 3, what? Give me a number here.

Perhaps one minor amnesty almost no one has heard of or remembers 20 years ago.

You mean more AMNESTY = successful? So 5-6 millions of them then, gave 1 HUGE AMNESTY and now we have a least double that number (or more) and that is successful? And we are going to do ANOTHER AMNESTY? LOL. Something about do the same thing over and over again and expect different result = crazy/stupid.

Are you on meds? Nothing in this rant addresses anything I said. I'll say it slowly and try not to wimp out this time; how many amnesties before 1986 incentivized the 5-6M that were amnestied in the 86 Reagan bill? Can you logically square that with your contention that illegal immigrants are mainly attracted by amnesties, or not, kid?

From your link -

Excuse me, don't wimp out. Direct quote from you: "Since when [are] ILLEGALS and foreigners protected by US Constitution? Fail much? ROTFLMAO."

My link irrefutably shows they have the same constitutional rights as Americans born here, thanks to the 14th Amendment. Man up and admit your bullshit.

See my link above about Australia, they intercepted and stopped the ILLEGALS way before the border, why we have to wait until them sneaked onto our border to act? That's why I posted links about other countries. Be PRO ACTIVE and not wait until the barbarians at the gate and then try to stop them.

And smart people are falling over themselves laughing at you for your contention that the island of Australia, completely surrounded by water, can somehow be compared to the fucking Southern border of the United States. Does that really need explaining? Really?!?!?!

Still NOTHING to back up your statement about hispanic and high tech? Wonder why you did not quote my statement about that.

Seriously, you're embarrassing yourself. You edited it like 10+ minutes later. Read more carefully.

 

[First]

Ah, now I see the problem. You don't understand that cases can be distinguished by their facts and are not binding precedent on issues of law that the court does not need and is not asked to resolve.

You're still confused. It doesn't matter in a case about the 14th Amendment what the legal status of the parents was. Literally, it does not matter because the 14th Amendment mentions nothing about illegal immigrants not being able to birth citizens on U.S. soil. Hence, the SCOTUS didn't consider the citizenship of the parents, because as a matter of law it's irrelevant. You seem to think SCOTUS would take a case where someone challenges the citizenship of a child born to illegal parents? Any examples in the last 150 years? Nope.

 

[nixium]

Huh? Convicted felons not being able to vote is hotly debated, and certainly can (and should) be changed by Congress if they meet certain requirements. They are indeed 2nd class citizens. I'm not sure how you can even debate this.

I'm saying it's OK for them to be second class citizens.

Two, there are good reasons to not give enfranchisement to certain types of immigrants immediately, as it's part of a temporary process that ideally is completed in 20 years or less. You're not relegated to 2nd class status by not being able to vote in the meantime when the reasons mostly stem from wanting the immigrants to become legal permanent residents, with incentives to shorten the naturalization/citizenship process if you marry an American or join the military. That's a reasonable process to ensure you're giving citizenship to immigrants that really want to physically be here and have some minimum level of love of country.

By the same standards, there is no sensible reason to deny the vote to illegal immigrants that, like many legal immigrants (over 40% illegals were formerly legal), have lived and worked here for decades. If there's no substantial difference between the legal and illegal immigrant groups, then the need to deny them citizenship is transparently obvious (denying potential voters to a party/ideology you disagree with).

LOL, first you say citizenship is based on having some "minimum level of love" of country, then you say illegals are here mainly for economic reasons. You also claim there's no sensible reason to deny the vote. Tell me, how do they meet the 'minimum level of love' by flouting all immigration laws, using emergency rooms as their doctors, and public services, and by being here for economic reasons?

Democrats are clearly doing this for vote bank reasons. Denying citizenship takes that incentive away - no party gets their votes. After all, votes should be won by ideas and policy, not by giving amnesties to law breakers. Using that logic, maybe the republicans should corner the convict vote by removing the felony-not-being-able-to-vote thing.

 

[nixium]

Huh? What about them? Dreamers are about as American as you can get, they just usually came here before they could remember anything, obviously by no fault of their own. Accommodating them offers incentives only in the sense that we treat them with dignity and respect, so sure, that's "incentivizing", lol.

See, this is the fundamental problem with you liberals. You think in terms of compassion and justice, but your deal leader Obama is thinking purely of the juicy votes his party is going to get. There's absolutely no humanitarianism in this, and I'll tell you why.

A legal immigrant's child, waiting for a green card due to backlogs, when reaching 21 "ages out" no matter how much time the child has spent in the states. This means that the child has to get a visa to continue to stay in the US. What's the difference between him and a dreamer? Yet the Dreamer gets an EAD, instate tuition, and a promise of no deportation. The legal immigrant's child gets nothing. Even more fucked up; because the parents have declared immigration intent, the child might be denied a F1 student visa to go to college here because student visas are non-immigrant.

And guess what Obama did? the rule making has a condition that the child has to be brought here illegally. That's right, the fact that the child's parents did things the legal way actually screws the child over!

You think Obama didn't know this? You think USCIS doesn't know this? They did *nothing*. Because they don't give a fuck about fairness, compassion, etc. All they care about is how well this is going to look to the voters. And guess what, it worked, and it's fooled useful tools like you as well.

 

[Cozarkian]

You're still confused. It doesn't matter in a case about the 14th Amendment what the legal status of the parents was. Literally, it does not matter because the 14th Amendment mentions nothing about illegal immigrants not being able to birth citizens on U.S. soil. Hence, the SCOTUS didn't consider the citizenship of the parents, because as a matter of law it's irrelevant.

You are putting the cart before the horse and also repeating factually incorrect statements based upon your ongoing failure to realize the distinction between citizenship and legal residency. SCOTUS DID consider the citizenship of the parents - it found they were non-citizens. SCOTUS also considered the residency of the parents - it found they were permanently domiciled and engaged in business in San Francisco at the time of birth. SCOTUS did not consider whether it would make a difference if the parents were not legal because they were not asked to do so. If the court didn't consider it, then by rules of jurisprudence, the ruling doesn't encompass it. Further, since the parents were legal, even if the court had expressly considered whether illegal status would change the ruling, such consideration would be dicta.

Thus, the question of whether legal status is relevant is an open question of law. Synthesized with Plyler v. Doe it isn't a question that anti-illegals will win, but neither would it be a frivolous suit.

You seem to think SCOTUS would take a case where someone challenges the citizenship of a child born to illegal parents? Any examples in the last 150 years? Nope.

That's predominately because nobody has standing to bring that case except the U.S. government. The only way it is likely to ever happen is if Congress passes a law stating that the children of illegals aren't citizens, which is probably even less likely than a Constitutional amendment.

 

[sportage]

Some of the media have been trying to turn this around.
Asking candidates and others if anyone is seriously going to deport a ten year old child that was American born from illegal parents, a child that has never been to Mexico and does not even speak Spanish.
A child that grew up in America as an legal American citizen, however with illegal parents.

Occurred to me, why this attempt to turn around the blame and guilt when it was the actions of illegals unlawfully entering the country, then giving birth?
The guilt should be placed on those that broke the laws in the first place, and then raised a family with no regards to what may happen to their kids come the future.
Why should this be our guilt and not the guilt of those that broke the laws?

If an American born child with parents that are not legal citizens should one day all be deported back to Mexico, sure that might be traumatic for the child but only the parents are really to blame and carry the guilt for what happens to their American born child.
The parents should have thought of this before raising children when they, the parents, were not legal citizens.

That is the high risk the illegal parents took and the outcome the parents must accept.
Trying to switch that blame and guilt onto legal American citizens for deporting American born children with their illegal parents back to Mexico is not our guilt to own.

And besides, if those illegal parents of their legal American children really cared about their child, the parents would have done whatever necessary to become legal US citizens.
Even if that meant going back to Mexico with their new born child, and then legally re-entering the country, waiting in line and doing it the right legal way to become legal US citizens.

This little gimmick with the media placing the blame for the actions of illegal immigrants onto the American citizens should be called out.
It is not our fault for what they illegally chose to do and the legal repercussions that follow. It is the fault of those that broke our laws.

 

[First]

I'm saying it's OK for them to be second class citizens.

....because?

LOL, first you say citizenship is based on having some "minimum level of love" of country, then you say illegals are here mainly for economic reasons.

Both can and are simultaneously true.

You also claim there's no sensible reason to deny the vote. Tell me, how do they meet the 'minimum level of love' by flouting all immigration laws, using emergency rooms as their doctors, and public services, and by being here for economic reasons?

Very few people view crossing the border as an act of malice toward the U.S. It's done for economic reasons. Frankly, your argument is obfuscating that legal immigrants and native-born American citizens use emergency rooms for medical services and public services as well, so clearly we must strip Jimmy's citizenship because that's the fair thing to do, correct? No, I have a feeling your issue is a bit more emotional.

Democrats are clearly doing this for vote bank reasons. Denying citizenship takes that incentive away - no party gets their votes. After all, votes should be won by ideas and policy, not by giving amnesties to law breakers. Using that logic, maybe the republicans should corner the convict vote by removing the felony-not-being-able-to-vote thing.

I've already addressed your logically inconsistent arguments; by your definition of law breaker every citizen that has broken a speed law is a lawbreaker (a much more dangerous act to fellow citizens than Mexicans crossing the border, btw), so stop pretending that's what your problem is. Man up, admit what you're really incensed about. Is it really all about law and order with you? I have my doubts.

See, this is the fundamental problem with you liberals. You think in terms of compassion and justice, but your deal leader Obama is thinking purely of the juicy votes his party is going to get. There's absolutely no humanitarianism in this, and I'll tell you why.

*facepalm*

Justice and compassion is literally 1L law school, this isn't being liberal, it's just being non-stupid. I'm sorry you weren't aware of this.

A legal immigrant's child, waiting for a green card due to backlogs, when reaching 21 "ages out" no matter how much time the child has spent in the states. This means that the child has to get a visa to continue to stay in the US. What's the difference between him and a dreamer? Yet the Dreamer gets an EAD, instate tuition, and a promise of no deportation. The legal immigrant's child gets nothing. Even more fucked up; because the parents have declared immigration intent, the child might be denied a F1 student visa to go to college here because student visas are non-immigrant.

And guess what Obama did? the rule making has a condition that the child has to be brought here illegally. That's right, the fact that the child's parents did things the legal way actually screws the child over!

You think Obama didn't know this? You think USCIS doesn't know this? They did *nothing*. Because they don't give a fuck about fairness, compassion, etc. All they care about is how well this is going to look to the voters. And guess what, it worked, and it's fooled useful tools like you as well.

Huh? Why wouldn't a legal immigrant's child not get in-state tuition and why is that child eventually needing to get a visa a bad thing? I have no idea what your point is here.

Btw, if there were flaws in the immigration orders (which you cutely assume Obama was fully aware of to every last detail), they should be fixed. Apparently, though, your solution would be to...make it so that instead of the legal and illegal immigrants getting the same benefits in order of priority, you'd leave the illegal immigrants on the 2nd class sidelines because of some lay interpretation of the rule of law. K.

 

[First]

You are putting the cart before the horse and also repeating factually incorrect statements based upon your ongoing failure to realize the distinction between citizenship and legal residency. SCOTUS DID consider the citizenship of the parents - it found they were non-citizens. SCOTUS also considered the residency of the parents - it found they were permanently domiciled and engaged in business in San Francisco at the time of birth. SCOTUS did not consider whether it would make a difference if the parents were not legal because they were not asked to do so. If the court didn't consider it, then by rules of jurisprudence, the ruling doesn't encompass it. Further, since the parents were legal, even if the court had expressly considered whether illegal status would change the ruling, such consideration would be dicta.

Thus, the question of whether legal status is relevant is an open question of law. Synthesized with Plyler v. Doe it isn't a question that anti-illegals will win, but neither would it be a frivolous suit.

I meant SCOTUS didn't consider the legal status of the parents, they did indeed consider their citizenship. And as I said, the 1898 Wong case said this about the legal status of the China-born parents:

The case highlighted disagreements over the precise meaning of one phrase in the Citizenship Clause—namely, the provision that a person born in the United States who is subject to the jurisdiction thereof acquires automatic citizenship. The Supreme Court's majority concluded that this phrase referred to being required to obey U.S. law; on this basis, they interpreted the language of the Fourteenth Amendment in a way that granted U.S. citizenship to at least some children born of foreigners because they were born on American soil (a concept known as jus soli). The court's dissenters argued that being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States meant not being subject to any foreign power—that is, not being claimed as a citizen by another country via jus sanguinis (inheriting citizenship from a parent)—an interpretation which, in the minority's view, would have excluded "the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country".[2] In the words of a 2007 legal analysis of events following the Wong Kim Ark decision, "The parameters of the jus soli principle, as stated by the court in Wong Kim Ark, have never been seriously questioned by the Supreme Court, and have been accepted as dogma by lower courts."

A 2010 review of the history of the Citizenship Clause notes that the Wong Kim Ark decision held that the guarantee of birthright citizenship "applies to children of foreigners present on American soil" and states that the Supreme Court "has not re-examined this issue since the concept of 'illegal alien' entered the language".

Jus soli is the unquestionable law of the land, and has never seriously been challenged in 150 years. Fringe right-wing notwithstanding, of course. SCOTUS never re-examined this issue because it is so utterly unquestioned and solved.

 

[nixium]

....because?

Penalty for breaking society's rules. You murder somebody, you steal, you destroy property = you have no more say on how society organizes itself.

Both can and are simultaneously true.

That's not what you said though. You said illegals are here for economic reasons mainly. Does that mean they don't love the country? Or is it a combination of both? be specific. If you think illegals are migrating here partially because of patriotism for the US, I'd like to hear you state it.

Very few people view crossing the border as an act of malice toward the U.S. It's done for economic reasons. Frankly, your argument is obfuscating that legal immigrants and native-born American citizens use emergency rooms for medical services and public services as well, so clearly we must strip Jimmy's citizenship because that's the fair thing to do, correct? No, I have a feeling your issue is a bit more emotional.

Do you have ADHD? Not a criticism, because it seems like your arguments keep changing every post, and you forget what you argued before.

*You* are the one who mentioned that there must be some minimum love of country demonstrated to get citizenship. I posit that violating all immigration rules, draining public services, working in the shadows, driving without insurance does not demonstrate minimum love of country. Instead you keep blabbering about economic reasons. Either go back and restate your minimum requirements for citizenship, or show me how illegals have "minimum love of country" that YOU say citizenship needs.

No, you're the one obfuscating conditions for awarding citizenship and conditions for stripping it. The requirements for naturalization are pretty stringent, and some immigrants will turn out to be more law abiding than those born here. That's a separate topic, has nothing to do with this.

I've already addressed your logically inconsistent arguments; by your definition of law breaker every citizen that has broken a speed law is a lawbreaker (a much more dangerous act to fellow citizens than Mexicans crossing the border, btw), so stop pretending that's what your problem is. Man up, admit what you're really incensed about. Is it really all about law and order with you? I have my doubts.

Can you focus on keeping the conversation to conditions under which non-citizens are permitted to be citizens? According to your examples, a large section of people in the world should be American citizens because there's at least one natural born citizen who's worse than that section of people.

a --> b != b --> a

OK, speeding is worse than illegal immigration. This is why you can't have arguments with progressives, kids.

Actually it's completely about law and order and you seem to be reading emotions in which there are none. Illegal immigrants violated the basic law of immigration, the penalty for this is no voting rights. It's as simple as that.

*facepalm*

Justice and compassion is literally 1L law school, this isn't being liberal, it's just being non-stupid. I'm sorry you weren't aware of this.

I'm saying Obama has none of that, and his actions towards illegals aren't motivated by justice or compassion. Otherwise he could have easily included legal immigrants in his DACA ruling. So either he's an idiot (unaware of important immigration issues) or he doesn't give a fuck about legal immigrants, which means he's unfair and looking out for votes.

Which is it?

Huh? Why wouldn't a legal immigrant's child not get in-state tuition and why is that child eventually needing to get a visa a bad thing? I have no idea what your point is here.

Btw, if there were flaws in the immigration orders (which you cutely assume Obama was fully aware of to every last detail), they should be fixed. Apparently, though, your solution would be to...make it so that instead of the legal and illegal immigrants getting the same benefits in order of priority, you'd leave the illegal immigrants on the 2nd class sidelines because of some lay interpretation of the rule of law. K.

They don't get in-state tuition because they're considered non-resident aliens. Which DACA reversed for kids of illegals. Jeez for a person who's so passionate about amnesty you have no understanding of the immigration system at all. Go read up on it first, it's tiresome to educate you in every post.

Did you not read my post? Getting the visa isn't just going and opening a credit card. Some visa categories are outright banned. I'll repeat it again here because your ADHD must be striking and you didnt' read my previous post properly:

Legal immigrant kids (fulfilling the conditions for DACA) => F1 or J1 visa to go to college. Neither of them are eligible for in-state tuition. F1 is a non immigrant visa. You have to state that you will return to your home country after studying it. J1 might have 2 year home country visit requirements. You can't work anywhere, and need a H1 visa to do so.

Illegal's kid = DACA. Work anywhere you want. Go to college anywhere you want. Get in-state tuition.

Yes, I expect Obama and USCIS to be aware of this simple difference. Don't you hold your leaders to high standards? Or is he just another dummy, proposing simplistic solutions to issues without studying it?

I ask for fairness in treating immigrants. Right now, there's no incentive to be law abiding at all.

Even worse, useful tools like you regurgitate what your leaders are proposing, without really studying it properly. They're out for a vote grab, pure and simple.

 

[shira]

I meant SCOTUS didn't consider the legal status of the parents, they did indeed consider their citizenship. And as I said, the 1898 Wong case said this about the legal status of the China-born parents:



Jus soli is the unquestionable law of the land, and has never seriously been challenged in 150 years. Fringe right-wing notwithstanding, of course. SCOTUS never re-examined this issue because it is so utterly unquestioned and solved.

Not to mention that any "re-examination" of the 14th Amendment by the SCOTUS would lead to no change. Why? Because of Antonin Scalia's amazingly principled judgements. And why does THAT matter? Because Scalia is an "Originalist."

In the context of United States constitutional interpretation, originalism is a principle of interpretation that views the Constitution's meaning as fixed as of the time of enactment.

So Scalia cannot possibly consider a "new concept" (such as "illegal alien") in re-examining the 14th Amendment, nor would righties want him to, because they tell us time and time again they don't want no stinking judges "reading new meanings" into the laws of the land. Scalia is honor bound by his lofty principles to read Section 1 of the 14th EXACTLY as it was intended to be read in 1868. And since the court's liberals will, of course, make their typical activist-liberal judgements, that's FIVE votes right there for "Keep those illegal [= LEGAL] babies coming!"

Sorry, righties.

 

[Indus]

Are we talking about the same Scalia?

Originalist? The original people who voted for the ACA are alive and well but he still voted against it because it didn't fit his principles.

Scalia is capable of more jiggery-pokery with the constitution to suit his perverted view of the moment more than any other justice.

 

[First]

Penalty for breaking society's rules. You murder somebody, you steal, you destroy property = you have no more say on how society organizes itself.

For one, it's not a felony to steal all sorts of things in this country and neither is destroying property, widely depending on the circumstance of course. But boy, stealing and destroying property means you should lose the right to vote? I gotta tell ya, that's some pretty dense rhetoric you've got there. I can agree with murder, certainly, that's a whole other type of felony (even then, there can certainly be unique circumstances).

That's not what you said though. You said illegals are here for economic reasons mainly. Does that mean they don't love the country? Or is it a combination of both? be specific.

I was never asked if both could be true and nor was it relevant to my point, frankly. I just figured you'd be sharp enough to glean such an uncontroversial statement as "people come here mainly for economic reasons" while also saying that immigration laws that require years of waiting to become voting citizens can be a good way to make sure immigrants have some minimal level of love of country.

If you think illegals are migrating here partially because of patriotism for the US, I'd like to hear you state it.

You're confused. Re-read the sentences again: "There are good reasons to not give enfranchisement to certain types of immigrants immediately, as it's part of a temporary process that ideally is completed in 20 years or less. You're not relegated to 2nd class status by not being able to vote in the meantime when the reasons mostly stem from wanting the immigrants to become legal permanent residents, with incentives to shorten the naturalization/citizenship process if you marry an American or join the military. That's a reasonable process to ensure you're giving citizenship to immigrants that really want to physically be here and have some minimum level of love of country".

Do you have ADHD? Not a criticism, because it seems like your arguments keep changing every post, and you forget what you argued before.

You seem to have reading comprehension issues. Me expanding on my points isn't changing an argument, it's expanding on my point. The little logic puzzle I gave you wasn't exactly difficult to crack either, hate to break it to you.

*You* are the one who mentioned that there must be some minimum love of country demonstrated to get citizenship. I posit that violating all immigration rules, draining public services, working in the shadows, driving without insurance does not demonstrate minimum love of country. Instead you keep blabbering about economic reasons. Either go back and restate your minimum requirements for citizenship, or show me how illegals have "minimum love of country" that YOU say citizenship needs.

You're all over the map. For one, you positing that taking public assistance or visiting emergency rooms does not demonstrate a minimal love of country is just odd. I'd ask you to explain but I'm afraid I don't really have time to break down an argument that far gone from reality.

Two, immigrants come here mainly for economic reasons. Full stop. I'm sorry your reading comprehension is so poor that you believe I said they specifically come here for patriotic reasons. Re-read my previous post again if you're still confused. To summarize; the long naturalization process for immigrants ensures they want to stay (permanent resident, can't live elsewhere for years at a time) and of course that they have some minimal level of loyalty to the country, which is determined mainly by the reality that they choose to stay in the country and make the effort to become citizens. That very act can be reasonably believed to show some love of the country they decided to reside in.

No, you're the one obfuscating conditions for awarding citizenship and conditions for stripping it. The requirements for naturalization are pretty stringent, and some immigrants will turn out to be more law abiding than those born here. That's a separate topic, has nothing to do with this.

Can you focus on keeping the conversation to conditions under which non-citizens are permitted to be citizens? According to your examples, a large section of people in the world should be American citizens because there's at least one natural born citizen who's worse than that section of people.

a --> b != b --> a

OK, speeding is worse than illegal immigration. This is why you can't have arguments with progressives, kids.

Actually it's completely about law and order and you seem to be reading emotions in which there are none. Illegal immigrants violated the basic law of immigration, the penalty for this is no voting rights. It's as simple as that.

No, the logical inconsistencies in applying one set of rules, without a stated reason, to Americans but not to immigrants is the issue I'm trying to get you to think harder about. First, you're confused into thinking that you can use one argument for stripping potential citizenship from illegal immigrants, which as you said is based solely on the notion of law and order, law breaking. Yet how is it logically consistent to believe this but not strip people born in this country to American parents? Why not? Explain this reasoning. Some detail, even just a couple sentences, and try not to divert on this very, very critical part of the conversation. If you find yourself unable to explain it, perhaps you'll rethink your position.

Two, and finally, you're still confused into thinking that most illegal immigrants are substantially different from legal ones because of this act of crossing the border you consider so heinous (but for which you don't really explain why). I can explain the heinous potential behind the act of speeding on freeways because tens of thousands die on the roads annually. The irresponsible nature of speeding is so self evident, frankly, that I can't really believe you think jumping the border is somehow not comparable, and would like to hear you explain why, and why that is consistent with your belief that law breaking should result in loss of citizenship for one group, but not the other. Also, fact is, illegal immigrants aren't substantially different from legal immigrants, that you can prove/show. Over 40% of illegals were previously legal immigrants that stayed after their visa expired, which by definition means a substantial portion of them are identical to legal immigrants. Full stop.

I'm saying Obama has none of that, and his actions towards illegals aren't motivated by justice or compassion. Otherwise he could have easily included legal immigrants in his DACA ruling. So either he's an idiot (unaware of important immigration issues) or he doesn't give a fuck about legal immigrants, which means he's unfair and looking out for votes.

Which is it?

None of those things. For one, I'm not sure your original statement about legal immigrant children getting the shaft under DACA is true, and two I'm not sure your ability to interpret immigration laws is adequate. I'm certainly not going to pretend to be an immigration attorney. Are you?

They don't get in-state tuition because they're considered non-resident aliens. Which DACA reversed for kids of illegals. Jeez for a person who's so passionate about amnesty you have no understanding of the immigration system at all. Go read up on it first, it's tiresome to educate you in every post.

Already did. I see no evidence the children of legal immigrants can't get in-state tuition rates. Feel free to cite it. http://www.ncsl.org/research/education/undocumented-student-tuition-overview.aspx

Did you not read my post? Getting the visa isn't just going and opening a credit card. Some visa categories are outright banned. I'll repeat it again here because your ADHD must be striking and you didnt' read my previous post properly:

Legal immigrant kids (fulfilling the conditions for DACA) => F1 or J1 visa to go to college. Neither of them are eligible for in-state tuition. F1 is a non immigrant visa. You have to state that you will return to your home country after studying it. J1 might have 2 year home country visit requirements. You can't work anywhere, and need a H1 visa to do so.

Illegal's kid = DACA. Work anywhere you want. Go to college anywhere you want. Get in-state tuition.

Yes, I expect Obama and USCIS to be aware of this simple difference. Don't you hold your leaders to high standards? Or is he just another dummy, proposing simplistic solutions to issues without studying it?

I ask for fairness in treating immigrants. Right now, there's no incentive to be law abiding at all.

The whole crux of your argument is just odd. If the laws are slanted against legals now and the visa quotas system are so fucked up (which I can certainly imagine they are), and knowing Obama can't change those by executive order, how has it not dawned on you that his executive order might be an incomplete holding pattern until Congress can pass a law fixing the visa/quota system? Additionally, how can you not then understand more clearly perhaps why legal immigrants will overstay their visas and become illegal immigrants instead, and just deal with the consequences later, perhaps hoping for another executive order or another amnesty from Congress?

And finally, if all you want is fairness in the system, why argue to strip citizenship for illegals, why not give it to them as well as legal residents? You seem to want fairness, but your proposal to strip possibility of citizenship from illegal immigrants is entirely out of whack and unhinged with the reality you yourself just stated; legal immigrant children may practically be getting the shaft and giving incentives to legal immigrants to overstay and become illegal.

 

[werepossum]

Are we talking about the same Scalia?

Originalist? The original people who voted for the ACA are alive and well but he still voted against it because it didn't fit his principles.

Scalia is capable of more jiggery-pokery with the constitution to suit his perverted view of the moment more than any other justice.

Sorry, your idiocy is showing. Originalism has a specific meaning and it is NOT that laws are Constitutional or not based on whether they do what their framers intended.

 

[lopri]

^ That is more than debatable because there are now so many different strands of "Originalism." Scalia himself changed his views a couple of times about what it means to be an "Originalist."