So let's read the text:
BLITZER: Back in the '80s... you voted for legislation that had a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants... Some called it amnesty then; they still call it amnesty now. What would you do if you were President of the United States, with these millions of illegal immigrants, many of whom have been in this country for a long time?
GINGRICH: Let me start and just say I think that we ought to have an H-1 visa that goes with every graduate degree in math, science and engineering so that people stay here. You know, about five blocks down the street, you'll see a statue of Einstein. Einstein came here as an immigrant. So let's be clear how much the United States has drawn upon the world to be richer, better and more inclusive.
I did vote for the Simpson-Mazzoli Act. Ronald Reagan, in his diary, says he signed it -- and we were supposed to have 300,000 people get amnesty. There were 3 million. But he signed it because we were going to get two things in return. We were going to get control of the border and we were going to get a guest worker program with employer enforcement.
We got neither. So I think you've got to deal with this as a comprehensive approach that starts with controlling the border.... I believe ultimately you have to find some system -- once you've put every piece in place, which includes the guest worker program, you need something like a World War II Selective Service Board that, frankly, reviews the people who are here.
If you're here -- if you've come here recently, you have no ties to this country, you ought to go home. period. If you've been here 25 years and you got three kids and two grandkids, you've been paying taxes and obeying the law, you belong to a local church, I don't think we're going to separate you from your family, uproot you forcefully and kick you out.
The Creeble Foundation is a very good red card program that says you get to be legal, but you don't get a pass to citizenship. And so there's a way to ultimately end up with a country where there's no more illegality, but you haven't automatically given amnesty to anyone.
Bachmann is called upon to respond. (Blitzer did a great job last night of creating mini-one-on-one debates within the debate.) She said it was amnesty and she worried about the vast numbers of people who would be able to take advantage of the program. Gingrich then got the floor again:
GINGRICH: Well, I mean, two things, first of all, in the DREAM Act, the one part that I like is the one which allows people who came here with their parents to join the U.S. military, which they could have done if they were back home, and if they serve on it with the U.S. military to acquire citizenship, which is something any foreigner can do.
And I don't see any reason to punish somebody who came here at three years of age, but who wants to serve the United States of America. I specifically did not say we'd make the 11 million people legal.
I do suggest if you go back to your district, and you find people who have been here 25 years and have two generations of family and have been paying taxes and are in a local church, as somebody who believes strongly in family, you'll have a hard time explaining why that particular subset is being broken up and forced to leave, given the fact that they've been law-abiding citizens for 25 years.
Blitzer then called on Bachmann, who, despite what Gingrich just said he "specifically did not say," says "I think the speaker just said that that would make 11 people -- 11 million people who are here illegally now legal." That one-on-one really highlighted Gingrich's superior intelligence and sophistication. Clearly, Gingrich has the ability to reach out to many Americans who feel empathy toward the people who are in the county illegally and to take a middle position that balances a large set of interests. I like that, but obviously the red-meat fans have something to complain about. He put some vegetables on their dish.
Posts
276 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 276 of 276so how many family members should we allow to ecome citizens
We don't have to allow any of them to become citizens. But it would be grossly immoral to separate a nuclear family over paperwork. Does the concept of foreign national have any meaning to you?
The grandparents part there was especially ridiculous, by the way.
Also, learn to use html. It's not hard.
Seven machos wrote:
There is no inconsistency. If the wall is a failure, then it's a failure. I am arguing for prevention of illegal immigration at the border. I don't think that's hard to understand. Even for you.
Further, merely putting the wall up is an important symbol.
An important symbol of what? A meaningless gesture buildt solely to spend massive amounts of capitol?
Seriously, you have a problem witty the concept of illegal immigration at all, since you think it's pointless or heartless to actually enforce laws.
And how would it prevent anyone from entering the country?
Sure they wouldn't go over the wall, but why would that matter when they could just walk through the door? Or drive throu a checkpoint?
Why are they coming into the country? Who cares. It's not like well actually do anything once they got here. If they overstay their visa. Oh well.
So big deal, they won't literally climb over a wall. Why do they need to when they can simply take a boat or a train or a car or a plane.
Seven Machos wrote:
We don't have to allow any of them to become citizens. But it would be grossly immoral to separate a nuclear family over paperwork. Does the concept of foreign national have any meaning to you?
The grandparents part there was especially ridiculous, by the way.
Why would the grand parent example be ridiculous? Does the concept of foreign nationals have any meaning to you. Wouldn't it be immoral to separate the mother of an American citizen from her mother over paper work?
JR -- You keep falling back on these ideas you apparently have about people who disagree with you. It's sad.
The primary argument I have made throughout this thread is practical. We do not have the resources to deport illegal aliens. The due process issue alone is daunting, leaving aside the costs of investigation.
You live in a fantasy land where some government authority can pick up somebody because they are an illegal alien and drop them off in other countries. That's not how it works. We have a court system and everyone is entitled to a hearing with substantial rights. There are transportation issues. There's food and lodging for people and their children during the court proceedings. There are arrangements to be worked out with the receiving countries. Do you think Nicaragua is going to just let us drop off a hundred thousand broke Nicaraguan citizens there whenever we want.
You are a fool.
Wouldn't it be immoral to separate the mother of an American citizen from her mother over paper work?
Again, you are a fool. You are so stupid that you can't even be bothered to learn html.
A 60-year-old woman and her grown daughter is far different than a 25-year-old woman and her five-year-old daughter. If you can't see that, you are beyond help.
You are being pummeled badly here. You are losing your bearings.
Seven machos wrote:
The primary argument I have made throughout this thread is practical. We do not have the resources to deport illegal aliens. The due process issue alone is daunting, leaving aside the costs of investigation.
We don't have the resources to deport a single illegal immigrant? Not one? Not even the ones we catch going over your wall? But we do have the resources to build a massive wall that covers our southern border and which serves no purpose other than to be an eyesore.
JR -- I have said in this thread that I support the current state of deportation combined with a wall, though my preferred policy would be to hand off enforcement to states and localities.
Do you read the posts? Or just spout?
The Mongols and their relatives have been running China since the 13th century.
Actually China has Outer Mongolia on one side of the wall and Inner Mongolia on the other. Outer Mongolia has sovereignty. Inner Mongolia doesn't.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
Focing on "born" is like a child focusing on a shiney thing-
Two parts make the whole-
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
A child born of Mexican nationals are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. They are, as their child is, subjects of Mexico, and the United States has no jurisdiction.
The Constitution of the United States of America.
The Constitution of the World.
Let me check that heading real quick.....
Seven machos wrote:
A 60-year-old woman and her grown daughter is far different than a 25-year-old woman and her five-year-old daughter. If you can't see that, you are beyond help.
So you now want to discriminate against older people? It would be just as immoral and just as impractical to deport that sixty year old than it would that 25 year old.
And note, I used an italic tag as well as the break tag. Usually though, if you have to resort to insults you're on the losing end of the argument.
A child born of Mexican nationals are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.They are, as their child is, subjects of Mexico, and the United States has no jurisdiction.
So, obviously, then, that child and those parents may do anything they like in the United States while they are here because they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. They can kill, steal, rape, and pillage. Nobody can touch them. There is no jurisdiction. They are only under the jurisdiction of the Mexican government.
Is that right?
Tell you what, Dog. Do these things: take coursework in civil and criminal procedure, take a course in consular law, and read up on the mainstream, common interpretation of that codicil of the Constitution as it relates to anchor babies. Do those things, then get back to me.
See you in a few years.
Also, I am a little sad that you could no better than that sad, twisted argument. I honestly expected better.
i have said in this thread that I support the current state of deportation combined with a wall, though my preferred policy would be to hand off enforcement to states and localities
If you support the current state of deportation, then you do support deportation over lack of paperwork. So then why all the verbal garbage over how its immoral to do that? And if you support the states deporting people, then it simply means that THEY will be the ones deporting people over paperwork. And you support of such deportations, seems at odds with nearly every post you've made up to now.
No. It would not. Because a 25-year-old woman does not need her parents. A five-year-old does. And you cannot deport the five-year-old. No court would or could allow the deportation of an American.
Again, this is obvious. You are twisting yourself in knots for some strange reason, instead of just admitting that your hyperbole is dumb.
Good use of italics, though. That's a start.
Browndog said...
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
Didn't the Supreme Court rule on this in United States v. Wong Kim Ark?
JR -- I support the current state of deportation largely because it's cheap and inefficient, and because people who have been here awhile and established roots are highly unlikely to get deported.
I also support the current state of law enforcement even though the crime rate here in Chicago is reportedly quite high.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark
Are you summoning Mick the guy who wants to impeach Obama for the high crime of having a foreign father with your voodoo charms?
Seven Machos said...
"Are you summoning Mick the guy who wants to impeach Obama for the high crime of having a foreign father with your voodoo charms?"
Seven, no. As I understand it, the court ruled Wong was a U.S. citizen because of jus soli even though both his parents were Chinese immigrants.
JR -- I support the current state of deportation largely because it's cheap and inefficient, and because people who have been here awhile and established roots are highly unlikely to get deported.
insofar as someone is deported under the current system,which you support, you are with the them leaving the country due to a lack of paperwork, and potentially breaking up families over misdemeanors, as well as acknowledging that we can deport people, both legally but alo practically. Correct?
36 -- I'm sure you are right. The only people who believe that the 14th Amendment doesn't protect anchor babies are kooks. Their interpretation does not matter. The words are clear as a bright, sunshiny day.
You could argue that the 14th Amendment is overly broad, and vague, and ambiguous (in other applications), and poorly written. I do that often. But we are stuck with it for now. And people need to respect the Constitution. It's all we got as a country.
JR -- What point are you trying to make now exactly? Are you trying to paint me as a person who can deal with a less-than-ideal situation in the world?
Actually China has Outer Mongolia on one side of the wall and Inner Mongolia on the other.
I think you just mean, on one side or the other of the present national border.
What's left of the Great Wall actually leaves most of Inner Mongolia on the outside.
Some centuries ago, the Chinese became a greater military threat to the Mongolians than the other way around.
Seven Machos said...
"You could argue that the 14th Amendment is overly broad, and vague, and ambiguous (in other applications), and poorly written. I do that often. But we are stuck with it for now. And people need to respect the Constitution. It's all we got as a country."
I'm all on board with following the Constitution.
As I understand it the United States v. Wong Kim Ark case has not been challenged in regards to the children of illegal immigrants. Although I believe some laws have been proposed but never passed to make the 14th Amendment not applicable to the children of illegal immigrants.
No. It would not. Because a 25-year-old woman does not need her parents. A five-year-old does. And you cannot deport the five-year-old. No court would or could allow the deportation of an American.
Many people do not come over with their families in tow. A mother might come by herself and give birth here. So, even though obviously the baby needs the mother does he not also need the father? So I guess he would need to come over too. And what if the baby has young brothers and sisters living in their country of origin. If you allowed the father over, then you'd be breaking up families if the father came here and left the kids. So they would have to come too. Kids need their parents and their siblings who also need their parents. Wouldnt you be a heartless person if anyone in that family wee denied access? I could probably say the same about any immigrant coming to this country. They usually have families.
I believe some laws have been proposed but never passed to make the 14th Amendment not applicable to the children of illegal immigrants.
I doubt such a law could survive judicial scrutiny. The whole point is that law must follow the Constitution, whatever it is. So, for example, Congress cannot make a law allowing someone under the age of 35 to be president, or (in a real and fairly recent case) institute term limits on members of Congress.
Monterrey is Mexico's second richest city, and the world's 63rd richest, with an economy that had a 2008 GDP of USD $102 billion.[5] Monterrey is one of Mexico's most developed cities, with the highest per capita income in the nation, and is regarded as a highly developed city.[3][4] Although rich in history and culture, Monterrey is often regarded as the most "Americanized" city in entire country, even above the cities along the U.S-Mexico border.[6
Let's annex it.
Seven and 36,
What kind if parents, if they were being deported, wouldn't take their kids with them?
Putrid rebuttal on your part-
Wanna know why I don't go deeper?
Because you're not worth it-
Wanna know why?
Because you have no interest to learn-
Talk down to me? You can't hold a candle to me-
Throw a tantrum like a fucking 2 year old--that's all you libtards know how to do when you're forced to think-
Fuck you.
I gave you a shot. You pissed yourself.
Go change your diaper.
JR -- You are missing the point entirely. I will try to explain, using small words.
Deportation means kicking someone out. It is the opposite of allowing someone in. We cannot deport Americans, period. I think it is wrong to deport the parents of Americans.
You are now arguing about letting people into the country. That is not deportation. There is no need to let people in just because we are not deporting other people.
So, to apply this very easy stuff: if an illegal immigrant has a child in the United States, who would be American at birth, it would be impossible to deport the child and wrong to deport the mother. There is no need to even remotely consider allowing in anyone currently outside the country.
Your arguments are so poorly conceived and logically flawed that it is laughable.
What kind if parents, if they were being deported, wouldn't take their kids with them?
The kind who had a lawyer who argues that the parents should not be deported because the child is an American entitled to stay.
Seven Machos said...
"I doubt such a law could survive judicial scrutiny. The whole point is that law must follow the Constitution, whatever it is. So, for example, Congress cannot make a law allowing someone under the age of 35 to be president, or (in a real and fairly recent case) institute term limits on members of Congress."
I agree, but some who are strongly opposed to children of illegal immigrants being granted citizenship have proposed such laws. I think if passed they most certainly would end up at the Supreme Court.
Dog -- I called you a kook because your opinion is ridiculously on the fringe and your interpretation is grossly tortured.
You are simply wrong. There's no reason to be upset at me about it.
By the way, I am a conservative and a libertarian. Most anti-immigration people I know personally are leftists.
"But it would be grossly immoral to separate a nuclear family over paperwork. "
Get lost--nobody you're arguing with agrees with this characterization of the problem.
Kirk -- How would you characterize the argument to kick out parents of American children?
No, the Supreme's have yet to rule on jusrisdiction-
Pursuant to the Article-
"Anchor baby" was born of policy, not law.
I feel free to stand corrected-but, that is what I have read, and come to understand in my honest endeavor to find the truth.
UNITED STATES V. WONG KIM ARK, 169 U. S. 649 (1898)
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Syllabus
A child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution
So the distinction is that the parents in that case were legally in the United States. That's how you want to frame your argument if you are against anchor babies.
You are welcome. There will be no further assistance.
7-
I'd rather not buck heads-
Go back and read what you wrote.
I complimented the blog-and you specifically for the serious discussion of a serious matter-
You may question my facts-
Good. Set me straight.
But, if you are condescending, questioning my intelligence, I'm apt to respond-
More than apt.
Seven, you've also said deporting people is impractical. Would it be ok to deport an illegal immigrant, who doesn't have a citizen child but who also doesn't have the proper paperwork, or is that similarly impossible and impractical.
There is no need to even remotely consider allowing in anyone currently outside the country. Except that would require actually enforcing existing laws and the ability to actually remove people here illegally. Like say someone who has a visa that lapses, but don't leave. What is your position on how we should deal with that person? What if they're here for 25 years? What if after a few years they have a kid, and therefore we need to allow for their family who are living in other countries to come here (even if to not become citizens). What about people who simply fly into this country or drive in or are stow always who get past our borders?
If you think we can't actually deprt people, then you're not serious about remotely considering allowing in anyone currently outside the country.
What if after a few years they have a kid, and therefore we need to allow for their family who are living in other countries to come here
We do not have to do that. We are under no moral or constitutional obligation to do so. Again, you are mixing up deportation (forcing people to leave) with inviting people in.
I'm not sure what else I can say to make you see how you have this wrong. I'm out of aces, dude.
We do not have to do that. We are under no moral or constitutional obligation to do so. Again, you are mixing up deportation (forcing people to leave) with inviting people in.
I'm quite aware of what you are arguing about letting people into the country. Where I think your argument falls apart is with you argument on what to do with people in this country that need to be deported. You seem to think its impossible to do/immoral/impractical to do so. If you have no coherent policy on forcing people to leave, then it directly impacts on your policy to allow people in in the first place.
Some people are going to get past the wall, or travel through a border check, who won't have paperwork. What is your position on how to deal with those people since such policies are impractical. Further, if they've been here a long time, they may have babies, and thus it would similarly become immoral to ever get them or their babies to leave.
Seven wrote:
So, to apply this very easy stuff: if an illegal immigrant has a child in the United States, who would be American at birth, it would be impossible to deport the child and wrong to deport the mother
Suppose the father didn't make the initial trip and his wife gave birth while illegally in this country. It would be WRONGl to deport the child's mother, but why wouldn't it not similarly be wrong to not allow the father to come here? In both cases it would deny a citizen from access to their parents.
Where I think your argument falls apart is with you argument on what to do with people in this country that need to be deported
As I have said, we must solve the border problem first. Once the border is secure, we can discuss what to do with illegal immigrants here. Until the border is secure, as can be seen in this thread, we will either have a revolving door of deportees and, mostly, illegal aliens, or a draconian police state. That's not hyperbole. Go back and look at Mark's scheme.
We probably aren't too far apart, JR. It's just that your ideas are unworkable.
Dog -- The author of your website, Fred Ebel, is a radical, fringe anti-immigration advocate and he traffics with some very unsavory white supremacist types.
Just so you know.
It would be WRONGl to deport the child's mother, but why wouldn't it not similarly be wrong to not allow the father to come here? In both cases it would deny a citizen from access to their parents.
Deportation means forcibly ejecting someone at the barrel of a gun. Inviting someone in involves no such force.
The father is free to come. He just isn't getting a visa to do so.
Also, if this exceedingly rare case is all you have left, I don't think you have a leg to stand on. It's pretty embarrassing for you, really.
Hence, the very nature of lawyerness-
create inconsistencies, then spend eons trying to rectify them.
The fact is:
One Court can muddy the waters-leaving generations to create "case law", based on one Court-one 'interpretation'..
Never to get back to original intent-
Never again to find the "plain language"...
Or, what it meant at the time it was written.
We all know why the 14th Amendment was written-
We all know you can't illegally enter any country, not even France, give birth, and claim the child is of sovereign citizenship of that country.
Yet, we dance.
Or to put it another way, lets apply two statements made by Seven and see how it applies to parents of babies born here, and thus citizens, who are not citizens, and are not in this country at the time of their kids birth.
We don't have to allow any of them to become citizens. But it would be grossly immoral to separate a nuclear family over paperwork. Does the concept of foreign national have any meaning to you?
Versus
We do not have to do that (allow people to bring their families to this country if the baby becomes a citizen). We are under no moral or constitutional obligation to do so. Again, you are mixing up deportation (forcing people to leave) with inviting people in.
Seven argues both the constitutionality, but also the morality of denying anchor babies their parents. Yet, wouldn't preventing a father in another county from coming here be grossly immoral, and separating a nuclear family over lack of paperwork?
I would think that we would be morally obligated, in sevens world to not prevent the father from coming here. From a constitutional standpoint, the only one that has constitutional protection is the child, and not the mother or father. So Sven has to fall back on the moral argument. How is sevens argument about not inviting the father in, anything but immoral?
JR -- You cannot deport an American citizen. Under current law, people born here are American citizens. So they can't be deported under any circumstances. There is nothing to deport.
You don't have to accept any other argument. But you must accept this one, as it is a fact.
Seven wrote:
The father is free to come. He just isn't getting a visa to do so.
is he free to come or not. And why are you stressing the need for a visa. The mother doesn't have a visa. Suddenly you want to enforce the need for a Visa? And what if he somehow gets here despite not having a visa? Does he need to get a Visa?no, of course not. Because you don't actually enforce the immigration laws in your world.
To do so is impractical/immoral.
Why go through the motions of issuing Visas if, even if you don't have a Visa it doesn't matter. Since we can't put someone in jail for lack of paperwork.
Dog -- France is a horrific example. It is among the hardest countries to gain citizenship in.
As for courts, they take cases. If you think the results are unclear, send up more cases. Get off your duff, man. If the NAACP was as lazy as you, black people would still be sitting at the back of buses.
I'm not stressing the need for a visa. I'm saying the opposite. The man can enter illegally if he so chooses and face whatever consequences. The United States has made no action.
Do you have any evidence that your hypothetical has ever, ever happened, dude? Perhaps you should focus on more realistic circumstances.
Also, have I mentioned to you that it was my job to give out visas all day, every day, as a consular officer? Perhaps, knowing that, you can better understand why I see your "arguments" as ridiculous.
Since we can't put someone in jail for lack of paperwork.
Illegal aliens are freeloading and using our resources without contributing to our society! Let's all pay an additional $20,000 a year for each one we catch by housing them in our prisons!
Brilliant!!
Browndog,
The 14th Amendment states a person born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
There is nothing in the amendment regarding the parents of that person. Are you implying that since the parents are illegal, that jurisdiction doesn’t apply to the child?
Try committing a crime in a state or buying property there or selling something there and then saying you aren't a citizen there so the state has no jurisdiction. See how far you get.
Real cute-
Mix discussion with personal insults.
Lazy?
Really?
Some would say.."reducing your argument to personal insults reflect a lack on intelligence, and the ability to debate honestly"
Other may say.."I find your insults insulting, and shant engage you further. Good day."
Others may say "Fuck you, asswipe. We should discuss this matter face to face."
Still others may say, "God Bless you. Have a happy Thanksgiving."
36fsfiend said...
Yes.
And, It's not based on "my" interpretation, but on sound legal argument.
Thank-you for not insulting me--LOL
Seven Machos said...
“Try committing a crime in a state or buying property there or selling something there and then saying you aren't a citizen there so the state has no jurisdiction. See how far you get.”
Seven, if I evade my taxes, I’m technically an “illegal” since I’m braking a law, correct? But I’m still subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. I’m just not being prosecuted for my crimes.
And, It's not based on "my" interpretation, but on sound legal argument.
Your sound legal argument is shared by very few people. Maybe if you were more diligent, you could get more people who aren't also coincidentally fellow travelers with white supremacists aligned to your cause.
Wherever you are physically, you are subject to the jurisdiction there. And wherever you were when you did something wrong, you are subject to jurisdiction, relating to the crime. And wherever you sell stuff, relating to the stuff. And wherever you own property, relating to the stuff.
Seven Machos said...
"Wherever you are physically, you are subject to the jurisdiction there. And wherever you were when you did something wrong, you are subject to jurisdiction, relating to the crime. And wherever you sell stuff, relating to the stuff. And wherever you own property, relating to the stuff."
Seven, OK. Undetained illegal immigrants are subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S., they are just not being prosecuted, and if they have a child, then the 14th amendment clearly applies.
The Creeble Foundation is a very good red card program that says ....
Krieble.
Interesting-
This is the 2nd time I've seen the term "fellow travelers" used by libtards to describe what are perceived to be conservatives-
templates...
hint: We all know what it is...or, do you have case law to cite to prove it's not followers of Marx?
BTW- By "jurisdiction", as it was written, as it was meant, it relevant to citizenship--not every other fucking thing under the sun.
I'm out.
Happy Thanksgiving.
Why not just rename this Althouse & Seven nachos.
Quit spamming the thread, you must have 50 posts.
Did you get angrier and angrier as you read them all?
Quit spamming the thread, you must have 50 posts.
Your definition of spam must be much different than mine. Seven Machos, despite my disagreeing with his point of view, is not spamming. If he has copy/pasted nonsense over and over in multiple comments, that would constitute spam. However, wrong I think he is on this, he is holding forth honestly from his particular point of view and responding to people challenging his comments.
Spam, this is not.
Seven,
"How would you characterize the argument to kick out parents of American children?"
Not much different than the (admittedly sad) cases when sole-custody (or sole-remaining) parents get incarcerated. Actually our criminal-justice system and child protective services do have a fair amount of experience with this sort of thing. The big difference in cases of simple deportation is that the parent isn't being handed over to Law Enforcement in Mexico, Guatemala, or wherever, so the best case scenario for the children--i.e. that they remain with their natural parents--can be the outcome most of the time.
Look, my daughter had dual citizenship (US/Kenya) for a while. Until Kenya retroactively abolished it when she was still a minor, we thought that it would make it possible for her to reside in Kenya once she became an adult, but never once--not for even a millisecond--did it occur to us that we could demand to stay in Kenya on the basis of her citizenship.
Kirk -- That's really not a bad argument. I don't accept it. I don't know what caused the termination of your daughter's citizenship. Was it a volatile political situation? Was it an unfair law? We try to avoid those things here.
Further, can't you see that every proposed solution in this thread ratchets up the role of the federal government? Do you really want the federal government to oversee the raising of thousands of minor children? (As an aside, I would be shocked to learn that the federal government itself -- not states -- operates any sort of program for children.)
I'm a conservative and a libertarian (though Dog doesn't apparently accept it). That increase of the role of the federal government makes no sense to me financially or morally or practically.
The primary argument I have made throughout this thread is practical. We do not have the resources to deport illegal aliens
I think half would leave of their own accord if they thought we were serious about rounding them up.
A wall doens't need to be 100% effective. Neither does deportation.
Seven,
Kenya retroactively abolished all minors' dual citizenship sometime around 1985, and I'm not sure we really ever got the "real" explanation.
No biggie, it wasn't like she (or we) were in any way counting on it, and anyway numerous offspring of our former colleagues have managed to stay on in Kenya as adults through other means if they wanted to. I was just pointing out that idea that a minor's citizenship status would give their parents special rights was certainly not widely held!
(BTW, you said you worked for State--I sure hope you nothing to do with East Africa affairs in the 80's; the guys who did were triple-gold-plated f'n idiots.)
Seven,
As far as embroiling the feds in child-care issues--why would it? That's not now it works today when someone is incarcerated for one of the all-too-many federal felonies; the state agency takes over the supervision of the kids no differently than if the parent were in the state prison system.
State is full of idiots.
I think the difference is that there is no need to separate a child from an otherwise law-abiding citizen.
At the root of the problem, I'm seeing, is my view that being an illegal alien is a public policy issue that causes problems but not at all any sort of crime. I understand the desire to keep illegal aliens out for myriad sound policy reasons. I can't get my head around this idea that you'd want to send people to jail for not having a visa, or separate loving families. I just can't.
I suppose that, on the other side, it's impossible for people to get their head around my belief that it's not a crime to walk across the border without a piece of paper.
Still, my Great Wall solves both of our problems with the least human suffering.
"State is full of idiots. "
Especially now, right? ;-)
"I can't get my head around this idea that you'd want to send people to jail for not having a visa..."
Well let me spare you the effort, because I don't want to do that--I want to send them back to their country of origin. I thought that I already made that very clear.
Even for repeat offenders, as individuals, I'd prefer just sending them back over anything more expensive on our end. (Trafficers would be a different matter.)
Seven machos wrote:
Do you have any evidence that your hypothetical has ever, ever happened, dude? Perhaps you should focus on more realistic circumstances.
How is that the least bit unrealistic? People come here all the time without their families in tow.usually due to financial considerations. But it happens ALL THE TIME.
Seven machos wrote:
Illegal aliens are freeloading and using our resources without contributing to our society! Let's all pay an additional $20,000 a year for each one we catch by housing them in our prisons!<
Alright, so you acknowledge that they are using our resources without contributing. If you decide to not spend the resources to monitor and deport them would they somehow still not be freeloaders. Using our resources.
Simple math here. But suppose we have an illegal who gets caught and goes through the system and is finally deported after a few years. Even including the amount of money needed to put him through the process, is that going to be more or less than the money lost on the free loader who is here for 25 YEARS.
And at that point, you're saying that we shouldn't do anything further to those people despite not hving the proper paperwork, and thus illegal and thus freeloading, for 25 more years.
Seven wrote:
At the root of the problem, I'm seeing, is my view that being an illegal alien is a public policy issue that causes problems but not at all any sort of crime. I understand the desire to keep illegal aliens out for myriad sound policy reasons. I can't get my head around this idea that you'd want to send people to jail for not having a visa, or separate loving families. I just can't.
I suppose that, on the other side, it's impossible for people to get their head around my belief that it's not a crime to walk across the border without a piece of paper.
This is exactly why YOUR ideas are completely unworkable, and why your idea to have a wall, but not worry about documentation is so silly. You fundamentally seem to have a problem with the idea of an illegal immigrant. why the hell were you giving out visas for a good part of your life, if you think we shouldn't send people to jail if or not having one.
What purpose do you think there is for having that visa, if not to show that that person should be here versus not be here?
You dealt with LEGAL immigrants who went through an extremely long process to come here legally. Why didn't you just tell the people you were giving visas to that they were optional?
And it's not a crime to walk across the border without a piece of paper? Then what the hell do you want to build a wall for idiot? That paperwork is the only thing separating a legal immigrant from an illegal one. If it doesn't matter in either case, then why are you trying to keep anyone out with a wall?
Post a Comment