Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
It's about quanitity. I don't want labor markets glutted and wages driven too low.
do you understand labor markets?
So you dont refer to things you don't want to occur?
Arizona's Next Immigration Target: Children of Illegals
- Thread starter SmarterthanYou
- Start date
do you understand labor markets?
So you dont refer to things you don't want to occur?
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
Well thank goodness that you've finally seen that you were in error. I was beginning to question your ability to even take care of yourself.
If you continue to increase your cognitive skills; you might actually be able to talk about an issue, in the future.
Now if you could work on you misinterpretation of the 1070 bill and it's revision, you could even progress even farther.
Good luck.
Oh, you don't mean that we should actually amend it. You mean that we should just interpret it differently based on some subjective nonsense about how the times have changed even though that interpretation clearly does not fit with the 14th. Just like the left's argument on the second amendment. Hell no.
Of course, it puts the child in danger. Do you honestly think it is safe for an unborn child to have it's mother evading the law and going through possible rough travel? I really don't understand why you would want to counter that point since it tends to aid your position. But, whatever.
I am not sure, to what you are referring. What lack of congruency?
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
RStringfield said:
Stringfield = Nathan Thurm
I was not in error. You and the author were. You claimed there was nothing to suggest my response to the article when it clearly was suggested by the article.
I probably should have checked that claim by the author before commenting, because it did seem a bit over the edge. But you guys have already gone over the edge so it would not surprise me much.
Yeah and we know you've read sb1070 just like you have read this bill. I understand, you are embarrassed because you got your ass handed to you, again. You would think you would be accustomed to it by now.
It could be amended or more clearly defined...so long as the out-come is to stop anchor babies
The 14th amendment was done to deal with the emancipation of slaves. It was short sighted in that it never anticipated laws regarding illegal immigration.
The 14th amendment is not congruent to the idea of illegal immigration as no such laws existed when it was ratified. So one or the other needs to be changed/redefined. It appeared that you acknowledge this when you stated you would be happy to change border policy...but it is now apparent you were just being another Homer.
christiefan915
Catalyst
The facts speak for themselves.
The United States Congress proposed the Fourteenth Amendment on June 13, 1866 and, by July 9, 1868, three-fourths of the states (28 of 37) ratified the amendment:[50]
1. Connecticut (June 25, 1866)
2. New Hampshire (July 6, 1866)
3. Tennessee (July 19, 1866)
4. New Jersey (September 11, 1866)*
5. Oregon (September 19, 1866)
6. Vermont (October 30, 1866)
7. Ohio (January 4, 1867)*
8. New York (January 10, 1867)
9. Kansas (January 11, 1867)
10. Illinois (January 15, 1867)
11. West Virginia (January 16, 1867)
12. Michigan (January 16, 1867)
13. Minnesota (January 16, 1867)
14. Maine (January 19, 1867)
15. Nevada (January 22, 1867)
16. Indiana (January 23, 1867)
17. Missouri (January 25, 1867)
18. Rhode Island (February 7, 1867)
19. Wisconsin (February 7, 1867)
20. Pennsylvania (February 12, 1867)
21. Massachusetts (March 20, 1867)
22. Nebraska (June 15, 1867)
23. Iowa (March 16, 1868)
24. Arkansas (April 6, 1868)
25. Florida (June 9, 1868)
26. North Carolina (July 4, 1868, after having rejected it on December 14, 1866)
27. Louisiana (July 9, 1868, after having rejected it on February 6, 1867)
28. South Carolina (July 9, 1868, after having rejected it on December 20, 1866)
*Ohio passed a resolution that purported to withdraw its ratification on January 15, 1868. The New Jersey legislature also tried to rescind its ratification on February 20, 1868. The New Jersey governor had vetoed his state's withdrawal on March 5, and the legislature overrode the veto on March 24. Accordingly, on July 20, 1868, Secretary of State William H. Seward certified that the amendment had become part of the Constitution if the rescissions were ineffective. The Congress responded on the following day, declaring that the amendment was part of the Constitution and ordering Seward to promulgate the amendment.
Meanwhile, two additional states had ratified the amendment:
1. Alabama (July 13, 1868, the date the ratification was "approved" by the governor)
2. Georgia (July 21, 1868, after having rejected it on November 9, 1866)
Thus, on July 28, Seward was able to certify unconditionally that the amendment was part of the Constitution without having to endorse the Congress's assertion that the withdrawals were ineffective.
There were additional ratifications and rescissions; by 2003, the amendment had been ratified by all of the 37 states that were in the Union in 1868:[51]
1. Virginia (October 8, 1869, after having rejected it on January 9, 1867)
2. Mississippi (January 17, 1870)
3. Texas (February 18, 1870, after having rejected it on October 27, 1866)
4. Delaware (February 12, 1901, after having rejected it on February 7, 1867)
5. Maryland (1959)
6. California (1959)
7. Oregon (1973, after withdrawing it on October 15, 1868)
8. Kentucky (1976, after having rejected it on January 8, 1867)
9. New Jersey (2003, after having rescinded on February 20, 1868)
10. Ohio (2003, after having rescinded on January 15, 1868)
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:US-GreatSeal-Obverse.svg" class="image" title="Great Seal of the United States"><img alt="Great Seal of the United States" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/be/US-GreatSeal-Obverse.svg/125px-US-GreatSeal-Obverse.svg.png"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/b/be/US-GreatSeal-Obverse.svg/125px-US-GreatSeal-Obverse.svg.png
Sammy Jankis
Was it me?
If we just enforce border policy, the priotity of the anchor baby issue will diminish as the numbers will be negligible.
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
Well; hopefully you learned something this time and before jumping on your next "rant-du-jour", you'll actually read the post BEFORE you start bitchin and moanin.
I know you're trying to save face, after having yours jizzed all over; but after some of your other debacles at debate, you've probably grown accustemed to it.
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
It could be amended or more clearly defined...so long as the out-come is to stop anchor babies
It is clearly defined.
But didn't it? The point of the 14th was basically to ensure that the states could not make illegal immigrants or aliens of blacks born in the US.
Further, a law passed after the 14th cannot change the meaning of the 14th or impair its effects. It is subordinate to the 14th.
I acknowledge that our immigration laws create and exacerbate this problem. They should be changed, but no way should we start allowing our government to take away citizenship. The 14th is superior to any immigration law, so if there is some conflict there is no question which one must bend.
No, again. You made it clear that you did not read the article before commenting as my comments WERE suggested by the article. Also, if you had read the article you might not have been caught in the lie of claiming to have a read a bill which does not yet exist. You are only making yourself look more the fool, by continuing this nonsense.
Also, it was only 9 years after the 14th that the first restrictions were enacted by the federal government and only 16 years later was there there large scale exclusion.
California was already expressing sentiment against the Chinese and that became part of the debate.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html
The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, as originally framed by the House of Representatives, lacked the opening sentence. When it came before the Senate in May, 1866, Mr. Howard, of Michigan, moved to amend by prefixing the sentence in its present form (less the words "or naturalized"), and reading,
Mr. Cowan objected upon the ground that the Mongolian race ought to be excluded, and said:
Mr. Conness, of California, replied:
In light of what our immigration laws have become it is NOT clearly defined. As you go on to say there was a target class...period!
Precisely why the 14th needs to be either amended or more clearly defined by the courts! Our government would not be "removing" citizenship if it is defined as not being granted to anchor babies (babies of illegal immigrants).
The conflict exists because of illegal immigration laws. This means that we must decide about how our laws regarding illegals are to be enforced. This of course gives way to a valid discussion about anchor babies. The 14th and laws regarding illegal immigration are incongruent...split the damned hair and parse the facts all you want to, doesn't change that reality.
Nope, sorry. The framers were careful to ensure that it was not race based. There was a pressing need for it, but the framers fully understood the long reach of an amendment.
Yes, it would. People born in this nation are citizens by birth, per the common law that has existed for ages. It is removing citizenship from certain classes who are natural-born citizens.
Splitting hairs? The immigration laws are subordinate to the 14th. If you wish to amend the 14th, you can try, but immigration laws cannot be made superior to the 14th.
Also, again, your argument is the same as the gun grabbers. They argue that second amendment could not have envisioned new weapons and were only intended to protect muskets and weapons of the day. The amendment process exists because the founders understood that times may change, but that these important principles should not be easily altered.
The common law that existed for ages? The fact of the matter is the originator of the 14th, Howard, emphasised a class of people who do not have birth right citizenship while debating it on the House Floor:
"This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.”
It is quite clear that the framer of this amendment did not wish for "aliens" born here to have citizenship. Again, hairsplitter, the fact of the matter is it is both valid and needed to revisit and clarify the 14th...the foundation for doing so IS there...and I think I'll be proven right. This is not to say it will be successful...the first visit, but then again, it just might!
A baby of an illegal immigrant has no “allegiance" to anyone or place, but that of its parents who are NOT citizens of this country.
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
To "TAKE AWAY" as you've said, implies that the intent is to remove citizenship from someone who already has it and that's a missrepresentation.
The bill would DENY citizenship to those who are born in the US, where at least one parent isn't a citizen already.
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
The only thing that is clear, to anyone with intelligence and the ability to have cognitive thought, is that you errored when you responded to the article; because you interpretted it as being fact and this of course allowed you to crank up your "rant-du-jour" and to begin railing against something that you perceived as going to occur.
The only time that you attempted to make it appear that you were referencing the writers comments, is after you realized that you had painted yourself into a corner and shifting gears was your only way to hope to save yourself from looking totally stupid.
The fact that you find the need to continue to attempt to defend yourself, is even more evidence; because the truth needs no defending and you are failing miserably, in your pathetic attempt to resurrect your common sense from the tomb that you built for it.
This is further exhibited; in your comments regarding "TAKING AWAY" citizenship, in another part of this thread, which is in no way implied.
PLease continue to amuse me, with your antics and tom foolery.
Dance clown, dance. I command it.
Hair-splitters can never fully accept error...they will split any hair available to avoid admission of error. Here we have him plucking the hair of "still I'm right about my position the author is wrong about his opinion". Trust me Free...this dude will pluck his mama's hairs before ever admitting to the possibility of 1. being wrong or 2. just saying I may be wrong, but it is my opinion. His creed is anyone and everyone else who disagrees with me is wrong!