facebooktwitterRSS
- Advertisement -
  • Most Commentedmost commented up
  • Most Emailedmost emailed up
  • Popularmost popular up
- Advertisement -

 

« News Home

Speaker: Immigration measure will be tough to pass



Published: Thu, February 6, 2014 @ 4:03 p.m.

Speaker: Immigration measure will be tough to pass

WASHINGTON (AP) — House Speaker John Boehner said today it will be difficult to pass immigration legislation this year, dimming prospects for one of President Barack Obama’s top domestic priorities. “Listen, there’s widespread doubt about whether this administration can be trusted to enforce our laws. And it’s going to be difficult to move any immigration legislation until that changes,” Boehner told reporters at his weekly news conference.


Comments

1dontbeafool(912 comments)posted 7 months, 3 weeks ago

the puppet will do whatever the Tea Party makes him do.

Suggest removal:

2dontbeafool(912 comments)posted 7 months, 3 weeks ago

And that is a poor excuse from Boehner. Your job is to make the laws, so make them. You just don't want a immigration law. Obama has deported more illegal immigrants than any other President.

Suggest removal:

3JoeFromHubbard(1044 comments)posted 7 months, 3 weeks ago

>> Obama has deported more illegal immigrants than any other President. <<

That is an easy accomplishment considering that there are an ever increasing number of illegals.

Suggest removal:

4dontbeafool(912 comments)posted 7 months, 3 weeks ago

We have no freaking secure border, and haven't had one ever. Can't use the military, since they are all off fighting un-necessary wars. Can't build a wall, that would entail spending money. What do you suggest Joe?

Suggest removal:

5Jerry(498 comments)posted 7 months, 3 weeks ago

> "Obama has deported more illegal immigrants than any other President." <

This is a frequently repeated talking point, but what is your evidence for this claim; and exactly how were the numbers counted??

Suggest removal:

6Jerry(498 comments)posted 7 months, 3 weeks ago

First, any reasonable immigration reform policy must recognize that application for legal entry into the United States is something that must always be done from outside the United States, or while visiting the United States legally. No person who is in the United States in violation of immigration law (illegal alien) should ever be granted legal status without leaving and then applying for legal re-entry from the outside via the appropriate and legal procedures. Any policy that conflicts with this requirement invites illegal entry by rewarding it, and is absolutely unacceptable.

Second, any person who has violated immigration laws of the United States and who is caught in the United States illegally must be deported and forever barred from re-entry. There can be no exceptions. This does not mean the United States must engage in “round-ups” or “mass deportations”, it just means that illegal aliens must be deported as they are caught.

Third, any reformed immigration policy must absolutely recognize that no person who is in the United State illegally is entitled to any benefits or services supported by public funds; and that identification and proof of legal status is an absolute requirement for application for any such benefits and services. This does not imply that emergency services and emergency healthcare should be withheld; however, once the emergency situation is resolved, deportation of persons here illegally must follow.

Illegal, is illegal, is illegal. No form of amnesty is acceptable. Any law that allows even so much as one illegal alien a "path to legal status" (short of leaving and applying for legal re-entry) is totally unacceptable.

Suggest removal:

7dontbeafool(912 comments)posted 7 months, 3 weeks ago

Almost 2 million in 5 years.
http://m.washingtonpost.com/blogs/pos...
I do agree with some of your statements about how to become a citizen legally.

Suggest removal:

8Jerry(498 comments)posted 7 months, 3 weeks ago

@dontbeafool

I see the Washington Post article and the ICE statistics referenced by it. These speak to the numbers and types of "removals" conducted in 2012 & 2013.

Note that they are including Border Patrol interdictions in the figures. Were these types of "removals" included in the deportation counts in prior years? Are we counting the same numbers and comparing apples to apples??

There is no references to statistics from prior years under prior administrations (GWBush, Clinton, GHWBush, Reagan, etc. etc); and no comparisons regarding how the statistics are gathered or counted.

This article is not evidence showing that > "Obama has deported more illegal immigrants than any other President." <

I'm glad we can agree on some points regarding becoming a legal citizen. I have no issues regarding legal immigration and am happy to welcome people who respect our laws. I am also very willing to consider immigration reform that would allow more legal and controlled entries, streamline the regulations and bureaucracy, establish guest worker programs, etc. etc.

I will continue to insist, however, that illegal is illegal is illegal; and that no amnesty of any kind is acceptable.

Suggest removal:

9YtownParent(325 comments)posted 7 months, 3 weeks ago

"I will continue to insist, however, that illegal is illegal is illegal; and that no amnesty of any kind is acceptable."

It's good for all of us that the Native American Tribes didn't take the same approach.

Suggest removal:

10Jerry(498 comments)posted 7 months, 3 weeks ago

@YtownParent

In thinking about a response I realize that I must very simply agree with you.

500 years ago the Native Americans had open borders, no immigration laws, and no way to enforce or control who immigrated onto this continent. This was indeed very fortunate for "us" (those whose ancestors came from Europe and Asia to settle here).

How did it work out for the Native American Tribes?? Not very well, considering they were over-run and their culture(s) have all but been eliminated. Not having borders or immigration laws,and the ability to enforce these, turned out to be quite a big mistake for them, didn't it?

Now, 500 years later, are you suggesting that we should make the exact same mistake? Are you suggesting that, because of what happened 500 years ago, the current people living in the USA now have no right to have immigration laws or borders?

Open borders...no laws...Thunderdome. Really??!!

Suggest removal:

11JoeFromHubbard(1044 comments)posted 7 months, 3 weeks ago

I'm not concerned with specific numbers of deportees for the sake of presidential performance comparison.

As long as they are deported.

Suggest removal:

12dontbeafool(912 comments)posted 7 months, 3 weeks ago

Repubs won't do any immigration reform because elections are soon approaching. Their decades of hate towards minorities will not help them in the election. That is why their proposal for path to citizenship will be a 13 year step process and will have so many conditions, that will make it so diffucult for anyone to legally come her. So we will be back where we are now. I would 1. secure the border. 2. Give illegals a time frame to step forward 3. weed out criminals from people who want to work 4. deport all others who don't declare in that time frame or have criminal backgrounds 5. tighten and enforce regulations on employers who hire illegals to include jail time. And 6. start collecting taxes on these people who otherwise you wouldn't be getting a dime from. Unless the border is secure though, nothing else really matters. Because you send them back, and they are back in the states within weeks.

Suggest removal:

13dontbeafool(912 comments)posted 7 months, 3 weeks ago

make some sense for a change evil. Immigration has nothing to do with medical. I can say, if Republicans want the repeal of Obamacare so much then they need to bring something to the table. They could start with banning all guns. Just stick to the immigration topic.

Suggest removal:

14dontbeafool(912 comments)posted 7 months, 3 weeks ago

immigration is and has been broken forever. Why wouldn't you want immigration reform? You know, fix the problem. That is Congress' job right, to fix problems through legislation. So they only want to do their job if there is a Republican in office, is that it?

Suggest removal:

15dontbeafool(912 comments)posted 7 months, 3 weeks ago

From a GOP strategist....

But the broader party is still too old, too white and too out of touch with the rest of America, said Lionel Sosa, a veteran Latino GOP strategist who has helped advise candidates since 1980.

"I think our party is stone deaf on the issue of Latinos and immigration. We're turning off not only Latinos, but also women, young people and Asians with stupid, intensive comments," Sosa said.

He pointed to anti-immigration comments by recent Republican candidates and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee's comments about Democrats thinking women "can't control their libidos" as "equally stupid."

"GOP candidates who cater to the extreme right in the primaries, don't realize the long term damage they're doing to the Republican brand in terms of alienating the segment of voters who are growing the fastest," Sosa said. "This damage will be hard to overcome in the general election."

So continue to hurt your own party by NOT DOING ANYTHING ON IMMIGRATION.....

Suggest removal:

16JoeFromHubbard(1044 comments)posted 7 months, 3 weeks ago

I think we need some political reform before immigration reform.

Dems and Repubs all afraid to do the right thing for fear of loosing their golden goose jobs.

Suggest removal:

17JoeFromHubbard(1044 comments)posted 7 months, 3 weeks ago

Obama care is one more step down the path to socialism and the destruction of the traditional American way of life.

This is where what the Democrats call "obstructionism" can be used if no other path to reducing the damage of the ACA is available.

Suggest removal:

18dontbeafool(912 comments)posted 7 months, 3 weeks ago

and Repubs PUBLICLY stated before he even took office that they will obstruct anything he tried to do and hoped he failed. The American people spoke when the elected him. So do you call that bipartisanship Eivo? Is that the way to start off on the right foot? After comments like that, should the POTUS trust the Republicans?

Suggest removal:

19YtownParent(325 comments)posted 7 months, 3 weeks ago

Glad you see my point @Jerry which is to point out that none of us here very has any moral superiority when it comes to immigration. We are all descended from immigrants and have no more right than anyone else to be here. That doesn't mean immigration should be ignored. It should be dealt with logically without all the inflammatory partisan crap on both sides.

The "secure the border" idea one of those nonsense sound bites. Logically, it is as impossible to secure a border today as it was 500 years ago. It doesn't make sense to me to spend trillions of dollars to build walls and fences and then spend billions of dollars a year to police the walls with drones and personnel. People will still get over, under and around it. Are we going to secure our Northern Border too? If not the illegals can just as easily enter through Canada. What about our coastlines?

It makes more sense to have a stronger net across the country to catch illegal immigrants. Require hospitals, schools, social services agencies and employers to report those without proper documentation. Provide stiff penalties for those who don't report it and deport those who are caught. Remove the economic issue by getting rid of the income tax altogether and replace it with a flat 8-10% national sales tax. Then everyone will be paying a fair share and supporting the infrastructure they use whether they were born here or are here illegally.

Suggest removal:

20JoeFromHubbard(1044 comments)posted 7 months, 3 weeks ago

Consider how Obama got elected:

He used social networking and a silver tongue
that thrilled many listeners.

The first time I heard him, I was very impressed with his oratory skills. Not with what he said but how he said it.

He managed to fool the voters, not once but twice.

His poor performance as chief executive is on display.

Suggest removal:

21Jerry(498 comments)posted 7 months, 3 weeks ago

@YtownParent

I interpreted your first comment to me as an implication that you did not agree with the enforcement of immigration laws and the removal of illegal aliens. Apparently that was my error.

You do make a lot of sense, and you and I agree on much.

As I indicated in other responses above...... I have no issues regarding legal immigration and am happy to welcome people who respect our laws. I am also very willing to consider immigration reform that would allow more legal and controlled entries, streamline the regulations and bureaucracy, establish guest worker programs, etc. etc.

I will not accept those who violate our laws and who are here illegally. Illegal is illegal is illegal. The solution is to absolutely cut off all economic incentives and benefits to being here illegally; and to cut off all hope that illegal entry can ever lead to legal status.

Suggest removal:

22Elf2(75 comments)posted 7 months, 3 weeks ago

@YtownParent,

"Secure the border" is Step #1 in the Republican Plan for Immigration reform.

You say the "secure the border" idea one of those nonsense sound bites.

Suggest removal:

23YtownParent(325 comments)posted 7 months, 3 weeks ago

I'm well aware the Republican Plan is "Secure the Border" and yes it is a nonsense sound bite. Show me how you are going to effectively do it without spending billions & trillions of dollars, then I'll consider it a an actual plan and not just a soundbite.

The Secure the Border plan would end up being the Republican version of the Affordable Care Act. A huge drain on public funds without making any dent in the probelm it aimed to solve.

Suggest removal:

24tnmartin(236 comments)posted 7 months, 3 weeks ago

if you don't want to do it, then excuses are not hard to fabricate. Securing the border is not in itself sufficient. But it is necessary. And it is quite doable.
So is vigorous and unrelenting internal enforcement. ANYONE here illegally should be out of the country within 12 hours with nothing but the clothes on their back. Not even shoes. And send a bill, for the TOTAL amount, including interest, to the nation of origin and expect payment darn near immediately. In gold. Recalcitrance in payment to lead to closure of border to *all* traffic to and from that country, including via 3rd nations.
Since the overwhelming majority of illegals are from Mexico, that could mean the end of NAFTA, which would be fine by me. The behavior of the government of Mexico in this matter, including their little-disguised support of "reconquita", amounts to an Act of War anyway,. I'm fine with lobbing 155mm shells into Mexico City if that is what it takes to get their attention.
If Obumble wants to show some leadership in the matter, perhaps he might begin by deporting his own Aunt Zeituni who has been here illegally and illegally living off the taxpayer for more than 20 years. Ditto his alcoholic and several-times-arrested uncle, both of whom were supposed to be out of the country years and years ago.
Since illegal aliens are not hard to find, I suspect that no one is looking too hard. We used to call that 'criminal nonfeasance in office', leading to a stretch at a club fed.

Suggest removal:

25Elf2(75 comments)posted 7 months, 3 weeks ago

@Jerry,
Your position:"Second, any person who has violated immigration laws of the United States and who is caught in the United States illegally must be deported and forever barred from re-entry. There can be no exceptions."

What are you going to do with the children born in the US?

Suggest removal:

26Jerry(498 comments)posted 7 months, 3 weeks ago

@Elf2 – 1 of 2
You are referring to anchor babies. Often the people with opposing views on this issue contends that anchor babies are a “right wing fabrication” and not a real problem.

However, to answer your question, I propose that we deport the children with their illegal parents.

Fourth - The privilege of citizenship can no-longer be granted to children born in the United States when the mother is not authorized to be here legally under the jurisdiction of the United States. These children are here as illegally as the mother and, bearing in mind common sense, I do not see how altering policy and law in this manner conflicts with the Constitution for several reasons.

The words of the 14th Amendment indicate that birthright citizenship applies to “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”. A person who is here illegally and without the knowledge of the government of the United States, and who is in the very act of defying the laws of the United States, cannot and should not be considered under the jurisdiction of the United States.

I have also seen nothing in the record of the original congressional debate regarding the 14th Amendment that indicates the originators were considering illegal aliens at the time of the amendment. They were considering Native Americans, former slaves, and children of legal immigrants; but they were NOT considering illegal aliens in their debates.

In addition, certain Supreme Court decisions that are often cited as supporting the traditional overly-liberal interpretation of the birthright clause actually do not address the situation of children born to illegal aliens in the United States. A frequently cited case, Plyer v. Doe (1982), dealt with the education of children brought to the US as illegal aliens, but not born here. The ruling in Plyler v. Doe does not answer the question regarding children born here, and the decision was a 5-4 split of the Court, with the dissent indicating that the Court was overstepping its bounds and that the matter should have been resolved legislatively (in other words, as a matter of law or policy). Another frequently cited case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) dealt with the citizenship of a child of non-citizen but LEGAL Chinese immigrants; again not addressing the case of children of illegal aliens.

Suggest removal:

27Jerry(498 comments)posted 7 months, 3 weeks ago

@Elf2 – 2 of 2

It is additionally interesting that, in the Wong Kim Ark decision, the Supreme Court indicated birthright citizenship of the 14th Amendment would be excluded for “members of foreign forces in hostile occupation of United States territory”. While application of the term “hostile occupying force” may seem a bit harsh it is not unreasonable, considering that there are now in excess of 12 million illegal aliens (a number many times the larger than the combined US military forces) occupying the territory of the United States in defiance of our laws; and it is worthy to note that the Court was definitely allowing an exclusion of citizenship for the children of people who are present without permission and against the will of the people of the United States.

There may be differing opinions on this issue, and legislative and judicial action will be required; but a change of law in this matter should be able to withstand Constitutional scrutiny. If somehow it cannot, then we need to change the Constitution in this regard.

I am very willing to accept immigration reform that facilitates legal and controlled entry into this country for anyone from anywhere; and once some reasonable principles are accepted, other reforms that are necessary to ease restrictions and bureaucracy involved with legal entry will be facilitated. We will be free to discuss any other reasonable reforms that would facilitate the legal application process. We can discuss and implement laws allowing more legal entries. We can discuss and implement making requirements less stringent. We can discuss and implement streamlining the path to permanent residency and/or citizenship. We can discuss and implement a controlled and legal guest or migratory worker program. We can discuss and implement tougher enforcement and consequences for employers who employ illegal aliens. We can discuss any reasonable reforms, as long as it is recognized that the United States has an absolute right and duty to protect its borders and control entry of any and all persons from other areas of the world. What we cannot have is any law or policy which provides incentive of any kind to enter or remain in the United States illegally, or which provides any hope that by entering or remaining here illegally there will be a path to permanent residence or citizenship.

Suggest removal:

28YtownParent(325 comments)posted 7 months, 3 weeks ago

You're spot on in your reading of current case law Jerry. However, I doubt either side is going to push it through the courts, which isn't something I agree with. The lack of backbone in both parties is detestable.

I still argue that it is impossible to secure any physical national border the way the Republicans propose. It isn't working for Israel, Egypt, or Russia. I still say the best bet is to secure the nation as a whole. A good first step was the drivers license and State ID requirements enacted post 9/11.

Now you have to have a valid birth certificate & Social Card to get a standard ID. A green card only gets you a provisional ID/license that states the Visa status and its expiration date on it. You need that ID to do anything from get on a plane, see a doctor, enroll in school, apply for any government program. Oh wait you don't need it to vote.

So add voting to the list. Second make it mandatory for all government offices to report it to the local pd the moment someone doesn't present proper ID -instead of just turning them away so they can keep trying until they get through. Make local PD's that are lax in turning suspects over to ICE risk losing their eligibility for federal funds. Require the same documentation in renewing a license/ID as required in getting one. (That will catch all those who got valid ID pre-9/11 with their work-student visa's who have overstayed their legal welcome as well as anyone who was able to fudge it beforehand.) Again, call the cops to the BMV office instead of just letting them walk out.

Deport anyone who is caught. Deport anyone who falsified their entry applications. Deport the "ancor kids" too. Then we need to be a little more like England when it comes to letting people in legally. Make them have employment lined up before they come here. Place limits on the jobs they can take -if the jobs can be filled by American citizens living here, then they can't come in and fill those positions.

Suggest removal:

29tnmartin(236 comments)posted 7 months, 3 weeks ago

and make a point of enforcement to include severe criminal penalties against those who employ illegals. Really should not be that hard to do, there's just a strange lack of the moral will to do so. Classify it as aiding and abetting the commission of a crime. One suspects that tossing the owners of some of the hotels, lawn care companies, construction operations, etc. that pretty openly employ illegal aliens into prison after forfeiting the company and suffering huge fines, might act as a deterrent.
A fence is not in itself adequate, but I note that we have physical barriers around Fort Knox and the White House. So just perhaps these barriers serve a purpose.
Another thing. We've had instances, several of them, in which illegals have been apprehended and even deported several times, and then been caught, again, committing ghastly crimes. I believe we had a recent report of 198 forcible rapes by illegal aliens just in North Carolina. So. I propose that ANYONE previously deported found to be again in the country, be SUMMARILY executed. Right on the spot. If that seems unseemly, then hang the bum on the border and leave the corpse for the crows. It will be a useful if grisly object lesson, and serve notice that we are serious. And illegals bringing drugs into the country -- and illegals are heavily involved in drug transport along the southern border -- to be met by rifle fire without warning. This is not a law enforcement matter, and illegal aliens have NO civil rights. It is a national defense matter. We did not issue traffic tickets at Pearl Harbor and it would have been silly to suggest it. Shoot these bums and don't apologize for it.

Suggest removal:

30Elf2(75 comments)posted 7 months, 3 weeks ago

Your position: "The words of the 14th Amendment indicate that birthright citizenship applies to “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”. A person who is here illegally and without the knowledge of the government of the United States, and who is in the very act of defying the laws of the United States, cannot and should not be considered under the jurisdiction of the United States."

Is the newborn defying the laws of the United States?

In your quote "person born or naturalized" refers to the person born, not to the parents of the person born.

Suggest removal:

31SheDevil(120 comments)posted 7 months, 3 weeks ago

@tn,
tnmartin writes:" I propose that ANYONE previously deported found to be again in the country, be SUMMARILY executed. Right on the spot. If that seems unseemly, then hang the bum on the border and leave the corpse for the crows".

Your lust for blood is appalling !

Suggest removal:

32tnmartin(236 comments)posted 7 months, 3 weeks ago

you want blood lust?
here's some figures:
"Representative Steve King of Iowa points out that 25 Americans, on average, are killed by illegal aliens every day (about evenly split between motor vehicle accidents and outright murder).

Government Accounting Office provided information in a population study of a sample of 55,322 illegal aliens in which researchers found that they were arrested at a total of 459,614 times, averaging about 8 arrests per illegal alien.

12 percent of these crimes were for violent offenses such as murder, robbery, assault, and sex-related crimes.

In Los Angeles, 95 percent of all outstanding warrants for homicide (which total 1,200 to 1,500) target illegal aliens. Up to two-thirds of all fugitive felony warrants (17,000) are for illegal aliens."

The points are these:
a) decent American citizens are DAILY being murdered, raped, robbed, assaulted, and otherwise being harmed by ILLEGAL ALIENS. School kids are being denied decent educations due to the strains on the system imposed by non-English-speaking ILLEGAL ALIENS. Large sections of American cities and towns are now unsafe for American citizens due to the encroachment of ILLEGAL ALIENS. I have, personally, been within the last year in towns, and not just those along the Mexican border, where English is rarely heard, and even 2nd &3rd generation people do not consider themselves Americans and scorn the use of English. I know, personally, people who have been denied jobs in places as far north as Kansas, because their command of Spanish is insufficient to communicate with the ILLEGAL ALIENS employed there very openly.
b) the matter is, as I have stated, not essentially a law enforcement matter except for the operations who illegally employ ILLEGAL ALIENS rather than American citizens and legal residents. It is, in fact, a national defense and national security matter. These are not "immigrants' in the accepted sense. They are in fact invaders, and often armed ones at that. The normal, internationally practiced, and historically justified response to invasion is deadly force sufficient to repel the invasion and deal with those who arranged that invasion. Invasion of a national territory is an act of war, and needs to be so regarded and responded to as such.

Suggest removal:

33tnmartin(236 comments)posted 7 months, 3 weeks ago

to address the reasonable question of post #42,
suppose that you are found to be driving your kids to the store in a stolen car when you are apprehended by the police. Do you get to keep the car just because it is being used for a good purpose? No. The principle is that criminal behavior must NEVER be rewarded. Do your kids suffer because of your behavior? Yes. It's unfortunate and all of that, but you made that choice when choosing to violate the law. The fault is yours alone, not society nor the police nor the legal owner of the car. You are.
Likewise with the offspring of illegal aliens. It's sad and tragic and all of that. And they are still NOT citizens, and historically were not so classified. The "anchor baby" interpretation is relatively recent. And wrong, as well.
Note this as well: we've had numerous reports of "excursion citizenship". A pregnant woman from , say, Wales, will fly into the US, check into a convenient birthing center, and give birth to what is being called a U.S. citizen. Nonsense! But there are advertised deals like this going on. The whole thing is laughable. But how is it more egregiously so, than when someone swims the Rio Grande, and checks into a hospital in Brownsville, Texas and gives birth -- at taxpayer expense by the way -- to a putative US citizen. One is as wrong as the other. And as stupidly defended.
Build the fence, and defend it!

Suggest removal:

34Elf2(75 comments)posted 7 months, 3 weeks ago

Tn,
You may not like it, but a child born in the US is a citizen and entitled to due process.

You may want to initiate a constitutional amendment to qualify birthright citizenship.

Suggest removal:

35Jerry(498 comments)posted 7 months, 3 weeks ago

@Elf2

To answer your question………. It is not the newborn’s fault and his/her illegal alien parents are entirely to blame and entirely responsible for the illegal actions they have perpetrated; but “yes”, the newborn is violating the laws of the United States.

A person (child or other) who is not capable of understanding what they are doing can still commit illegal acts. They are not “blamed” for this, it is not their “fault”; but, at the same time, they are not allowed to continue committing the illegal acts.

Parents and baby need to leave.

Suggest removal:

36Jerry(498 comments)posted 7 months, 3 weeks ago

@Elf2

The fact also remains that the Supreme Court has already indicated, as part of their prior judgment, that the children of people who are present without permission and against the will of the people of the United States (hostile occupying forces) are excluded from birthright citizenship.

Surely, the newborn babies could not be considered part of the hostile occupying forces, but yet the Supreme Court found that they are NOT due birthright citizenship.

Suggest removal:

37Elf2(75 comments)posted 7 months, 3 weeks ago

Jerry,
Can you provide a citation for "court already indicated" and their interpretation that a undocumented resident is a "hostile occupying force".

If this is settled law, there would be no reason for folks like Steve King to try to get and bill passed that reinterprets the Constitution in regard to birthright citizenship.

Suggest removal:

38Elf2(75 comments)posted 7 months, 3 weeks ago

@Jerry,
You might want to take a look at the report the Cato Institute released in 2012.

http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org...

Titled: Is Birthright Citizenship Good
for America? It gives an exhaustive study of the genesis and the court cases.

While you may feel that the birthright and excursion citizenship are 'bad policy', it remains the law.

If you can find a contradiction, please post the same.

Suggest removal:

39Jerry(498 comments)posted 7 months, 3 weeks ago

@Elf2

In the United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the claim for 14th Amendment birthright citizenship made by Wong Kim Ark, a child born to LEGAL Chinese immigrants while they were in the USA. In the majority opinion, however, the Court indicated that birthright citizenship would be excluded for children born to members of hostile forces occupying the territory of the USA. This was an indication by the Court that birthright citizenship is NOT absolute.

I discovered this several years ago in research on this topic. I no longer have the reference at my fingertips, but I will find it again and provide an appropriate link here as soon as I am able. I am not a law clerk, this may take a while. Please stand by.

I will also look at your Cato Institute link.

With regard to birthright citizenship for children of illegal aliens being the law…….Yes, I do recognize that because of current misguided law and bad policy this is the current law. My point is that it does not have to be this way, and that a change of law and policy in this matter is NOT necessarily excluded by the Constitution.

Suggest removal:

40Jerry(498 comments)posted 7 months, 3 weeks ago

@ Elf2

It was easier than I thought to re-find the reference. The Wong Kim Ark decision references the exclusion of birthright citizenship for children born to members of forces in hostile occupation of the territories about 12 or 13 times:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts...

………… “The interpretation of the constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.' 124 U.S. 478 , 8 Sup. Ct. 569.”

“II. The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance-also called 'ligealty,' 'obedience,' 'faith,' or 'power'-of the king……………………………..But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the king's dominions, were not natural-born subjects, because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the king.”

………………… “The real object of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution, in qualifying the words 'all persons born in the United States' by the addition 'and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the national government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases,- children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation, and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign state,-both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law, from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country. Calvin's Case, 7 Coke, 1, 18b; Cockb. Nat. 7; Dicey, Confl. Laws, 177; Inglis v. Sailors' Snug Harbor, 3 Pet. 99, 155; 2 Kent, Comm. 39, 42.”…………………………………..

Suggest removal:

41Elf2(75 comments)posted 7 months, 3 weeks ago

Jerry,
I'm sorry if you mistook my comments to suggest that I thought that the birthright was an ABSOLUTE. I did not mean to convey that at all. I can think of one exclusion right off: children born of parents who are foreign diplomats.

I will examine you other comments, in the meanwile the Cato paper has some commentary on the ARK case.

Suggest removal:

42tnmartin(236 comments)posted 7 months, 3 weeks ago

very interesting discussion.
Let me retrack a bit. Let's begin with this understanding. Borders matter. If you own your home, you probably have a very good idea of the location of the property line. A good neighbor will not put a pool, or park a vehicle on your side of that line. And that's a neighbor. Someone from the next town over definitely has no business parking a car in your drive or pitching a tent in your lawn. Can we all agree on this?
And most of us have doors on our homes, and the outside doors are equipped with locks. There are reasons for that, reasons beyond keeping out the snow. It gets into the whole matter of defining and defending what is ours. If I come to your house, I don't just walk in. I knock and ASK FIRST. You have the option of allowing a visit. Or not. The same general principle applies to entering a country. You ask first, and IF and ONLY IF, the homeowner, or sovereign nation, grants permission, then you may enter under certain limitations. I have no right whatever, nor do you, to break a window, crawl through, and then claim that, by virtue of your presence, you belong there and have a right to stay, and to order delivery pizza charged to the homeowner. Try it, and you're likely to be hauled off by the police, if not met by deadly force. And that is as it should be.
NO ONE, no one at all, has any "right" to break in. Either into your house, or into the country.
Saying that a pregnant burglar who thereupon gives birth in your kitchen somehow acquires the deed to the house is a theory that is laughable on its face. Yet it is little different from these "anchor baby" arguments.
And you know it.
Borders matter. Property demarcations matter. And frankly, people who treat such things as being of no consequence are not the people we want in this country. We are not so short of criminals that we need to be importing any. Nor making tired excuses for bad behavior. It is observable that those who have such attitudes tend to pass them down to their offspring. Examples of that are not hard to find, even in our own fair village. Again, we do not need to be adding to the existing stock of such -- prison space is already too full.
We have laws on the matter already, most nations do. (Want to adopt Mexico's?) The problem is not the laws, the problem is the continued and open refusal to obey and enforce those laws. There is absolutely *no* support for the vile notion that someone can "waive" these laws, nor decline to enforce them. That is in itself a violation of the oaths of office, and should be severely punished.

Suggest removal:

43dontbeafool(912 comments)posted 7 months, 3 weeks ago

I love John Stewart. I know he is political satire, but he has a knack of pointing out common sense and the hypocricy of government.

Despite John Boehner originally agreeing with President Obama that immigration reform should be high on the domestic agenda, it's since become less of a priority. Why? As Jon Stewart said on Tuesday's "Daily Show," "There was one major problem: Republicans."

The GOP has been candid that while they believe immigration reform is important, its members don't want President Obama to get credit for it. Stewart noted that this seemed short sighted. "Apparently you'd rather continue to cater to a group of supporters that, while loyal, will be dead before you can say 'chipotle,'" he joked.

In addition to not wanting Obama or the Democrats to receive credit, Republicans have insisted that the current administration cannot be trusted to enforce immigration laws, even if they do pass. Stewart found this especially disingenuous.

"For the Republican caucus to suggest that they will not entertain immigration reform because they don't trust this president to enforce the laws of the land is perhaps the greatest projection in the history of psychology," Stewart said, before rattling off a list of laws that congressional Republicans have refused to support simply to obstruct the President.

"The GOP saying they don't trust the President's ability to implement the law is like Bob Costas saying, 'I don't wanna borrow your glasses, I don't know where they've been!'"

Suggest removal:

44tnmartin(236 comments)posted 7 months, 3 weeks ago

first, the issue is not and has never been "the President's ability to implement the law". Not at all. The issue is the current President's *intention* and *commitment* to implement the law.
Some of us have at one time or another taken an oath similar to that one that the President publicly swore, oaths that go along the lines of "well and faithfully carry out the duties of the office". Obumble swore such an oath. And has ever since made a mockery by his pattern of oath-breaking. Examples are not hard to find, in this or various other matters.
Obubmble recently held a political event in D.C. Present were several publicly self-announced ILLEGLAL ALIENS. Were they apprehended and deported? No. Obumble has two relatives, who are ILLEGAL ALIENS. Have they been apprehended and deported? Of course not.
We had an example just yesterday in which it was announced that more provisions of Obamacare will not be enforced for another year. He has absolutely NO legal authority to do that on this. nor any of the other provisions of that awful law. His job is to carry out the law, not to pick and choose which sections to enforce, which to delay, which to ignore (you can call it waive if you like, but it's ignoring it). Frankly, I believe that such behavior rises to the standard of "high crimes and misdemeanors", requiring impeachment and removal from office. And, perhaps, imprisonment under federal felony statutes.
So long as this, or any other President, no less than any "mere" citizen, feels no problem with ignoring laws that are inconvenient, then trust is broken. Irrevocably, perhaps.
Let's see a decent period, perhaps 10 or 15 years, of active and energetic enforcement of the *existing* laws, then yammer about "reform" carries no more value than wind. People do not listen to liars, and Obama and the rest of the Immigration reform crowd have earned no trust nor respect. At all.

Suggest removal:

45dontbeafool(912 comments)posted 7 months, 2 weeks ago

I distinctly remember the same accounts happening under former presidents though. Illegals turned in or apprehended by police on minor charges and then released, not deported. Maybe if reform was passed that both parties agreed to, their would be stronger enforcement of the law by everyone.

Suggest removal:

46dontbeafool(912 comments)posted 7 months, 2 weeks ago

Eivo the sadist, only happy in other peoples' misery. Here is something that Bush even areed on, so why doesn't the House want to act on immigration reform? Because they don't believe in the last sentence of Bush's below statement, they believe in doing nothing and playing politics.
(article on Bush) Bush pushed hard for a comprehensive immigration bill during his time in office, an effort that ultimately came up short. But he brushed aside the suggestion, voiced by some in the GOP, that the Republican Party should pass immigration reform to shore up its reputation among the fast-growing Hispanic-American community. "The reason to pass immigration reform is not to bolster a Republican Party, it's to fix a system that's broken," he said. "Good policy yields good politics, as far as I'm concerned."

Suggest removal:

47dontbeafool(912 comments)posted 7 months, 2 weeks ago

We both know that the CURRENT immigration policies are broken. I think that even you would agree to that. So pass a reasonable, fair, immigration policy so it can be enforced. Even if you don't think that O would enforce it, he isn't going to be president much longer (despite you thinking he can run for a third term). So have the laws in place for the next one. Besides, we both know that the ONLY reason repubs don't want to address the issue now is because of THE ELECTION YEAR.

Suggest removal:

48tnmartin(236 comments)posted 7 months, 2 weeks ago

hate to have to repeat this, but, "the CURRENT immigration policies" are NOT 'broken", they are being ignored. The policies are not broken, the LAW is being broken. Not only by the ILLEGAL ALIEN invaders, but by those who have sworn solemn oaths to uphold those laws. And then refuse to do so. Either behavior is a stench in the nostrils of honest men.
Is there blame enough to cover both the major parties? Absolutely! Bush - either one - was nearly as bad on this issue as Obumble. Ask Ramos and Compeon. But they are no longer in office.
We do serious damage to the nation and to the society if we permit government officials (remember when they were called public servants, and acted like it? Me neither) to arbitrarily use the mechanisms of the State to reward their friends and to harm their political rivals, to pick and choose whether or not to uphold the same laws that they swore to uphold. This is a very dangerous attitude, incompatible with a tradition of free people. We will come to bitterly regret it if it is not repudiated in no uncertain terms.
Enforce the existing law. Hasn't been done in a while. Try it. Until it is changed, it still is the law. Act like it.

Suggest removal:

49dontbeafool(912 comments)posted 7 months, 2 weeks ago

even with the laws in place and enforced, it is still a losing battle. Unless illegals, once caught, are sent to prisons or labor camps, then it is broken. We spend money on enforcement, send them home, and they are back before you can blink. I call that broken. Then with prison, it costs us more money to incarcerate them. In some cases prison is an improvement from the conditions that they came from. So there needs to be a deterrent to keep them from even wanting to come, but the U.S. will not go to those measures.

Suggest removal:

50tnmartin(236 comments)posted 7 months, 2 weeks ago

sigh. I realize it's controversial to say this but
ANY Illegal Alien found to be inside the country after deportation should be executed on the spot. Send a bill for the ammo to the nation of origin. Hang the corpse on the border as a warning to others.
These are not citizens. They have no civil rights that we are bound to observe. They are invaders of the national territory, a clear matter of national security, and should be met with deadly force whenever found.
(I leave it as a separate issue whether those who aid and abet their presence should be tried for Treason or some lesser felony. That would include those who employ illegals rather than US citizens).
And as a note, if they didn't learn once, they won't learn twice. Shoot them. Very clearly, the law means nothing to them. We don't want such people here, we have plenty like that already.
Do it regularly, and their cohorts will get the message very quickly.

Suggest removal:

51dontbeafool(912 comments)posted 7 months, 2 weeks ago

That is my point tn, those methods would deter anyone from entering the country illegally, but you know the the U.S. would NEVER do that, so your whole immigration problem solving is mute. You are talking about a country who imprisoned two border patrol agents for shooting an illegal drug dealer carrying a van full of drugs. So what PRACTICAL means would deter them? Unpaid work camps for a year, then deportation? The ACLU would have a field day with slavery. I don't know what the answer is, but somehow these people have to be kept out and gain citizenship through the proper channels.

Suggest removal:

52YtownParent(325 comments)posted 7 months, 2 weeks ago

I agree they have no legal rights in our country, but to say they have no civil rights is a dangerous line to cross. That would mean no American in any other nation has any civil rights either and they could be shot and hung on their borders too.

Suggest removal:

53dontbeafool(912 comments)posted 7 months, 2 weeks ago

the difference in that Y town, is that Americans in other countries follow the procedures by obtaining a visa. 99% of them, excluding military in combat, are there with permission. I agree though, you can't just line people up and shoot them.

Suggest removal:

54tnmartin(236 comments)posted 7 months, 2 weeks ago

my proposal was completely serious. And more so for drug carriers..
1) get that fence built, and staff it. Shoot anyone coming across. Land mines are fine with me and so are automatically directed armaments. If it is OK to put a fence around the White House, we can do it on the border.
2nd) the overwhelming majority of ILLEGALS are coming across the Mexican border, are largely Mexican nationals, and the matter is actively encouraged and supported by the government of Mexico. That makes it invasion, which is an Act of War. Treat it as such. I'm fine with a Declaration of War, and prosecution of that to whatever means are appropriate. End NAFTA (and the Bushian fantasy of a North American Union while you're at it) which would be good for American workers. (Ross Perot was right about the "sucking sound").
3rd) vigorous prosecution of persons and companies who are hiring ILLEGAL ALIENS. jail time gets a CEO's attention
4th) end, immediately and permanently, any and all welfare and other support programs to ILLEGAL ALIENS. That includes food stamps, section 8 housing, and so forth. As part of that, end this nonsense of sending support to the offspring of ILLEGAL ALIENS who are still residing in Mexico! Insanity to permit that.
5th) actively seeking out and incarceration of all illegals. Really not that hard to find.
6th) expedited deportation. it really should not take more than a few hours to make an honest deportation. Have them out of the country no more than 12 hours thereafter.
7) bill the nation of origin for the cost of all the above, including interest, including restitution for damage done.
8) be enough of a pain that the governments of the nations of origin find it in their own interest to enforce our laws or suffer consequences. This is called defense in depth
9) and hold my proposal for summary execution as an available option.
===
let me tell you something you may not know, and I didn't either until recently. Do you know how many ILLEGAL ALIENS are in US prisons for felonies committed in a country they have no right to be in? Lots. And you and I are paying for it. Their nations of origin should be paying that. I met a person whose job it to translate for the prisoners who have no English, some are from areas where even Spanish is not used, they speak languages that predate Cortez. You and I pay for that also. And quite a lot of them are HIV positive or had AIDS. You are also paying the $3000 per month per person for their meds. That also should be paid for by the nation of origin. And the practice has been to release them back into the US rather than deport. WHY????
chief of what needs to be done is to make it clear that we are serious. That means that the laws will be upheld and honored and enforced COMPLETELY, whether some find it disagreeable or not. Or face consequences themselves. Borders matter. If you won't enforce them, you don't need to be in that office. Leave.

Suggest removal:

55dontbeafool(912 comments)posted 7 months, 2 weeks ago

I'm good with 1, am really down with 2, fine with 3, totally agree with 4, against incarceration of any illegals here just for the cost, just deport them if we have a wall/fence on the border. 7, agree, although will never receive payment, 8 agree, 9 I am not opposed to execution only if the illegal is guilty of a violent crime. And the rest, I am very familiar with. I would be fine with the US purchasing a remote island to ship all of these people to instead of back to their own country. Let them find a way back.

Suggest removal:

56YtownParent(325 comments)posted 7 months, 2 weeks ago

Just ship them back. If they're violent criminals, ship them back in boxes. But there is no way I'm for spending our tax money to care for them in prison. That defeats the whole purpose. We'd still be paying for their support, and in many cases welfare & food stamps would be cheaper than the cost of incarceration. It wouldn't stem the flow any either as US prisons offer better conditions than freedom in some countries.

Suggest removal:

57cambridge(3013 comments)posted 7 months, 2 weeks ago

Obama has deported more illegal's than any president in US history.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexnowra...

Suggest removal:

58tnmartin(236 comments)posted 7 months, 2 weeks ago

the prison cost is real, and not trivial. Which is the reason for demanding - and expecting - payment from the nation of origin. We have every right to close the border to traffic to and from deadbeat nations, including traffic via a 3rd nation. And if it shuts down NAFTA, good! fine by me.
Make it in the offending country's own interest to make their citizens act decently. We have some creative people around, perhaps one has a better idea. What we do now isn't working or we would not have this conversation.
==
The area we live in has probably more 1st, 2nd, 3rd generation of LEGAL immigrants than just about anywhere. Most of them are great people. Neither of my parents - born here - spoke much English until they went to school. Spouse's father was born in Europe, mother born on the boat en route here. Have reason to know we're not real unique in that, have often heard similar stories. But people came here, obeying the law, in order to become AMERICANS. Unhyphenated at that. The illegals that I've encountered around the country, not so much. And have literally encountered children, and even GRAND-children of them who did not consider themselves Americans and refused to speak English. That is not A Good Thing for anyone. The attitudes that caused them to enter illegally got passed down the generations. Leads one to suspect that it was a similar culture that caused the nation of origin to be such a lousy place. Ideas have consequences.

Suggest removal:

59tnmartin(236 comments)posted 7 months, 2 weeks ago

I have to respond to an erroneous and oft-repeated statement above.
No, the Obumble mal-Adminstration has NOT "deported more illegals than any president in U.S. history.". I know that some say it, and some may even believe it, but it is simply incorrect.
If you go one the DHS website, you'll find figures through 2012 (last I looked, they hadn't put up the 2013 figures yet).
Deportations under Obumble in four years worked out to around 3.2 million, about 800,000 per year
Deportations under GW Bush (who I regard as soft on the issue) were roughly 10.3 million, around 1.3 million per year.
FYI, Clinton admin deported 12.3 million in 8 years,
not sure how one can read that to say the current regime is setting deportation records, it is simply untrue.
what is happening is that he Obumble people are engaging in deceptive accounting. Normally, that is called "lying", which is no surprise. They are counting in as "deportations" some 400,000 turned away at the borders. Which is a lie.
if I may quote another source, "ICE Director John Sandweg recently admitted that ICE deported only 134,000 illegal aliens from the interior in 2013, out of a population of estimated at 11.5 million. Interior deportations are down 40 percent since 2009."
hmm. interior deportations down 40 per cent. This is a record???
quoting again from the same source,
"The reason deportations are so low under the Obama administration is because of a series of executive-decree amnesties and so-called “prosecutorial discretion” policies that shield at least 90 percent of the illegal-alien population from enforcement. Under current rules (as distinct from the law), illegal aliens with family members and those who have not committed other serious offenses are off-limits for deportation."
so. The current administration illegally violates the law and the oath of office, and then claims record enforcement. Not just a lie, but a pattern of lies.

Suggest removal:

60Elf2(75 comments)posted 7 months, 2 weeks ago

tn,
I tried to find the origin of your source:

you wrote: "quote another source, "ICE Director John Sandweg recently admitted that ICE deported only 134,000 illegal aliens from the interior in 2013, out of a population of estimated at 11.5 million. Interior deportations are down 40 percent since 2009."

All I could find was an original article by the Center for Immigration Sudies. They did not attribute or give the occasion that Sandweg made this statement.

Since you are citing Sandweg as a source, can you provide information about where or when said.?

For example, was it Fox News Sunday or testimony before a Congressional committee?

Suggest removal:

61cambridge(3013 comments)posted 7 months, 2 weeks ago

tnmartin....my choice is to believe what Forbes and many others have reported or what you reported. Easy choice.

I forgot to mention. More border agents on the border than any president in US history. You're welcome.

Suggest removal:

62Elf2(75 comments)posted 7 months, 2 weeks ago

@tnmartin,

Were you able to to find where and when Sandweg said that?

Suggest removal:

63tnmartin(236 comments)posted 7 months, 2 weeks ago

among other places, the statement is recorded at the Watchdog.org site, specifically http://watchdog.org/122219/immigratio...

sorry for delay, spouse is having complications from surgery this week and we may be off-line for extended periods.

Suggest removal:

64dontbeafool(912 comments)posted 7 months, 2 weeks ago

best wishes for your spouse.

Suggest removal:

65Elf2(75 comments)posted 7 months, 2 weeks ago

I googled the sentence and found the same quote in more than 8 places, including where I believe it may have originated, CIS.

What is disappointing is that nowhere does it reference when and where Sandweg made the statement. The way it is reported 'Sandweg admitted', sounds like it was some sort of interrogation or testimony.

I would like to hear (or see or read) the context of this "admission".

I'm not challenging the truthfulness of the report, but I really am distressed by the media (right, left or middle) that are intent on interpreting and feeding us the news that they feel is important.

Suggest removal:


News
Opinion
Entertainment
Sports
Marketplace
Classifieds
Records
Discussions
Community
Help
Forms
Neighbors

HomeTerms of UsePrivacy StatementAdvertiseStaff DirectoryHelp
© 2014 Vindy.com. All rights reserved. A service of The Vindicator.
107 Vindicator Square. Youngstown, OH 44503

Phone Main: 330.747.1471 • Interactive Advertising: 330.740.2955 • Classified Advertising: 330.746.6565
Sponsored Links: Vindy Wheels | Vindy Jobs | Vindy Homes | Pittsburgh International Airport