Seriously steeltown.....you're still on the "blame big steel" bandwagon??
The decision you're talking about was 100 years ago.
The people of Youngstown were "exploited"?????? How many billions of dollars in tax revenue did big steel donate in the past century? And still, in 100 years with billions of dollars, Youngstown couldn't manage to fix the issue.
And now they want sympathy and more money from me??!! I don't think so.
August 29, 2015 at 11:56 a.m.
Again I will ask...
When an elected official is removed from office because they are a corrupt POS, why does corrupt party that gave the corrupt fool to us in the first place get the privilege of replacing him her (flies both ways, D or R)?????
August 29, 2015 at 11:43 a.m.
So......How much of my tax money is going to be spent on this study, so that the Federal GAO can decide some time next year (maybe) how much more of my money will be taken from me and given to Youngstown to fix their sewers?? Sewers that Youngstown chose to let deteriorate.
August 29, 2015 at 6:48 a.m.
With regard to employers and transient farm workers (who you indicate I am not addressing), I will draw your attention to my original comments from above:“…..I am very willing to accept immigration reform that facilitates legal and controlled entry into this country for anyone from anywhere; and implementing the four principles above will make it much easier to discuss and implement other reforms to ease restrictions on LEGAL & CONTROLLED entry. We can discuss and implement laws allowing more LEGAL entries. We can discuss and implement reforms making the requirements less stringent and reducing the bureaucracy. 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……….”
You can also refer to recent prior comments I made responding @cambridge regarding my feelings on employers who hire illegal aliens. See my comment 4 under this article on the same topic from 8/16/15:http://www.vindy.com/news/2015/aug/16...
August 23, 2015 at 6:47 a.m.
Well, now we could get into an argument regarding the definition “domicile” or “domiciled”, with is far different than a place of “residence”. A “domicile” is a known and permanent home, established for legal purposes; none of which apply to an ILLEGAL ALIEN who is here illegally, surreptitiously, and without the consent of the American people.
I agree that there has been no case brought to the SCOTUS to establish the application of birthright citizenship to ILLEGAL ALIENS. So how can we argue that birthright citizenship for them has been established? I also agree that the Congress has had many opportunities to make law in this matter, and has failed to do so. It did not start becoming a problem until the last 40-50 years; but I, and many many other people, now feel that it is long over-due for Congress to act.
Your point about Canada is true, it is a western nation that also grants birthright citizenship in similar fashion to the USA (of course it shares only one land border with the USA)…………..but the USA and Canada are the only nations on earth that do so. The overtly “progressive” European nations do not. Mexico certainly does not. No Central American or South American nation does. Russia, China, Australia, do not. Why do we???
I am not sure why we are arguing about LEGAL immigrants and LEGAL visitors that register appropriately and have authorization to enter the USA. I have no issue with LEGAL entry, and my comments have never applied to people here LEGALLY. I do differentiate, however, if/when their legal status ends and they become ILLEGAL ALIENS. Is the guy who tunnels under the border, gets arrested and deported, and then sneaks back in again illegally somehow not illegal because we have his mug shot and fingerprints from prior arrest??? Is the guy who visits legally under a tourist visa, leaves when he is supposed to, but returns again later by climbing the fence and sneaking in at night somehow not illegal because he had a visa at one time??? If authorization has expired, it has expired; and if they are not authorized they are an ILLEGAL ALIEN.
August 23, 2015 at 6:43 a.m.
@HappyBobWith regard to those who enter legally but overstay their visa or other authority to remain; on the day their authorization expires it is THEIR RESPONSIBILITY to report-in at a border point and exit. Failing to do that, they are no longer a legally controlled visitor and immediately become an uncontrolled ILLEGAL ALIEN, the same as someone who climbs over or tunnels under the fence.
August 22, 2015 at 4:59 p.m.
Here are words of Senator Jacob Howard (1866), author of the 14th Amendment (EMPHASIS MINE):
“Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is, by virtue of natural law and national law, a citizen of the United States. 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 settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great issue in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.”
One cannot claim jurisdiction because one sneaks into the United States.
Senator Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee (1866), supporter of the Fourteenth Amendment, said that the jurisdiction clause includes those “…..not owing allegiance to anybody else … It’s only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens; and there can be no objection to the proposition that such persons should be citizens.”
The Civil Rights Act of 1866 defined citizens of the United States as “all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed…..” and the Fourteenth Amendment was intended to embed the Civil Rights Act of 1866 in the Constitution. Obviously it is clear, the idea of allegiance, ‘not subject to any foreign power,’ is necessary to understand the jurisdiction clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
August 22, 2015 at 4:46 p.m.
It was not a reasonable question. The implication of the question is, because we might be able to catch them after they sneak into our country illegally, then they are somehow "under the jurisdiction" of our laws while they're sneaking in and breaking our laws........so they would only be NOT under our jurisdiction if we don't catch them. That is a farce.
To your second question: If they enter legally but overstay their visa or otherwise ignore THEIR RESPONSIBILITY to leave as directed by our laws, failing to report in at the border as they leave; then they are breaking the law, their status and whereabouts is unknown, and they make themselves an ILLEGAL ALIEN.
August 22, 2015 at 2:32 p.m.
Suffering from auto correct on mobile device......
"How many births to illegal aliens does this apply to?"
August 22, 2015 at 1:30 p.m.
@HappyBobGee Bob, I guess you right. If the mother gives birth in a courtroom, under the bench of an Immigration judge then we might have to reconsider. How many births to illegal alienates this apply to???
August 22, 2015 at 1:09 p.m.