Mexican Flag at school yanked down and Burned

[Wicked Pilot]

It's the drug cartels causing most of this shit. Legalize pot and some other controlling substances and watch them die. There's no need for war when a simple and already needed change in the law will surfice.

[Surlethe]

Of course illegal immigration is an invasion. Haven't you seen the Mexican Army capturing United States territory? You've also heard of the Asian Invasion too, that's an invasion and it even rhymes. Are you a liberal bleeding heart putting sand niggers first before real Americans? And since it's an invasion the US would be perfectly justified firing artillery at the invaders. See? Invaders means using artillery is alright, and using artillery is alright beause of invasion. It's us against them, you're with us or you're with the terrorists.

Brian

Well, dammit, Brian; I hadn't looked at it in that light! I mean, how could I ever miss the fact that we need to counter-invade China and Korea and Japan as well as Mexico? Hey! I just had a great idea! Why don't we simply carpet-bomb Mexico City! It would get rid of those damned Mexican government officials who are instigating the invasion of civilians, and then we could live happily ever after without those stinky hispanics stealing jobs from good hard-working Americans! To hell with Chinamexican sand niggers! Ten of them are worth one American life!

[Fire Fly]

Just wondering for those who are more astute in the subject matter, which is cheaper? The immigration status quo or enforcing boader control and deporting illegal aliens?

[Glocksman]

Just wondering for those who are more astute in the subject matter, which is cheaper? The immigration status quo or enforcing boader control and deporting illegal aliens?

The Federation for American Immigration Reform has a page full of info on the subject.

Of course they're against illegal immigration so take it as you will, but if they're correct that it costs California alone $10 billion per year, then border enforcement is cheaper.

[brianeyci]

I already posted that link earlier and it's bullshit because 4.5 billion out of the ten billion figure is education of illegal immigrant's children, who are citizens of the United States and not illegal immigrants themselves.

Brian

[Glocksman]

I already posted that link earlier and it's bullshit because 4.5 billion out of the ten billion figure is education of illegal immigrant's children, who are citizens of the United States and not illegal immigrants themselves.

Brian

The only reason they're citizens is because of the 14th amendment.
If their illegal parents hadn't had their kids on this side of the Rio Grande, then Cali wouldn't be spending that $4.5 billion, would they?
The intention of the 14th was to insure that the recently freed slaves would be citizens, not to make citizens of the children of illegal aliens.

[brianeyci]

The intent doesn't matter, nor does the fact that they're children of illegal immigrants. When you are born in a country, you are a citizen of that country. Any other intepretation is a violation of human rights because it bases your nationality and therefore your privileges on your ancestery rather than your country of birth. The fact that California can't get its act together and stop illegal immigrants at the border or pisses and moans about them costing too much doesn't change that.

Brian

[brianeyci]

I just want to add that 4.5 billion figure is for education for K-12. That means a kid in Grade 12 who has lived all his life in America is a burden to America's economy because of illegal immigration by definition of FAIR, even though he would be shortly entering the workforce or going onto college. What a retarded way of viewing things.

Brian

[Glocksman]

The intent doesn't matter, nor does the fact that they're children of illegal immigrants. When you are born in a country, you are a citizen of that country. Any other intepretation is a violation of human rights because it bases your nationality and therefore your privileges on your ancestery rather than your country of birth. The fact that California can't get its act together and stop illegal immigrants at the border or pisses and moans about them costing too much doesn't change that.

Brian

It's the Federal government's responsibility to police the borders, not the State of California's.
And as far as birthplace determining citizenship goes, then I guess Germany is a violator of human rights for insisting that at least one parent be a legal resident of Germany in order for a child to be a citizen.

-by birth in Germany
If you were born after December 31, 1999 to foreign parents in Germany.
One of the parents must have been a legal resident in Germany for at least eight years at the time of your birth.
In addition, at least one parent must have an unlimited residence permit ("unbefristete Aufenthaltserlaubnis") or a residence entitlement ("Aufenthaltsberechtigung") at the time of your birth.

The Swiss have even stricter laws.

The UK's laws aren't automatic, either.

. Children born in the United Kingdom on or after 1 January 1983

Children born in the United Kingdom (see Note A) on or after 1 January 1983 will be British citizens if one of their parents (see Note B) is at the time of the birth a British citizen. It does not matter whether the parent concerned became a British citizen by birth, adoption, descent, naturalisation or registration. If neither parent is a British citizen the children will still be a British citizen if one of their parents is at the time of birth 'settled' (see Note C) in the United Kingdom.

Children who do not automatically become British citizens have the right to be registered as British citizens if the following requirements are met, either:

(a) (i) the child was born in the United Kingdom on or after 1 January 1983; and

(ii) one of the child's parents has, since the birth, become a British citizen or settled in the United Kingdom; and

(iii) an application for registration is made before the child's eighteenth birthday

or

(b) (i) the child was born in the United Kingdom on or after 1 January 1983; and

(ii) he or she is 10 or over on the date of the application; and

(iii) during the first 10 years of the child's life he or she has been resident in the United Kingdom without being absent for more than 90 days in any one of those 10 years.

If the absences in any one year amount to more than 90 days the Home Secretary may make an exception to the residence requirements in (b) (iii) if he thinks that there are special circumstances in a particular case.

In fact, the only countries I know of (but I'm sure there are others) that offer automatic citzenship to children born on their soil regardless of the legal status of the parents are the US, Canada, and France.
I'd think that if the UK's or Germany's citizenship laws were a violation of human rights, the EU Court of Human Rights would have stepped in by now.

[Zero]

The only reason they're citizens is because of the 14th amendment.
If their illegal parents hadn't had their kids on this side of the Rio Grande, then Cali wouldn't be spending that $4.5 billion, would they?
The intention of the 14th was to insure that the recently freed slaves would be citizens, not to make citizens of the children of illegal aliens.

So according to you, should I not be a citizen because of shit my great-great-great-great-great grandfather did? What of mexicens acquired when the US took a shitload of land? Should they be denied citizenship and sent "home"? I'm actually just curious on the consistancy of your position, I'm not trying to argue anything.

[Stark]

All Glocksman is suggesting is handling citizenship the way almost all other countries do: on an application basis. You enter the US legally, you apply for citizenship, you are accepted or not. What's the problem with that?

[Glocksman]

The only reason they're citizens is because of the 14th amendment.
If their illegal parents hadn't had their kids on this side of the Rio Grande, then Cali wouldn't be spending that $4.5 billion, would they?
The intention of the 14th was to insure that the recently freed slaves would be citizens, not to make citizens of the children of illegal aliens.

So according to you, should I not be a citizen because of shit my great-great-great-great-great grandfather did? What of mexicens acquired when the US took a shitload of land? Should they be denied citizenship and sent "home"? I'm actually just curious on the consistancy of your position, I'm not trying to argue anything.

My position is this:
The children born of parents who are illegally in the country should not be automatic citizens.


As far as the Mexican War conqests go, The treaty of Guadalupe-Hildalgo that ended the war stipulated that Mexican nationals in the newly conquered US possessions could become US citizens if they stayed in the territories and declared that they wanted to be US citizens instead of Mexican citizens.

In other words, the Mexican citizens in those areas were offered a choice of stay and become US citizens, stay and remain Mexican citizens, or leave and stay Mexican citizens.

[Glocksman]

Addendum:
Even if the 14th were changed, I do not support depriving those who are currently citizens by birth of their citizenship.
Any changes should only affect those born after the change is ratified.

[Zero]

Addendum:
Even if the 14th were changed, I do not support depriving those who are currently citizens by birth of their citizenship.
Any changes should only affect those born after the change is ratified.

That makes a lot of sense. In that case, I agree. Folks shouldn't cross the US-Mexico border just to have a kid here, so he can be a US citizen at the cost of taxpayers everywhere.

[Damaramu]

Here's some of that Mexican military vs US border agents info: Clicky

Site of interest:

Ranch Rescue

[Damaramu]

Another site of interest:

http://www.borderrescue.com

[brianeyci]

In fact, the only countries I know of (but I'm sure there are others) that offer automatic citzenship to children born on their soil regardless of the legal status of the parents are the US, Canada, and France.
I'd think that if the UK's or Germany's citizenship laws were a violation of human rights, the EU Court of Human Rights would have stepped in by now.

And America is violating human rights by denying gays marriage, and Canada and a short list of countries are the only ones who fully recognize gay marriage, what's your point? Determining citizenship by ancestry instead of location of birth is a violation of human rights and whether or not the EU Court of Human Rights doesn't step in or not doesn't change that.

Everyone has the right to a nationality.

No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

So if Germany says you need one parent and someone illegally gets into Germany and has a child and that child is nationless, it's incumbent on Germany to grant the child citizenship or they're violating human rights. It's not such a big deal because Germany doesn't border a third world nation, but that doesn't make it not a violation of human rights just because it's not a hot button issue.

Brian

[brianeyci]

Actually Glocksman, look at it this way please... would you have a problem with children of illegal immigrants getting citizenship if it was just one person crossing the border with Mexico illegally each year instead of three million? If you're honest you'll say no of course not, and realize that the real motivation behind wanting to deny children of illegal immigrants citizenship is economic.

Brian

[Glocksman]

Everyone has the right to a nationality.

No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

So if Germany says you need one parent and someone illegally gets into Germany and has a child and that child is nationless, it's incumbent on Germany to grant the child citizenship or they're violating human rights. It's not such a big deal because Germany doesn't border a third world nation, but that doesn't make it not a violation of human rights just because it's not a hot button issue.

Brian

But the huge majority wouldn't be being deprived of a nationality as I don't know of a single country in the world that denies citizenship to a child born of two citizens who happen to be out of the country when the child is born.

There may be isolated instances of children being born to stateless persons in the US or the odd asshat country that does deny citizenship to children born overseas of their own people, but if it's a huge problem, it's not making the news.

If you're honest you'll say no of course not, and realize that the real motivation behind wanting to deny children of illegal immigrants citizenship is economic.

My primary reason for opposing illegal immigration is economic and I've not tried to hide that.

However, that still doesn't mean that the US law shouldn't be changed to one along the UK model where the child can still become a citizen, but the parents have to apply for it and the child has to be at least 10 years old and have lived in the UK for the great majority of their life.
Changing it to follow the UK model rather than the automatic granting it is now would also put an end to the reported practice of rich families coming to the US just long enough to give birth, thus ensuring dual citizenship for the child.

[Glocksman]

Could a mod fix the quote tags in the first quote?

[brianeyci]

But the huge majority wouldn't be being deprived of a nationality as I don't know of a single country in the world that denies citizenship to a child born of two citizens who happen to be out of the country when the child is born.

There may be isolated instances of children being born to stateless persons in the US or the odd asshat country that does deny citizenship to children born overseas of their own people, but if it's a huge problem, it's not making the news.

There are also practical problems that I mentioned earlier. You would create a huge underclass of uneducated people in the country. And people will keep coming to the US even if their children will not be citizens.

Also the fact that the FAIR report says that a Grade 12 student who has lived his entire life in the US and who is by any objective standard American is denied citizenship because of his parent's country of origin. It's unethical and unjust to punish a child for the choices of his parent.

There is also of course, the humanist argument that a child has a right to citizenship in a country that will defend its rights and protect it. An American citizenship is worth more than a Syrian citizenship. So the American government does have a duty to accept as many citizens as it can take care of. And the economy can absorb the cost of 4.5 billion a year easily because when these kids grow up they'll be working and tax paying Americans.

My primary reason for opposing illegal immigration is economic and I've not tried to hide that.

Then you would have to still address the point that these children will grow up and not educating them is silly. What are you going to do deport them away from their life, family and friends just because their parents happen to be from a different country? That's unjust.

However, that still doesn't mean that the US law shouldn't be changed to one along the UK model where the child can still become a citizen, but the parents have to apply for it and the child has to be at least 10 years old and have lived in the UK for the great majority of their life.

Then until ten the future citizen would be denied healthcare and education and the parents benefits to care for the child if you agree with the FAIR figure of ten billion. What's the point in that if he's eventually going to become a citizen?

Changing it to follow the UK model rather than the automatic granting it is now would also put an end to the reported practice of rich families coming to the US just long enough to give birth, thus ensuring dual citizenship for the child.

I have no problem with that. I don't put a lot of stock in nationality other than a person has a right to a social contract with a government that protects his or her rights. If he wants nationality in another country to evade tax laws, it might be a legal loophole but I don't give a shit, he's rich anyway and the alternative is far more harmful.

Brian

[brianeyci]

EDIT : What is the point in delaying the citizenship of the child until he is 10 years old anyway? It just creates unnecessary paperwork and will not stop people from continuing to come to the US. They'll keep coming even if they don't get child care benefits. Do you really think they come to the US with the mindset "we'll come to the US, have a child and the government will give us money and we'll be rich?" They want a better life for themselves and their family so this would not stop anything except your small problem of rich people coming to have babies.

It would only cause problems for the child down the line.

Brian

[Master of Ossus]

I have summarily executed Mal's arguments and sent them to the HoS. I hadn't realized how active thsi thread was right now. Have at it, then.

[Glocksman]

Also the fact that the FAIR report says that a Grade 12 student who has lived his entire life in the US and who is by any objective standard American is denied citizenship because of his parent's country of origin. It's unethical and unjust to punish a child for the choices of his parent.

I'll reply in detail after I've digested the food for thought posted here.

However let me say that I don't support stripping the citizenship from those currently here who obtained it in such a manner even if it were legally possible to do so.

But coupling a repeal of automatic citizenship with a determined program of border enforcement would minimize the hardships you're talking about, especially if paired with a program designed to grant legal alien status to the kids you're talking about.

[brianeyci]

But coupling a repeal of automatic citizenship with a determined program of border enforcement would minimize the hardships you're talking about, especially if paired with a program designed to grant legal alien status to the kids you're talking about.

Well then all you have to show is that preventing children of illegal immigrants from becoming automatic citizens is an effective deterrent against illegal immigration.

It won't be, people will still come looking for a better life for themselves and they'll still have kids, and the kids are the ones who suffer. Why create any hardship at all. They'll still need medical treatment and education and the underlying principle behind the FAIR report is to deny these kids medical treatment and education to save money.

Brian