Republicans Push To Revise 14th Amendment

MattusMaximus said:
These jerks are playing with fire catering to crap like this - it's the damn Constitution, and they treat it as a stupid plaything :mad:
Click to expand...

If they are successful at changing it, then it will be legal and according to the will of the people. If not, then...why get mad?
 
I hope they remember to stick in a grandfather clause, because as far as I know, the vast majority of Americans are only Americans because they and their parents were born here.
 
shecky said:
There was not really a concept of "illegal alien" when it was written. Persons wanting to relocate to the US more or less arrived on US soil, and went on in pursuit of their lives. Immigration laws and restrictions, by and large, came later, when more established citizens got uppity about the newer waves of grubby non-English speakers forming communities. The illegal immigrant is largely a creation of the 20th Century, and it's reaction against newcomers.
Click to expand...

Things were different back then, probably the most important thing being that there were absolutely no entitlements or tranfer payments of any kind. Open borders and a welfare state don't mix very well, at least in the long term. Even with that said, the large immigration wave in the late 19th century caused a lot of social tension, both for ethnic/cultural reasons and for economic reasons. There was a massive glut of low and semi skilled labor that led to very low wages for workers, which was one of the ultimate causes of the all the labor/union strife around the turn of the century, and it did indeed get ugly.

Get rid of (yeah right, ok - reduce) the welfare state, allow substantially more legal immigrants into the US, but try to tailor that amount based on the impact it will have on wages. There's got to be a happy medium somewhere between "wide open borders and 20 people in line for each minimum wage job, so instead they collect benefits" and "we've got ours, tough **** for you furners".
 
MikeMangum said:
Get rid of (yeah right, ok - reduce) the welfare state, allow substantially more legal immigrants into the US, but try to tailor that amount based on the impact it will have on wages. There's got to be a happy medium somewhere between "wide open borders and 20 people in line for each minimum wage job, so instead they collect benefits" and "we've got ours, tough **** for you furners".
Click to expand...

It’s far from clear that abuse of social services is even a problem, but even if it is the problem could be solved by offering blanket amnesty and citizenship to anyone who asked. To me though, it seems like the people who complain about this potential problem actively oppose the obvious, cheep, easy, “small-government” solution.
 
TragicMonkey said:
I hope they remember to stick in a grandfather clause, because as far as I know, the vast majority of Americans are only Americans because they and their parents were born here.
Click to expand...

I suppose it would depend on where your grandfather was born, then...
 
lomiller said:
Then we can agree that the immigration debate isn't about really about immigration but support or opposition to big-government regulating immigration, and punishing those who don’t do what big brother tells them?
Click to expand...


First off, the immigration debate has never been about stopping legal immigration.

Secondly, I do not equate duly passed laws to be big brother telling people what to do, with the connotation that there is some type of dictatorship or something going on.

Third, I believe that laws should be followed, and if they are not, there should be repercussions to not following the law.

Fourth, the current immigration debate has to do with millions of people openly flauting the laws of the US, the US government not doing its best to enforce those laws, and certain citizens and foreign nationals saying that those laws should just be ignored.

Look, if you feel that the current laws are unjust, then lobby to change them. Right now, today, the current Democratic President, the current Democratic Senate, and the current Democratic House can write up the "Immigration Is Easy" act. It can say that all borders the the US are open, anyone can come in, and all you have to do to become a citizen is to walk in to the nearest Post Office and have your name added the the US Citizen List. At that point you are now entitled to all benefits of being a US citizen.

I wonder why they don't do that. And don't give me any of the BS about how the Republicans would block them. Get it on record what you believe in. Don't hesitate or waffle on it. Stand up for it. Broadcast it loud and clear. Get re-elected because of your stand on immigration.

But you know what? That's not going to happen. Because even Democrats know that there needs to be some type of border security, and some process for becoming a citizen, and if you don''t follow the rules, no matter how easy they are to follow, you will be considered an illegal alien. And you know what demographic they would lose, don't you?

Before you go off on this, let me make this clear. I personally do NOT have a problem with immigration. I have a problem with our southern border being a war zone and a wasteland that cannot be entered by citizens because of safety reasons. I believe that the government has a responsibility to make every inch of US soil safe enough for any US citizen to travel on. I believe it is very wrong for the US Gov't to post signs on US federal land telling citizens that it is not safe for them to enter due to human trafficking, and not immediately send in the US Army to secure our borders.

If the process in place to become a legal citizen is sufficient, but it just takes too darn long, then the process needs to be changed to speed it up and make it less painful for the applicant. If the gov't is going to approve anyway, make it quicker. This is action that can be taken by the current administration without changes in the law.

If you believe the process needs to be changed, change it. By all means. But I think it would be very safe to say that whatever new immigration law that comes about, no matter what the language in it, there would not be any language that says one method of obtaining citizenship would be- Step 1: Sneak across the border at night.

So, to summarize, I'm not sure we agree.
 
TragicMonkey said:
I hope they remember to stick in a grandfather clause, because as far as I know, the vast majority of Americans are only Americans because they and their parents were born here.
Click to expand...

I think that would be the purpose of limiting citizenship to those born here of citizens or legal residents. My understanding is that the idea is prevent children of illegal immigrants that are born here from automatically becoming citizens. I'm not sure how I feel about that, but for those branding it as 'nativism', keep in mind that the only developed nation other than the US to grant automatic citizenship to anyone born within its borders is Barbados, which also happens to have a large illegal immigration problem.
 
Region Rat said:
My sister-in-law just immigrated from mexico, but she did it according to the established immigration laws, so I guess it's not illegal to immigrate to the US.

Who knew?
Click to expand...


I think the key concept here would be sister-in-law.

One hugely overlooked problem with US immigration law is that it's virtually impossible to legally immigrate unless you have a family tie, or a generous employer willing to sponsor your status. And enterprising young person from just about anywhere in the world enamored with American ideals has very small chance to do so without those things. This is vastly different from pre 20th century policy.
 
The GOP would be shooting themselves in the foot if they push this too far. Their owners only have the right to contribute to their campaigns because of a misinterpretation of the 14th as now written. No way would a revision get through the Senate without the addition of "natural persons."
 
shecky said:
I think the key concept here would be sister-in-law.

One hugely overlooked problem with US immigration law is that it's virtually impossible to legally immigrate unless you have a family tie, or a generous employer willing to sponsor your status. And enterprising young person from just about anywhere in the world enamored with American ideals has very small chance to do so without those things. This is vastly different from pre 20th century policy.
Click to expand...

I should clarify that she immigrated, became a citizen, then became my sister-in-law.
 
MikeMangum said:
Things were different back then, probably the most important thing being that there were absolutely no entitlements or tranfer payments of any kind. Open borders and a welfare state don't mix very well, at least in the long term. Even with that said, the large immigration wave in the late 19th century caused a lot of social tension, both for ethnic/cultural reasons and for economic reasons. There was a massive glut of low and semi skilled labor that led to very low wages for workers, which was one of the ultimate causes of the all the labor/union strife around the turn of the century, and it did indeed get ugly.
Click to expand...

Both legal and illegal immigrants have very limited public resources available to them. This has been true since the Clinton era welfare reform.

Furthermore, it's not entirely clear that either legal or illegal immigrants are greater users of the public resources that are available to them, especially in proportion to native users.

You have two arguments here. One is welfare, which isn't as strong as you seem to think. The other is protection from social upheaval. Yet, it's always curious that it's the new immigrants who are creating a problem. Interestingly, the evidence that the most recent wave of immigrants, legal and illegal, from Mexico and other Latin American countries are causing much upheaval at all. Crime rates in the last twenty years have fallen. Some of the safest cities in the US are along the Southern border with high immigrant populations. The trouble doesn't seem to originate from the immigrants, but from native distaste for immigrants.


MikeMangum said:
Get rid of (yeah right, ok - reduce) the welfare state, allow substantially more legal immigrants into the US, but try to tailor that amount based on the impact it will have on wages. There's got to be a happy medium somewhere between "wide open borders and 20 people in line for each minimum wage job, so instead they collect benefits" and "we've got ours, tough **** for you furners".
Click to expand...

Now you're arguing for protectionism. Current immigration law tries to do this. But it fails miserably, possibly because the government does a pretty poor job of determining what the labor market needs. There is a better way. And in it's own odd way, it already works. Illegal immigration already regulates itself. It exists because there is a market for the labor. As the market shrinks (or expands), so does the labor pool. This takes place without any government supervision, yet it somehow seems to regulate itself. Why? Because immigrants, regardless of legal status, are not willing to relocate here unless they can improve their lot. The idea that the US would suddenly have millions of newcomers sitting around with nothing to do is a popular perception, but has no rational basis.

The easiest way to deal with this is to liberalize immigration so that potential residents can come, and leave, without any significant trouble. This makes the border more secure, because there is no incentive to cross anywhere but an official crossing point. Border patrol no longer wastes resources chasing aspiring gardeners and nannies. Instead, people crossing the border illegally in remote places can more easily be assumed to be up to no good.

The idea that so-called anchor babies is a problem is one of nativist perception. I've always been curious about the value of citizenship. Natives seem to think it's something so valuable, it should be rationed. Yet, I have a feeling if somehow, everyone secretly had their citizenship revoked tomorrow, half the people would never know any different. Citizenship offers few real privileges for most folks, and a few annoying obligations. It seems mostly a source of pride, a sense that new immigrants must show sufficient deference to America before we allow access to the club. Even if deeply rooted natives can be as dismissive, even hateful, of America and it's traditions as they want. Hey, it's a free country, after all.

Right?
 
Region Rat said:
I should clarify that she immigrated, became a citizen, then became my sister-in-law.
Click to expand...

Interesting. What were the circumstances?

I know a couple non Latino immigrants who started out as illegal. I believe one came on a travel visa and never left. But the road to legal residency has been a long and costly one. A road they might not have undertaken had they not been established financially and to a large degree, culturally.
 
The Republican party has become synonymous with bigotry, xenophobia, and ignorance in the last couple of decades. It has become the refuge of the fearful, the hateful, and the intolerant. Unfortunately, the Republican party is now to me a poisonous subset of the US population, one that I am embarrassed by, frightened of, and suspicious of.

I have been a life-long Democrat, and resent deeply the Republican supporters and their causes. I find them to be a stain on society, and a low water mark in my nation's history.
 
Region Rat said:
First off, the immigration debate has never been about stopping legal immigration.

Secondly, I do not equate duly passed laws to be big brother telling people what to do, with the connotation that there is some type of dictatorship or something going on.

Third, I believe that laws should be followed, and if they are not, there should be repercussions to not following the law.

Fourth, the current immigration debate has to do with millions of people openly flauting the laws of the US, the US government not doing its best to enforce those laws, and certain citizens and foreign nationals saying that those laws should just be ignored.

Look, if you feel that the current laws are unjust, then lobby to change them. Right now, today, the current Democratic President, the current Democratic Senate, and the current Democratic House can write up the "Immigration Is Easy" act. It can say that all borders the the US are open, anyone can come in, and all you have to do to become a citizen is to walk in to the nearest Post Office and have your name added the the US Citizen List. At that point you are now entitled to all benefits of being a US citizen.

I wonder why they don't do that. And don't give me any of the BS about how the Republicans would block them. Get it on record what you believe in. Don't hesitate or waffle on it. Stand up for it. Broadcast it loud and clear. Get re-elected because of your stand on immigration.

But you know what? That's not going to happen. Because even Democrats know that there needs to be some type of border security, and some process for becoming a citizen, and if you don''t follow the rules, no matter how easy they are to follow, you will be considered an illegal alien. And you know what demographic they would lose, don't you?

Before you go off on this, let me make this clear. I personally do NOT have a problem with immigration. I have a problem with our southern border being a war zone and a wasteland that cannot be entered by citizens because of safety reasons. I believe that the government has a responsibility to make every inch of US soil safe enough for any US citizen to travel on. I believe it is very wrong for the US Gov't to post signs on US federal land telling citizens that it is not safe for them to enter due to human trafficking, and not immediately send in the US Army to secure our borders.

If the process in place to become a legal citizen is sufficient, but it just takes too darn long, then the process needs to be changed to speed it up and make it less painful for the applicant. If the gov't is going to approve anyway, make it quicker. This is action that can be taken by the current administration without changes in the law.

If you believe the process needs to be changed, change it. By all means. But I think it would be very safe to say that whatever new immigration law that comes about, no matter what the language in it, there would not be any language that says one method of obtaining citizenship would be- Step 1: Sneak across the border at night.

So, to summarize, I'm not sure we agree.
Click to expand...

Maybe it's just because I agree with you, but I thought this was a really good post. Nominated.
 
Thunder said:
I honestly don't believe that the children of illegal aliens should receive automatic citizenship in the USA.

But if they do, then they should not be able to be used as bridges to legalize their illegal parents. Other legal immigrants, yes...but not the illegal parents who bore them.
Click to expand...

Despite all the anti-immigration bleating about "anchor babies", it's not really a problem.

If an illegal immigrant has a child in the US, this only gets them two ways to stay.

They can apply for a "Cancellation of Removal", where they show that being deproted will have a serious negative impact on their US citizen child. The catch here is that there is a cap of 4,000 immigrants per year who can gain this status. Of course it is not that big a catch since we haven't actually reached that cap in years.

The second way is that after the child is 21, they can apply for a visa for their parents, as long as they can prove certain income requirements and the parent is in compliance with various immigration laws (in other words, not living in the US illegally in the first place).

This 14th amendment garbage is a solution in search of a problem.
 
RhodyDave said:
The Republican party has become synonymous with bigotry, xenophobia, and ignorance in the last couple of decades. It has become the refuge of the fearful, the hateful, and the intolerant. Unfortunately, the Republican party is now to me a poisonous subset of the US population, one that I am embarrassed by, frightened of, and suspicious of.

I have been a life-long Democrat, and resent deeply the Republican supporters and their causes. I find them to be a stain on society, and a low water mark in my nation's history.
Click to expand...

The Wikipedia article on the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States ConstitutionWP has images of the original document. Look up the guys that signed it and you will find they are Republicans.

I do wish the GOP would get back to it's roots and act like the party of Lincoln.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom