Republicans Push To Revise 14th Amendment

[MattusMaximus]

So are you of the opinion that all constitutional amendments are wrong because they played with the original constitution.

Nope, just ones like this which are obviously meant as political fodder and attempt to make the Constitution less egalitarian.

 

[MattusMaximus]

What would be the purpose of revising this ammendment? It's my opinion that it's driven by parionia and/or racism.

Well, in my opinion, for some people that's the motivation. For the politicians involved, these GOP Senators, it is about nothing more than whipping up people in order to get them to vote in November. What really bugs me about this whole thing is the "cater to the torch & pitchfork crowd" aspect it has to it.

 

[Region Rat]

Which is even one more reason why, in the long term, this is a really stupid strategy by the GOP. Do they think the Hispanic citizenry in this country is just going to forget all of this crap in 2012 and beyond?

I'm telling you, the Republicans are shooting themselves in the foot.

You know, I don't give a [hoot] for the GOP party or the Dem party, but this kind of statement makes me chuckle a little.

Hispanics, like blacks, seem to be seen as a monolithic block who will vote one way, all together. All you need is a tipping issue and they will all vote the other way. Of course, whoever doesn't vote with the designated block is either a token or stupid (liberal conversations about black conservatives for $50, Alex).

Do you really think that the GOP needs to do something nice for "Hispanics" so the "Hispanics" will all vote GOP in the coming election? Courting the Hispanic vote, so the Hispanic leaders can tell the Hispanics who to vote for. Trying to counter the Dems courting of the Hispanics, who are telling the Hispanics that the US laws shouldn't apply to Hispanics, and the GOP is trying to hurt Hispanics. Political BS.

As much as some (maybe not you, but you can find it anywhere) are quick to jump on the "don't stereotype, all people are individual" bandwagon, when you get to the political arena, the blocks form quickly.

 

[Region Rat]

Well, in my opinion, for some people that's the motivation. For the politicians involved, these GOP Senators, it is about nothing more than whipping up people in order to get them to vote in November. What really bugs me about this whole thing is the "cater to the torch & pitchfork crowd" aspect it has to it.

You know what, I agree with you there 100%. But I would also add that the Dems are doing the exact same thing with the posturing for the Latin crowds about the AZ law, and supporting the people who are breaking US law, the law they are sworn to uphold (until they change it, which is their job).

Neither side has clean hands in this. Very disappointing.

 

[Alt+F4]

The US immigration service procress for catching scam marriages is actually pretty good. I would be comfortable in suggesting is pretty close to zero

I personally know of three sham marriages that ICE didn't catch. One was a 47 year old Indian man marrying a 26 year-old American of Dominican descent.

 

[MattusMaximus]

You know, I don't give a [hoot] for the GOP party or the Dem party, but this kind of statement makes me chuckle a little.

Hispanics, like blacks, seem to be seen as a monolithic block who will vote one way, all together. All you need is a tipping issue and they will all vote the other way. Of course, whoever doesn't vote with the designated block is either a token or stupid (liberal conversations about black conservatives for $50, Alex).

Do you really think that the GOP needs to do something nice for "Hispanics" so the "Hispanics" will all vote GOP in the coming election? Courting the Hispanic vote, so the Hispanic leaders can tell the Hispanics who to vote for. Trying to counter the Dems courting of the Hispanics, who are telling the Hispanics that the US laws shouldn't apply to Hispanics, and the GOP is trying to hurt Hispanics. Political BS.

As much as some (maybe not you, but you can find it anywhere) are quick to jump on the "don't stereotype, all people are individual" bandwagon, when you get to the political arena, the blocks form quickly.

Yeah, you're right. This is why Karl Rove, the Republican strategist, is warning the GOP leadership, very loudly, NOT to pursue this stuff (sadly they are ignoring him, it seems). Rove and his fellow strategists not doing stuff like this were one of the reasons why Bush, Jr. was able to make so many inroads with the Hispanic citizenry in the early part of the decade. Now all of that progress the GOP made with this demographic has evaporated, and the way the Republican party is going they're guaranteeing that they'll lose even more support among Hispanic citizens for quite some time to come.

The irony is that the Democrats don't really have to do anything, just sit back and let the Republicans make jack-asses of themselves.

 

[MattusMaximus]

You know what, I agree with you there 100%. But I would also add that the Dems are doing the exact same thing with the posturing for the Latin crowds about the AZ law, and supporting the people who are breaking US law, the law they are sworn to uphold (until they change it, which is their job).

Neither side has clean hands in this. Very disappointing.

This thread isn't about the AZ law, it's about the proposal by the GOP to amend the Constitution. Please stay on topic.

 

[Alt+F4]

A lot of people believe that civilization was developed and survives on its laws and the enforcement of those laws. They feel that if a child of illegal immigrants is allowed to be a citizen, it is a reward for breaking those laws.

True, but our system of laws does not punish a child for crimes his or her parents committ. The baby in question has broken no law or committed any offence to warrent have citizenship revoked.

 

[Region Rat]

This thread isn't about the AZ law, it's about the proposal by the GOP to amend the Constitution. Please stay on topic.

WTH!

So one mention of AZ in passing is taking the thread off topic? Have you read the whole thread?

 

[Region Rat]

True, but our system of laws does not punish a child for crimes his or her parents committ. The baby in question has broken no law or committed any offence to warrent have citizenship revoked.

Discussed above, but what is the baby actually losing in this case?

 

[MattusMaximus]

WTH!

So one mention of AZ in passing is taking the thread off topic? Have you read the whole thread?

No. This is the first time I've caught someone on it. Sorry it was you.

Now go cry in the corner

 

[The Fallen Serpent]

How is a baby following the law?

By not performing a criminal offense.

By being pushed out of a vagina?

A perfectly legal action that most US citizens have done within the jurisdiction of the US.

How is the kid being punished?

By current rules, not directly at least. By modifying the 14th Ammendment to include an exclusion for the children of illegal residents, the punishment would be deportation.

By going back to the country where his parents are citizens? How can that be a punishment?

Deportation is a type of punishment. Is that seriously a controversial stance? As I understand it that is the stance of most nations.

Now, you may say that the parents country is a rat hole, and that to force the kid to grow up there instead of the (now) great US would be a punishment. I call BS on that, and would say that if it is indeed the case that we need to take in all children from the rat hole country due to the pure humanity of it all, then we should go in and take over said country and clean it up. Otherwise I say that it is their problem to deal with.

The conditions of the origin country of the parents are irrelevant. Being deported to any country is a punishment. Being deported from Mexico to the US is a punishment. Being deported from the US to Mexico is a punishment. The countries in question are irrelevant, deportation is a form of punishment.

Now I don't want to put words in your mouth, so why don't you tell me what the punishment is for the kid if he has to go back to his home country, which I would bet he is a citizen of by virtue of his birth to his parents.

By US law the child's home country is the United States and possibly the origin country of the parent. It would be a punishment because it would be removing the child from the country of birth against the parents' and child's will.

The kid is not a stateless person, he would be with his parents, and grow up in the country that his parents did. I fail to see the issue.

Usually but not always true. Not all countries have laws as generous as the US with regards to citizenship. I consider it one of our moral strong points. If the child does not wish to return to the parents and the parents are accepting of the child staying in the US I find it wrong to force relocation on that child for actions completely beyond that child's control.

Lastly, how would you punish the parents and not the child, since you agree that the parents broke the law?

The current law and practice is deportation of the parents and not the child. An arguement could be made that is an indirect punishment of the child, but the same arguement would be equally valid against imprisonments or fining parents of children for other crimes.

I prefer the born under jurisdiction set up of US citizenship determination. I wish other nations would do the same.

 

[Alt+F4]

How is the kid being punished? By going back to the country where his parents are citizens?

Yes, that is how the baby is being punished. He or she is being denied citizenship because of something his or her parents did.

Now I don't want to put words in your mouth, so why don't you tell me what the punishment is for the kid if he has to go back to his home country, which I would bet he is a citizen of by virtue of his birth to his parents. The kid is not a stateless person, he would be with his parents, and grow up in the country that his parents did. I fail to see the issue.

What about abandoned babies? What about a baby who's U.S. citizen father dies before they are born? What about babies born of sperm and/or egg donors? If a couple unknowly hires an illegal to be their surrogate, should the baby be deported?

You seem to think this would all be so simple, it wouldn't.

Lastly, how would you punish the parents and not the child, since you agree that the parents broke the law?

The exact same way you punish other parents who commit crimes, you prosecute them. It happens all the time. People are not excused from punishment for law breaking just because they are parents.

 

[Upchurch]

One of the local conservative talk show crazies had a guest on the other morning talking about the 14th Amendment. He said (paraphrasing from memory, emphasis mine),

Most people think the 14th Amendment dates back to Revolutionary War and part of the Founding Fathers original concept, it's not. It's a relatively new law.

...

We're the only country in the world stupid enough to have this law.

Okay, I get that laws (and, to the point, amendments) are crafted to certain situations (like a population of recently freed slaves that are of legally undetermined citizenship) that may not be directly relevant or applicable to later situations. That happens.

But do we really need to dumb down our political discourse to cast issues strictly in black and white? The dishonesty here is simply appalling.

 

[Region Rat]

The current law and practice is deportation of the parents and not the child. An arguement could be made that is an indirect punishment of the child, but the same arguement would be equally valid against imprisonments or fining parents of children for other crimes.

I prefer the born under jurisdiction set up of US citizenship determination. I wish other nations would do the same.

But this is the dilemma I am talking about. Parents admittedly break the law. Kid is born a US citizen. Options:
1) Kid stays in US, parents deported. Parents are punished, kid is punished.
2) Parents deported with their kid. All of your arguments about punishing a US citizen. But, staying in line with the OP so Max the thread cop doesn't smack me down again, if the 14th amendment was altered and the kid was not an automatic citizen, he would be losing absolutely nothing material by going back to his home country.
3a) Kid stays in the US, parents stay in the US. Parents rewarded.
3b) Kid stays in US, parents stay in US. Parents go to jail for period. Kid punished short term, parents rewarded long term.

Yes, yes, yes, it would be much easier if all who desire could walk across the border, become citizens by declaration, and have all the kids they want. I wonder why that bill has not been introduced?

 

[Alt+F4]

But this is the dilemma I am talking about. Parents admittedly break the law. Kid is born a US citizen. Options:
1) Kid stays in US, parents deported. Parents are punished, kid is punished.

Yes. Everytime a parent goes to prison or is deported a child is "punished" in the respect that he or she is separated from their parent. Do you think that parents who break the law shouldn't be punished because of the negative impact it will have on the child?

 

[The Fallen Serpent]

But this is the dilemma I am talking about. Parents admittedly break the law. Kid is born a US citizen. Options:
1) Kid stays in US, parents deported. Parents are punished, kid is punished.

The children of murderers are punished when their parents are imprisoned. The parents of traffic violators are punished when their parents are fined. I already mentioned the indirect punishment. This is not equal to directly mandating a punishment on the child.

2) Parents deported with their kid. All of your arguments about punishing a US citizen. But, staying in line with the OP so Max the thread cop doesn't smack me down again, if the 14th amendment was altered and the kid was not an automatic citizen, he would be losing absolutely nothing material by going back to his home country.

You are correct it would under this situation no longer be punishing a US citizen. I do not like non-US citizens being punished for actions that are not theirs anymore than I like US citizens being punished for actions that are not theirs. The issue is punishing the child for the actions of the parents. The child would be losing something material, residence in the US. Deportation is a punishment. Residence is material, legal or not.

3a) Kid stays in the US, parents stay in the US. Parents rewarded.

I agree this system is less satisfactory than our current system. I want to see our immigration laws changed to be more in tune with the reality of modern immigration pressures but I am not for this.

3b) Kid stays in US, parents stay in US. Parents go to jail for period. Kid punished short term, parents rewarded long term.

My opinion is similar as to 3a.

Yes, yes, yes, it would be much easier if all who desire could walk across the border, become citizens by declaration, and have all the kids they want. I wonder why that bill has not been introduced?

Even though that was the status quote in previous times, that appears to be an unrealistic standard for the modern situation. Ideally, I would prefer that people could become citizens of any nation they wished. I doubt that will be happening in the foreeable future. That would require a massive shift in the cultural and social situation of the world that I find unlikely. So instead I would rather deal with the reality of the situation.

 

[Region Rat]

The children of murderers are punished when their parents are imprisoned. The parents of traffic violators are punished when their parents are fined. I already mentioned the indirect punishment. This is not equal to directly mandating a punishment on the child.
You are correct it would under this situation no longer be punishing a US citizen. I do not like non-US citizens being punished for actions that are not theirs anymore than I like US citizens being punished for actions that are not theirs. The issue is punishing the child for the actions of the parents. The child would be losing something material, residence in the US. Deportation is a punishment. Residence is material, legal or not.
I agree this system is less satisfactory than our current system. I want to see our immigration laws changed to be more in tune with the reality of modern immigration pressures but I am not for this.
My opinion is similar as to 3a.

I agree that the indirect punishment of the child is not the same thing. I would also say that I don't believe that illegal immigration warrants jail time ( I think only violent crimes require segregation from society), just that those were potential scenario's. The issue with me is still the potential for automatic long term residency by those who broke the law to get here in the first place. Perhaps I'm being a stubborn hardass on this issue (ya think?), but it bothers me.

Even though that was the status quote in previous times, that appears to be an unrealistic standard for the modern situation. Ideally, I would prefer that people could become citizens of any nation they wished. I doubt that will be happening in the foreeable future. That would require a massive shift in the cultural and social situation of the world that I find unlikely. So instead I would rather deal with the reality of the situation.

Pretty much the only way this can happen is a one world government with no borders. What is the point of 'Nations' and citizenry in a nation, as opposed to just residency in any location you choose?

 

[Region Rat]

Yes. Everytime a parent goes to prison or is deported a child is "punished" in the respect that he or she is separated from their parent. Do you think that parents who break the law shouldn't be punished because of the negative impact it will have on the child?

No, didn't mean that. Punished was not the correct term in the context. Negatively affected, perhaps?

 

[The Fallen Serpent]

I agree that the indirect punishment of the child is not the same thing. I would also say that I don't believe that illegal immigration warrants jail time ( I think only violent crimes require segregation from society), just that those were potential scenario's. The issue with me is still the potential for automatic long term residency by those who broke the law to get here in the first place. Perhaps I'm being a stubborn hardass on this issue (ya think?), but it bothers me.

Considering how rare and unlikely it is for a person who resided in the US illegally to gain citizenship or even a stay of deportation because of a US citizen child, I think perhaps you are just being stubborn. Obviously there is an amount of imperfection in a legal system that is unacceptable, but I think this issue is well within tolerance of the universal imperfection of human social systems. I know you were just presenting alternatives without necessarily throwing your support behind them, I was attempting to address them specifically.

Pretty much the only way this can happen is a one world government with no borders. What is the point of 'Nations' and citizenry in a nation, as opposed to just residency in any location you choose?

Exactly. Such a situation would basically be a United Nations of Earth, where the individual states function in much the same way that states/provinces function in a Federal system such as the US. Very unlikely. The point of nations, citizenship and residence would largely become similar as the difference between such issues among states and provinces in such current systems that apply across subnational borders in a Federal system. Which is much less significant.

Personally I think our immigration policy does need revising. I find the idea of setting up further exclusions to be more problematic rather than fixing the overall issues. I would not call for an open porous border with Mexico as it currently stands. Such would be acceptable to me if Mexico's economic situation for its citizens were very comparable in terms of wealth, labor protections and welfare programs. That would be quite a while off in my opinion. I also imagine in the current social climate nativist reaction in Mexico to US immigrants would be much stronger than the recent natavist reaction in the US to Mexican immigrants.