Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
|
Aug 13, 2010 - 07:40pm PT
|
A statistical reminder.
http://azstarnet.com/news/local/border/article_443330d0-a574-11df-b2bf-001cc4c002e0.html
OnTheEdge, with all do respect, attitudes like yours have made a small problem much worse. Ignoring, or dismissing the problem, can be catastrophic. Think about the fundamentals of this issue.
Should people who enter our country illegally be rewarded with child citizenship? I fail to see how you can disagree with this.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Aug 13, 2010 - 07:51pm PT
|
I love how 'anchor babies' just wasn't hyperbole enough, so the righwing nutjobs have now had to up the ante to 'terrorist babies' born of clandestine terrorist mothers. Ooohhh! So much scarier.
Blue - you have swallowed the Rovian bait hook-line-and-sinker dude. It's this election cycle's race baiting and republicans have just switched the West for the South and the Mexicans for the Blacks. There is no 'anchor baby' problem; only a illegal republican employer problem.
But hey, Rove isn't the slickest guy since Pavlov for no reason; you can just hear the little bell going ding-ding-ding.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Aug 13, 2010 - 08:09pm PT
|
No illegal employers, no 'anchor babies'. Fix the problem, not the hysteria.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
|
Aug 13, 2010 - 08:12pm PT
|
So we agree, Joe. Shut the border (or actually control it) and fine employers?
Does this solve the anchor BB problem though? It isn't just South America, as Canada found out.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Aug 13, 2010 - 08:18pm PT
|
No, we don't agree, the border doesn't need to be 'shut', just implement a spoof-proof citizenship system, fine employers with illegal employees at about 10k per pop and the border will be back to just drug shipments in no time.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
|
Aug 13, 2010 - 08:25pm PT
|
wow, I never thought you'd be silly enough to make my point for me.
The drug trade, an open border???? Nice!
There are so many reasons to shut that border!!!
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Aug 13, 2010 - 08:57pm PT
|
coz is far from the only prominent ST poster who appears to be a citizen of the United States of America, and was born in the US, but who had one Canadian parent, and so is entitled to the passport. I won't name names, but you'd be quite surprised.
As coz was born on a naval base, I guess that makes him a double anchor baby!
|
|
TGT
Social climber
So Cal
|
|
|
Aug 13, 2010 - 09:00pm PT
|
Healyje
(or should that be Naivete)
25,000 people have died in the drug civil war in Mexico in the last year. That's an order of magnitude more than died in Iraq's sectarian violence in the same time period.
It's a civil war! It is spilling over the border!
In Pima county where my folks live the Sheriff's dept. handles an average of two high speed chases A DAY that end with ARMED perps and a crash with injuries, often involving innocent drivers as the victims.
Southern Arizona and Texas are war zones.
It IS a national security / public safety issue.
|
|
Gary
climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
|
|
|
Aug 13, 2010 - 09:18pm PT
|
Legalize drugs and the drug wars end. Arrest those who hire illegals and illegal immigration ends.
Of course, no Republican would support either of those measures.
|
|
Roger Breedlove
climber
Cleveland Heights, Ohio
|
|
|
Aug 13, 2010 - 09:38pm PT
|
Popular politicians only reflect what voters think and believe. Our national parties don't distinguish themselves in this regard.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Aug 13, 2010 - 09:50pm PT
|
The drug trade, an open border???? Nice!
There are so many reasons to shut that border!!!
Simple, after dealing with illegal employers just make drugs legal and tax them, then no one will be crossing the border at all. Do you have a third reason? Oh, let me guess, terrorism. Well, that one you ain't going to stop by 'shutting' the border.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Aug 13, 2010 - 11:03pm PT
|
Craig, if you're going to quote so extensively, you should provide the name of the writer you're quoting from, and her/his affiliation, not just a link.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Aug 13, 2010 - 11:17pm PT
|
Haven't judges already ruled as to the meaning of the 14th amendment, as it applies in this situation? Given the constitution, and Marbury v Madison, they have the final word. Which seems to be why there's loose talk of amendment.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
|
Aug 13, 2010 - 11:34pm PT
|
Skippy raises the crux question that I tried to elucidate earlier. This was a slavery law that no longer has place for illegal immigrants or any other immigrants for that matter!
|
|
August West
Trad climber
Where the wind blows strange
|
|
|
Aug 14, 2010 - 01:58pm PT
|
. If cigarette companies, which are corporations, have unlimited 1st A rights, then how can restrictions on smoking advertising be legal?
1 A rights are not absolute even for individuals. You, as an individual, do not have a 1 A right to possess to child porn. The court has ruled that protecting children from being involved in this trumps your 1A rights (rights to virtual images that were created without using real children is being fought over).
But cig companies do have 1A rights. The court ruled that protecting minors from this advertising trumped the cig companies rights (and cig companies can still advertise where minors aren't legally allowed: bars, skin magazines, etc.). But it took a supreme court decision to do it. I'm not sure that the current court would have come to the same decision...
|
|
August West
Trad climber
Where the wind blows strange
|
|
|
Aug 14, 2010 - 02:01pm PT
|
The comment about corporate nationality is scary. It is not legal for the Chinese government to contribute to US political campaigns.
But a state owned (or at least controled) chinese company that has a US presence can expend unlimited money running campaing adds... Oh boy.
|
|
Roger Breedlove
climber
Cleveland Heights, Ohio
|
|
|
Aug 14, 2010 - 03:56pm PT
|
Scary sounding potential, August. The Chinese have lots of our money. And if we are to believe Karl, everyone will vote for whatever the Chinese want.
I had lunch today with my constitutional lawyer daughter and her constitutional lawyer boyfriend (they are both clerks on the 6th Circuit of Appeals).
They agreed that it is judicial precedence that corporations are legal persons based on limited rulings and seem to think that the Citizens United ruling is a step beyond the previous scope of that precedence (twelve prior rulings were cited establishing corporations 1st amendment rights). They said it is not clear what all the implications are, which is making people nervous, but corporations do not automatically have the same rights as people do. It just means more uncertainty until more suits are heard and ruled on.
We talked a bit about the risk of corporations influencing voters. I gave them my opinion about how most business people stay away from politics and, in any case, most held views that were middle-of-the-road. I got an earful back about how conservative business people were because they wanted lower taxes and smaller government. When I protested, she just patiently explained, as only adult children can, that the reason I couldn't see that is because I was so conservative. When I protested that I was in the middle and 'looked' in the conservative direction for solutions, she agreed that maybe she was just soooo liberal.
But, my opinion about business people is not really the point. Citizens United is a non-for-profit corporation. So the more likely expenditures are going to come from well financed focus groups such are Citizens United and Moveon.org.
On the issue of the 14th Amendment and citizenship at birth, they just laughed and will never happen. They pointed out that the 14th can only be changed by a Constitutional Amendment and that isn't going to happen: 2/3s of both houses have to vote for it and 38 States have to ratify the change.
Lunch was good. They picked the restaurant and I paid. Cheap lawyering.
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Aug 14, 2010 - 06:49pm PT
|
Roger wrote
"We talked a bit about the risk of corporations influencing voters. I gave them my opinion about how most business people stay away from politics and, in any case, most held views that were middle-of-the-road."
What planet are you living on? Of the total amount spent of contributions, pacs and issue advertising, how much of that is corporate money? Saying business isn't interested in politics is madness.
http://www.amazon.com/Selling-Out-Corporate-Elections-Legislation/dp/0060735821
sort of like conservatives and businesses crying out for tort reform yet corporations sue each other like crazy
Peace
karl
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Aug 14, 2010 - 07:00pm PT
|
If you have one foot set inside the border of the United States you are subject to the jurisdiction of the laws of the United States.
Main Entry: ju·ris·dic·tion
Pronunciation: \ˌju̇r-əs-ˈdik-shən\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English jurisdiccioun, from Anglo-French & Latin; Anglo-French jurisdiction, from Latin jurisdiction-, jurisdictio, from juris + diction-, dictio act of saying — more at diction
Date: 14th century
1 : the power, right, or authority to interpret and apply the law
2 a : the authority of a sovereign power to govern or legislate b : the power or right to exercise authority : control
3 : the limits or territory within which authority may be exercised
synonyms see power
— ju·ris·dic·tion·al \-shnəl, -shə-nəl\ adjective
— ju·ris·dic·tion·al·ly adverb
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!