Immigration - We're Doomed!

I love the gap between the AP headline and lead:

GOP leaders: No immigration bill this year

In a defeat for President Bush, Republican congressional leaders said Tuesday that broad immigration legislation is all but doomed for the year, a victim of election-year concerns in the House and conservatives' implacable opposition to citizenship for millions of illegal immigrants.

"No bill" is quite different from "no comprehensive bill"; the "enforcement-only" option seems to be the opposite of doomed:

Some officials added that Republicans have begun discussing a pre-election strategy for seizing the political high ground on an issue that so far has served to highlight divisions within the party. Among the possibilities, these officials said, are holding votes in the House or Senate this fall on additional measures to secure the borders, or on legislation that would prevent illegal immigrants from receiving

Social Security payments or other government benefits.

"The discussion is how to put the Democrats in a box without attacking the president," said one aide, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Here is Carl Hulse of the Times:

In a decision that puts an overhaul of immigration laws in serious doubt, House Republican leaders said Tuesday that they would hold summer hearings around the nation on the politically volatile subject before trying to compromise with the Senate on a chief domestic priority of President Bush.

"We are going to listen to the American people, and we are going to get a bill that is right," said Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, who said he had informed Mr. Bush of the plan.

The unusual decision to set a new round of hearings on legislation already passed by the House and the Senate places a serious roadblock in the way of Mr. Bush's drive for major changes in immigration policy.

The timing means that formal Congressional negotiations will not begin until September, just as Congressional campaigns are entering their crucial final weeks, when lawmakers typically shy away from difficult issues.

"I don't know how likely that is," Representative Roy Blunt of Missouri, the House Republican whip, said about reaching an agreement before November.

Mr. Blunt suggested that final consideration might have to wait for a lame-duck session after the election. "We clearly are going to be here later in the year," he said.

But advancing significant legislation in lame-duck sessions has proved difficult. If Congress does not act this year, the House and the Senate will have to begin anew in 2007 should lawmakers want to pursue immigration changes.

And the WaPo:

In a move that could bury President Bush's high-profile effort to overhaul immigration law until after the midterm elections, House GOP leaders yesterday announced a series of field hearings during the August recess, pushing off final negotiations on a bill until fall at the earliest.

The announcement was the clearest sign yet that House Republicans have largely given up on passing a broad rewrite of the nation's immigration laws this year. They believe that their get-tough approach -- including building a wall along the border with Mexico and deporting millions of illegal immigrants -- is far more popular with voters than the approach backed by Bush and the Senate, which would create a guest-worker program and allow many illegal immigrants to apply for U.S. citizenship.

Interestingly, the WaPo has a longer and slightly more upbeat quote from House Republican Whip Roy Blunt:

Asked whether a deal could be struck with the Senate this fall, in the throes of a difficult reelection season, House Majority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) allowed: "I think that's possible. I don't know how likely it is."

As cited above, the Times cut that to "I don't know how likely it is".

Finally, the Times provides their overview of the two bills.

Comments

[Lurker]

At this point, the reps might be better off to begin enforcing the existing laws. The more Americans see that those laws are being enforced, the better off the Reps look.

[Patton]

This really isn't rocket science...Republicans just need to go back to the basics:

1. No government benefits or support for any illegal that has committed murder or rape or assault of an American citizen. LET THE DEMOCRATS VOTE NO TO PROTECTING WOMEN.

2. No government benefits or support for any illegal that has broken a federal law.
LET THE DEMOCRATS VOTE FOR MORE ILLEGALS COMMITTING CRIMES.

3. Immediate arrest and deportation or prosecution of any illegal that is a member of a State Department recognized terrorist organization. LET THE DEMOCRATS SUPPORT TERRORISTS.

4. Federal crime with mandatory life sentence for any illegal alien that molests, rapes or assaults a child under the age of 16. LET THE DEMOCRATS SCREAM FOR LIENECENY FOR CHILD RAPISTS.

5. Mandatory deportation of any illegal alien that commits a crimes against a US citizen and denial of any and all rights of US citizens.

6. Cut foriegn aid to any country that refuses to support US border enforcement to include Mexico.

7. Removal of automatic citizenship for any child born of an illegal that has broken any US laws. As long as you haven't broken any laws on the books...let the Democrats stand on the side of the criminal class.

I could go on....

[Patton]

Oh, and don't forget:

No illegal alien will receive any benefit or support from the Federal government that isn't also available to any and all US citizens. If US citizens aren't entitled to it - then no illegal alien should be..that includes tax breaks, tax forgiveness, college tuition rates, etc. etc.

[Patton]

Also, all illigal aliens must submit to collection of blood, DNA and fingerprint testing and must agree to have thoses samples run against and and all criminal databases or be deported....period.

[Pete]

Patton said: "Removal of automatic citizenship for any child born of an illegal that has broken any US laws. As long as you haven't broken any laws on the books...let the Democrats stand on the side of the criminal class."

Hmm, how is the child (who has not broken any laws) a criminal?

I would not tinker with our constitution.

[Extraneus]

So is the Sensenbrenner Bill dead, too?

[Patton]

Pete, you really must take English as a second language, I clearly said:

"""born of an illegal that has broken any US laws""" The 'illegal' has broken the law.

I understand it is your position Pete that if Al Queda had the means to invade our country and fly 200,000 Al Queda terrorists into the United States and San Francico gave them safe haven and the used Berkeley as a base to attack the ret of us and they brought their waives, and those wives had children you would grant them automatic citizenshiop...I WOULD NOT.

They would be invaders, just like the current illegal aliens and their is no reason to grant citizenship to invaders.

[Patton]

Besides Pete, the Constutional provision was for freed slaves not thousands of invaders.

The amendment could easily be interpreted as being backward looking and covering those allready here, not to cover everyone in the future.

The history of the Amendment is clear that Republicans were trying to stop the rascist Democrats from countinuing to keep the black man down...The 14th was designed to ensure that all former slaves were granted automatic United States citizenship, and that they would have all the rights and privileges as any other citizen.

LAST TIME I CHECKED, THESE ILLEGALS ARE NOT FORMER AMERICAN SLAVES.

[Tomf]

Patton:

From this day forward I am referring to illegal immigrants as illegal invaders.
Perfect term.

Thanks.

[JM Hanes]

In a typical irony, the context of "reporting" from both the Times & Post is always the political implications for the Prez, and yet in focusing so relentlessly on Bush, they often whiff the substantive political ramifications completely.

For starters, I'm not sure the public doesn't read the faltering on immigration as a Congressional failure, not a Presidential one. What's of primary political importance, however, both at the moment and for the ultimate success of any Presidential agenda, is not how Bush's legislative initiatives are viewed, but whether his party can hang onto control of the Hill. If they do, the President's final two years may be considerably different, and more interesting, than the past two years have been!

House races are profoundly local. By putting immigration squarely on the political table, Bush has given House Republicans a great hot button issue to run on, and one where the their position is undeniably the most popular with the electorate. While the MSM seems to have missed the implications of the special election in California, Republicans planning to take immigration "hearings" on the road this summer clearly got the message. Why would any of them want to wrap the actual legislation up before the mid-terms?

If Dems had a coherent forward looking position on Iraq, the fact that Senate Republicans are clearly sticking with him on the war could conceivably hurt them. As it is, however, Senators from both sides of the aisle will probably try to avoid the immigration issue altogether, given the lack of controversial, identifiable, partisan divisions over the bill they passed -- leaving Iraq as a key factor. While the war may remain generally unpopular, Republicans might well be rewarded for their willingness to take an actual stand, even if there's little change in the nature of events on the ground. Any apparent progress will accrue to their advantage. Unforseen disasters might hurt -- or might end up more jump ball than slam dunk.

[Carol Herman]

Things are so bad for the donks, the real polling stays quiet. But even with the "advantage" that the GOP isn't all committed, in a row, to one form of stopping cross-border infiltrations; they're still stuck. It doesn't add up.

In other words, the GOP is not losing steam. It's not "inside Katrina," so to speak. Only the donks are suffering from [beached] erosion.

And, it is so OBVIOUS!

The hyenas in the press are claiming that only they are "neutrals" and they point to the Internet (where, while millions come here, it's not the whole voting total); and they try to smear us all with their own stains. Like Lauria, used by Jason Leopold like an old rag, then comes up by spouting "everybody's a narcisist." Hello. None of them get traction in the "belief" department. (Maybe, Ann Coulter's title for her new book has something to do with this? Because "belief" and godless don't co-exist.)

Anyway, here, it seems like a summer sport. With bikini clad gals jumping up at the ball that comes over the net. And, the MSM can't score. Is it entertaining? Sure. For us. But it's still "mom-and-pop" ... We're not yet elevated to the status of super-duper-market. But we're trending that way. And, right now it's all just a sport.

It doesn't surprise me. The diplomats invented yak-yak-yak. We're just doing derivatives. But like junk bonds, when they're new to the field; the companies that grow out of them, that don't bomb. Grow big.

Just as one time, Mr. Watson, of IBM said "no one would ever own a home computer" ... we're seeing what happens when Big Like Blue, guesses wrong.

Sometimes, I'm amazed that kids without math skills would be willing to spend $150,000 and up for a useless credential. Other than pinch, who can find jobs afterwards? Working for dad? So far, in the world of the Internet, there's very little nepotism.

And, no party circuit, like the one that exists in DC.

If I were a betting person, I'd bet that Bob Woodward wants his reputation back; more so even than Libby. So, by Christmas, the November election will be behind us. TRUTH of how things work out may yet prevail?

Nobody's been better at capturing the logic of all the deceitful stuff that bilged out, other than our own Clarice Feldman. And, I hope she's writing a book!

[cathyf]

...legislation that would prevent illegal immigrants from receiving Social Security payments or other government benefits.

Well, now there is a brilliant plan -- let's save social security by collecting all of those social security taxes from illegals and then not paying out any benefits to them. Just like our state governments are so dependent upon cigarette taxes that they would be financially devastated if people quit smoking, we'd have the old white people so dependent upon the tax payments of the young brown people that we'll be running ad campaigns to lure the "illegals" here.

(One of the features of my idea for illegal immigrants involves giving them a lump-sum settlement for the social security taxes that they have paid in if they agree to go home. This lump sum would give them working capital so that they can go home and start businesses, employing themselves and their neighbors so that they will have no incentive to cross the border illegally. Of course a fundamental problem in getting this to work is somehow preventing their governments from stealing the money. I suppose, though, that we should just trust in democracy -- once those folks are there, and have property, they have a strong incentive to protect it.)

cathy :-)

[JM Hanes]

Patton

"born of an illegal that has broken any US laws"

That's sort of redundant, isn't it? Don't think we'd want to revoke someone's citizenship over a parent's speeding tickets, so I suppose we'd be talking something more like felonies. Then again if it's crimminal parentage we're worried about why limit it to the kids of foreign felons? How would this work if, say, my illegal grandfather commits a felony? Do I become personna non grata too along with my newly illegal Dad? What happens to the 3 generation family business, I wonder....

I'm with Pete where tinkering with the Constitution is concerned. Regardless of the history you cite, you've got both the unequivical language of the 14th amendment itself & an intervening century of use squarely at odds with the backward looking reinterpretation you're promoting. I also think the simpler test is decidedly better in this case, as a practical matter. Just picture the courts bogged down with endless challenges whether with or without merit.

[Pete]

Patton - ok so you agree that the child has not broken any law, and yet you would strip the children of their rights even when they have done no wrong. The US constitution clearly says that all people born in the US are US citizens. Do you swear to uphold our constitution?

And the best you can offer is that ridiculous argument about 200,000 terrorists and their "waives" (are you sure it is not YOU who needs the English training?). If we had 200,000 terrorists in this country launching attacks we would have a far bigger problem than figuring out the citizenship of their US born children.

[Dave in W-S]

How about just refunding the social security payments they have made into their own accounts?

I don't think I want to see the dogfights that would ensue when trying to recoup payments made to illegally shared accounts. All other considerations aside, the administrative and legal costs to the taxpayer would be astounding.

[Carol Herman]

You'll never recoup the costs of hospital care for the uninsured. Or the schooling for their kids. Which includes educating their children in Spanish. Sorry folks, but if you do illegal stuff don't come to depend on any handouts, afterwards.

The taxpayer has been footing this bill for far too long, anyway. And, I didn't even include prison costs. And, the prices we pay for illegals traveling our roads. But ya know what? Most of us carry unisured motorist insurance, too.

[Barney Frank]

Well I'm against the courts tinkering with the Constitution but not the people, it does after all have an amendment provision. The automatic citizenship for anyone born here is fairly obviously being exploited by illegals in a way unforseen by the drafters of the clause. What is wrong with using the amendment process to 'tinker' with something that has broken down?

Its funny how people like Pete think the Constitution shouldn't be tinkered with unless its the ninth district doing the tinkering; then the Constitution is a 'living' document.

[crosspatch]

I wouldn't call it a "defeat for President Bush", I would call it either a "defeat for Senate Democrats" or "a defeat for America".

This is *exactly* what I expected to happen ... nothing. There is too much money being made the way things are and a way would be found to torpedo any change. Republicans sent a bill to the Senate they knew would never pass as-is and then refuse to negotiate on a compromise bill. By pretending to pander to their base, they were able to prevent any real change ... which is what I believe they wanted all along.

[Monkey Trainer]

Pete,

I'm willing to trade you for enforcing the clear language of every clause of the constitution for your "clear" language of the 14th amendment making all people born in the U.S. automatic citizens. In other words, allow ALL firearms and allow people to carry said firearms openly or concealed, pursuant to the 2nd amendment. Repeal any and all restrictions on free speech, pursuant to the 1st amendment. Strike down about 70% of the laws in the US code as congress has no real authority under the clear language of the Constitution for enacting said laws (those powers are reserved to the states). Disallow all federal agencies from making laws (regulations) as there is no constitutional authority for it. Etc, etc.

In return, I will grant that the 14th amendment means that anyone lucky enough to have their head crest out of their mother on U.S. soil is automatically a citizen. Even though the amendment actually says "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."

Many would argue that subject to the jurisdiction thereof means that the parent must be in the U.S. legally for the child to become a U.S. citizen upon birth. That is hardly a crazy reading of the amendment. And, much more tortious readings have been made of most of the document. Why, Roe v. Wade for example.

Just saying.

- MT

[Gary Maxwell]

OT

In a event surely foreshadowing the November results, Rahm Emmanuel has already announced he will not continue post November as head of the DCCC. Why else would he be making this announcement now? He knows he is neglecting his family and wants them to be comforted that its only a few more months?

[Pete]

Barney Frank - There is nothing wrong with using the amendment process. However until the constitution is amended one should follow the constitution as it is written.

Monkey Trainer - I don't know how you come to conclusions about my feelings on the 2nd amendment? While I would have liked the 2nd amendment to be better worded, I think that the 2nd amendment is unamiguous on the right to bear arms. And note that citizenships can be revoked by certain actions. The citizenships of several ex-Nazis has been revoked based on their past actions, and I fully support that. It just does not make sense to revoke the citizenship of a child based on not what the child did, but on what one of the child's parent did.

And yes that is a crazy reading of the 14th amendment.

[BMOC]

We need to have open borders. The comprehensive Senate bill was good legislation.

[Dave H]

You can't penalize children who haven't done anything wrong. Period. That's why Prop 187 was opposed by many Republicans and ultimately doomed in the courts. Nobody's stupid enough not to know that "children born to illegals who have broken a law" means simply children born to illegals. That attitude borders (no pun intended) on the inhuman. Don't try to embody it in a law or constitutional amendment. That path will doom Republicans to permanent minority status, just as Prop 187 did in California. Learn from history. Be human. Lots of people are against illegal immigrants; very few are against children.

[Eric]

From AP:

"...a victim of election-year concerns in the House and conservatives' implacable opposition to citizenship for millions of illegal immigrants."

Puh-leaze. The rank-and-file Democrats are against illegal immigration, too.

This issue is the same as gay marriage. The Leftist elite think the common guys and gals agree with them because they are "Democrats".

Put illegal immigration on a ballot and watch is fail the same way gay marriage does - across the board irrespective of BlueState/Red State.

[crosspatch]

The Senate bill didn't make for open borders. It authorized what, over 200 miles of additional fence (that we aren't going to get now) and additional money for more Border Patrol agents (that we aren't going to get now, either).

Look. There are BILLIONS of dollars being sucked out of the economy in illicit drug sales. Keeping that border just like it is ensures a continious flow of drugs via Mexico and a return of the cash. And we are not taliking about small amounts of cash either. That border could be fenced as part of the "War on Drugs" if Congress wanted to do it, but they don't. There are too many very powerful and well connected people making sure things stay exactly like they are. All the right palms get just the right amount of grease. Congress "looks" like they tried to do something when in reality they made sure nothing would happen.

The House sent a bill to the Senate that they knew would never fly there and the Senate Democrats demanded a bill they knew the House would never accept and they both refuse to compromise in getting a joint bill prepared. Perfect. Both sides look like they tried to do something when in reality they both worked very hard making sure nothing got done.

A lot of bandwidth and emotion were wasted on all of this. The base of BOTH parties are slaves to their emotions and don't use their brains. Congress was counting on that.

[Patton]

Pete and everyone else...the US Constitution DOES NOT SAY THEY ARE AUTOMATICALLY CITIZENS IF THEY ARE BORN HERE..NEVER HAS. The 14th Amendment has TWO tests for citizenship. I SUGGEST YOU READ IT BEFORE MAKING YOUR ARGUMENTS.

Please also read the history of the law, the reason it was passed and how it would be properly interpreted if we have a CONSERVATIVE supreme court.

What you are I guess saying is that every UN Representative and worker that brings there family here and that family member has a baby - they should automatically become citizens?? Right??

I guess we need to go after all those foriegners that were born here and went home..they owe alot of taxes under their citizenship!

[Patton]

Dave H says: ""That path will doom Republicans to permanent minority status, just as Prop 187 did in California."""

So Arhnolds a Democrat DaveH???

Dave H says: "Learn from history. Be human. Lots of people are against illegal immigrants; very few are against children.""

So I guess you are saying the people of Mexico are INHUMANE for passing such laws against the foriegners that come into their country from Guatemala and South America?

So DaveH, when illegals make up 80% of the welfare rolls and 80% of the school children in california, and Californians are paying 50% of their income for the CHILDREN, they should all be happy right??

And why is it INHUMANE for me to want illegals to stay in their country? Is it inhumane for me not wanting out citizens murdered, our wives raped?, our children molested?

The MOST WANTED warrants for murder in LA are for ILLEGAL ALIENS. Is it HUMANE for my country, my Federal government to not enforce the border laws that keep me and my family safe? Why is that INHUMANE?

The people that are INHUMANE are those that support illegal trafficking of humans, like DaveH appears to support. If you actually enforced the border, gave no jobs to illegals and caught and jailed criminals you may finally change Mexico and South America to meet the needs of their citizens.

BETTER YET, IT WOULD BE MORE HUMANE TO INVADE MEXICO, JAIL THEIR LEADERS AND MAKE IT THE 51ST/2ND AND 3RD STATE. THAT WAY THEY WOULD ALL BE CITIZENS AND WE WOULD BE EXTREMELY HUMANE.

[cathyf]

Stripping citizenship from US-born children of illegals is just asking for euro-style immigrant problems. In Europe, one of your parents must be a citizen for you to be a citizen, so there are large populations of stateless persons in European countries. So you can have been born in Switzerland, and both parents born in Switzerland, and all four grandparents born in Switzerland, and all eight great-grandparents born in Switzerland, and not be a citizen. And none of the countries that your 16 great-great-grandparents came from recognize you as a citizen. In fact, it's possible that none of those countries even exist any more!

A big factor in Europe's immigration problems is that their immigrants are largely unassimilated. Giving citizenship to everyone born here is a huge help in getting our immigrants assimilated. If you think we have a problem with illegal immigration now, look at Paris if you want to see how much worse it will get if we follow Patton's plan...

cathy :-)

[Dave H]

UN representatives are diplomats, entitled to diplomatic immunity, and generally not subject to the jurisdiction of state courts. If an illegal alien commits a crime, he is subject to the jurisdiction of the state in which he committed the crime. But his kids born in the U.S. are protected by the 14th Amendment. That's what the amendment says and that's how it has been interpreted since it was passed. To rule otherwise now would be to upset almost a century and a half of consistent interpretation -- something no conservative jurist worthy of the name would do.

[Patton]

In fact, I am going to be even more HUMANE then DaveH.

I will pay to birth, feed, house, educate all illegal invaders children.
I will then send the bill to their home countries. Any bill not paid, will be paid by the confuscation of that countries assets and real property to finance the birth, feeding, housing and education of their citizens children.

As the property is confiscated, the border will be moved South accordingly as the acreage because US assets to pay for the children.

I bet DaveH doesn't want to be that nice to the children. He just wants to take the money at the point of a gun from US citizens - that's how he displays his HUMANENESS. Pay for the illegals DaveH says..if you don't pay, we don't confiscate Mexicos property, NO, the IRS puts a lien on your property, then if you don't pay they sell it..if you still don't pay, they fine you, then they arrest you and if you resist, they KILL YOU, under DaveH policy.

So we confiscate US citizens property at the point of a gun to pay for Mexican citizens support when we could just confiscate Mexican property at the point of the same gun. DaveH says go after Joe Sixpack and make his family suffer, make his children lose their vacation money, their Bible school money, their college education so he can feel good about paying for criminals children who don't even belong here.

So its humane to punish the American child as long as you feel good about helping out the foriegn child. Thats DaveH's humane policy..my kid goes without, for the kids of people that break the laws and don't follow the rules.

[JM Hanes]

Patton

"I SUGGEST YOU READ IT BEFORE MAKING YOUR ARGUMENTS."

I suggest that rather than shouting at folks who don't like the implications of what you're suggesting, you realize that you're the one attempting to change the de facto status quo. Before even getting to whether or not such a backward looking reinterpretation is defensible, you'd have to persuade me that you wouldn't be just substituting one quagmire for another.

The idea that a "CONSERVATIVE supreme court" would necessarily support your reading of the Constitution is more than a little speculative. The long list of surprising positions taken on that bench defy the confidence with which such generalizations are routinely argued. Frankly, the idea that you're looking to the Court for redress, and not the legislature, makes me wonder if you're really suited to explain the conservative mindset to others.

[clarice]

Gary, what a cynical fellow you are about Rahm's motives.

I think we should tighten border security and take out time. More than half the Congress doesn't have a clue about how the present system is working and the public debate has been mostly emotive and visceral. Taking time to consider things more carefully is exactly what I want, and what I think it prudent and sensible.

[clarice]

***"take ouR time****

[Patton]

Of course DaveH won't actualy admit thats his policy, but thats the result.

Why don't the people pushing this actually just give the illegals a voucher for 20,000 dollars of American citizens money and then let the illegals collect the money themselves?
They could walk through the neighborhoods, knock on doors, show people their federal voucher and ask for cash or check for their share? Wouldn't that be humane?

Notice its always those who want to pay less in taxes that are 'responsible' for the debt and not those that advocate and support policies that cause the debt in the first place. Its the illegal invaders cauing the debt - -get the money from them.

[Patton]

Tell you what DaveH I am willing to meet you half way on this and be very PRO CHOICE.

We should add a line to the tex return:

If you support providing tax dollars to illegal aliens; our government would be happy to assit you. Just take your taxable income and multiply by 20% and send in that addtl amount.
You addtl 20% of income will be used to treat illegal invaders HUMANELY.

So if the citizens really want illagels here, they can vote with their money. Then we would know just how big the ground swell is on DaveH's side.

[JM Hanes]

Gary

"In a event surely foreshadowing the November results, Rahm Emmanuel has already announced he will not continue post November as head of the DCCC."

Foreshadowing indeed! This may be the closest he thinks he can get to actually resigning that position altogether, which is probably what he would really like to do. I think he doesn't want to be tarred with the upcoming mid-term results of Howard Dean's approach to winning elections. Rather than putting big bucks into targetted campaigns, Dean seems to be spreading the money out, in the name of rebuilding the party, so thinly that it may end up having no demonstrable effect. Republicans reading tea leaves should be encouraged by this news.

[Patton]

JM Hnes, I am not looking to the court for redress, I am looking to Congress to use what the 14th Amendment actually says to craft a statute that would stop this invasion of the country.

[JM Hanes]

Patton

I think you may be closing in on the record for setting up the most strawmen and then knocking 'em down in a single thread.

[Monkey Trainer]

Pete,

I was not saying what your interpretations of the constitution are, I was pointing out that there are a lot more radical interpretations, which are currently in effect, of that document.

Monkey Trainer - I don't know how you come to conclusions about my feelings on the 2nd amendment? While I would have liked the 2nd amendment to be better worded, I think that the 2nd amendment is unamiguous on the right to bear arms. And note that citizenships can be revoked by certain actions. The citizenships of several ex-Nazis has been revoked based on their past actions, and I fully support that. It just does not make sense to revoke the citizenship of a child based on not what the child did, but on what one of the child's parent did.

And yes that is a crazy reading of the 14th amendment.

I'm glad you are capable of rational debate. Now that I, an attorney who practices much con law - albeit mostly 1st amendment and 4th amendment issues, know that I am crazy, I will defer to your brilliance and rationality as to what my treatment should be. Thanks. I now know not to bother attempting to have an actual discussion with you, as I am "crazy" for actually reading the wording of the amendment. Sorry to intrude my "crazy" thoughts.

I wish you had been there to diagnose the supremes who voted on Roe v. Wade. If my interpretation of the wording of the 14th is "crazy", obviously people who believe in the emenations of penumbrumbs (I know the spelling is wrong but I'm too lazy to look it up) should have been shot as dangers to society.

- MT

[Patton]

Maybe someone could explain to me how I am pubishing the child of an illegal alien??

Because I have called for no such 'punishment'?

And as far as I know their is no U.S. Law against speeding except on Federal installations.

[monk]

Pete,

I guess that "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" has no actual meaning. the people who wrote the amendment must have just thought it sounded pretty.

And, nobody said anything about "revoking" anyone's citizenship. We are talking about on a going forward basis. If Mexican citizens know that any child they shoot out on our soil if they are not in a legal status will not automatically become a citizen, it takes away an ENORMOUS incentive for them to be here. But that is just "crazy" talk.

Most nations on this earth do not have birthright citizenship. It is not such a radical idea to not believe in birthright citizenship for people whose parents are not citizen or who are not here legally.

But again, that is just "crazy" talk from a "crazy." No need to debate the issues.

- MT

[Barney Frank]

I don't think its reasonable to hold out any hope that either congress or any court will ever reverse the interpretation of birthright citizenship. On that I agree with JMH and Pete.
That begs the question of whether birthright citizenship, as it now stands, is desirable and that seems a pretty obvious 'no' to me.

[JM Hanes]

"And as far as I know their is no U.S. Law against speeding except on Federal installations."

So illegals who break all the state laws they like could still pump out little citizens?

[Dave H]

First of all, let me state my positions for myself. Make your points but don't put words in my mouth. Second, unlike your stated position, I do not equate illegal aliens with murderers, rapist and child molesters. If someone commits murder, punish them with the laws against murder. Their immigration status is irrelevant.

I'm a California Republican (where Republicans are unquestionably a distinct minority). I have lived and worked with good people who have come here illegally. I have no problem whatsoever with anybody who comes to America, gets a job, respects property and obeys the laws once he is here. As for the border crossing, I consider that malum prohibitum, not malum in se -- like smoking pot.

I am opposed to the welfare state. But the problem with illegals collecting welfare is with the Democrats' welfare laws, not illegal immigration.

Patton: do you really believe that (1) most illegal aliens are murderers, rapists and child molesters, and (2) that most illegals come here only to collect welfare? If so, then we disagree on the facts. But facts can be proved by evidence, so if you've got it, let's see it.

As for annexing northern Mexico, I'm all for it as long as we (1) guarantee them a republican form of government, and (2) make them speak English.

[Jane]

>This is *exactly* what I expected to happen ... nothing

Actually I think something is happening, albeit not legislatively. But we have been getting tougher on our borders, or at least hearing about it, and I think that is pushing Bush's numbers up.

[Monkey Trainer]

Barney Frank,

I don't think its reasonable to hold out any hope that either congress or any court will ever reverse the interpretation of birthright citizenship. On that I agree with JMH and Pete. That begs the question of whether birthright citizenship, as it now stands, is desirable and that seems a pretty obvious 'no' to me.

I don't necessarily disagree with that - but that is very different than saying my interpretation of the 14th is "crazy." AFter all, there are a lot of interpretations (by the Courts) of the Constitution in affect right now that are unlikely to be changed in the near future, but which are based on incredibly bad historical analysis and legal reasoning. Kelo, Roe v. Wade, the affirmative action cases - the list can go on and on. That does not mean that an alternative interpretation is wrong - it just means that one side has won the debate - for now.

That was my original point, but "Pete" decided that rather than engage in a reasoned debate, he would just label that position "crazy."

- MT

[Carol Herman]

Throw in the word "ALL" and logic tells ya you're dealing with a fallacy.

And, not "all" people within a group have to be mad, incoherent, or terrorists, for that matter; to get the group all gunked up, just the same.

Illegal immigration IS a problem. And, it's put pressures on many places, including our tax expenditures. As I've said, before, people have to carry uninsured motorists insurance. We don't expect to have accidents. But we pay money to protect ourselves from the uninsured.

Are vehicles coming in from Mexico safe? Not all of them. And, when we had NAFTA set into place this was something that got overlooked.

How do States make their roads safer, anyway? Given that your air pollutants are checked (to get your DMV papers renewed). But no one's checking brakes. Or other mechanisms within these 60 MPH cars and trucks. Life's not perfect, I guess?

Doesn't mean people aren't concerned.

Doesn't mean that some industries (from slaughtering animals, to burying people, to cleaning hotel rooms), doesn't fall to cheaper than minimum wage labor. The fact is there's no perfect system. Or one that's foolproof, either.

HOWEVER, the terrorists are now using our own weaknesses against us. And, for that reason a lot of citizens are paying attention to issues that those elected to legislate seem not to consider.

One of the reasons the congress critters tend to have tunnel vision; it's that it's all limited to their own elections, and re-elections. Very local fish ponds. And, while it's possible the donks will even contract further (at least I think so, ahead of November's upcoming results coming in. And, getting counted); I'm aware that ambitious "men" are gonna look for ways to keep on winning.

On one site I read today, it was pointed out that Murtha brings home DEFENSE BACON. And, that 1,000 people are employed in some lab. Where the only reason they have jobs where they do, is due to Murtha. From this factoid, was extrapolated the idea that "Murtha is bullet proof" in his district.

Maybe, so.

He's still only one. And, he wears the donk label. That could mean that, overall, it costs the donks to have him within their fold? On the other hand, can 1,000 people, coupled to their families; give Murtha enough votes that Irey doesn't win? Can't tell. Come November.

And, the issue of illegal immigration won't go away.

I'm sure all changes took time. I have my grandparents passports. 1912. Photography was available back then. But not in use on passports. Instead, signatures were used. So, I've got variations on my mom's maiden name. Shawn Fergurson wasn't the only "rabbi." But you'd have to be Jewish to get the joke.

Things change. Rarely stay the same. Just as things we took for granted; like LP's, and cassette tapes, have disappeared from the market.

In time, I'm sure there will be systems in place that make "immigration" more efficient. We could trade away those who come here, refusing ever to adapt to our culture, for those who can speak English. And, excel in our schools. Why not?

And, we're not the only place on earth, coping. Ireland's benefited from a brain drain coming out of Europe. While the Continent is fighting for its life, now. Given how they welcomed in the muzzies.

Nobody's annexing Mexico! You didn't know? John Houston got deep in, as far as Mexico City. He won against Santana. He won it all. But ran like all get out for the Rio Grande. Crossed it. And, drew a line.

By the way, except for enemy combatants, who exactly are the donks recruiting, now? Even rolls with the dead imbedded, and dogs also are given "voting rights," this stuff really does grow old.

And, Hugh Hewitt said it. When the turnout's great enough, the donks can't steal it. And, their lawyers won't be able to change the goal posts,either.

Anyway, Hugh Hewitt has a tee-shirt with six things on it. SIMPLE. Better than Newt's old contract. I expect we'll see more of this ahead.

While pelosi holds her rag (to clean the house), she'll have what to snot into, come November. But that's just my opinion.

[cathyf]

So, imagine this scenario... Miguel is an illegal immigrant, who is a very evil criminal. He rapes Maria, a 14-yr-old illegal immigrant as part of a crime spree. Maria becomes pregnant from the rape and has the child, who is born in the US and Maria names him Sven, and puts Miguel's name on Sven's birth certificate. 25 years later, the police finally catch Miguel, and he is convicted of several murders and rapes, and sentenced to death and executed.

Do we strip Sven of his citizenship right then and there? Sven met Inga, a Swedish student, when he was in college, and they got married 3 years ago and have a daughter. Inga's fast-track citizenship is based upon her marriage to an American citizen -- does she lose that, too? Do Sven, Inga and their daughter instantly lose their American citizenship because of the crimes of Miguel, who Sven and Maria had no contact with since Sven's conception? Maria married an American citizen 15 years ago and is now a citizen, too -- so is she going to get kicked out, too?

cathy :-)

[Extraneus]

At the risk of preaching to the choir, the fact that these kinds of no-win scenarios are multiplying is why the border needs to be controlled, first and foremost. The Sensenbrenner bill (here's a summary) was a means to getting control, and most of its provisions seem pretty reasonable to me if that's the objective. (Of course, this is probably why it inspired the protests.) If we had an effective enough deterrent to dissuade additional people from even trying to breach an effective barrier, we could discuss humane, logical and fair ways to deal with the existing illegals. Otherwise, it's kind of pointless, isn't it?

[Monkey Trainer]

CathyF,

You know what, I can come up with hypotheticals for any law on the books that will be unjust in the particular circumstance. That is the nature of the law. Does that mean we get rid of all laws? Your hypotheticals are strawmen and do not add to the debate. You are also falling into the liberal fallicy that it is the government's job to raise and care for children. I don't believe that - I think the parents have a responsibility for their children. As I said earlier up in the thread, almost no other country in the world provides for the carte blanch birth-right citizenship that america does. Instead, to be a citizen, one of your parents usually has to be a citizen. I am not advocating even that - I simply ask that at least one parent be here legally.

- MT

[Rick Ballard]

Jane,

I agree with you - Bush boomeranged this one. Enforcement of existing laws is all that was ever needed.

Los Angeles' problems with alien gangbangers is the responsibility of the LA City Council which declared the city an illegals paradise - much to the delight of homegrown Mechistas. That council is also responsible for the decision to provide all services to illegals - no questions asked.

Pews Hispanic Center has not been able to find a Republican dumb enough to follow the example set by McCain on CFR. Not for lack of trying, to be sure.

There is absolutely no need for omnibus legislation on the matter. There is actually very little need for any legislation at all that I can see. An increase in funding for more INS agents and a refusal to share in the costs assumed by local governments in the provision of services to illegal aliens would be enough.

[Barney Frank]

Monkey trainer,

I thought you might think I was referring to you. It is quite possible your interpratation is eminently reasonable. I don't even agree with the use of the 14th amendment to force the federal constitution's restrictions on Congess upon the states.
There are two words for any one who stakes out the position that Supreme Court decisions are somehow morally dispositive to consider. Dred Scott. Plessey and Ferguson also come to mind.

[Sue]

Cathy,

Forget citizenship...sign those people up for a soap opera.

::grin::

[Patton]

Cathyf,

You seem to be under the impression that Citizenship is a benefit.

Sven the child would have NEVER BEEN a US citizen to begin with. His MOTHER had broken federal law and thus he was inelligible when he was born. GET IT??

[Patton]

Those who are supporting this current system seem to me to be the most inhumane. They are supporting the on-going criminal class of below minimum wage workers that can be exploited by businesses because they are here illegally.

On top of that, people here illegally tend no to do the things necessary to protect us all like buy insurance, pay taxes, report crimes/suspicious activity, etc., etc.

THE CURRENT SYSTEM YOU ARE DEFENDING IS COMPLETELY INHUMANE.

What we should do, is choose one or the other - either keep them all out with a real, enforceable border...or just make them all citizens the day they walk across the border.

Raise the number that are allowed to emigrate from Central/South America each year to 20 Million.

Get rid of border patrol and make them all state department agents that grant immediate citizenship, a Social Security card/number and provide them a phamplhet spelling out their rights under US labor laws. Also a 800 number they can call to report anyone trying to hire them below the minimum wage of 12.00 dollars an hour for new immigrants with free health care of course.

I would probably go a step further and provide everyone in their family back home US citizenship as well.

[cw]

No $$$$$$

[Patton]

The 1898 Supreme Court decision said everyone born in the US is a citizen UNLESS they are a diplomat of a foriegn power.

So we pass a law saying everyone from another country that enters the United States without a VISA is considered a DIPLOMAT of that country for the purpose of Federal Constitutional Law.

Thus, being a Diplomat, your children are children of your country.

MEXICO LIKES TO REPRESENT THEIR 'CITIZENS' ON US DEATH ROW IN COURT.. so make them all Diplomats.

[JM Hanes]

Monkey Trainer

"You are also falling into the liberal fallicy that it is the government's job to raise and care for children."

Must be asleep at the wheel here. Could you point me to where catyyf taken anything remotely resembling the position you're complaining about?

[Patton]

Maybe its her need to embrace everyone with US Citizenship..thus providing them a teet on Uncle Sam.

Maria was already a criminal when the kid was born..just proves the point that no one even recognizes that someone called an ILLEGAL ALIEN has broken Federal Law.

[Patton]

Let's re-use Cathyf scenario, but change the name to Muhammed Atta.

[Jane]

>There is absolutely no need for omnibus legislation on the matter. There is actually very little need for any legislation at all that I can see. An increase in funding for more INS agents and a refusal to share in the costs assumed by local governments in the provision of services to illegal aliens would be enough.

Rick,

I admit I don't have a concrete position on what we need. I'm not even sure how to think about it, but I find myself getting angry at all the benefits that are going to illegals.

I was in Court, in the Judges chamber, right after the issue started getting a lot of noise. My opponant didn't show so I was chatting with the Judge. I asked him how many illegals he thought came into his Court every week. He guessed it was about 25, then told me it was ILLEGAL for him to ask. I almost died when I heard that.

This week on talk radio, the state is all abuzz about our attorney General, Tom Reilly who is running for Governor, who declared that he has chosen not to arrest or prosecute any illegals. This is MA and we are not known for our conservatism (to put it mildly) but people are not happy about that.

Since I don't know that much about the issue, it is interesting to gauge the impact the news of increased enforcement by the feds has on me. It's positive, and that accrues to Bush. I assume I'm not alone.

[BMOC]

Undocumented workers deserve every benefit offered to them, driver licenses, health care, food stamps, etc., how they entered this country is irrelevent.

[Extraneus]

Deserve?

[Carol Herman]

Well, Patton, the first puncture to your plan is that all the states act independenly. And, the Judiciary is a separate branch of government. Not apt to put criminals in prison and throw away the key. More likely, it's "old sparky" that goes. Actually, "went."

But the Federal Government's PURSE STRINGS can be tightened. We waft away much to much money, as it is. And, it's like honey. In that it attracts people to come here. In other words, they come BECAUSE THERE ARE BENEFITS. And, these benefits are imbedded in the Catholic Church. In tax-free aid organizations. PLUS, in all sorts of business needs, where finding help is paramount. And, paying them little comes next.

This has been going on for quite a while. And, it's only recently that the costs of doing business have escalated to the point where it's noticed. (Because slum areas are losing hospitals. And, the violence INCREASES.)

We know, too, that drug laws were of no help. And, the mafia is just as happy, still. Even though we sell lottery tickets. And, you can gamble without committing any crimes.

It would be lots more honest IF we took in immigrants, not willy nilly; but by SKILLS LEVEL. So instead of growing the slums, we did the more logical thing. But that would bump right into the shambles of our educational system. You think people with credentials want to lose out to foreigners?

So, welcome back to square one.

No easy solution.

Tightening our criminal laws would help. But prisons are bursting at the seams.

And, every idiot can sue. We've got the most rediculous system. At least real estate agents actually have to have tangible buildings, or lots to sell. Not so lawyers. Only 3% of all civil cases ever see a court room, judge and jury. I'm sure the arms twisting Fitzgerald, Sneddon, Nifong, and Earle have done so openly, gets done BECAUSE THEY CAN! In other words, everything's been turned into a crap shoot.

So the one thing all this debate does is push MORE people over the open borders. We might as well hang a sign: "Last Chance Saloon."

I know people are angry.

But the GOP isn't running against any competition. So, I'm not surprised our congress critters want to make Bush a "lame duck." A lame duck president, by definition, has less power. While the congress critters grow bigger pork barrels.

Even if we could just fix our schools. Where the discipline problems are way out of line. And, non-English speaking kids come in every day just for the food. Their parent(s) won't understand any notes you send home! And, the one thing about the lowest forms of life attending our slum schools, is that the gangs own them. The administrators cower. And, the teachers HATE their jobs.

Can't wave a magic wand at that, either.

First, we'd have to make the schools a heck of a lot safer. And, ya know what? Communities that have solved the worst of these problems scare the illegals into moving away. (So the problem's not distributed equally at all, either.)

Meanwhile, few Americans know the "cash only" basis Mexico uses when they're down their and they break an arm or leg.

Diplomatically speaking, our tourist dollars don't buy us anything like we give away for free, up here, in our own communities. What to do? Americans won't boycott the travel.

[Gary Maxwell]

Hannity just commented that Bush was right all along and shouldn't democrats apologize. Anyone here really really good at breath holding?

Ann Coulter to give the issue a go on H & C in a bit. That should be a blister session.

So today's stories are WMD found and Kos lies. And he and Jerone are running some kind of touting scheme, quite similar to what Jerome got nailed by the SEC doing with stocks. Nice work. They should see if Jesse Jackson needs some shake down help to branch out and put several arrows in the quiver.

[Patton]

BMOC says:
"""Undocumented workers deserve every benefit offered to them, driver licenses, health care, food stamps, etc., how they entered this country is irrelevent"""

Absolutely, and a undocumented mover deserves everything in your house, how he entered your house is irrelevant.

An an undocumented sex pervert deserves your daughter, how he drugged her making her so complaint is irrelevant.

[Rick Ballard]

Jane,

The judges remark is what makes the whole argument facetious. The INS has some decent statistical approximations that were done on the basis of the 2000 census but there is really minimal factual information available. The Pew Hispanic Center number of 11M was jerked right out of the air - the INS number points to a number lower than 9M. Is that a "serious problem"? If it were and if illegals were putting such an enormous strain on the system then one might think that localities would bother to at least ask the question concerning their status.

The INS also has very decent records concerning the number of people who actually applied for citizenship after the '86 amnesty. If people were really concerned about the probable effect of amnesty on naturalizations one might think they would have that number at hand.

They don't. They have "threats" as specious as the MSM that writes the scare stories. This is politics at its very worst, full throated demagoguery from all sides anchored wholly in illusion.

[Soylent Red]

This ongoing battle over the XIV Amendment is pretty amusing to me, if only because it is being so vigorously fought but is so tangential to fixing the actual problem.

The actual problem is that we have a bunch of money whores in Washington who won't lower the boom on hiring illegals.

If you look at the amount of wages being returned back to Mexico, it's obvious that the incentive is not:

a. squirting out kids to get citizenship
b. coming here to start your own crime spree
c. taking advantage of all the freebies

The real incentive is that conditions in Mexico suck so badly that even an underpaid off-the-economy job in the U.S. is enough to sustain you and your family back home.

So, you get really draconian with companies and individuals hiring illegals. You take away the incentive to come here, you take care of the problem.

And we don't have to endure a Constitutional free for all to get it done.

[Javani]

JM Hanes writes:

"House races are profoundly local. By putting immigration squarely on the political table, Bush has given House Republicans a great hot button issue to run on, and one where the their position is undeniably the most popular with the electorate."

Bush did do that, but it was an unintended consequence.

[JM Hanes]

Javani

"Bush did do that, but it was an unintended consequence."

Unintended, quite possibily. On the other hand, not exactly unanticipated either. The position of House Republicans and the conservative base was more than clear long before the Prez actually plunked his plan down on the table. It's also quite possible that the Administration regarded it as something of a win/win propostion.

[Javani]

I think you are giving the Administration too much credit. They tried to ramrod this through the Senate quickly with cooperation of the Democratic leadership. Then they planned to play the racist card against the Conservatives and create an appearance of inevitability for mass amnesty and immigration increase.

The administration miscalculated. It was unanticipated. No ways Carl Rove thought that by June some Republican candidates would be publicly criticising the President and that many Democrat candidates are running on tough enforcement first.

Both Bush, the Senate, the Democratic leadership, and the corporate interests plotting for them knew they would have problems, that is why they tried to pull a fast one. I believe in their hubris they thought they could only be successful.

[Patton]

I'd just like to say that all the talk of statistics is very nice and about the poor illegals just trying to find a better life.

BUT WHEN ONE WITHOUT A LICENSE RUNS YOU 74 YEAR OLD MOTHER OFF THE ROAD AND PUTS HER IN INTENSIVE CARE FOR 4 MONTHS, THEY HAD NO INSURANCE, THEN CLAIMED TO THE JUDGE THEY COULDN'T SPEAK ENGLISH (EVEN THOUGH THEY DID AT THE ACCIDENT SCENE) THEN COME TALK TO ME ABOUT HOW WONDERFUL THESE PEOPLE ARE.

The number one job of a government is the protection of its citizens, this government is completely failing to do that job.

[Patton]

Some of the human costs of the so-called humane policy towward illegal aliens:

http://www.immigrationshumancost.org/text/crimevictims.html

Let's not forget Muhammed Atta was an illegal alien that Clinton let waltz into the country and kill 3,000 Americans.

[Jane]

>If it were and if illegals were putting such an enormous strain on the system then one might think that localities would bother to at least ask the question concerning their status.

The reason the Judge was prohibited from making the inquiry was that it is a federal, not state issue. So he had no jurisdiction to do anything about it. What's so funny is that a few years ago the Courts added a weird litany where you have to tell every defendant that if he is illegal, he could be deported.

[monkey trainer]

JMHaynes,

"You are also falling into the liberal fallicy that it is the government's job to raise and care for children."

Must be asleep at the wheel here. Could you point me to where catyyf taken anything remotely resembling the position you're complaining about?

It is probably a little of a stretch, but her argument seems to be "but we must protect the children" even if their parents acted poorly. I.e., even though the parents came to America illegally and had the kids, it is not the kids fault, therefore we must grant the kids citizenship. This is of a piece with most liberal arguments for any kind of government regulation or control - do it to protect the children. My argument is, it is not the gov't's job to do so, and therefore if the parents do something that puts the kids in a bad spot, it is not gov't's job to rescue the children.

So, yeah, probably a bit of a stretch, but if your starting point is that we have to look out for the chilren, I think we are starting from the liberal's playbook and it is hard to get to a conservative position from there.

- mt

[cathyf]

No, mt, my point is all about the adults. So if a 75-yr-old illegal alien commits a crime, you are going to yank the citizenship of his children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren, who were all born here, who have all been upstanding members of the community and model citizens for the decades of their lives? In this case the great-grandchildren would be children, but everybody else are adults.

It's one thing to say who is and isn't citizens, but to retroactively take away your citizenship for something that you didn't do is totally wacky.

cathy :-)

[Patton]

Cathy writes:

""So if a 75-yr-old illegal alien commits a crime, you are going to yank the citizenship of his children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren,"""

This really isn't that hard to grasp is it? The 75 year old ILLEGAL ALIEN committed a CRIME by entering the country, thus the child would never have been granted citizenship to begin with. We are no talking about retroactive laws.

Or how about 75 years ago an illegal alien forged documents claiming they owned 20,000 acres of land in California, it is then given to his children and grandchildren upon his death. Cathy finds out about the fraud and discovers tha land, worth 50 MIllion dollars actually belonged to her family. IS CATHY GOING TO PUNISH THE CHILDREN AND GRANDCHILDREN BY TAKING AWAY THAT LAND AND HAVING IT FOR HERSELF??

Lets say a 75 year old illegal alien steals your car and gives it to their child to drive to college..

Would you punish the child by taking the car back?? The child didn't do anything wrong, yet Cathy's going to take that poor childs car??

[monkey trainer]

CathyF,

As I said, I can point to many, many laws that will be unjust in particular circumstances. That does not make those laws invalid. Society always has to find ways to deal with extremes.

Moreover, a system can be developed to deal with the strawmen situations you create. That does not mean that ALL children born to illegals today must automatically become citizens. In fact, by your argument, all illegals who have been here for a number of years should by all rights be made citizens - otherwise we will be revoking their citizenship and that would be "wacky."

The latin term for the argument you are making is something like "reductio ad absurdum" - meaning, you can take just about any proposition to an extreme absurd result - but that is not a real argument. In english, we call that a "strawman."

And, now, according to pete I am "crazy" and according to you, I am "wacky." Good for you - strawmen and ad hominem all in one attack. I guess if that is the best you can come up with, I must be right.

- MT

[Patton]

"""It's one thing to say who is and isn't citizens, but to retroactively take away your citizenship for something that you didn't do is totally wacky."""

Interesting statement. So you have families in Mexico taking false citizenship papers (Say birth certificates) to the American embassy and registering their children for US Citizenship. Before the fraud is discovered, some children are granted US citizenship based on the false birth documents or parental citizenship claims.

So according to you, since it wasn't the child that committed the fraud, their citizenship cannot be removed, even though everyone was caught and went to jail for a complete fraud against the United States.

[Patton]

Guess it is Cathys thinking is the main reason that immigration is usually at the top of the crime statistics for fraud cases in the US.

[Patton]

It is not un-conservative to go back and determine what the authors meant when they wrote the 14th Amendment just because it was interpreted wrongly 100 years ago.
Somehow the court 100 years ago managed to exclude people here as diplomats even though the Amendment doesn't specifically so it.

If the court 100 years ago foresaw the extent of illegal immingration, maybe they ruling would have been more comprehensive, but in their time, they were addressing freed slaves.

It is no different then the court today being aware of things like airplanes and internet may construe the Consitution differently then someone 150 years ago.

[Patton]

It would certainly not be unreasonable for the court to say, that the children of an invading force (Al Queda in San Francisco) are not under the JURISDICTION of the United States and therefore their children born here would not be citizens.

It is just as appropiate to say that having a green card or a VISA would place you under the JURISDICTION of the United States and therefore any children born would be citizens, but if you are completely ILLEGALLY here, you do not fall under the jurisdiction of the United States and therefore your offspring are citizens of the country you came from.

That is a perfectly reasonable and consistent reading of the 14th Amendment.

[JM Hanes]

MT

I think you may due for a refresher course in http://www.geocities.com/phineasbg/kirklogic.html>Logic. Reductio ad absurbum is an argument taken to its logical extreme. A strawman is a logical fallacy which is a different animal entirely. Describing the retroactive revocation of citizenship as wacky is not an ad hominem, quite the opposite, in fact. If you want to talk strawmen, I'd start with Patton who is treating any disagreement with his recommendation #7 as the categorical endorsement of an alien apocalypse.

"Moreover, a system can be developed to deal with the strawmen situations you create."

There's the rub. Whether Cathy's example is extreme -- or obvious -- you would, indeed, need to create a whole new system to deal with an additional host of civil, legal, social, economic & international complexities which do not now exist. Patton's proposal sounds simple, its practical ramifications are not. While I oppose it philosophically, I also believe the benefits he anticipates will prove elusive and that implementing such a law/laws may ultimately exacerbate the problems we're trying to address. YMMV

[Pete]

monkey trainer - I did not say that you were crazy. You were the one who initially said that the term crazy would not apply to a certain interpretation, and I said tongue in cheek that it would be a crazy interpretation.

[Patton]

Gee, Thank GOD for the fourteeth Amendment.

What ever would we do if that Amendement didn't exist or what if it only specifically used the words 'former slaves'.

Would space and time collapse if illegal alien offspring didn't get automatic citizenship??

Sounds like an apocolpse in JM Hanes world.

How ever did we get along without it. Ohh right, people were expected to follw the law or deal with the consequences of their bad decisions. Go figure..how completely radical.

[Patton]

Does anyone seriously believe that the 14th Amendment was passed to address illegal aliens from Central/South America?

[Patton]

If someone walks into the American Embassy in Mexiso with forged American birth certificates and attempts to obtain an American birthcertificate and American Citizenship for their child, it would be a FRAUD and would be invalid.

I think we can all agree, that those people were breaking US law and shouldn't be rewarded with citizenship for their child.

Yet that same couple, could have broken another US Law and violated our border and birthed the kid 10 feet onto US territory and would be rewarded for that crime.

SO YOU EFFECTIVELY ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO COME HERE WHERE THE REWARD FOR THEIR CRIME IS GAUREENTEED.

[Monkeytrainer]

JM Haynes,

Reductio ad absurbum is taking a proposition to its logical EXTREME. When someone says you are making a Reductio ad absurbum argument, they are not complementing your logic. Sorry. Anything can be taken to a logical extreme that will seem unjust and/or foolish. That is the point of the saying. A strawman is setting up a false argument by your opponet to knock it down. I think the too techniques are quite similar.

Calling an idea "wacky" is not, truly an ad hominem, but it is a means of implying the holder of the idea is wacky and of quelling debate - again, a similar tactic.

While I agree that a system to deal with potential problems of people who manage to stay here for 20 or 30 years, even though not born to a legal immigrant, would offer problems, but - hardly insurmountable or so complicated they could not be easily dealt with. And, with true broder enforcement and true enforcement of the immigration laws, it would not result in that many cases. I would agree that we would have to allow those already born in the U.S. as of right now to retain citizenship status.

And, saying something would be difficult to implement (which I do not believe it would be) is hardly an argument about whether or not it would be a good policy.

People for a "comprehensive" solution to immigraiton keep arguing that actual enforcement would be "impossible" or "too difficult". I wish they would realize that a) that is not an argument and b) it is not true and c) they lose a lot of credibility on relying on that argument.

[Patton]

"""Whether Cathy's example is extreme """

No, Cathys example is non-sensical, because she keeps talking about RETROACTIVE removal of citizenship, whereas I speak of the changing the law and enforcing it into the future.

Therefore the is no reason to remove someone citizenship when the parent commits a crime later.

All you do is not award future citizenships to children born here to people who are illegally in the country. Its not rocket science, but some seems to be intent on making it complicated.

It is not hard to do and requires no new system.

By definition, if you are an illegal alien, then you broke Federal Law to get here, therefore their would NEVER be a ciscumstance when you would give citizenship to an illegal alien.

Those who can't grasp it, must have alterior motives.

[boris]

When someone says you are making a Reductio ad absurbum argument, they are not complementing your logic.

Reductio ad absurdum can be a valid rebuttal. I also understand using the term for taking any argument to an extreem absurd degree. The difference is that some arguments go absurd before taking to an extreem. In that case reductio ad absurdum is perfectly good logic.

[Patton]

Cathys point:

So if a 75-yr-old illegal alien commits a crime, you are going to yank the citizenship of his children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren, who were all born here, who have all been upstanding members of the community and model citizens for the decades of their lives? In this case the great-grandchildren would be children, but everybody else are adults.

It's one thing to say who is and isn't citizens, but to retroactively take away your citizenship for something that you didn't do is totally wacky.

cathy :-)""

The answer is NO, you wouldn't take away anyones citizenship because the law is not retroactive. It only would apply from the day it goes into affect, thus, by definition, no illegal alien child after that date would have automatic citizenship, thus this issue would never come up.

It is a completely false argument...it is a dead parrot!

[Carol Herman]

Seems for the Mexicans, their hardest barrier to overcome is the LANGUAGE BARRIER. Three generations, here, and if you had to guess if the grand kids spoke English, would you guess it was only as a second language?

It's rather a pity that the Mexicans are bearing the brunt of American hostility to terrorists. Sort'a the same way in Lebanon, where most Lebanese would prefer to hide, than to seek out terrorism; but they get to hold the dirty bag, just the same. Because that's how syria and iran are stuffing it.

No easy answers.

Take Texas, if you please. Those who come over the border can handle the farm animals. And, the ranch hands, I'd bet are usually Mexican. Are the comfort levels the same for American kids?

You bet, we need to be sure terrorism doesn't leak through pourous borders; but it's a problem with fewer workable solutions on the table, than we're getting to see.

[JM Hanes]

Reductio ad absurbum can also be a means for exposing fundamental weaknesses in an argument. In any case, however, it is not the Latin term for strawman, and if you intend to conflate the two, I suggest you refrain from offering up instruction on terminology to others.

[JM Hanes]

Post above addressed to MT

[Monkeytrainer]

JM Haynes,

Thanks for the advice. I'll be sure not to follow it. You obviously don't understand my point - which is that taking a proposition to the extreme (which again, can be done with anything) in order to then argue against it - is similar to setting up your opponets argument in order to strike it down. VERY SIMILAR. I know, I know, all caps probably won't help you understand. Yes, I understand they aren't the exact same thing, but it is the same type of approach and reasoning - which is a lousy way to argue and demonstrates, to me at least, that the person resorting to it has no arguments of any merit.

But, if you want to tell me what to do, go ahead - it brings me joy. And, I will continue to conflate the two.

- MT

[Cecil Turner]

Yes, I understand they aren't the exact same thing, but it is the same type of approach and reasoning - which is a lousy way to argue . . .

Sorry, simply not true. A reductio argument tests the theory at the extreme ends, and is a perfectly valid test. It's particularly useful in mathematical proofs or to expose overstatements. (The latter of which I believe is the contention here.) When caught on the wrong side of one, it usually indicates your theory needs a qualifier, at least, for general applicability.

[Patton]

Reducto ad idiocy is when you spend all your time arguing language when the substance of the argument had nothing to do with the proposed absurdum.

Ask the tree to introduce you to the forest......

[Gary Maxwell]

Seems to me that TM ought to close this thread. I see nothing resembling cogency for nigh on a day or so. It boggles the mind that conservatives would act like Kos kids.

[Cecil Turner]

. . . the substance of the argument had nothing to do with the proposed absurdum.

A much better argument. Still, I think there's a need to address the 10+ million illegals already resident (preferably with an eye toward turning them into productive citizens). And it doesn't look like there's much chance of that happening any time soon. Which renders the whole issue rather academic, to me.

[Patton]

Academic..sure..if your not paying the 20 Billion in taxes to support law breakers.