- Status
A newly proposed California ballot measure would deny the children of illegal-immigrants public assistance, even if those children were born in the US. The iniative would also throw up a bunch of hurdles in the birth certificate process.
This is complete and utter bullshit, by the way. Anyone looking to deny rights and services to a citizen born in the US because they don't like the parents is un-American. It's a fundamental idea in the Constitution that people born here are citizens, and they get all the rights that come with that status. Anything else is just plain wrong.
This is complete and utter bullshit, by the way. Anyone looking to deny rights and services to a citizen born in the US because they don't like the parents is un-American. It's a fundamental idea in the Constitution that people born here are citizens, and they get all the rights that come with that status. Anything else is just plain wrong.
We really need to change that clause in the 14th Amendment. It currently reads 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. You could make the argument that people here illegally are still under the jurisdiction of their native lands because we never agreed to allow them in, which would make their children born here citizens of their parent's homeland, not ours. However, I don't see this reaching the Supreme Court until AFTER these people are denied public services based on their legal status... which they probably will be, eventually.Tress said:
I'd personally make the Citizenship Clause read All persons born or naturalized in the United States (excluding those of individuals who entered it illegally), and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. This would really help lessen the burden on Public services.
Just... no. No. The idea is that we do not discriminate or set conditions on who qualifies as a citizen for anyone born in the US. Not only do I think that completely violates the spirit of the Constitution, it also opens the door for future discrimination. People don't get to decide whether or not someone is American based on whether or not they like what their parents did.
No, the idea is that we do not discriminate on who can BECOME a citizen, not who gets it by default... and that was thrown out the second we started setting limits on how many people can enter the country and how many can come from where. Besides, this isn't the founding Fathers we are talking about... the 14th Amendment didn't even get proposed until 1866 and even back then THE ORIGINAL AUTHOR OR THE CITIZENSHIP CLAUSE HIMSELF said that it didn't apply to (and I quote) “persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.” As these minutes of the Congressional session show (It starts in the middle under "Reconstruction"), even the people who proposed this Clause didn't consider them citizens. I think it's presumptuous of you to put words into the mouths of the people who actually wrote the legislature when we actually have very good records of the debates taking place ON THE SENATE FLOOR.Tress said:
Now I'll admit... things have changed a great deal since this Amendment was actually ratified. However, you can't argue that the writers of the Amendment didn't want to grant citizenship to people living here illegally. It's pretty clear where they stood.
The children aren't living here illegally. Their parents are, but as soon as they were born here they became citizens. That's my whole fucking point. You want to punish parents, make it harder for illegal immigrants to get here or stay, that's fine. But you may not deny all due rights to people born here. PERIOD. I don't give a fuck what the parents did, you don't get to punish the children for it.
Exactly. These children aren't entering the country illegally. They are not, obviously, even born when their parents move here. Can't exactly blame them for something their parents did when they weren't even born yet.Tress said:
Not that it really matters, you'd have to amend the constitution to change it now, and I can't see getting 3/4ths of the country to agree to discriminate against those whose only "crime" was commited by someone else before they were born.
What due rights? It's never been legally established that the children born of people residing in the country illegally have citizenship. The only cases that even come close involved:Tress said:
- The Child of two Native Americans seeking rights: The court found him to not be a citizen (Though thankfully the law has been changed and Natives are now considered Citizens, I think.)
- The Child of two LEGAL Chinese immigrants: He was found to be a citizen.
There is no precedent. Yes, it has usually been granted to them up to now... but there is nothing stopping the government from not doing it ether. This is a matter that really needs the Supreme Court to make a decision one way or the other... I don't care which way, but it needs to settled.
You'd be surprised. A lot of states decided that it was perfectly OK to punish gay people for being born with a different sexuality that most people and deny them the right to marry... fuck, SODOMY is still considered a crime in a lot of states and counties. Discrimination is still alive and well in this country, it's just not as apparent as it used to be during the "Seperate but Equal" days of the South.Dieb said:
No, it's not clear at all. If it was clear, then there wouldn't have been legal challenges to it at all... but because there have been, with judgements both for and against the people challenging it, it's clear that it could stand to be amended in some fashion to make it more clear. It's sort of like the 2nd Amendment, which is challenged ALL THE FUCKING TIME because of how unclear it is, and the only reason it's being challenged is because it's a social issue.Tress said:
I mean honestly, your not even trying to back up your position. Your simply demanding that I conceed to yours without you providing evidence. That is not how a debate works.
What more do I need to prove? It says in the Constitution that if you are born here, you are a citizen. My whole point is that you are arguing against what it explicitly says in the Constitution. Your "defense" so far has been "it's vague" and "the original author said something once that might contradict what the amendment says." I find both those arguments completely unconvincing.
One of two things will happen here:
1) The iniative will not pass.
2) It passes, and it gets slapped down in court for being unconstitutional.
In the mean time I'm railing against the people who would ever think this is okay. I can't wrap my mind around why someone would seek to limit the rights of citizen born in the US, outside of blatant xenophobia.
One of two things will happen here:
1) The iniative will not pass.
2) It passes, and it gets slapped down in court for being unconstitutional.
In the mean time I'm railing against the people who would ever think this is okay. I can't wrap my mind around why someone would seek to limit the rights of citizen born in the US, outside of blatant xenophobia.
Just because there is no precedent doesn't mean the law isn't clear. The Supreme Court doesn't have to rule on EVERYTHING, you know. You just have to look at the text: "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". That's pretty damn clear. Basically, you can only argue the children of illegal aliens are not citizens if you think they're "not subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. Which would be retarded. If illegal aliens are not in the United State's jurisdiction, could you legally even deport them? They wouldn't be in our jurisdiction, after all. No, the reason the SC hasn't ruled on this issue is because it doesn't need to.AshburnerX said:
Wrong, actually. Sodomy was illegal in Texas and a few other states until 2003, when the SC struck it down. Sure, discrimination still exists in this country, I'm certainly not arguing about that. But to get 2/3rds of both houses of Congress and 3/4ths of states to agree with such discrimination? I think of my country more highly than that.
First of all, it's not something said only once... it was uttered repeatedly through the process to get the amendment ratified. Secondly, "it's vague" is a perfectly fine defense when vagueness of the writing has been used time and time again in debates about other amendments, like the Second Amendment. Both Amendments are written poorly. This needs to be changed in both cases.Tress said:
I'm basically arguing this because it seems unjust to reward people for abusing Jus Soli. It's not fair to the other people waiting to get into the country legally for others to game the system by sneaking into the US and having children so they will qualify for preferential status for acceptance. I'd even be willing to let it go if all they did was get a Visa and had the child in the US while here legally. This isn't about race, it's about fair play and legality. An individual should not gain legal benefits by first performing an illegal act.Tress said:
Now see, this is what an actual argument looks like, Tress... and this is one I can't argue with.Dieb said:
They over turned it? Good to know... I always wondered how it was even possible to outlaw a sex act between two consenting adults.Dieb said:
M
Mr_Chaz
I can see where you're coming from, and yes, it would be unfair on those who get bypassed. But what about this? How unfair is it on the innocent child to withdraw those rights? Can you seriously, in all good conscience, say that that kid should be treated with less respect, given fewer rights, because their parents are illegal immigrants? What if a child is conceived to two thieves who then get convicted before the child is born, does that child have fewer rights? No, because they're American. What you're saying here Ash is that this child has fewer rights because their parents aren't American. I'm sorry, but I've got to call that like it is, that's Xenophobia. This analogy shows that your logic would be different based solely on the nationality, not on the fact the parents are criminals.AshburnerX said:
Also, you're saying it's unfair on those waiting to get into the country legally, but could you show me that there is a definite disadvantage to those who want legal immigration if a subset of illegal immigrants are allowed to stay? Is there a set number of immigrants allowed and if one category increases, the other MUST decrease? NOTE: I'm not saying there isn't, you may very well be right, and you'd be correct in saying that it's unfair, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it's the wrong thing to do.
Look, I'm going to stop arguing this... I'm taking a very hard stance on this and I realize that. I also realize that it can be seen as heartless and uncaring to the plight of millions of people looking for a better life. So I'm going to step down and stop arguing this before it really becomes a firestorm in here. Think of me what you will but I don't hate illegal immigrants because of where they are from, I merely hate what they did to get here and I don't believe anyone should be able to benefit from it.
J
JCM
To change subjects, read Washington Posts' fake Obama facebook.
Click on the green corner to enlarge, its hilarious
Click on the green corner to enlarge, its hilarious
GasBandit
Staff member
Pelosi: "The glory days are coming to an end for the health insurance industry."
Another must-read column from Charles Krauthammer on the evolution of Obama's healthcare reform.
Tim Geithner says that unemployment may not peak until the second half of 2010
Thousands of decaying bridges must wait for repairs because states are spending stimulus money on easier projects like repaving roads.
Even the New York Times admits that Barack Obama's pledge to only increase taxes on the rich won't hold.
Behold our medical future.
Students working at summer jobs that are funded by federal stimulus money are wondering when the government is going to pay them.
Dayton just experienced the second coolest July on record.
A Rasmussen Reports survey finds that 75% of Americans are in favor of auditing the Fed.
Coming soon to the United States.
A 25-year-old woman by the name of Laura Ripley was such a lardass that the government considered her disabled. So the taxpayers fork over $15,000 so she can have a weight loss surgery. She loses enough weight to the point where the government no longer considers her disabled. Now Laura Ripley is throwing a fit. Do you know why? Because the government reduced her welfare checks because she is no longer disabled. Now she says that she can't afford healthy food and she is starting to gain weight.
Consider this ... this woman has never held a job in her life. She is a mooch. She is a looter. She is a welfare broodmare. She gets paid by the taxpayers to sit on her fat ass and contribute NOTHING to society. With that, she goes to the National Health Service to get this weight loss surgery. Then after she loses the weight, she complains because now she has less moocher money to pay for her bon bons and tea biscuits. She says, 'I can't afford to buy Weight Watchers crisps and cereal bars any more so I eat Tesco's chocolate bars and packets of Space Invaders crisps, sometimes four of each a day ... People ask why I don't snack on an apple - they're cheap, but emotionally I don't always feel like an apple.'
Not only that, but she blames the government for treating her unfairly and causing her to gain weight again. 'It's heartbreaking that after all my hard work losing this weight someone's come along and ruined it.' That's right. It's not her personal responsibility. It is the government's fault.
Another must-read column from Charles Krauthammer on the evolution of Obama's healthcare reform.
Tim Geithner says that unemployment may not peak until the second half of 2010
Thousands of decaying bridges must wait for repairs because states are spending stimulus money on easier projects like repaving roads.
Even the New York Times admits that Barack Obama's pledge to only increase taxes on the rich won't hold.
Behold our medical future.
Students working at summer jobs that are funded by federal stimulus money are wondering when the government is going to pay them.
Dayton just experienced the second coolest July on record.
A Rasmussen Reports survey finds that 75% of Americans are in favor of auditing the Fed.
Coming soon to the United States.
A 25-year-old woman by the name of Laura Ripley was such a lardass that the government considered her disabled. So the taxpayers fork over $15,000 so she can have a weight loss surgery. She loses enough weight to the point where the government no longer considers her disabled. Now Laura Ripley is throwing a fit. Do you know why? Because the government reduced her welfare checks because she is no longer disabled. Now she says that she can't afford healthy food and she is starting to gain weight.
Consider this ... this woman has never held a job in her life. She is a mooch. She is a looter. She is a welfare broodmare. She gets paid by the taxpayers to sit on her fat ass and contribute NOTHING to society. With that, she goes to the National Health Service to get this weight loss surgery. Then after she loses the weight, she complains because now she has less moocher money to pay for her bon bons and tea biscuits. She says, 'I can't afford to buy Weight Watchers crisps and cereal bars any more so I eat Tesco's chocolate bars and packets of Space Invaders crisps, sometimes four of each a day ... People ask why I don't snack on an apple - they're cheap, but emotionally I don't always feel like an apple.'
Not only that, but she blames the government for treating her unfairly and causing her to gain weight again. 'It's heartbreaking that after all my hard work losing this weight someone's come along and ruined it.' That's right. It's not her personal responsibility. It is the government's fault.
M
Mr_Chaz
I see nothing wrong with this. The NHS paid for an operation that would reduce the costs of future healthcare for her (she's fat, she's gonna be ill, thin her down and maybe she won't be), will reduce her benefits payments, and isn't critical, so doesn't displace more deserving surgery. Now she's being a douche. So what? Doesn't mean anyone did anything wrong except her acting like a mooching slob.GasBandit said:
GasBandit
Staff member
Sorry, I left out the sarcasm tags at the end there.Mr_Chaz said:
But the "things wrong" are manifold in that story.
That -
1) her society is such that she could become so fat she was disabled and yet could still buy her "crisps" on the taxpayer's expense
2) the government PAID for her de-lardassification
3) that rather than take advantage of no longer being disabled and becoming a productive member of society, she's decided her only choice going forward is to buy bargain snacks which are worse for her and make her fat again, because the thought of eating things she isn't as fond of because they are good for her is not an acceptable option
and most of all,
4) at no point does personal responsibility become a factor here.
She lost 16 stone. I'm not sure how much that is but you gotta love the British measurement system. I wish we had that here. It sounds so much....heavier. As well it should.
There's no reason this lady can't work. But I'm glad she's there and not here. Also, Mr_Chaz has no problems with this? Holy crap! I'm a pretty liberal guy and I say cut this cancer off the public teat.
M
Mr_Chaz
I have a problem with her, of course! I'm just saying that the system as it was meant to be implemented here I agree with, the fact that she's abusing it makes her the problem, not the system. The system has obviously made a big difference to her life, I'm 6 foot tall and would need to put on a lot of weight to make it to 16 stone, her life has changed a lot because of this operation, thanks to the NHS, and she is saying they're doing nothing for her. She's the one acting like a twat about it. So no, I have no problem with the system, I have a problem with people who abuse it. She has had her chance, and is choosing to ignore it, if she's back over the weight limit and becomes legally disabled again then (in my opinion) she should be not be allowed further money. Hell, she should get her monthly benefits reduced if she's not looking for work, that's the way the system operates, and obviously, her benefits are going down, but the Daily Mail don't think to mention that, because the government wouldn't look so bad if they did.Edrondol said:
Also Ed, I should point out (I'm sure Gas already knows) that the Daily Mail is the worst of the anti government rags we have in the UK, don't read it and expect straight, honest journalism, just a warning :slywink:
Point taken. I have some issues with the government paying for fat people, though. 99.9% of the time it's not a physical or mental disability to be overweight, but is merely one of discipline and self control. Yes, there are people out there who are overweight because of glandular issues or because of medicine side effects. I know someone who used to be considered very skinny who is now overweight due to medication she had to start taking for a physical ailment. But again that 99.9% of people would not be fat if they followed the weight loss plan of "Get Off Your Ass & Shut Your Pie Hole".
M
Mr_Chaz
Yeah I agree with you completely. And it's certainly not a situation I like to see, the government shouldn't have to pay out for something like that. But I'd rather they paid out to help the person get better, as they did here, than just pay out to support them, as they unfortunately do for some overweight people (as they did before for this woman). If I had my way obesity wouldn't count as a disability from a benefits point of view, however schemes like the one used here to help reduce obesity at the public's expense I'm fine with.
Fair enough. 
M
Mr_Chaz
You're wrong and you smell of wee.Lamont said:
M
Mr_Chaz
Mr_Chaz said:
I'm glad they're safe, but give a big 
for having to save people from their own stupidity. It's like having to spend thousands of dollars to save people who tried to climb a mountain in a blizzard.
for having to save people from their own stupidity. It's like having to spend thousands of dollars to save people who tried to climb a mountain in a blizzard.Interestingly enough, Yosemite Sam (or former UN ambassador John Bolton as he is sometimes known), says that this diplomacy was dangerously close to negotiating with terrorists.
Of course, John Bolton hasn't met a country he wouldn't like to bomb.
Of course, John Bolton hasn't met a country he wouldn't like to bomb.
- Status