Lou Dobbs talking for us !!!!

statue of liberty

marlon2006 said:
it doesn't matter which country - can and should control it, otherwise if it doesn't, do you think whatever country could get overwhelmed, don't you think ? It is just very convenient when people thinks one can go and come to other's country as wish. Life is not like that.
Click to expand...

The statue of liberty herself speaking:

Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me:
I lift my lamp beside the golden door.

That did USA Great ... and adherence to it ...will make her greater.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It is somewhat easier to pass amnesty. I agree. However the argument that one "cannot deport 11-20 million" is invalid then. It is just a matter of political will to do it by attrition; we agree that is feasible. That was just what I wanted to clarify.

Regarding the nuke, not sure if I understood correctly:
You are saying it, not me. I said what I meant:if people don't put a stop to this chaotic influx, then someday your or my family may pay a very high price for it. That's one my major concerns to be here in America now. Amnesty will not be a deal to put a siginificant controll or stop to the chaotic influx of people. As far as I know it just attracts more people who will try to sneak in by illegal means ? At least that's what people in South America told me when I got there in December.

TheInquisitor said:
no, it will be easier to pass amnesty. and i take it you rather have a nuke going off than to make a deal. sad but true.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
eBhola, right, that's why we have 1 million of immigrants already coming here. That tradition is alive and well. That is not our discussion here.

The problem is that the world has millions and millions of poor and well intentioned people out there. I don't think that Statue of Liberty wanted to open the doors for the 1 billion good and poor people out there wanting to come to a more desirable place. Do you think a country can welcome all those without going broke ? What do you think ?




eBhola said:
The statue of liberty herself speaking:

Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me:
I lift my lamp beside the golden door.

That did USA Great ... and adherence to it ...will make her greater.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The idea of illegal and legal immigration is this:-

Bring in more and more people, that will bring down the wage level and eventually will keep the manufacturing jobs in the US (because cost of production will be less).The only major item of expense will be cost of land....well if the factory is in SF bay Area or in NY they need to worry about this.....but there are other places also in the US.

Bring back these jobs and put the shrinking white population on top of management and govt....what else needed?







marlon2006 said:
eBhola, right, that's why we have 1 million of immigrants already coming here. That tradition is alive and well. That is not our discussion here.

The problem is that the world has millions and millions of poor and well intentioned people out there. I don't think that Statue of Liberty wanted to open the doors for the 1 billion good and poor people out there wanting to come to a more desirable place. Do you think a country can welcome all those without going broke ? What do you think ?
Click to expand...
 
Janhk, yes I think you can retard the offshoring by minimizing wages. I think the wage disparity against a guy in China is too high, therefore jobs eventually will be offshored regardless ? However, I thought that citizens of developed countries are concerned that we take over their jobs that are not subject to offshoring such as food services, construction, public services, etc.






JANHK said:
The idea of illegal and legal immigration is this:-

Bring in more and more people, that will bring down the wage level and eventually will keep the manufacturing jobs in the US (because cost of production will be less).The only major item of expense will be cost of land....well if the factory is in SF bay Area or in NY they need to worry about this.....but there are other places also in the US.

Bring back these jobs and put the shrinking white population on top of management and govt....what else needed?
Click to expand...
 
I agree that it doesn't even make sense for children born to foreign parents be able to take up citizenship.... I think today, the US is probably the only nation to do this now.
The 14th amendment should have specifically stated that at least one parent be a US Citizen... then this would have shut up all those illegal immigration advocates using 'racist' accusations whenever someone proposes to deny citizenship to newborns. Either the original writers of the amendment didn't think carefully about it or they had interests in writing it so vaguely.

marlon2006 said:
Ufo, the discussion on the radio was talking about the passage below. Read and see if that makes sense:

http://www.newswithviews.com/public_comm/public_commentary32.htm
Click to expand...
 
sorry for the delay, was in another state. glad to see that the attrition debate is over. told you is worthless saying it will work.

indeed, you bring a very inetresting point about the intention of the constitution. shoudl we consider the founding fathers or those who actually wrote the words. do know that the same confress that gave us the 14tyh amend also funded segregation. so i guess segregation forwver should be.

and what on earth is "subject to jurisdiction" means? does that mean that the state has no power over them or something? if the state wants the child to get vaccinations or things like that, the parents can refuse? the the rules surrounding the birth won't really apply? if the feds say that every birth at a hospital xyz must be in place, that the doctors knowing that the parents are illegal can forgo those rules?

and perhaps all i have to do to destroy you is to point to the original constitution. yes, it does say that slaves are less than a person, but it also says that any foreigner that was around then could have become president.

aks if i care if you get that law. it will not even get to the supreme court. and if it does, it will go down 7-2. so i again, ask me if i care if you get it. want to feel good about yourself? want a good night's sleep? take it.go ahead. take it. again, ask me if i care.

i will say it is a disgrace that people run tot he border to have their child. one thing is those that have been a long time and have a baby, but those that run tot eh border when their water brakes should be shot.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well, I am not sure if the attrition debate is over. Actually perhaps is just starting. Let's see what the House will do.

Regarding your question on whether "jurisdiction of" means, you might want to read the text indicated in the link I pasted previously. I think it cannot get better explained than that by a co-author of the bill itself.

" co-author of the amendment wrote about the Amendment. In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard wrote, "This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors, or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons." Senator Howard wrote the addition phrase specifically because he wanted to make it clear that the simple accident of birth in the US is not sufficient to justify citizenship.

The US Supreme Court recognized this when they ruled in 1873 that the phrase (and subject to the jurisdiction thereof) excluded "children of ministers, consuls, and citizens of foreign states born within the United States." Since the court recognized that the children of foreign citizens and diplomats should not be granted US citizenship, why should anyone think that the children of those that enter the US illegally are subject to the jurisdiction of the US government? The simple answer is no thinking person would. The anchor baby parents are neither US citizens, subject to US jurisdiction
"



TheInquisitor said:
sorry for the delay, was in another state. glad to see that the attrition debate is over. told you is worthless saying it will work.

indeed, you bring a very inetresting point about the intention of the constitution. shoudl we consider the founding fathers or those who actually wrote the words. do know that the same confress that gave us the 14tyh amend also funded segregation. so i guess segregation forwver should be.

and what on earth is "subject to jurisdiction" means? does that mean that the state has no power over them or something? if the state wants the child to get vaccinations or things like that, the parents can refuse? the the rules surrounding the birth won't really apply? if the feds say that every birth at a hospital xyz must be in place, that the doctors knowing that the parents are illegal can forgo those rules?

and perhaps all i have to do to destroy you is to point to the original constitution. yes, it does say that slaves are less than a person, but it also says that any foreigner that was around then could have become president.

aks if i care if you get that law. it will not even get to the supreme court. and if it does, it will go down 7-2. so i again, ask me if i care if you get it. want to feel good about yourself? want a good night's sleep? take it.go ahead. take it. again, ask me if i care.

i will say it is a disgrace that people run tot he border to have their child. one thing is those that have been a long time and have a baby, but those that run tot eh border when their water brakes should be shot.
Click to expand...
 
well, if the House has a positive iq they knew attrition is only for stupid minds since it has no chance of working. no offense btw.

with the case you gave us, the court must have been overturned. and remember, sen. howard's beliefs aren't gospel, but helpful.
 
Citizenship

I cannot but help compare the law writers in India and US. Guess the law writers in USA never forecasted these type of situations and the later generations have been very slow to react to fast changing situations. The citizenship by birth is one such not well thought out law. Not only does it trap unintended people like, yours truly, but gangs in south CA specialize in getting pregnant mexican women across the border to SD so their children become US citizen.

Compared to this, lawmakers in India never conferred upon anyone the citizenship by birth. One should have Indian Parents. Heck even Sonia Gandhi had no easy way to citizenship. In India it's the case of loosening up of the citizenship laws and in USA it's tightening up of the laws....
 
Exact nature of citizenship in India

AGC4ME

The original constitution DID GRANT CITIZENSHIP BY BIRTH. But later, there were changes. See below.

Regards
GCStrat :)

================================================
From wikipedia:

Indian Nationality Law

Citizenship by Birth

On or after 26 January 1950, prior to the commencement of the 1986 Act on 1 July 1987, any person born in India was a citizen of India by birth.

A person born in India on or after 1 July 1987 was a citizen of India if either parent was a citizen of India at the time of the birth.

Those born in India on or after 3 December 2004 are considered citizens of India only if both of their parents are citizens of India or one of whose parents is a citizen of India and the other is not an illegal migrant at the time of their birth.


========================================
 
Amnesty is known for having no chances of working. Failed policy attempted here and elsewhere multiple times. Don't worry about the stupid mind part, there are more people out there than what you think saying the same thing about the amnesty supporters. No problem. :)

TheInquisitor said:
well, if the House has a positive iq they knew attrition is only for stupid minds since it has no chance of working. no offense btw.

with the case you gave us, the court must have been overturned. and remember, sen. howard's beliefs aren't gospel, but helpful.
Click to expand...
 
gcstrat said:
AGC4ME

The original constitution DID GRANT CITIZENSHIP BY BIRTH. But later, there were changes. See below.

Regards
GCStrat :)

================================================
From wikipedia:

Indian Nationality Law

Citizenship by Birth

On or after 26 January 1950, prior to the commencement of the 1986 Act on 1 July 1987, any person born in India was a citizen of India by birth.

A person born in India on or after 1 July 1987 was a citizen of India if either parent was a citizen of India at the time of the birth.

Those born in India on or after 3 December 2004 are considered citizens of India only if both of their parents are citizens of India or one of whose parents is a citizen of India and the other is not an illegal migrant at the time of their birth.


========================================
Click to expand...

Thanks gcstrat, wondering what made them change the rules in 1987 ?
The 2004 rule was the result of OCI (overseas citizenship of India), which by the way is not even close to dual citizenship.

Still the Indian lawmakers seem to be quick to adjust to the new scenario faster than their American counterparts.
 
Indo-sri Lanka Accord???

AGC4ME

I do not know what made them change in 1987.

One major event of 1987 was the India-Sri Lanka Accord whereby Indian Peace Keeping troops went to Sri Lanka to help the government there.

I do not if that was the reason for the change.

Regards
GCStrat :)
 
ahh marlon. but if done right, it will work. attrition will never work even if you try your best. that is the difference. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top