NationStates Jolt Archive

Rep. Nathan Deal, R-Ga. is sponsoring a bill in Congress that would deny automatic citizenship for any child in born in the US of parents who are here illegally. According to the article 49% of the American people, agree that this should be done while 41% disagree.

I’ve pasted some extracts from the article below and the link to the entire article.

So, how do you feel, should the US do away with birthright citizenship.

It is interesting to note that Ireland has done away with birthright citizenship.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,176664,00.html

“The 14th Amendment states, in part, that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the U.S." Backers of birthright policy say changing the way that clause is interpreted would be unconstitutional and un-American.”
“Deal says supporters are missing the meaning of the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," which he argues excludes anyone in the United States in violation of the law — like illegal immigrants.”
‘"If you look at the original debate of that amendment in the Congress, it was obviously not intended to give carte blanche birthright citizenship to anyone who happened to be born on American soil," Deal said.’

According to the article 49% of the American people, agree that this should be done while only 41% disagree.
Nice use of the word 'only' to make 41% sound very small in comparison to 49%.

“The 14th Amendment states, in part, that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the U.S." Backers of birthright policy say changing the way that clause is interpreted would be unconstitutional and un-American.”
“Deal says supporters are missing the meaning of the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," which he argues excludes anyone in the United States in violation of the law — like illegal immigrants.”
I really dislike the way people attempt to retrospectively attribute opinions to authors of the constitution - it's like that argument here a few days ago saying that the words of Jesus clearly support file-sharing. There's nothing wrong with making new laws - what I dislike is people saying 'this is clearly what the founding fathers meant all along'.

Nice use of the word 'only' to make 41% sound very small in comparison to 49%.

Hey, 49/41 is pretty darn close in my book and that's one of the reasons I included the poll in the post.

Nice use of the word 'only' to make 41% sound very small in comparison to 49%.

Check it now. I made a change. Thanks for pointing out a possible problem.

Am I the only one who voted no? :eek:

It is interesting to note that Ireland has done away with birthright citizenship.


So has Germany, if I am not mistaken. They have 3rd generation immigrants without German citizenship.

(Someone in the know correct me if I am wrong, please.)

Am I the only one who voed yes? :eek:
Despite my criticism above, I voted 'yes'. I just can't stand people who use poor arguments.

So has Germany, if I am not mistaken. They have 3rd generation immigrants without German citizenship.
Switzerland too.

I voted no.

This is how it's always been, since the European settlers came, and before hand too. Just because now some Mexicans are coming doesn't mean we should change it. I mean, do you think ALL the Europeans got here legally? I think not. So just because you are prejeduced against Latinos doesn't mean the constitution should be changed.

This is how it's always been, since the European settlers came, and before hand too. Just because now some Mexicans are coming doesn't mean we should change it. I mean, do you think ALL the Europeans got here legally? I think not. So just because you are prejeduced against Latinos doesn't mean the constitution should be changed.
I don't care either way about Latinos (I'm not American) - I just think that it doesn't really make sense automatically to offer citizenship to anyone born in the country, regardless of whether their parents were citizens. I don't think it makes sense to refer to European settlers - after all they formed America by conquering the native nations, which hardly seems like a good model for how we should behave today.

This bill is awesome. We dont need more of these illegal immigrants coming here, and this can eliminate how some of them manadge to get citizenship. This is a potential weapon in the war to stop illegal immigration.

Forgive me for being pedantic, but isn't just about every American an immigrant, and proberbly all of them illegal?

I voted no.

This is how it's always been, since the European settlers came, and before hand too. Just because now some Mexicans are coming doesn't mean we should change it. I mean, do you think ALL the Europeans got here legally? I think not. So just because you are prejeduced against Latinos doesn't mean the constitution should be changed.

First of all, this bill would not discriminate against any ethnic group. It would not give automatic citizenship to the children of ALL people who enter the US illegally and it isn't just Mexicans that do that.

Second, if you read the article or the extracts provided you would see that this is not a change to the Constitution.

Third, just because we "have always done it that way" doesn't mean we should continue to do it that way.

Forgive me for being pedantic, but isn't just about every American an immigrant, and proberbly all of them illegal?

If you are a Native American you might make a case for that.

Forgive me for being pedantic, but isn't just about every American an immigrant, and proberbly all of them illegal?
There wasn't a concept of legal/illegal immigration when America was settled. Further, it's perfectly consistent to say that the conquering of the native nations was a Bad Thing without saying that modern Americans need to vacate America to make reparations.

Forgive me for being pedantic, but isn't just about every American an immigrant, and proberbly all of them illegal?
A lot US Americans ARE immigrants; however, most immigrants today are naturalized or are born of blood (meaning their parent(s) are/is (an) American(s)). That may not have been in the wee bit of early America, but hey, that was the past. Just how slaughtering Native Americans off their lands and pushing in them into crowded 'reservation' is the past. And still the present (for the last part, though they don't have to stay there).

This is absurd; I can only hope the bill gets shot down or declared unconstitutional by the SCOTUS (the latter is a strech tho).

While I agree that illegal immigration has become a large problem in this country, one that needs to be addressed, I am not sure how changing the law will effect illegal immigration. Of course the law could be changed to state that a person must prove they are legal citizens or immigrants for their children to gain U.S citizenship at birth. But then, what if one parent is legal and the other isn't, would that then make the child 1/2 a legal citizen?

That type of argument sounds a lot like the Nazi's in 1930's Germany when they were creating the "master race". I do not believe we want to go down that slippery slope.

That type of argument sounds a lot like the Nazi's in 1930's Germany when they were creating the "master race". I do not believe we want to go down that slippery slope.
This is probably one of the most ridiculous statements I've ever heard here. Most devleoped countries (including liberal Europe) don't automatically grant citizenship to people born in the country if their parents aren't citizens. Are you saying these liberal countries are actually fascist states in disguise?

First of all, this bill would not discriminate against any ethnic group. It would not give automatic citizenship to the children of ALL people who enter the US illegally and it isn't just Mexicans that do that.

Second, if you read the article or the extracts provided you would see that this is not a change to the Constitution.

Third, just because we "have always done it that way" doesn't mean we should continue to do it that way.

Yes, but when millions of immigrants came in the late 1800's, did we change it? But now that Mexicans are coming, we have to change it? No! Also, you should also realise this will hurt LEGAL immigrants too. Why should they suffer?

Also, you should also realise this will hurt LEGAL immigrants too.
How so?

Rep. Nathan Deal, R-Ga. is sponsoring a bill in Congress that would deny automatic citizenship for any child in born in the US of parents who are here illegally. According to the article 49% of the American people, agree that this should be done while 41% disagree.

Since "ll persons born [] in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the U.S."... A Bill cannot declare situations where people who are "born" are not citizens... It would take a constitutional amendment, ammending the 14th amendment, to change the law. Any Bill which would make it pass, would not be able to stand if it is slaped into the judiciary...

While I agree that illegal immigration has become a large problem in this country, one that needs to be addressed, I am not sure how changing the law will effect illegal immigration. Of course the law could be changed to state that a person must prove they are legal citizens or immigrants for their children to gain U.S citizenship at birth. But then, what if one parent is legal and the other isn't, would that then make the child 1/2 a legal citizen?

That type of argument sounds a lot like the Nazi's in 1930's Germany when they were creating the "master race". I do not believe we want to go down that slippery slope.

If I am not mistaken Ireland will give citizenship only if one parent is an Irish citizen. Citizenship isn't even granted to the children of legal immigrants. Someone in Ireland please correct me if I am wrong.

I really dislike the way people attempt to retrospectively attribute opinions to authors of the constitution - it's like that argument here a few days ago saying that the words of Jesus clearly support file-sharing. There's nothing wrong with making new laws - what I dislike is people saying 'this is clearly what the founding fathers meant all along'.
It would probably be a bit more forthright to say, "Well, they couldn't anticipate everything, which is why we have to interpret the Constitution in light of current circumstances, and why we have a Supreme Court and mechanisms for amending it. :)

Since "ll persons born [] in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the U.S."... A Bill cannot declare situations where people who are "born" are not citizens... It would take a constitutional amendment, ammending the 14th amendment, to change the law. Any Bill which would make it pass, would not be able to stand if it is slaped into the judiciary...
Yeah, and that really hurts when you get slapped in the Judiciary! Ouch! :D

Since "ll persons born [] in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the U.S."... A Bill cannot declare situations where people who are "born" are not citizens... It would take a constitutional amendment, ammending the 14th amendment, to change the law. Any Bill which would make it pass, would not be able to stand if it is slaped into the judiciary...

“Deal says supporters are missing the meaning of the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," which he argues excludes anyone in the United States in violation of the law — like illegal immigrants.”

So yes, I'm sure if this bill or one like it is passed the courts will have to rule on it and it would probably go all the way to the Supreme Court.

That type of argument sounds a lot like the Nazi's in 1930's Germany when they were creating the "master race". I do not believe we want to go down that slippery slope.
Son, I'm tempted to say that your elevator don't go all the way up, but I won't. :p

Yes, but when millions of immigrants came in the late 1800's, did we change it? But now that Mexicans are coming, we have to change it? No! Also, you should also realise this will hurt LEGAL immigrants too. Why should they suffer?

Sorry, it won't hurt legal immigrants. It denies citizenship only to the children of illegal immigrants.

I voted no for two main reasons. The first argument has already been made by other posters, and for the sake of brevity I won't repeat it: that it is unfair towards those immigrants and their children who this bill is harming.

But the main point I want to make is that this goes beyond the ability of Congress. Let's put aside, for a moment, our disagreements on the morality of this issue and look at it from a purely theoretical standpoint. The constitution, as you know, was written with a provision in Article V to amend the constitution, stating:
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.
I think the article was fairly clear: if you want to amend the constitution, you need a two-thirds majority in both houses of congress and ratification by three-fourths of the states. So, what is this bill doing wrong? Well, the fourteenth amendment of the Constitution states that "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" I think the constitution was fairly clear there: if you are born in the United States, you are a citizen. Passing a bill to deny this privilege to any specific group of individuals clearly contradicts this passage.

Well, you ask, what's so bad about that? To answer this I ask you, why do we have a constitution? Is it some archaic document to be displayed before gawking tourists? Of course not. The constitution of the United States of America sets out the basic principles of our government. When you begin to directly contradict the constitution, it becomes meaningless: no more than a scrap of paper. I don't know about everybody else out there, but I don't really like the thought of the constitution being just another scrap of paper. If you want to argue that this bill is the right thing to do, fine, go ahead. But if you want to argue that this bill should be made into law, then the only way to do that without undermining the foundations of our democratic system would be through a constitutional amendment to provide for this restriction. Who knows, you might even find out that there's a reason that the framers required two-thirds...

Yes, but when millions of immigrants came in the late 1800's, did we change it? But now that Mexicans are coming, we have to change it? No! Also, you should also realise this will hurt LEGAL immigrants too. Why should they suffer?
Actually, the US did limit immigration greatly after WW1 (1923, IIRC). It was easier to limit it back then, because most immigrants came from across the ocean. In answer to another question, no, I don't think there have been many European illegal immigrants - again, because of the Atlantic. It's much easier to cross a river than an ocean. :)

Actually, the US did limit immigration greatly after WW1 (1923, IIRC). It was easier to limit it back then, because most immigrants came from across the ocean. In answer to another question, no, I don't think there have been many European illegal immigrants - again, because of the Atlantic. It's much easier to cross a river than an ocean. :)

There was some illegal immigration but probably not a lot. Some came across the ocean into Canada then crossed illegaly into the US. The grandfather of a friend did that. He was wanted by the English because of his IRA activities so he hopped on a boat to Canada then crossed the border and settled in Boston.

Son, I'm tempted to say that your elevator don't go all the way up, but I won't. :p


Actually, my elevator does go up, all of the way. All I am trying to say is that in this country, regardless of how the Europeans handle citizenship (and I apoligize to Europeans for not being aware of how your countries handle citizenship), one is assumed to be a citizen at birth. In America, at this point in time, citizenship is given at birth, by law. It is, at this point in time, part of our Constitution, which gives us our freedoms and rights as US citizens.

I do very much agree with MostlyFreeTrade, this is a constitutional issue and should be handled as such.

As for the reference to the Nazi's, there was no intention to portray any other country's citizenship laws as being facist, nor am I saying that the US is becoming a facist country, however, I am speaking strictly of the US here. I simply believe that trying to make a change like this without proper Constitutional process would allow for more negativism and racism in a country that, quite frankly, has quite enough of both already.

It should be a non-issue really.

Leave it alone. Birth right citizenship makes us the 'right' side.

If we do change it, shouldn't we make it retroactive? Should we go through all the American family's histories for the last two hundred and fifty years and remove the citizenship rights of all the individuals who may have an illegal immigrant or stowaway or other unregistered immigrant in their ancestry?

No, of course not, it's ridiculous, vast families of American would be affected. So why are we talking about it now? Racism most likely.

Unless we force 'everyone' to take a citizenship test and pledge of citizenship at 18 or some other 'maturing' age (which actually I wouldn't oppose), or if we let only veterans be voting citizens etc., but unless we put equal restrictions on it across the board, then it is the wrong thing to do and it makes us a part of the 'wrong' side of humanity.

If we do change it, shouldn't we make it retroactive? Should we go through all the American family's histories for the last two hundred and fifty years and remove the citizenship rights of all the individuals who may have an illegal immigrant or stowaway or other unregistered immigrant in their ancestry?

No, of course not, it's ridiculous, vast families of American would be affected. So why are we talking about it now? Racism most likely.
So you're saying that anyone who wants to legislate on immigration without backdating the laws is a racist? Why should being born in a coutnry automatically make you a citizen if your parents aren't? While for some Americans this might be an issue about Mexicans, the issue is wider, so don't slander your opponents by calling them racists.

So why are we talking about it now? Racism most likely.


How is it racism when it applies only to illegal immigrants, no matter where they come from? I think we are talking about it now because illegal immigration is a big problem in this country. We need to get immigration under control and the proposed bill is just one tool that could help in getting it under control.

I have mixed emotions about the whole thing, I used to live pretty close to the border, and there were bus loads of pregnant women coming into Arizona, on 3 day "visits" who were hoping to deliver here, when they were down to thier last day some would try to get thier labor induced, or even hurt themselves to try to get admited to the hospital for more time. It was a huge problem, not only for the saftey of the woman and her child, but financial problems for the state.

On the other hand, I think about how great it would be for a child to be able to come here as a legal citizen when they are grown up.

I don't know what I think about it, really.

I am not even going to get into my whole "illegal" rant, because most of my family isn't speaking to me now because of my veiws, all I can say is living 30 min. from the border gives you a whole different veiw on the whole situation.

So you're saying that anyone who wants to legislate on immigration without backdating the laws is a racist? Why should being born in a coutnry automatically make you a citizen if your parents aren't? While for some Americans this might be an issue about Mexicans, the issue is wider, so don't slander your opponents by calling them racists.

Why not? If the shoe fits....

How is it racism when it applies only to illegal immigrants, no matter where they come from? I think we are talking about it now because illegal immigration is a big problem in this country. We need to get immigration under control and the proposed bill is just one tool that could help in getting it under control.


It's not going to help control illegal immigration, not one wit. Are the newborns the one's trying to cross the borders and/or stay longer than their visa’s?

If you wanted to control immigration, you could take the newborn ‘American’ babies away from their illegal immigrant parents and put the kids up for adoption and deport the parents. But that's not what they are saying, is it. They just don't want foreign language speaking immigrants utilizing the methods their forefathers used when they immigrated to America. Which was, have babies, lots of babies. It’s the age old tradition of how America was founded, why change it now? Racism and isolationism. Thinking ‘we’ are better than ‘them,’ in other words, entirely non-traditional American ways of thinking.

Why not? If the shoe fits....

You still haven't answered the question, "How is it racism when it applies to all illegal immigrants no matter what their country of origin?"

Why not? If the shoe fits....


The shoe doesnt fit in this case. I suppose some would like to make that case in there arguement against this issue. I would say to those people that they do not understand what racism is.

With that said. To be an American citizen either you go through the naturalization process that we currently have. Although one exception is that if one of your birth parents is by law a US citizen. This is a simple solution to the problem.

You still haven't answered the question, "How is it racism when it applies to all illegal immigrants no matter what their country of origin?"

Sure I did, the post right above yours, you probably didn't see it until after you posted?

It's not going to help control illegal immigration, not one wit. Are the newborns the one's trying to cross the borders and/or stay longer than their visa’s?
This is just your opinion. And one I don't think you have thought through, past the emotional response "you're racist for trying that".

I can see how this would help control illegal immigration. The situation arises (more often than you might imagint) where a pregnent woman crosses illegally into this country and has her baby (at the taxpayers expense I might add). Her baby is now a citizen and can't therefor be deported. Now, the babies parents have an arguable claim to remain in the country and even be granted citizenship.

Sort of an end run around legal immigration isn't it?

The shoe doesnt fit in this case. I suppose some would like to make that case in there arguement against this issue. I would say to those people that they do not understand what racism is.

With that said. To be an American citizen either you go through the naturalization process that we currently have. Although one exception is that if one of your birth parents is by law a US citizen. This is a simple solution to the problem.

We already have those rules (naturalization process and/or born to American parent). You simply want to dump a third method, one of the few qualifiers for being eligible for running for the Presidential office at that, being born here.

It's not going to help control illegal immigration, not one wit. Are the newborns the one's trying to cross the borders and/or stay longer than their visa’s?
Their parents are, knowing that if they have a child, it will be much easier for them to remain in the US, since you can't separate the child from its parents. Btw, I'm not from the US, so I'm not supporting this view because I'm bothered by the Mexican family next door. It's a matter of principle.

This is just your opinion. And one I don't think you have thought through, past the emotional response "you're racist for trying that".

I can see how this would help control illegal immigration. The situation arises (more often than you might imagint) where a pregnent woman crosses illegally into this country and has her baby (at the taxpayers expense I might add). Her baby is now a citizen and can't therefor be deported. Now, the babies parents have an arguable claim to remain in the country and even be granted citizenship.

Sort of an end run around legal immigration isn't it?

Yes it is. So what? Build a bigger wall if you don't want them here.

The emotion part of this argument is on the anti-immigration side, not mine. History is on my side, I’m not defending the argument of deciding who can and who cannot be an American, even if you are born here you don’t share ‘our’ rights argument crap.

Their parents are, knowing that if they have a child, it will be much easier for them to remain in the US, since you can't separate the child from its parents. Btw, I'm not from the US, so I'm not supporting this view because I'm bothered by the Mexican family next door. It's a matter of principle.

If it's a matter of 'American' principle, some natural born American’s shouldn't have the ability to tell other natural born Americans that they aren't 'really' Americans, no matter what year they were born here.

That or just throw the whole historical aspect of American away and start over with a bunch of bigoted isolationism factors for 'deciding' who can and who cannot share our 'individual' rights of personhood.

Yes it is. So what? Build a bigger wall if you don't want them here.

The emotion part of this argument is on the anti-immigration side, not mine. History is on my side, I’m not defending the argument of deciding who can and who cannot be an American, even if you are born here you don’t share ‘our’ rights argument crap.
You are the one calling people who have oppose illegal immigration of being racist. A purely emotional claim, designed to insult/deride people who don't believe as you do, with no rational basis.

You claim history is on your side, but you have never made that arguement.

You are the one who makes irrational claims on your opponents, calling them anti-immigration, when in fact they are anti-illegal-immigration, there is a big difference. You don't see that tho do you?

No one said that immigration should be shut down, or that all immigrants shoudl be deported to their country of origin, although from your statements one would believe that they had said that.

What people are saying is that we control illegal immigration.

Now, explain why you feel illegal immigration should NOT be stopped?

You are the one calling people who have oppose illegal immigration of being racist. A purely emotional claim, designed to insult/deride people who don't believe as you do, with no rational basis.

You claim history is on your side, but you have never made that arguement.

You are the one who makes irrational claims on your opponents, calling them anti-immigration, when in fact they are anti-illegal-immigration, there is a big difference. You don't see that tho do you?

No one said that immigration should be shut down, or that all immigrants shoudl be deported to their country of origin, although from your statements one would believe that they had said that.

What people are saying is that we control illegal immigration.

Now, explain why you feel illegal immigration should NOT be stopped?


Taking natural born American citizenship rights away is punishing a child for the wrongs of their parents. That, is distinctly, non-American.

If it's a matter of 'American' principle, some natural born American’s shouldn't have the ability to tell other natural born Americans that they aren't 'really' Americans, no matter what year they were born here.

That or just throw the whole historical aspect of American away and start over with a bunch of bigoted isolationism factors for 'deciding' who can and who cannot share our 'individual' rights of personhood.
I see I have to repeat that America severely restricted immigration in 1923 - until the 1960's, I think. Back then it was easier to restrict it, since most immigrants were European. It wasn't necessary to eliminate birthright citizenship because this subterfuge wasn't used on a large scale. Now it is.

Taking natural born American citizenship rights away is punishing a child for the wrongs of their parents. That, is distinctly, non-American.
We are not taking natural born american citizenship rights away from anyone. It's being proposed not to grant citizenship unless one or both parents are legally in the country.

I think it's very un-american to promote and/or condone illegal activity.

You still haven't answered the question why you feel illegal immigration should be allowed to continue. Please address this...

Taking natural born American citizenship rights away is punishing a child for the wrongs of their parents. That, is distinctly, non-American.
Why refusing the American citizenship to someone would be a punishment? I mean, if I wasn't born in the US, it was a punishment not to receive the American citizenship?

I see I have to repeat that America severely restricted immigration in 1923 - until the 1960's, I think. Back then it was easier to restrict it, since most immigrants were European. It wasn't necessary to eliminate birthright citizenship because this subterfuge wasn't used on a large scale. Now it is.


And that change in immigration, and not natural born citizenship rights, was wrong too. What's your point? You want to bring back 'slavery' immigration laws next?

I really dislike the way people attempt to retrospectively attribute opinions to authors of the constitution - it's like that argument here a few days ago saying that the words of Jesus clearly support file-sharing. There's nothing wrong with making new laws - what I dislike is people saying 'this is clearly what the founding fathers meant all along'.

The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868, 79 years after the Constitution was put into force.

The summary of the bill as found on Thomas (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d109:2:./temp/~bdNF0S:@@@L&summ2=m&|/bss/d109query.html|#summary):

"Citizenship Reform Act of 2005 - Amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to limit automatic citizenship at birth to a child born in the United States who: (1) was born in wedlock to a parent either of whom is a U.S. citizen or national, or is an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence who maintains such residence; or (2) was born out of wedlock to a mother who is a U.S. citizen or national, or is an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence who maintains such residence.

Defines "born in wedlock" to exclude common law marriages."

There are a couple of problems:

1) I don't see anything about a Constitutional Amendment to change the 14th Amendment. Yes, Section 5 of the 14th Amendment does say that "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." However, in order to completely change the provisions of said article, there needs to be a proper Constitutional amendment and ratification process.

2) I fail to see what the point is. The 14th Amendment already guarantees due process and equal protection to any person residing inside the United States. What, exactly, would be prevented if this (as far as I can tell, completely unconstitutional) bill were to become law?

Why refusing the American citizenship to someone would be a punishment? I mean, if I wasn't born in the US, it was a punishment not to receive the American citizenship?

It would be wrong to be born in America, caught fifteen years later by the NIS and deported to a country you've never been to before and might or might not speak the language, yes, that would be punishment. What part of this is hard to understand?

If you're born here...

it would be the end of human dignity and civil rights to take that right away.

Well I would leave it as it is. Most of these so called "Illegal" Immigrants are hard-working people who deserve to be part of our Nation. There not just criminals like everybody here thinks they want to be part of us and I'll let them. Maybe we could tighten the border but as long as those people are not big crimnals they have a right to be here and just like my ancestors I let them and hope they will be great citizens someday. We cannot let this Nation who was founded out of immigrants , divide.They are more Americans than we are. They paid alot of money and were porbably seperated from their families, they did alot just to come here and when they make it here they should be treated as Americans, just like my European ancesters who did just the same as most of them do today. Sure we cannot make all "Illegalss" right away American citizens but they came here so their children can have a better life and thats why being American citizen by birth is a good thing. Most of the children will be part of us and its nice to have a such diverse society.
I am pretty much sure that they have a reason being here and there are only 2 ways to handle this problem: Thigten the borders or look at their home countries and work with the governments to make a better living for them and I am pretty sure they don't want to come here anymore. But the worst thing is to handle this " things" like criminals and seperate them from our society.

Revoking birthright citizenship won't stop the influx of illegal immigrants at all.

Like terrorism, clamping down isn't going to work in the long run; instead the root cause needs to be solved thus taking away the incentives and reasons that such activities occur.

The illegal immigrants come here primarily for economic opportunities that they obviously don't get back home. Giving birth to babies in the United States is primarily an economic advantage because as citizens they expect their children to receive substantially better education, care and opportunities for employment.

If INS cracked down on and severely prosecuted unscrupulous employers who often use immigrant labor then turn them over for deportation instead of having to pay them their wage, then that would close off one main avenue that draws them across the border. However, it would yield the best results when combined with pressure and aid on Mexico to get their own economy back into a shape where people don't have to leave their own country for a decent living.

On the other hand, Bush is doing nothing with the problem at all. In fact, his push for "Guest Worker Status" for illegals is encouraging the wave. Guess the Neocons need cheap gardeners and nannies still.

And that change in immigration, and not natural born citizenship rights, was wrong too. What's your point? You want to bring back 'slavery' immigration laws next?
My point? You have a short-term memory, I see.
That or just throw the whole historical aspect of American away and start over with a bunch of bigoted isolationism factors for 'deciding' who can and who cannot share our 'individual' rights of personhood.
I simply showed that the 'historical aspect' argument can go both ways.

Gauthier, that measure would reduce immigration. I do agree though that it would only fight the symptoms, not the disease. The motivation for the Mexican immigration into the US will only dissappear when Mexico will have a higher standard of living.

Edit:If INS cracked down on and severely prosecuted unscrupulous employers who often use immigrant labor then turn them over for deportation instead of having to pay them their wage, then that would close off one main avenue that draws them across the border. However, it would yield the best results when combined with pressure and aid on Mexico to get their own economy back into a shape where people don't have to leave their own country for a decent living.
Agreed (I must confess I haven't read you entire post before posting myself - oh, the shame! :D).

I see I have to repeat that America severely restricted immigration in 1923 - until the 1960's, I think. Back then it was easier to restrict it, since most immigrants were European. It wasn't necessary to eliminate birthright citizenship because this subterfuge wasn't used on a large scale. Now it is.

Not only did we restrict Europeans in the 20s but also all chinese and japanese immigrants in the 1880s. they werent even running across the border and giving birth. they were just trying to work here! now people are trying to use the backdoor on immigration.

is it that hard to legally immigrate? i have no idea of the process and am trying to not offend someone with my ignorance. can people wait for a legal immigration?

obviously we live in different times. unamerican, hah! we've done this before!

This is probably one of the most ridiculous statements I've ever heard here. Most devleoped countries (including liberal Europe) don't automatically grant citizenship to people born in the country if their parents aren't citizens. Are you saying these liberal countries are actually fascist states in disguise?
*cough*France*cough*

It should be a non-issue really.

Leave it alone. Birth right citizenship makes us the 'right' side.

If we do change it, shouldn't we make it retroactive?
US Constitution, Article 1, Section 9: No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

Well I would leave it as it is. Most of these so called "Illegal" Immigrants are hard-working people who deserve to be part of our Nation. There not just criminals like everybody here thinks they want to be part of us and I'll let them.

Well, if they came into the country illegally they have broken the law. I thought the definition of a criminal was someone who has broken the law. If that is true, then all illegal immigrants are criminals.

is it that hard to legally immigrate? i have no idea of the process and am trying to not offend someone with my ignorance. can people wait for a legal immigration?
One of the ways is through a visa lottery. Another way is to come to work legally in the US - which is not so difficult if you're skilled, but hard if you're not. If you have a college degree, however, it's easier to emigrate to Canada, since they have a points system for allowing people to get Canadian citizenship. I've seen it once and it's really smart: you get a number of points for speaking English, some points for speaking French, for having a college degree, for being the right age (mid twenties to mid forties) etc.

Well, if they came into the country illegally they have broken the law. I thought the definition of a criminal was someone who has broken the law. If that is true, then all illegal immigrants are criminals.

But the US doesn't grant automatic birthright to illegal immigrants, it's granted to their children.

Unless you're assuming that the children of criminals should be treated as criminals themselves?

But the US doesn't grant automatic birthright to illegal immigrants, it's granted to their children.

Unless you're assuming that the children of criminals should be treated as criminals themselves?
On the other hand, why should the children of criminals be rewarded with citizenship? Why should America tempt people to break the law so that their children can become citizens?

As for those saying this isn't about Mexico, yeah, riiiight. The reason this is an issue now is because of the mass flood of low-skilled workers leeching off the American economy and their children who cannot speak English lowering the quality of education in schools. If there were mass migration from Canada going on, somehow I doubt that its English-speaking, degree-holding migrants would cause this kind of stir.

One of the ways is through a visa lottery. Another way is to come to work legally in the US - which is not so difficult if you're skilled, but hard if you're not. If you have a college degree, however, it's easier to emigrate to Canada, since they have a points system for allowing people to get Canadian citizenship. I've seen it once and it's really smart: you get a number of points for speaking English, some points for speaking French, for having a college degree, for being the right age (mid twenties to mid forties) etc.

That sounds like a pretty neat system. Those who have the skills needed, speak the languages, and have a lot of working years left get more points. Do you get points for your country of origin? What if any other things do you get points for? Maybe I'll write my Congressman and Senators and have them take a look at your system.

I thought the definition of a criminal was someone who has broken the law.

The situation becomes more complicated if we ask whether a certain law is just; should a person who breaks an unjust law be considered a criminal?

But the US doesn't grant automatic birthright to illegal immigrants, it's granted to their children.

Unless you're assuming that the children of criminals should be treated as criminals themselves?

No, this post was in reply to someone who said illegal immigrants were not criminals.

On the other hand, why should the children of criminals be rewarded with citizenship?


A newborn child is innocent of any crime. Explain how it is just to (edit: deny the innocent a benifit because of) the crimes of another.

On the other hand, why should the children of criminals be rewarded with citizenship? Why should America tempt people to break the law so that their children can become citizens?

As for those saying this isn't about Mexico, yeah, riiiight. The reason this is an issue now is because of the mass flood of low-skilled workers leeching off the American economy and their children who cannot speak English lowering the quality of education in schools. If there were mass migration from Canada going on, somehow I doubt that its English-speaking, degree-holding migrants would cause this kind of stir.

If they were entering illegally, there would be a stir. I do not understand why some people are trying to turn an immigration/citizenship issue into something else. Personally, I don't give a damn where you come from; I just want you to enter this country legally. I feel certain there are people in other countries that feel the same way about their immigrants.

So, how do you feel, should the US do away with birthright citizenship.

It is interesting to note that Ireland has done away with birthright citizenship.
Yes, 79% of people voted to take it away in June 2004. Ireland was the last country in Europe with automatic birthright citizenship. Now, one parent needs to have lived here for three of the past five years for their child to get citizenship.

The situation becomes more complicated if we ask whether a certain law is just; should a person who breaks an unjust law be considered a criminal?

Entering a country illegally is unjust? A country has no right to set immigration policy? Are you saying the whole world should have an open border policy?

A newborn child is innocent of any crime. Explain how it is just to (edit: deny the innocent a benifit because of) the crimes of another.

If the law is changed there is no right to citizenship for the child of an illegal immigrant, so the innocent child (and he or she is innocent) is not being punished for the crime of the parent.

A newborn child is innocent of any crime. Explain how it is just to (edit: deny the innocent a benifit because of) the crimes of another.
I'm saying that I don't think the benefit should exist to begin with because it rewards bad behavior (in that it rewards the parents by giving the child citizenship; obviously, the child itself has done nothing). While it's an inherently good idea to have birthright citizenship, as it stands now, with so many people exploiting it in ways that it was not intended to be used, I think it would be better to get rid of it entirely.

Yes, 79% of people voted to take it away in June 2004. Ireland was the last country in Europe with automatic birthright citizenship. Now, one parent needs to have lived here for three of the past five years for their child to get citizenship.

Thank you.

If they were entering illegally, there would be a stir. I do not understand why some people are trying to turn an immigration/citizenship issue into something else. Personally, I don't give a damn where you come from; I just want you to enter this country legally. I feel certain there are people in other countries that feel the same way about their immigrants.
The only reason it is an issue right now, however, is because of the massive exploits being used and the negative results of said exploits. If the people abusing immigration policy were people who would contribute to American society, i.e. they had skills above those of a lawnmower and were not draining taxpayer dollars on education and health care, not to mention sending their earnings home and thus sucking away money from the American economy, this wouldn't be an issue. I am saying that the reason this hasn't come up until now is the problem of Mexico, so let's not beat around the bush about it. Current policy would be working fine if there weren't people out there determined to abuse it.

They are US citizens. If you start playing with citizenship you could be opening Pandoras box. To control border just need to change and simplify the rules and give more resources to the INS and border patrol so that they can do there jobs more effectively. Also, start worker programs. US might have to reduce or eliminate immigration from some far away places. Should concentrate on neighboring nations.

That sounds like a pretty neat system. Those who have the skills needed, speak the languages, and have a lot of working years left get more points. Do you get points for your country of origin? What if any other things do you get points for? Maybe I'll write my Congressman and Senators and have them take a look at your system.
http://immigration-service.com/new%20regulations.htm

Entering a country illegally is unjust? A country has no right to set immigration policy? Are you saying the whole world should have an open border policy?

No, I'm saying that one should not mark someone a "criminal" simply because he or she broke a law. :)

They are US citizens. If you start playing with citizenship you could be opening Pandoras box. To control border just need to change and simplify the rules and give more resources to the INS and border patrol so that they can do there jobs more effectively. Also, start worker programs. US might have to reduce or eliminate immigration from some far away places. Should concentrate on neighboring nations.
No one is saying we should take away citizenship of those who are already US citizens (well... at least no one who possesses some understanding of the US constitution). What this would represent is eliminating an incentive to commit a crime.

It is not the job of the United States to fix Mexico's problems. And why should immigration from far away places be cut? Why would you say an unskilled Mexican worker has more right to immigrate to the US than a software engineer from India? A country should accept immigrants that can contribute to the country; immigration isn't a charity except in the most severe circumstances. What the US should do, in my opinion, is tighten border controls on the Mexican border to choking levels and throw out any illegals found in the country. It would probably cost less money than American taxpayers are currently spending on illegals in education alone. Worker programs for employers that need low-skilled workers for jobs Americans don't want would be fine and dandy, too, but currently there are far more illegal immigrants than it would take to fill that demand.

Oh, and of course the US immigration system itself should be overhauled. I will be the first to admit that part of this is the fault of the US for making legal immigration so damn impossible.

No, I'm saying that one should not mark someone a "criminal" simply because he or she broke a law. :)

Isn't that the definition of a criminal?

Isn't that the definition of a criminal?

Only if one believes that all laws must be obeyed.

No one is saying we should take away citizenship of those who are already US citizens (well... at least no one who possesses some understanding of the US constitution). What this would represent is eliminating an incentive to commit a crime.

It is not the job of the United States to fix Mexico's problems. And why should immigration from far away places be cut? Why would you say an unskilled Mexican worker has more right to immigrate to the US than a software engineer from India? A country should accept immigrants that can contribute to the country; immigration isn't a charity except in the most severe circumstances. What the US should do, in my opinion, is tighten border controls on the Mexican border to choking levels and throw out any illegals found in the country. It would probably cost less money than American taxpayers are currently spending on illegals in education alone. Worker programs for employers that need low-skilled workers for jobs Americans don't want would be fine and dandy, too, but currently there are far more illegal immigrants than it would take to fill that demand.


This is more complicated than that. Your right Mexico should fix its own problems and illegal immigration needs to be stopped. But US is Mexicos relief valve. Cut the valve pressure builds up in oil rich Mexico which could led to revolution. The prob. with that is you might get a unfriendly gov't south of you which might allie themselves, for example, with China (coming superpower who uses alot of oil). Should have a quota on educated ppl and unskilled ppl. in order that both have opportunity to migrate to US. Unskilled ppl. need more help. Educated can find jobs more easily and usually have more finances. Last, should help neighboring nations. Remember when your in trouble neighbors are the first ones who usually come to help you. Not the ones in next town. Let europe take care of the ones in that part of planet. Rich asian nations can take care of the ones in theres also. That way there won't be so much pressure from so many ppl. coming in.

This is more complicated than that. Your right Mexico should fix its own problems and illegal immigration needs to be stopped. But US is Mexicos relief valve. Cut the valve pressure builds up in oil rich Mexico which could led to revolution. The prob. with that is you might get a unfriendly gov't south of you which might allie themselves, for example, with China (coming superpower who uses alot of oil). Should have a quota on educated ppl and unskilled ppl. in order that both have opportunity to migrate to US. Unskilled ppl. need more help. Educated can find jobs more easily and usually have more finances. Last, should help neighboring nations. Remember when your in trouble neighbors are the first ones who usually come to help you. Not the ones in next town. Let europe take care of the ones in that part of planet. Rich asian nations can take care of the ones in theres also. That way there won't be so much pressure from so many ppl. coming in.
So the US should let illegal immigration happen because if it doesn't, Mexico might have a revolution (which I should add is unlikely; there are countries far worse off than Mexico in that region of the world, politically speaking), and then it might ally itself with China (this is starting to sound like Cold War-era terror tactics, now).

There should not be a quota for unskilled people. Immigration isn't about helping other countries solve their poverty problems by bringing them to your own nation, it's about bringing people in that will make your nation better. If there is a demand for unskilled labor, fine, deal with that, but don't let in unskilled labor just for the sake of it.

Let me reiterate: IMMIGRATION IS NOT ABOUT HELPING OTHER NATIONS EXCEPT IN VERY EXTREME CIRCUMSTANCES LIKE CIVIL WARS OR GENOCIDE. IT IS ABOUT HELPING YOUR OWN. Institutions like the IMF exist to help nations with economic problems. That is not what immigration is for. Skilled workers from any part of the world should get priority over unskilled workers from your backdoor.

The only reason it is an issue right now, however, is because of the massive exploits being used and the negative results of said exploits. If the people abusing immigration policy were people who would contribute to American society, i.e. they had skills above those of a lawnmower and were not draining taxpayer dollars on education and health care, not to mention sending their earnings home and thus sucking away money from the American economy, this wouldn't be an issue. I am saying that the reason this hasn't come up until now is the problem of Mexico, so let's not beat around the bush about it. Current policy would be working fine if there weren't people out there determined to abuse it.
Honestly, this is all jingoistic crap.

Sending their money back to Mexico hurts us? So anyone on any level of income saving their money hurts our economy? Maybe we should deport them to their historic family home. Not everyone is willing to do pure unskilled labor like picking crops that can only be done by hand for hoursd upon hours a day and other pure hard labor jobs. If they are living here, they have to be buying something - gas, food, utilities.

All your "issues" are non-problems. You are creating issues out of thin air to fuel your obsessive jingoism. Every person who gets a free lunch is "draining money." Every person who doesn't go to a private school is draining the education budget, and hell, alot of the government supports paying their way into private schools. People who save money are not contributing to the economy. What about those who hold their money in foreign banks? I doubt you get the point.

I would like to bring up a point.

If this bill is passed, and is not found unconstitutional, what happens to a baby born in the US to illegal immigrants? What country do they become citizens of?

So the US should let illegal immigration happen because if it doesn't, Mexico might have a revolution (which I should add is unlikely; there are countries far worse off than Mexico in that region of the world, politically speaking), and then it might ally itself with China (this is starting to sound like Cold War-era terror tactics, now).

There should not be a quota for unskilled people. Immigration isn't about helping other countries solve their poverty problems by bringing them to your own nation, it's about bringing people in that will make your nation better. If there is a demand for unskilled labor, fine, deal with that, but don't let in unskilled labor just for the sake of it.

Let me reiterate: IMMIGRATION IS NOT ABOUT HELPING OTHER NATIONS EXCEPT IN VERY EXTREME CIRCUMSTANCES LIKE CIVIL WARS OR GENOCIDE. IT IS ABOUT HELPING YOUR OWN. Institutions like the IMF exist to help nations with economic problems. That is not what immigration is for. Skilled workers from any part of the world should get priority over unskilled workers from your backdoor.

Didn't say that. US should stop illegal immigration. But then will have to set-up workers progs. until Mexico economy stabilizes which probl. won't happen for a long time. Never say never revolution can happen. Look what happened in State of Chiapas. Hunger does things to ppl. There is hunger in parts of Mexico. Has for skillied ppl. they should be allowed in but under quota and location (neighboring Nations) system and unskilled should be included. Don't think skilled ppl. are better because they have a skill or are smarter. US been having big problems with these so called skilled brilliant ppl. stealing and or selling company or state secrets to foreign companies or gov'ts. Unskilled ppl. tend not to get involve in things against the nation they migrated too. Has for IMF helping nations, many say that organization imposes strict requirements before giving out money. They don't care if it will cause ppl. hardship. If you have money no prob. but many in those nations don't. Do you think US should isolate itself from others. Seem to be leaning toward isolation. By the way the Chinese are making many treaties with nations around the planet including the Americas. They going to sell cars to Chile, economic agreements with Nat. Gas rich Bolivia and oil rich Venezuela and it keeps going.

What happens if someone's born in the states while a couple is travelling through there legally? Would they still get citizenship?

Honestly, this is all jingoistic crap.

Sending their money back to Mexico hurts us? So anyone on any level of income saving their money hurts our economy? Maybe we should deport them to their historic family home. Not everyone is willing to do pure unskilled labor like picking crops that can only be done by hand for hoursd upon hours a day and other pure hard labor jobs. If they are living here, they have to be buying something - gas, food, utilities.

All your "issues" are non-problems. You are creating issues out of thin air to fuel your obsessive jingoism. Every person who gets a free lunch is "draining money." Every person who doesn't go to a private school is draining the education budget, and hell, alot of the government supports paying their way into private schools. People who save money are not contributing to the economy. What about those who hold their money in foreign banks? I doubt you get the point.
No, sending money back to Mexico hurts the US economy because it is taking money produced in the US economy and giving it to Mexico. Saving money has nothing to do with it. The money is being spent in a foreign country, not saved. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough.

As for the rest of the post, no, I don't really see the point. I never said that I'm against skilled Mexican workers who want to do more than pick fruits in crops. I'm all for that, as long as they come through via legal channels like those from other countries.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "free lunch", but if you could clarify that, I'd be glad to respond. As for the statement that "Every person who doesn't go to a private school is draining the education budget," that is true, but my point was that the children of Mexican immigrants do so more than others because they often know little English and are not at the educational level of the rest of the class, thus bringing standards down and taking up more resources. Add to that the fact that their parents don't pay income taxes (for the most part). Again, sorry if this wasn't clear enough, I guess I was assuming everyone reading this would already have enough of an understanding of the issues that I wouldn't have to explain every detail.

I would like to bring up a point.

If this bill is passed, and is not found unconstitutional, what happens to a baby born in the US to illegal immigrants? What country do they become citizens of?
A child born to two American parents is American no matter where he or she is born. I don't know how other countries work, but that seems reasonable, so if the parents are from another country, the child would also be a citizen of that country.

What happens if someone's born in the states while a couple is travelling through there legally? Would they still get citizenship?

The kid would. Unless parents wouldn't want to register the kid here.

http://immigration-service.com/new%20regulations.htm

Damn I can't get there.
Age = 0 - I'm an old fart.
Education = 25
Language = 16 - less than semi proficient in Spanish
Experience = 25
Assisted employment = 0
Adaptability = 3

Total 60

Guess I need to get younger, have my wife finish her degree, and get sponsored by a Canadian company. I wonder how many illegal immigrants in the US, or even legal ones could qualify under the Canadian system. It appears to be a good system to me.

A child born to two American parents is American no matter where he or she is born. I don't know how other countries work, but that seems reasonable, so if the parents are from another country, the child would also be a citizen of that country.
What if it works differently in said other country? What if in another country, you have to be born on their soil to be a citizen? Then the kid would end up without a nationality...

No, I'm saying that one should not mark someone a "criminal" simply because he or she broke a law. :)

crim·i·nal
n.
One that has committed or been legally convicted of a crime.

So what part of this definition from the dictionary do you not understand?

Didn't say that. US should stop illegal immigration. But then will have to set-up workers progs. until Mexico economy stabilizes which probl. won't happen for a long time. Never say never revolution can happen. Look what happened in State of Chiapas. Hunger does things to ppl. There is hunger in parts of Mexico. Has for skillied ppl. they should be allowed in but under quota and location (neighboring Nations) system and unskilled should be included. Don't think skilled ppl. are better because they have a skill or are smarter. US been having big problems with these so called skilled brilliant ppl. stealing and or selling company or state secrets to foreign companies or gov'ts. Unskilled ppl. tend not to get involve in things against the nation they migrated too. Has for IMF helping nations, many say that organization imposes strict requirements before giving out money. They don't care if it will cause ppl. hardship. If you have money no prob. but many in those nations don't. Do you think US should isolate itself from others. Seem to be leaning toward isolation. By the way the Chinese are making many treaties with nations around the planet including the Americas. They going to sell cars to Chile, economic agreements with Nat. Gas rich Bolivia and oil rich Venezuela and it keeps going.

The US doesn't have to do anything with immigration or worker programs to keep Mexico stable. Immigration and worker programs are both used to the benefit of the host country, not the emigration country.

I never said that revolution couldn't happen in Mexico, I said it was unlikely.

I will repeat again that I don't think neighboring nations should be given priority. Diversity should be encouraged, not regionalism. Again, unskilled labor should only be included insofar as a specific demand for it from an employer is found. Skilled workers give more to the economy, so they should be given preference. As for the bit about stealing state secrets, that's the fault of the screening process, not the policy of allowing skilled people in.

The IMF requirements are in place to ensure that the government the loan is going to does something to get itself out of debt and improve its economy. Many loans also come with civil rights strings attached. It may cause pain in the short term in some cases, but if the government follows through, I have yet to hear of a country that didn't benefit.

I don't think the US should be isolationist. I am all for free trade and fair immigration practices. I am also aware of China's rush to get oil and gas, but I don't see how this is at all relevant to the discussion. What is Mexico going to say? "Let more of our immigrants across or we'll give our gas to someone else?" Resources will be sold to the highest bidder, end of story. Politics will play a role in countries like Venezuela that are highly anti-American, but I really don't see why the US should coddle Mexico for its oil and gas. The biggest international contributor to US oil and gas sources is actually, believe it or not, Canada. If I were the US, I'd be more worried about China getting a foothold there.

What if it works differently in said other country? What if in another country, you have to be born on their soil to be a citizen? Then the kid would end up without a nationality...
And this is America's problem because...?

The kid would. Unless parents wouldn't want to register the kid here.
Not if birthright status was revoked. Then the kid wouldn't get citizenship.

educated ppl

:confused: :D

I would like to bring up a point.

If this bill is passed, and is not found unconstitutional, what happens to a baby born in the US to illegal immigrants? What country do they become citizens of?

They will be sent along with their parents back to the county where the parents hold citizenship if they are caught and deported.

And this is America's problem because...?
I didnt' say it was... but it's just kinda weird.

What if it works differently in said other country? What if in another country, you have to be born on their soil to be a citizen? Then the kid would end up without a nationality...

Yep.

I didnt' say it was... but it's just kinda weird.
It happens. It is strange, but it does happen.

http://immigration-service.com/new%20regulations.htm
Looking at the immigrants here, I guarantee that most of them lie.

Either that or they have one family member who qualifies and then they all piggy back off their acceptance.

They need to change the citizenship test here too... too many people who can't even speak one of the official languages manage to get citizenship because friends and relatives give them the answers.

Yes.

Legal immigration = ok!
Illegal immigration = NO!

Looking at the immigrants here, I guarantee that most of them lie.

Either that or they have one family member who qualifies and then they all piggy back off their acceptance.
No, but many of them do come to Canada illegally, particularly from China. They do piggyback a little, but it's only worth 5 points to have a Canadian citizen in the family. I think the pass mark is lower than stated on that document, however.

Looking at the immigrants here, I guarantee that most of them lie.

I presume "here" is Canada? I don't see how telling a lie can get them in, the point system seems pretty clear cut to me.

I presume "here" is Canada? I don't see how telling a lie can get them in, the point system seems pretty clear cut to me.
Yes, here is Canada.

It's amazing how many horribly stupid people manage to end up living here. It's not like they speak english or are trained to do important jobs, they wind up being incomprehensible taxi drivers and manual labourers. So unless their university degrees just don't mean a damn thing here so they can't get a good job, someone's dropping a ball checking their applications.

Yes, here is Canada.

It's amazing how many horribly stupid people manage to end up living here. It's not like they speak english or are trained to do important jobs, they wind up being incomprehensible taxi drivers and manual labourers. So unless their university degrees just don't mean a damn thing here so they can't get a good job, someone's dropping a ball checking their applications.
Perhaps you didn't know, but a taxi driver in Canada earns considerably more than a university professor in China/India/Romania/Russia. :) So for them it's really not so bad.

Edit: forgot to add that the points system is quite recent. Presumably its effects will become visible later.

This bill is awesome. We dont need more of these illegal immigrants coming here, and this can eliminate how some of them manadge to get citizenship. This is a potential weapon in the war to stop illegal immigration.


right on :headbang: :sniper:

The US doesn't have to do anything with immigration or worker programs to keep Mexico stable. Immigration and worker programs are both used to the benefit of the host country, not the emigration country.

I never said that revolution couldn't happen in Mexico, I said it was unlikely.

I will repeat again that I don't think neighboring nations should be given priority. Diversity should be encouraged, not regionalism. Again, unskilled labor should only be included insofar as a specific demand for it from an employer is found. Skilled workers give more to the economy, so they should be given preference. As for the bit about stealing state secrets, that's the fault of the screening process, not the policy of allowing skilled people in.

The IMF requirements are in place to ensure that the government the loan is going to does something to get itself out of debt and improve its economy. Many loans also come with civil rights strings attached. It may cause pain in the short term in some cases, but if the government follows through, I have yet to hear of a country that didn't benefit.

I don't think the US should be isolationist. I am all for free trade and fair immigration practices. I am also aware of China's rush to get oil and gas, but I don't see how this is at all relevant to the discussion. What is Mexico going to say? "Let more of our immigrants across or we'll give our gas to someone else?" Resources will be sold to the highest bidder, end of story. Politics will play a role in countries like Venezuela that are highly anti-American, but I really don't see why the US should coddle Mexico for its oil and gas. The biggest international contributor to US oil and gas sources is actually, believe it or not, Canada. If I were the US, I'd be more worried about China getting a foothold there.


Regionalism should be encourage unless you want to be isolated. In future world is going to be grouped into trading blocks. Biggest are European Union and ASEAN. US is in NAFTA but should encompass more nations in region before they become part of someone elses trading block. Chinese are also interested in Canada. Also, most if not more of money Mex. send to Mexico comes back to US. They are US 2nd. or 3rd. biggest trading partner. In the US Indians are said to be the biggest sender of money back to India, 2nd. the Philippines 3rd. China or Mexico.

Rep. Nathan Deal, R-Ga. is sponsoring a bill in Congress that would deny automatic citizenship for any child in born in the US of parents who are here illegally. According to the article 49% of the American people, agree that this should be done while 41% disagree.
The State of Georgia is about ready to do one better. There is legislation (http://www.gwinnettdailypost.com/index.php?s=&url_channel_id=32&url_article_id=6278&url_subchannel_id=&change_well_id=2) pending that would deny public services to illegal immigrants.

The list of programs and services that would be affected by the measure would include not only Medicaid and food stamps, but also PeachCare, the state's health care program for children of working families. It also would prohibit illegal immigrants from enrolling in any of Georgia's public colleges or universities.

I hope this is getting notice in DC. One of the main failings of this Administration, as well as the Congress, has been the lack of control over our borders. It's become such a terrible problem on the border with Mexico, that we were advised to stay away from the border towns after dark on the last trip I made to El Paso.

No, sending money back to Mexico hurts the US economy because it is taking money produced in the US economy and giving it to Mexico. Saving money has nothing to do with it. The money is being spent in a foreign country, not saved. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough.
Irrelevant bullshit. If it isn't being spent here, it doesn't help our economy. If it is being spent elsewhere, it doesn't help our economy.

As for the rest of the post, no, I don't really see the point. I never said that I'm against skilled Mexican workers who want to do more than pick fruits in crops. I'm all for that, as long as they come through via legal channels like those from other countries
You obviously misunderstood me. I am saying very few people but Mexican immigrants are going to apply for hard, manual, unskilled labor like fruit picking, roofing, digging ditches, etc.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "free lunch", but if you could clarify that,
People's below a certain income level children get free lunches at school.

but my point was that the children of Mexican immigrants do so more than others because they often know little English and are not at the educational level of the rest of the class, thus bringing standards down and taking up more resources.
You again prove you are an obsessive jingoist. There is no difference. How do you suggest they learn English? By not going to school? Maybe children who are here legally and are slower than other children not be allowed to go to school, like kids with mental and physical handicaps.

I guess I was assuming everyone reading this would already have enough of an understanding of the issues that I wouldn't have to explain every detail.
You can assume whatever you want - I will assume you are an jingoistic asshole who makes irrational, illogical arguments against Mexican immigrants instead of making rational, informed arguments about the system that allows them to come over barely controlled and lets them stay here. You attack the people instead of the system. I could say what kind of person you remind me of, but that is a real insult.

You again prove you are an obsessive jingoist. There is no difference. How do you suggest they learn English? By not going to school? Maybe children who are here legally and are slower than other children not be allowed to go to school, like kids with mental and physical handicaps.
I know there's at least one Portuguese on this forum and they may be able or willing to elaborate on my statement.
Dual languages have no place in school for an extended period of time. It can only distract from learning and pull resources from teaching essential material. ESOL, or whatever the acronym is, should be abandoned in favor of what I've heard the Portuguese do. If you are a legal immigrant, you are given a year of language instruction. I don't know if this is mixed with regular education, or not, but after that year, you are schooled in Portuguese. Period.

I know there's at least one Portuguese on this forum and they may be able or willing to elaborate on my statement.
Dual languages have no place in school for an extended period of time. It can only distract from learning and pull resources from teaching essential material. ESOL, or whatever the acronym is, should be abandoned in favor of what I've heard the Portuguese do. If you are a legal immigrant, you are given a year of language instruction. I don't know if this is mixed with regular education, or not, but after that year, you are schooled in Portuguese. Period.
I never said the languages should be mixed; however, a second language should be taught as early as possible in order to learn it better and not take up important hours later in life. I can counter you argument with the fact the Dutch are taught English for the better part of their school years and speak it better than most people from America I know (well this is true for the ones I know). And if that is true, why would there be a Portuguese person here? English is not the language of Portugal; they would have had to work excessively hard to learn even fractionally conversational English.

I never said the languages should be mixed; however, a second language should be taught as early as possible in order to learn it better and not take up important hours later in life. I can counter you argument with the fact the Dutch are taught English for the better part of their school years and speak it better than most people from America I know (well this is true for the ones I know). And if that is true, why would there be a Portuguese person here? English is not the language of Portugal; they would have had to work excessively hard to learn even fractionally conversational English.
The second language that is most widely taught is English? Right? The place to learn it isn't in the host country's schools, at the expense of other students.

As far as the Portuguese on the forum, Porta Cale is one and could quickly correct any errors or elaborate on their system of assimilating non-Portuguese speaking students.

The State of Georgia is about ready to do one better. There is legislation (http://www.gwinnettdailypost.com/index.php?s=&url_channel_id=32&url_article_id=6278&url_subchannel_id=&change_well_id=2) pending that would deny public services to illegal immigrants.

Chip Rogers for President. Go Georgia go. Chip in 08.

The second language that is most widely taught is English? Right? The place to learn it isn't in the host country's schools, at the expense of other students.
You can learn it in the process. And all students should learn a second language, not just some.

You can assume whatever you want - I will assume you are an jingoistic asshole who makes irrational, illogical arguments against Mexican immigrants instead of making rational, informed arguments about the system that allows them to come over barely controlled and lets them stay here. You attack the people instead of the system. I could say what kind of person you remind me of, but that is a real insult.

And you sir/madam are attacking the individual, not the idea. You are doing the same thing you accuse him/her of doing.:mad:

strange how you are all arguing about children of (illegal) immigrants and not about children of citizens at all.
when i saw the topic my first thought was to the book/movie "Starship Troopers", where citizenship had to be earned through military service, you did not just get it automatically at birth. similar to post marian reform roman society, where service in the legion would give you roman citizenship.

Dosen't that mean the disabled are prevented from gaining citizenship?

And you sir/madam are attacking the individual, not the idea. You are doing the same thing you accuse him/her of doing.:mad:
Of course I am, I am because of the idea. He is attacking the helpless instead of the system. The illegal immigrants can't do crap about the system.