Topic: Did you know the Constitution is totally optional? (Read 20752 times)

Vespertine · « **on:** December 06, 2007, 12:26:55 AM »

One of the local news sites (Phoenix) ran a story a couple days ago about a measure that's being proposed for the 2008 ballot here in Phoenix. Basically it's a direct assault on the 14th amendment. It would require hospital personnel to check citizenship of parents of newborns and would deny a birth certificate to American-born children of illegal aliens. The group sponsoring the initiative claim that the 14th amendment was never intended to cover children born of illegal aliens....NEVER MIND THE FACT THAT THE 14 AMENDMENT EXPLICITLY STATES, "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"!!!!! Fuckers.

12AX7 · « **Reply #1 on:** December 06, 2007, 02:13:08 AM »

Sure why not. Hop on across the border and get your free "citizenship" benefits. My tax dollars are expendable on fraudulent "citizenship" claims. |>
Maybe they should bump up the tax rate on border states that seem to equate "being here" with "being here legally". Then the people who think it's ok for foreign nationals to illegally enter the country (and then do NOTHING about getting legal ) can pay their tab. I, for one, am fucking tired of it. I dont give a DAMN where you were born; if your PARENTS are here illegally; YOU are here illegally. If your parents have made SOME modicum of effort to GET legal; then MAYBE you MIGHT be considered naturalized. Of course; if your parents are denied residency; so are you.

Vespertine · « **Reply #2 on:** December 06, 2007, 12:30:10 PM »

Except that the 14th amendment says that you are a citizen. If you are born on American soil, you are an American citizen. Period. End of story. It doesn't say, "you are a citizen only if your parents aren't useless, lazy, crime committing, economy draining wetbacks".

reimero · « **Reply #3 on:** December 06, 2007, 02:10:21 PM »

12, you may not give a damn, but Vespertine is right on this: the Constitution is utterly unambiguous about this aspect of citizenship. If you're born on US soil, you are an American citizen. Period. Whether your parents are in the country legally or not has no bearing: you're a citizen. Constitutionally.

12AX7 · « **Reply #4 on:** December 06, 2007, 02:47:19 PM »

Yes, I know it is. That was my opinion; not my interpretation.

12AX7 · « **Reply #5 on:** December 06, 2007, 03:06:57 PM »

Quote from: Vespertine on December 06, 2007, 12:30:10 PM

useless, lazy, crime committing, economy draining wetbacks".

Those are your words.

I smoke pot. If I were to be arrested and jailed; do you think that's right? Of course - as it stands now; that is the law. So I have the possibility of having combat-ready troops (SWAT) bust my front door down in the middle of the night and take me away; if they don't "see a gun" and kill me. Because I BROKE THE LAW.
By contrast; here we have several MILLION people who have blatantly broken the law; a FEDERAL law, no less, and routinely police are barred from asking anyone about their citizenship, prevented from reporting / handing illegals over to the Feds, and even have employers fighting legislation and current law to keep these illegal aliens here, and gainfully employed. What the fuck.
Would you think it's ok for my company to step in and insulate me from prosecution? Why not? I'm an "otherwise law-abiding, person who just wants to work and raise a family", too. Only I live here LEGALLY; and pay the taxes that pay for such "law enforcement".
I've been through the entire process to get residency here, as my wife Kathrin was from Germany. While here, she applied for a student visa to stay and go to school (paid for by ME; not tax dollars). When it was denied; she *GASP!* had to return to her home country! Which, by the way, cost significantly more than walking across the border. We kept at it, and eventually she was granted residency. Took just over two years. So I have no sympathy for individuals here illegally who refuse to get in line to GET legal. What - are they somehow better than Germans? Why should they be exempt from our immigration laws? Because they're already here?
I can see me using THAT one on a police officer. "You can't arrest ME. I'm already high."

RelandR · « **Reply #6 on:** December 06, 2007, 04:15:40 PM »

Okay, I'll bite.

Just exactly which taxes are the illegals not paying ?

Last time I checked, most local public services (fire, police, schools, etc.) are paid for through property and sales tax ... fairly unavoidable for folks that reside and consume goods within a given area.

On Income taxes that go to the fed and states, I think that most illegals work for wages that would keep them at 0-low tax liability anyway (citizen or not) and much of the deducted contributions from their checks would largely remain unclaimed because of the danger of being caught involved with filing for the refund.

12AX7 · « **Reply #7 on:** December 06, 2007, 04:24:24 PM »

Who said someone wasn't paying taxes? I mentioned MY tax dollars. Not anyone else's. And yes, I have an interest in how that is spent.
Again - where is this "tax" statement to which you refer? Or is this another "useless, lazy, crime-committing, economy-draining wetback" statement meant to put words out that someone actually DIDNT say?

**edit-- Federal officers, border patrol, and some state agencies use Federal monies. That comes from my pocket.

RelandR · « **Reply #8 on:** December 06, 2007, 04:53:00 PM »

Implied. At least that's how I saw it.

Your focus given to the "tax" word led me to believe that it was a relevant-to-the-subject sort of thing.

I guess that my point is if they also contribute to the tax base that pays for the services that they use here, it raises the question "Just how much of an 'actual' burden are they ?" .

12AX7 · « **Reply #9 on:** December 06, 2007, 05:38:10 PM »

Yes. Tax; as in this ("intermittent" law enforcement; arrest me, but not illegal aliens) is something I myself have to actually PAY for. So it IS relevant to the subject; for me.

Now. Who said they are a burden? May I point out that this appears to be another assumption about either me or my point of view. I said I have no sympathy for ones who do not attempt to get legal. They have broken the law, and in a most "in-your-face" kind of way. Yet they are being shielded against the consequences. I dont expect that sort of treatment if/when >>I<< break the law; I fully expect to be prosecuted; and stigmatized as a criminal until I can prove again I'm no danger/burden/obstacle, etc. Why should I NOT expect the same of everyone else - especially when a law was knowingly broken to even GET here; whether from Mexico, Canada, Haiti, Cuba, UK, Germany, France, ... from where doesn't matter; although I concede we are generalizing in this conversation about Mexicans.
Can anyone answer for me this question- Why do illegal immigrants NOT just go and get legal? Yes; it is a hassle. Yes, it is long, drawn-out, mostly ridiculous circus. Yes; I feel for someone who might have to return to their home country in the process. Yes; I understand parts of some families may be split up temporarily. But all that COULD HAVE BEEN avoided totally to begin with.
The solution lies in fixing the causal conditions; ie., revamping the immigration application/grant process; NOT in amnesty for breaking the law.

Vespertine · « **Reply #10 on:** December 06, 2007, 05:48:06 PM »

12, if it seemed like I was putting words in your mouth, that was not my intention. Living in Arizona, I can tell you that too much of the time the immigration critics' argument boils down to "useless, lazy, crime committing, economy draining wetbacks". It's turned into a hot button for me. I see your points, and understand your arguments. However, I didn't necessarily intend for this to turn into a debate on illegal immigration. It was intended to be a very narrow commentary on a ballot initiative that comes into direct conflict with the 14th amendment. It was about children born on American soil; regardless of their parents nationality, citizenship, etc.

12AX7 · « **Reply #11 on:** December 06, 2007, 06:18:19 PM »

ohyeh. It was, wasn't it? Sorry for the derailment.

As far as the ballot initiative itself; I agree totally with you. No entity should initiate anything in direct conflict with established constitutional law; and I believe it is dangerous when they do. If the public cant depend on elected authority to abide by laws and processes, public trust and respect in authority erodes; crime escalates.
However; there is a mechanism for change, and I believe this is one I could support. I support our naturalization laws for the most part; although I would recommend an amendment to the 14th which excluded children born here while their parents are here illegally. This would close this "loophole" incentive to arrive here illegally and start a family. As it stands now, although it is portrayed as a positive - the net effect of naturalizing illegals' children is either distress to the family if the parents are deported; or acceptance (amnesty) that the parents broke - and are continuing to violate- the law.

12AX7 · « **Reply #12 on:** December 06, 2007, 06:30:59 PM »

BTW... the tax rate on the border states thing was just.. um.. tryin to tweak you. I'm sorry.

pbsaurus · « **Reply #13 on:** December 06, 2007, 06:48:25 PM »

The federal taxes paid in by the border states already are greater. California pays much higher per capita and gets much less back. Whereas the flyover states get more federal money and pay less in taxes.

12AX7 · « **Reply #14 on:** December 06, 2007, 06:55:06 PM »

Quote from: pbsaurus on December 06, 2007, 06:48:25 PM

The federal taxes paid in by the border states already are greater. California pays much higher per capita and gets much less back. Whereas the flyover states get more federal money and pay less in taxes.

What's even worse is V just logged out.

TerrorDronze · « **Reply #15 on:** December 06, 2007, 11:58:53 PM »

Here's my thoughts on illegal immigration...

Everyone hollering about the "rights" of illegal immigrants need to sit down and think about this... these people are criminals. Not violent criminals, but criminals nonetheless. The only rights they are entitled to are basic human rights, and a one way ticket back to their country of origin. They are not citizens, and do not have any constitutional rights. Why the INF didn't swoop through those demonstrations in california is beyond me. There are legal ways to come to this country to work, and they are making it ever easier to get in to do so.

I have no issue with immigrants, but when those who don't go through the proper channels start impacting things like education, welfare, and other institutions that people who are legitimately in this country pay for and contribute to, then I have an issue. People can shout all they like, but if you do something illegal, then you should face the penalties that are in place for said actions.

If I were to kill someone, I would be charged and processed according to the legal code, so what makes these illegal immigrants any different?

Vespertine · « **Reply #16 on:** December 07, 2007, 12:06:01 AM »

ohferfucksake. i give up.

12AX7 · « **Reply #17 on:** December 07, 2007, 12:22:20 AM »

Quote from: TerrorDronze on December 06, 2007, 11:58:53 PM

Here's my thoughts on illegal immigration...

Hey man, at least read through the thread.

Quote from: Vespertine on December 06, 2007, 05:48:06 PM

However, I didn't necessarily intend for this to turn into a debate on illegal immigration. It was intended to be a very narrow commentary on a ballot initiative that comes into direct conflict with the 14th amendment. It was about children born on American soil; regardless of their parents nationality, citizenship, etc.

Quote from: 12AX7 on December 06, 2007, 06:18:19 PM

ohyeh. It was, wasn't it? Sorry for the derailment.

12AX7 · « **Reply #18 on:** December 07, 2007, 12:44:32 AM »

I had my mouth all all clean
set for the dream
of the sweet taste
Of a hot Vespertine
In a debate posting
in the night late
Bout things that the Hill will take for real
So deal! It appears you squealed
too soon for this room
You didn't catch the tune
making my V zoom
The repercussion of which is this discussion
Is ditched
"X" clicking, bitch, I'm out.

Demosthenes · « **Reply #19 on:** December 07, 2007, 01:37:31 AM »

If the immigrants who come here and don't break any other laws... work, raise a family, support the economy, become Americans in the sense that any others that came here over the past two centuries have done... manage to do so without becoming a "drain on society" or a thorn in our criminal justice system's side....

Why should they not be allowed to stay?

Because they broke the law in coming here?

If that is the case, then that's a stupid law.

There's a difference between law and justice. When one gets in the way of the other, it's time to do away with or at least figure out a way to live with one of them.

And a society that chooses one over the other better be prepared to live with its choice.

12AX7 · « **Reply #20 on:** December 07, 2007, 02:23:17 AM »

Quote from: Demosthenes on December 07, 2007, 01:37:31 AM

If the immigrants who come here and don't break any other laws... work, raise a family, support the economy, become Americans in the sense that any others that came here over the past two centuries have done... manage to do so without becoming a "drain on society" or a thorn in our criminal justice system's side....

Why should they not be allowed to stay?

I have no idea. The idea of deporting millions of people is ridiculous. Many- if not MOST of these people
are embedded in American society. To rip that out would leave a devastating wound to the very society such
an action would profess to be helping. So why is it an either/or situation? Can we not discuss ways to
remedy the situation that are actually feasible? Why does it seem everyone has one of two diametrically
opposed views and won't budge; not even to entertain the ideas that may NOT be "diametrically opposed".
We don't have one sentence for any crime; why must deportation be inextricably tied to this issue?
Why not -when discovered during the normal course of .."things"(ie., spend no more resources to find and round up
otherwise law-abiding illegals)- sentence an illegal to, I don't know; say, 5 years of community service, obviously
with no further legal infractions; learning English (this would be at taxpayer expense, obviously, but I can think of
much worse things being purchased now. I - myself - wouldn't mind my tax dollars spent to help someone who
wants to be here get up to speed on how we do things here [as in, speaking English]), and , upon successful completion
of the sentence; be granted permanent residency with no indication of their former illegal status. As far as we're
concerned; by that time they belong here as much as you and I.

Quote from: Demosthenes on December 07, 2007, 01:37:31 AM

Because they broke the law in coming here?

Amnesty would be a mistake, and dangerous to a workable solution.
(Even for potheads. See below.)

Quote from: Demosthenes on December 07, 2007, 01:37:31 AM

If that is the case, then that's a stupid law.

So is criminalization of marijuana. But it's still the law. Just as
the 14th amendment is constitutional. There are mechanisms for change in both.

Quote from: Demosthenes on December 07, 2007, 01:37:31 AM

There's a difference between law and justice. When one gets in the way of the other, it's time to do away with or at least figure out a way to live with one of them.

And a society that chooses one over the other better be prepared to live with its choice.

concur

In analogy; I believe the laws against pot are stupid; and in a lot of cases actually MORE dangerous to society
as a whole than legions of potheads. However, if I am arrested, and am guilty, I fully expect to pay for my
infractions in some way. I won't argue about how I should be able to smoke, or how much worse alcohol is, or
how much money they spent kicking my door in with a platoon of armed men, or just how ridiculous the situation
is; no. I know what the law is; and apparently don't find it important enough to instigate change. So I
am indeed "prepared to live with my choice". I believe illegals should be subject to our sovereign laws as well.

reimero · « **Reply #21 on:** December 07, 2007, 10:21:40 AM »

For what it's worth, I do want to add that in my (limited) personal experience, illegal immigrants do actually pay taxes, including income tax. There's a very active black market in "inactive" SSNs, and many will simply use that SSN to pay income and social security tax, all the while looking legit to employers.

Put another way, the "leeching off society" argument is BS, from what I've been made aware of by someone in a position to know.

I'm going to come flat out and say it: this groundswell of demand for "securing our borders" has nothing to do with terrorism or national security or unemployment rate or "drains on our tax dollars." Those are straw man arguments. It's a well-established fact that would-be terrorists trying to enter the US don't jump the Mexican border fence, they tend to cross the border from Canada. It's also a fact that employers have a hard time finding unskilled workers to perform menial, low-wage tasks. Unemployment is more prominent among skilled workers and professionals. I still can't figure out why there's such an uproar against letting Mexicans harvest produce while we turn a blind eye to the fact that just about every college campus, research laboratory and software development company has a slew of workers here on the H1-B visa program, even though there are numerous Americans who are just as well qualified.

No, this demand to "secure our borders" is masked racism, pure and simple. Americans don't want brown-skinned Spanish-speaking Catholics overrunning their nice, clean, idyllic Protestant chocolate-and-vanilla-swirl America.

MISTER MASSACRE · « **Reply #22 on:** December 07, 2007, 10:34:20 AM »

Quote from: reimero on December 07, 2007, 10:21:40 AM

It's a well-established fact that would-be terrorists trying to enter the US don't jump the Mexican border fence, they tend to cross the border from Canada.

Whoa now, we make sure each and every one of those would-be terrorists pay the "U.S. Terrorism Plans" tax on their way through so that's totally on the level.

12AX7 · « **Reply #23 on:** December 07, 2007, 11:13:27 AM »

Quote from: reimero on December 07, 2007, 10:21:40 AM

Put another way, the "leeching off society" argument is BS, from what I've been made aware of by someone in a position to know.

I'm going to come flat out and say it: this groundswell of demand for "securing our borders" has nothing to do with terrorism or national security or unemployment rate or "drains on our tax dollars." Those are straw man arguments.

Are you in the right thread? Who's making those arguments? Or are you just pointing that out for . . some reason?

12AX7 · « **Reply #24 on:** December 07, 2007, 11:34:40 AM »

I'm going to come flat out and say it, too: that sort of post is a real wet blanket on serious discussion. I dont know who you were actually pointing that racist comment at, as most of us on this board are Americans; and I myself am about the farthest thing from racist as one can be, but that post basically shouts "If you disagree with me; STFU, you racist!" That doesn't really encourage people to get involved in the discussion.

News:

Recent Forum Posts

Shout Box

Author Topic: Did you know the Constitution is totally optional? (Read 20752 times)

12AX7

12AX7

12AX7

12AX7

12AX7

12AX7

12AX7

12AX7

12AX7

12AX7

12AX7

12AX7

12AX7