Immigration Rallies Planned Nationwide

[mary_bobo]

I don’t want it recinded. I want it applied as intended.

The word citizen is important. The word person and phrase “equal protection” are also important, but in no way does the 14th indicate that the founding fathers intended it to be used as it is today. It was intended for those within the border prior to it’s passage who were not considered citizens (slaves), and assuming those that came after (immigrants) did so in accordance with the laws that regulate the border and immigration.

It is being abused now and such abuse shows in the dilema of splitting apart families because a non-citizen mother has a child in the US, the child is given citizenship, but not the mother or father. The 14th was not intended to be a lottery for the poor in other countries. If you think it is, please cite law or reason why you think that.

Look at the Catholic perspective. A law that splits apart families is not a good law. Enforcing the 14th as it is today is immoral because it does not take into account the parents, and by supporting the current view of the law, one supports the breakup of the family.

Now, one can try and ammend the law to make the parents automatic citizens if the baby is born in the US by non-US citizens to alliviate the problem, or one can ammend the law to state a child born in the US by non-US citizen, non-leagal resident parents are a citizen of the country the parents are from, and not the US.

If those are the two extremes of the argument- which so you think is closest to the original intent?

I understand the Constitution. I prefer the second option. I understand what the founding fathers were saying, but I happen to think they had no idea how far this would be taken. I don’t blame the poor immigrants, I blame our spineless politicians who see what it happening and refuse to ignore it for a few votes.

 

[Verisimilitude]

I understand the Constitution. I prefer the second option. I understand what the founding fathers were saying, but I happen to think they had no idea how far this would be taken. I don’t blame the poor immigrants, I blame our spineless politicians who see what it happening and refuse to ignore it for a few votes.

I agree, and hold US politicians and US employers with the most blame, but the immigants are not totally blameless either since the efforts taken to get here are clearly designed to subvert the law. I also blame people like Texas Roofer and Ituyu who, if they are US citizens propogate the continued misuse of the 14th and other Amendments. If they are not citizens they have no standing in the argument since they have no legal right to effect change in US law by legal voting.

 

[mary_bobo]

I agree, and hold US politicians and US employers with the most blame, but the immigants are not totally blameless either since the efforts taken to get here are clearly designed to subvert the law. I also blame people like Texas Roofer and Ituyu who, if they are US citizens propogate the continued misuse of the 14th and other Amendments. If they are not citizens they have no standing in the argument since they have no legal right to effect change in US law by legal voting.

I agree with going after the businesses who hire illegals. I often hear that they are doing work that Americans won’t do. Surprise, but they won’t do them for the same pay. By the way, you live in a beautiful part of the country. We lived outside of Denver for ten years before it grew so big. We still have three acres on Horseshoe Mountain.

 

[Ituyu]

The Supreme Court has defined “Citizenship” and it is very different from what has been used on this thread.

Throughout this country’s history, the fundamental legal principle governing citizenship has been that birth within the territorial limits of the United States confers United States citizenship. The Constitution itself rests on this principle of the common law. (1) As Justice Noah Swayne wrote in one of the first judicial decisions interpreting the Civil Rights Act of 1866, (2) the word "Citizens 'under our constitution and laws means free inhabitants born within the United States or naturalized under the laws of Congress.’ We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States." (3) When Justice Swayne wrote these words, the nation was only beginning to recover from a great Civil War sparked in no small part by the Supreme Court’s tragically misguided decision in the Dred Scott case. (4) That decision sought to modify the founders’ rule of citizenship by denying American citizenship to a class of persons born within the United States. In response to Dred Scott and to the Civil War, Congress enacted the 1866 Act, and Congress and the States adopted the Fourteenth Amendment in order to place the right to citizenship based on birth within the jurisdiction of the United States beyond question. Any restriction on that right contradicts both the Fourteenth Amendment and the underlying principle that the amendment safeguards.
The several bills and resolutions now before Congress that would deny citizenship to children born in the United States to certain classes of alien parents raise various issues of law and policy. My testimony today will address two points of constitutional law. First, because the rule of citizenship acquired by birth within the United States is the law of the Constitution, it cannot be changed through legislation, but only by amending the Constitution. A bill such as H.R. 1363, 104th Cong. (1995), the “Citizenship Reform Act of 1995,” that purports to deny citizenship by birth to persons born within the jurisdiction of this country is unconstitutional on its face. Second, the proposed constitutional amendments on this topic conflict with basic constitutional principles. To adopt such an amendment would not be technically unlawful, but it would flatly contradict our constitutional history and our constitutional traditions.
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/deny.tes.31.htm

 

[Ituyu]

Verisimilitude,

I think it safe to conclude that your position contradicts the tenet’s of our founding fathers and interpret our Constitutional rights in a way that contradict our most cherished and fundamental American Traditions.

 

[Verisimilitude]

Verisimilitude,

I think it safe to conclude that your position contradicts the tenet’s of our founding fathers and interpret our Constitutional rights in a way that contradict our most cherished and fundamental American Traditions.

Keep trying. What went on at Ellis Island is lawfull tradition. The question above remains. Either you make the parents citizens too, or you deny citizenship to the child by ammending the Constitution. Keep in mind it only needs ammending because people like you read more into it than was intended and have applied it inappropriately. It doesn’t mean what you think it does.

I disagree with:

To adopt such an amendment would not be technically unlawful, but it would flatly contradict our constitutional history and our constitutional traditions.

See you in US court.

The Supreme Court has defined “Citizenship” and it is very different from what has been used on this thread.

Your quoted reference does not support that statement. What is your definition?

Thsi defines citizen pretty well:

Main Entry: cit·i·zen
Pronunciation: \ˈsi-tə-zən also -sən\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English citizein, from Anglo-French citezein, alteration of citeien, from cité city
Date: 14th century
1: an inhabitant of a city or town; especially : one entitled to the rights and privileges of a freeman
2 a: a member of a state b: a native or naturalized person who owes allegiance to a government and is entitled to protection from it
3: a civilian as distinguished from a specialized servant of the state
— cit·i·zen·ly -zən-lē also -sən-\ adjective
synonyms citizen, subject, national mean a person owing allegiance to and entitled to the protection of a sovereign state. **citizen is preferred for one owing allegiance **to a state in which sovereign power is retained by the people and sharing in the political rights of those people . subject implies allegiance to a personal sovereign such as a monarch <the king’s subjects>. national designates one who may claim the protection of a state and applies especially to one living or traveling outside that state .

Try this link:
bensguide.gpo.gov/3-5/citizenship/index.html

Of if that is too far above your pay grade, try this one:
legalzoom.com/law_library/immigration/immigration_01.html

This is interesting:
travel.state.gov/family/adoption/info/info_448.html

Are you saying you want to grant citizenship for immigrants other than meet these requiremens?

You have been a Lawful Permanent Resident for at least 5 years.
You have been a Lawful Permanent Resident for at least 3 years AND:

You have been married to and living with the same U.S. citizen for the last 3 years; AND
Your spouse has been a U.S. citizen for the last 3 years.

You are a person who has served in the U.S. Armed Forces AND:

You are a Lawful Permanent Resident with at least 1 year of U.S. Armed Forces service and you are either on active duty or filing within 6 months of honorable discharge; OR
You served in the Armed Forces for less than 1 year OR you served in the Armed Forces for 1 year or more, but you were discharged more than 6 months ago. Under this class, you must also have 5 years as a Permanent Resident without leaving the U.S. for trips of 6 months or longer. (Note: If you were out of the country as part of your service, this time out of the country does not break your “continuous residence.” It is treated just like time spent in the United States.); OR
You served during a period of recognized hostilities and enlisted or re-enlisted in the United States (you do not need to be a Lawful Permanent Resident).

You are a member of one of several other groups who are eligible to apply for naturalization (for example, persons who are nationals but not citizens of the United States).

Additional Requirements:

Demonstrating that you have good moral character;

Demonstrating knowledge of U.S, government and history (civics);

Demonstrating attachment to the U.S. by taking an oath of allegiance to the U.S. Constitution;
A period of continuous residence and physical presence in the United States;

Residence in a particular state or district prior to filing; and

An ability to read, write, and speak English.

Are these unreasonable requirements?

 

[dawgfan]

I’m sure any source will be met with a dismissive attitude if it disagrees with open unregulated borders.

Well the ones that come from accused bigots and antisemites sure are. When you use sources that are from the fringe to push your argument, you certainly are not helping the anti-illegal immigration cause.

What makes you think I want open borders?

 

[Verisimilitude]

What makes you think I want open borders?

I spoke from the assumption that you don’t, and intended my response in a lighter manner; i.e. I was being facetious. I apologize for being unsuccessful and/or if I assumed wrong.

Would the official US Department of State site, under the heading:
Citizenship and Nationality, answer/refute/define what being a citizen is to the satisfaction of Texas and/or Ituyu or any that think US law is unfair or unclear?

travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_782.html

I read the offical sites and seem to come to a different conclusion than they do, just as I read the legal rulings they cite as their “proof”, and generally conclude it supports my position anyway so I have nothing to refute except their interpretation.

I do not see millions of non-US Citizens marching with impunity in opposition to US law as a good, just, or legal thing. I don’t care if they are murderous Mexicans looking for work, or benevolent Terrorists looking for heaven, citizenship is required to express that right of discension particularly if no where else but on US soil.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

By who and how?

By those who have authority and the legal right to do so: US citizens in the courts and at the polls.

Actually NO, US citizens do not and never have had the authority to challenge the Constitution in court. BTW there would be no court to hear the argument, the courts we have today are formed under the authority of the Constitution to excercise the Constitution.

Let me help you, to alter the Constitution there is a procedure setup which requires a certain (2/3) percentage of state radifications or congressional voting (2/3 both houses).

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Hate mongering is a sign of emotional problems, yes websites which support such activity are desmissed

So as long as something disagrees with your personal view it is hate mongering?

no, hate monger is typically defined by a speaker who claim any group can be categorized as determent because of __________ In this case some one on these forums claims they can look at a picture of people and KNOW these people are criminals who are illegally in this country and are detrimental to this country, his personal view of their pictures tells him this information, that certainly meets the standard as does the similar comments on the websites you post

Your bias is the standard you use to justify illegal and immoral activity.

Again more false accusations. Does it every occur to you that the ZERO PROOF you provide maybe the key to the problem? site the immoral action you have READ FROM ME NOT PERCIEVED IN YOUR MIND, same for illegal action, whops… again you have nothing

My bias is weighed with the law,

based on your writing we can not take this seriously, review the last post you made to me or several of the earlier posts about identification, etc

moral obligations, and life experience. Willful ignorance will only keep you from making a reasoned, fair determination, but being blinded by unrestrained emotion, you fail.

willful ignorance would be to follow one whose accusation are unsupported and contrary to facts

Labeling me a hate monger or racist is an opinion you can’t support, but used to deflect the argument so that difficult topics are left without discussion. Honesty and integrity are required in the small things in order to evaluate the truth of the big things. I question yours with good reason.

first I did not label you a hate monger though you may well be forcing the concept down everybody’s throat. What I wrote is the sources you site are known hate monger sources. To expand those sites claim to evaluate people on birth condition. Second your simply spinning again one can not be honest, or have integrity until they practice such, however one who is dishonest can always claim both (usually with having the fast horses, pretties girl, etc).

If you presented some evidence, or data showing the detrimental affects of ______________( what dark skined people) we could evaluate that instead of reading the name calling, or we could return to your original accusation and evaluate those if you would like

 

[Verisimilitude]

Let me help you, to alter the Constitution there is a procedure setup which requires a certain (2/3) percentage of state radifications or congressional voting (2/3 both houses).

Let me help you. Who votes for state representatives- legal US citizens. Where? The polls.

Same goes for both houses of Congress.

Who is supposed to be acting on behalf of the will of the people? Those whom the people elect by voting. It’s why they call it a represntative republic.

 

[Verisimilitude]

In this case some one on these forums claims they can look at a picture of people and KNOW these people are criminals who are illegally in this country and are detrimental to this country, his personal view of their pictures tells him this information, that certainly meets the standard as does the similar comments on the websites you post

Legal, law abiding US citizens or illegal immigrants?



http://www.michnews.com/b/Hate Speach - by Pro-Illegal Alien.jpg

http://img122.imageshack.us/img122/386/illegalimgnocompromisesig1rp.jpg

Again more false accusations. Does it every occur to you that the ZERO PROOF you provide maybe the key to the problem?

Not false, and not zero proof. Every law you cite, every illogical heart felt freedom you espouse on non-citizens has not proved your case. Just becasue you want it to be true does not make it true.

If you presented some evidence, or data showing the detrimental affects of ______________( what dark skined people) we could evaluate that instead of reading the name calling, or we could return to your original accusation and evaluate those if you would like

I’m off to church with my dark skinned wife.

I asked you before what you didn’t like about my first post and all you came up with is a word you didn’t like and still don’t like. We have covered a lot of ground already: what it means to be a citizen, why citizenship is imporatant and required, and why non-citizens cannot not just walk accross the border and demand those rights afforded to US citizens.

What else don’t you like?

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Legal, law abiding US citizens or illegal immigrants?

So which person in these pictures is illegal or detrimental?

 

[Texas_Roofer]

By those who have authority and the legal right to do so: US citizens in the courts and at the polls.

Let me help you. Who votes for state representatives- legal US citizens. Where? The polls.

Same goes for both houses of Congress.

Who is supposed to be acting on behalf of the will of the people? Those whom the people elect by voting. It’s why they call it a represntative republic.

Seams your impling “in the courts” is not an option?

 

[Verisimilitude]

So which person in these pictures is illegal or detrimental?

You tell me. I cannot imagine a legal US citizen demanding “amnesty now”, can you? I don’t believe all Europenas since 1492 are illegals, do you?

 

[Verisimilitude]

Seams your impling “in the courts” is not an option?

It’s pretty useless to discuss this with you since comprehension of the not very complex escapes you.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

You tell me. I cannot imagine a legal US citizen demanding “amnesty now”, can you?

sure why not, if you allowed all working Mexicans to apply for a green card, enroll in a probation period in which their employment would be occasionally checked, and then become legal guest workers, that would be good for the US and thus it would make perfect sense.

I don’t believe all Europeans since 1492 are illegal’s, do you?

Why would it matter what I believe? They have the right to peaceful assembly and government protest. My guess is they are trying to stretch some minds into understanding their ancestor roamed these lands, and the current conflict with Euro-whites started when the Euro-whites entered North America not the other way around.

 

[Verisimilitude]

I’m going to answer every one of your questions:

sure why not,

Because, eventhe most dishonest citizen to the most honorable illegal immigrant knows that crossing into the US with deception is morally as well as breaking international and US immigration laws.

if you allowed all working Mexicans to apply for a green card, enroll in a probation period in which their employment would be occasionally checked, and then become legal guest workers, that would be good for the US and thus it would make perfect sense.

That’s a statement, not a question but it deserves comment. Allowed = changed our law; Mexican = not for other immigrants in the US illegally; Checked = perfect sense = it makes me happy because it includes my family…?

Why would it matter what I believe?

Let’s not forget we are both declared Catholics on a Catholic forum.

They have the right to peaceful assembly and government protest. My guess is they are trying to stretch some minds into understanding their ancestor roamed these lands, and the current conflict with Euro-whites started when the Euro-whites entered North America not the other way around.

Another amazing statement. they= those here illegally, rights= we went over that. You are wrong. conflict = millions (20M) of people demanding protection under our law while breaking it.

Euro-whites = :bigyikes: uch: :doh2: :juggle: :console:

 

[Texas_Roofer]

The post is rather hard to understand

I’m going to answer every one of your questions:

Because, even the most dishonest citizen to the most honorable illegal immigrant knows that crossing into the US with deception is morally as well as breaking international and US immigration laws.

Holding a sign for amnesty does not make any one dishonest or an illegal immigrant. Again you make a sweeping statement about a person after seeing a picture. My guess is the person is a regular US citizen. I have no reason to believe the person in the picture broke any laws “US” or “international”

That’s a statement, not a question but it deserves comment. Allowed = changed our law; Mexican = not for other immigrants in the US illegally; Checked = perfect sense = it makes me happy because it includes my family…? /I do not have a problem extending the same to others provided it is tied into a plan to allow the green card prior to (or during) entering the US in the future. The difference here is Mexico is a neighboring and poor country

Let’s not forget we are both declared Catholics on a Catholic forum.

Another amazing statement. they= those here illegally, rights= we went over that. You are wrong. conflict = millions (20M) of people demanding protection under our law while breaking it.

Euro-whites = :bigyikes: uch: :doh2: :juggle: :console:

Concerning the Euro-whites; you posted the picture if you did not know 1492 is when an Italian sailing for Spain first landed in present day US, that is probably what the poster is referencing in the “1492”. He is telling you they also arrived with out an invitation, however your definition of invitation may again be problematic in understanding his sign.

 

[Verisimilitude]

The difference here is Mexico is a neighboring and poor country Concerning the Euro-whites; you posted the picture if you did not know 1492 is when an Italian sailing for Spain first landed in present day US, that is probably what the poster is referencing in the “1492”. He is telling you they also arrived with out an invitation, however your definition of invitation may again be problematic in understanding his sign.

Well, at least we are clearer now. For you it is all about Mexico and not immigrants in general.

This is where he went in 1492.


Are you a product of US public education?