On Immigration, Americans Prefer Candidate Who Favors Barrier

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

gilliam

Guest
On Immigration,

Americans Prefer Candidate Who Favors Barrier

In a hypothetical match-up, 46% of Americans said they prefer a candidate who favors building a barrier along the Mexican border over a candidate who wants to expand legal opportunities for foreign workers to find jobs. Thirty-eight percent (38%) prefer the latter candidate.

However, the number who say the immigration issue is very important in determining their vote prefer the pro-enforcement candidate by a much larger margin, 67% to 23%. More…
 
gilliam said:
On Immigration,

Americans Prefer Candidate Who Favors Barrier

In a hypothetical match-up, 46% of Americans said they prefer a candidate who favors building a barrier along the Mexican border over a candidate who wants to expand legal opportunities for foreign workers to find jobs. Thirty-eight percent (38%) prefer the latter candidate.

However, the number who say the immigration issue is very important in determining their vote prefer the pro-enforcement candidate by a much larger margin, 67% to 23%. More…
The survey found that a majority (54%) oppose the current U.S. law that grants automatic citizenship to children of illegal aliens born in the United States. Thirty-six percent (36%) favor this policy.
Among those who say immigration is a very important voting issue, 63% oppose automatic citizenship.
That many people oppose what the 14th Amendment to the Constitution says!? Considering that it takes 2/3 of the States or 2/3 of each house of Congress to amend the Constitution, good luck in getting it changed.
 
It’s an interesting poll question, but I haven’t heard of any great movement for an amendment.
40.png
LCMS_No_More:
That many people oppose what the 14th Amendment to the Constitution says!? Considering that it takes 2/3 of the States or 2/3 of each house of Congress to amend the Constitution, good luck in getting it changed.
 
40.png
LCMS_No_More:
That many people oppose what the 14th Amendment to the Constitution says!? Considering that it takes 2/3 of the States or 2/3 of each house of Congress to amend the Constitution, good luck in getting it changed.
I don’t think you need to have a constitutional amendment. You simply need to change the US code that defines it. We talked about this before and at the time I agreed with you that we probably need an amendment. Since then I have done some reading and we really might not.

Here is the pertinent part of the 14th Amendment:

Section. 1. 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.

The key words here are AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF. If it is defined that a person’s parents are not citizens of the US and are therefore subject to the jurisdiction of another government. The children could be considered non-citizens even if they are born in the US. It would only take a slight change to Title 8 of the U.S. Code Section 1401, not an amendment to the Constitution.

Although I do agree, I don’t see a big movement to make this happen. People simply want our borders enforced.
 
40.png
gilliam:
I don’t think you need to have a constitutional amendment. You simply need to change the US code that defines it. We talked about this before and at the time I agreed with you that we probably need an amendment. Since then I have done some reading and we really might not.

Here is the pertinent part of the 14th Amendment:

Section. 1. 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.

The key words here are AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF. If it is defined that a person’s parents are not citizens of the US and are therefore subject to the jurisdiction of another government. The children could be considered non-citizens even if they are born in the US. It would only take a slight change to Title 8 of the U.S. Code Section 1401, not an amendment to the Constitution.
The amendment doesn’t speak to the status of the parents. Neither does the reference to the US code. Now, you can twist and torture the text to make it read any way you wish and I’m sure that the new right-wing controlled Supreme Court may even comply (and it would be 5-4 because your reading of it is ludicrous), but that doesn’t mean it says what you want it to say.
Although I do agree, I don’t see a big movement to make this happen. People simply want our borders enforced.
Well, some of the more rabid (and I don’t mean literal foaming-at-the-mouth…radical doesn’t apply to “conservative” causes) anti-immigrant groups do want this. Some extremist right-wing talk show hosts want this, too.
 
Oh contraire, minor children, in US Law, are always subject to the juristiction of their parents unless specified by US Law. It would be very easy to amend the code to address children of immigrants. The code comes very close to doing that now and, in fact, specifies the status of the parents in a number of sections as a prerequisite for citizenship. Here is Title 8 of the U.S. Code Section 1401:

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;

(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;

(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;

(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;

(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;

(f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;

(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person indent honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or

(B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and

(h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.

[/indent]

I am not saying I totally endorse this move. But we are one of the few nations that still allow for this sort of path to citizenship.

www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001401----000-.html
 
40.png
LCMS_No_More:
Now, you can twist and torture the text to make it read any way you wish and I’m sure that the new right-wing controlled Supreme Court may even comply (and it would be 5-4 because your reading of it is ludicrous), but that doesn’t mean it says what you want it to say.
There’s a handy-dandy mischaracterization of the US Supreme Court. Unless you have evidence the court is right-wing controlled, of course;)
 
40.png
LCMS_No_More:
Well, some of the more rabid (and I don’t mean literal foaming-at-the-mouth…radical doesn’t apply to “conservative” causes) anti-immigrant groups do want this. Some extremist right-wing talk show hosts want this, too.
The poll seems to contradict you It shows a much stronger support than you indicate here.

Also, please read this on name calling… it is against forum guidelines:
Name Calling <<== PLEASE READ
 
40.png
Geldain:
There’s a handy-dandy mischaracterization of the US Supreme Court. Unless you have evidence the court is right-wing controlled, of course;)
Well, considering there are now 4 “conservatives” on the court and one swing vote that leans “conservative.” What was it Ann Coulter said about poisoning one of the liberal Justices? 😉

In that case, it will definitely be a right-wing court and this country will be the worse as a result.

In my opinion.
 
40.png
gilliam:
The poll seems to contradict you It shows a much stronger support than you indicate here.
I was agreeing with you! There’s not much of a groundswell to remove the birthright. I expanded to say, except among rabid anti-immigrant groups and extremist right-wing talk-show hosts. This is true.
Also, please read this on name calling… it is against forum guidelines:
Name Calling <<== PLEASE READ
Now just a minute here! It’s perfectly acceptable to call people communist and liberal but to use an adjective to refer to the political view of groups (rabid anti-immigrant groups) or certain professions (extremist right-wing talk show hosts) is beyond the pale?

What if these anti-immigrant groups are extremist and radical?

What if the talk show hosts are extremely on the far right wing?

One cannot refer to them as such? This is exactly why I think that many people have a double standard when it comes to these things.
 
Now just a minute here! It’s perfectly acceptable to call people communist and liberal but to use an adjective to refer to the political view of groups (rabid anti-immigrant groups) or certain professions (extremist right-wing talk show hosts) is beyond the pale?
No it isn’t perfectly acceptable to call anyone a name, and if someone does, and you see it, you should report it. (press the triangle thingy in the top of the post you are reading and that will open up a window where you can complain)… one of the moderators will do something about it.
 
40.png
gilliam:
No it isn’t perfectly acceptable to call anyone a name, and if someone does, and you see it, you should report it. (press the triangle thingy in the top of the post you are reading and that will open up a window where you can complain)… one of the moderators will do something about it.
Describing someone for their political views is not the same as calling them a name.

Some groups are rabidly anti-immigrant. That’s a fact. Some talk-show hosts are extremely right-wing.
 
40.png
LCMS_No_More:
Well, considering there are now 4 “conservatives” on the court and one swing vote that leans “conservative.” What was it Ann Coulter said about poisoning one of the liberal Justices? 😉

In that case, it will definitely be a right-wing court and this country will be the worse as a result.

In my opinion.
From where I sit, a conservative US Supreme Court is the medicine the nation has been needing for a good while.

I’m thrilled we will have a 5-4 court where the majority upholds the Consititution instead of seeing things in it that do not exisist.
 
Tone also carries a lot of weight with me. People who talk down to certain groups and throw lables around turn me off right away. I tend to leave conversations that go in that direction pretty quickly.
 
40.png
LCMS_No_More:
I’m sure that the new right-wing controlled Supreme Court may even comply.
Yeah, Supreme Court 2006.0 is a hundred times better than the older versions, like version 1972.0 thru 2005.0. Those versions approved such great liberal causes as abortion, the right for the governent to take private property for private use, etc.
 
40.png
LCMS_No_More:
Describing someone for their political views is not the same as calling them a name.
True! I have no problem with someone describing my political perspective as conservative. I am certainly a right-winger and proud to be. I also have no problem calling any law or political group liberal, leftist, socialist, conservative or communist if they are promoting policies which identify them as such;)
 
40.png
LCMS_No_More:
What if these anti-immigrant groups are extremist and radical?
Hey! I’m not a radical…or am I???
40.png
LCMS_No_More:
What if the talk show hosts are extremely on the far right wing?
I’ll say what we are both thinking: Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage have gone off the deep-end with their inflated ego’s.
 
40.png
wabrams:
Hey! I’m not a radical…or am I???
Depends on what you’re talking about and your views.
I’ll say what we are both thinking: Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage have gone off the deep-end with their inflated ego’s.
Their views are also off the deep end. 😦

By the way, here’s an example of an extremist anti-immigrant group and their tortured reading of the 14th amendment:
 
40.png
LCMS_No_More:
Depends on what you’re talking about and your views.

Their views are also off the deep end. 😦

By the way, here’s an example of an extremist anti-immigrant group and their tortured reading of the 14th amendment:
You guys need to remember that Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage ARE ENTERTAINERS. They are not sociologists, philosophers, historians or politicians. They get paid big bucks for getting an audience to listen to commercials about buying gold, financial funds and used cars. They do NOT get bonuses for being morally straight.
 
40.png
wabrams:
I’ll say what we are both thinking: Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage have gone off the deep-end with their inflated ego’s.
I agree with your characterization of Savage.

I don’t agree with your characterization of Limbaugh. He sounds the same to me as he did when I 1st heard him 10 years ago.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top