immigration your opinions

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I didn't know you lived in a socialist country.......

It seems theres much about America you dont know.

[bmolsson]

It seems theres much about America you dont know.

True, but you guy's buys shiploads of my Spanish-American dictionary, so I am not complaining......

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I buy lots of stuff off the internet from your country. What amazing prices you have over there.

[bmolsson]

I buy lots of stuff off the internet from your country. What amazing prices you have over there.

True, it's a really nice country... As long as you have money....

[Redleg]

Repealing that amendment is what their talking of doing. It no different than repealing prohibition. We were a huge country with a small population when that was written. It was not in the original constitution.

Do you really want to go there - the 2d Ammendment is not in the original also - and all it would take is someone to go through the constitutional ammendment process to get it repealled.

Then again you might want to check the date of the Ammendment - it was not written and passed in the 18th Century - but in the 2nd half of the 19th Century.

And just like the constitutional process states - I can campaign to keep the ammendment as written, or to repeal it, and even to have it changed - but it must follow the constitutional ammendment process.

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.

Two thirds of the Congress will not repeal the amendment about citizenship being granted at birth - just like many other purposed amendments in the last few years - it takes a lot of effort to change the constitution and the current amendment about citizenship is a good one as it stands now.

Better enforcement of the current laws is what is needed - not denying the right to citizenship to children born in the United States by individuals who crossed here illegal. Hell - send the parents back to their country of orgin - they have no right to stay in the country - they can either take thier child who is a United States citizen back with them - or give the child up for adoption - but the child is a citizen and is entitled to the priviledges of citizenship the second they are born in the United States.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Then again you might want to check the date of the Ammendment - it was not written and passed in the 18th Century - but in the 2nd half of the 19th Century.

Thats why I brought it up and even explained why it was a good idea at the time.

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.

Come on Redleg you know you dont have to quote the constitution to me

Two thirds of the Congress will not repeal the amendment about citizenship being granted at birth - just like many other purposed amendments in the last few years - it takes a lot of effort to change the constitution and the current amendment about citizenship is a good one as it stands now.

Well thats your opinion and your entitled to it though again I dissagree. If it doesnt pass so be it. The people have spoken. So you think its good to reward people for breaking the law?

Better enforcement of the current laws is what is needed - not denying the right to citizenship to children born in the United States by individuals who crossed here illegal.

Again so you would reward the children for the sins of the parents. As I said in the other thread if I rob a bank and give the money to my kids should they be allowed to keep it or should we punish them and take it away?

[Redleg]

Thats why I brought it up and even explained why it was a good idea at the time.

So in an era of population growth not only from immigration but also population birth in the 1860's the law made sense - and even today it makes sense.

Come on Redleg you know you dont have to quote the constitution to me

Not just you - but anyone that reads the thread - everyone must understand how the process works - so they can follow the arguement.

Well thats your opinion and your entitled to it though again I dissagree. If it doesnt pass so be it. The people have spoken. So you think its good to reward people for breaking the law?

The child born on United States soil is not breaking the law. Should the child be charged for the sins of his/her parents?

Again so you would reward the children for the sins of the parents.

Nope I would grant the child the rights and status granted to them by the Constitution for being born on United States soil. Would you, again, punish the child for the sins of the parent?

As I said in the other thread if I rob a bank and give the money to my kids should they be allowed to keep it or should we punish them and take it away?

Nice try Gaiwan - complete different scenerio's, and a nice way to avoid the already stated postion. Your robbing the bank and giving money to your childern doesn't come close to the same. For one the right of having money is stolen by your parents is not in the constitution - however the right to citizenship by birth on United States soil is. Punish the parents for their crime - ie deport them back to thier country of orgin - but the child remains a citizen of the nation in which he was born into.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

So in an era of population growth not only from immigration but also population birth in the 1860's the law made sense - and even today it makes sense.

I dont see how it makes sense today.

Not just you - but anyone that reads the thread - everyone must understand how the process works - so they can follow the arguement.

Thats what I thought.

The child born on United States soil is not breaking the law. Should the child be charged for the sins of his/her parents?

They will be if we change the law.

Nice try Gaiwan - complete different scenerio's, and a nice way to avoid the already stated postion. Your robbing the bank and giving money to your childern doesn't come close to the same. For one the right of having money is stolen by your parents is not in the constitution - however the right to citizenship by birth on United States soil is.

Nice try yourself. Again your ignoring the fact that I want the law changed. I certainly dont want to deport those who have already been born here. So if the law is changed my analogy is perfectly correct.

Punish the parents for their crime - ie deport them back to thier country of orgin - but the child remains a citizen of the nation in which he was born into.

So send the parents back but keep the child here? Doesnt sound very good. Or let then take the kid back to mexico and move here anytime it wants? How is making the child live with and be a citizen of the country their parents live in punishing them? Man the libs must be eating this debate up.

[Redleg]

I dont see how it makes sense today.

So your entitled to your opinion on the amendment. If it gets repealed I will support the will of the people - however until then the amendment makes sense still

Thats what I thought.

No problem - to many try to spout opinion about immigration without understand what we are actually talking about.

They will be if we change the law.

Then the amendment is repealed or modified - IAW the constitutional process - a fair and representive process of the national will

Nice try yourself. Again your ignoring the fact that I want the law changed. I certainly dont want to deport those who have already been born here. So if the law is changed my analogy is perfectly correct.

Since the law is not changed - the analogy is not perfect, and is at best hyperbole. You attempted to challenge my belief based upon the current constitution amendment with an unnecessary and incorrect anology - so you deserved the response that you recieved.

So send the parents back but keep the child here? Doesnt sound very good. Or let then take the kid back to mexico and move here anytime it wants? How is making the child live with and be a citizen of the country their parents live in punishing them? Man the libs must be eating this debate up.

Yep the child is a citizen by birth currently- by denying them the right granted in the consitution would indeed be punishment. If the amendment changes to what you would like - then it would not be punishment since the amendment has been changed by the required process. Would I support that change - nope because I believe that the current wording of the amendment is valid, current, and applies to the country still today.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Since the law is not changed - the analogy is not perfect, and is at best hyperbole. You attempted to challenge my belief based upon the current constitution amendment with an unnecessary and incorrect anology - so you deserved the response that you recieved.

No I didnt. I always said if the law was changed. I agreed with you that it would be wrong under the law today. Im not an idiot you know.

Yep the child is a citizen by birth currently- by denying them the right granted in the consitution would indeed be punishment. If the amendment changes to what you would like - then it would not be punishment since the amendment has been changed by the required process. Would I support that change - nope because I believe that the current wording of the amendment is valid, current, and applies to the country still today.

You see we totaly agree then. What we had here was a failure to communicate. It apllies today only because it is the law. I never denied that.