Thread: Conservative Immigration Reform Bill

Originally Posted by apropos

So, you support states being able to impose bans on firearms, regardless of how arbitrary, and also permitting states to restrict freedom of speech?

Considering those are rights protected by other amendments in the Constitution, I don't see how repealing a separate amendment would endanger the right to bear arms and freedom of speech. I would argue that an overbearing federal government empowered by the 14th to "assign rights" is much more dangerous to liberty than fifty individual states with fewer resources, weaker armies, and more local accountability.

Sorry, and I truly mean no disrespect, that's not true. The 1st Amendment does not apply to States. Under a pure 1st Amendment reading, which says "Congress shall make no law...", the state of California could pass a law banning newspapers from criticizing illegal immigrants.

It's through the "due process" clause of the 14th Amendment that these prohibitions apply to the States.

The Supreme Court is actually in March considering a case as to whether the 2nd Amendment applies to the states via the 14th Amendment (the Heller case from a few years ago didn't cover this, as it was the District of Columbia, and not in a "state").

My tone was confrontational, but my intent was to caution you against throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

JeffDG,

1. The law applies to everyone in the country. Only an imbecile would suggest otherwise.

2. That E Pluribu Unum has been abandoned is the problem, I and my fellow Americans are insisting that we get back to what has served us so splendidly in the past. And you argue against that because...?

3. With all the foreign worker visa programs, labor certification/condition, etc..., the sole purpose is to replace Americans with foreigners. Regardless of the wait required, foreign workers are a problem, and pose a major threat to our economic health.

4. Xenophobe: one unduly fearful of what is foreign and especially of people of foreign origin.

Fear has nothing to do with my motivation.

I am motivated by the desire to defend my country, my fellow Americans, my children and their future, all of which are in danger due to the onslaught of outsiders who are here for no other reason than to replace Americans for the purpose of destroying this nation. This is the direct result of foreign worker policies which are designed to just that. That they are foreigners is incidental to the dynamic. If it were Alfred Hitchcock’s Birds I would be just as vehement in my resolve.

Imagine if all these foreigners took the same responsibility for themselves in their homelands instead of coming here and demanding the rights of American citizens for themselves, by the way. The world might be a better place, No?

As an American citizen, it is my personal responsibility to protect my country and my progeny. By the example of our selfless immigrant ancestors, that’s what true Americans do. You remember personal responsibility, don’t you? It’s when you take care of your problems yourself instead of heaping them on someone else to resolve.

Those who do not take responsibility for these things are at the very most complicit; at the very least, they're whores.

I chose instead to call you a troll. It seemed considerably more polite.

Originally Posted by melena29

JeffDG,

1. The law applies to everyone in the country. Only an imbecile would suggest otherwise.

I merely point out the futility of arguing that those born to foreigners in the US are not "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States"

Clearly foreigners are "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States, with the narrow exception of Ambassadors and other diplomatic personnel.

Originally Posted by melena29

2. That E Pluribu Unum has been abandoned is the problem, I and my fellow Americans are insisting that we get back to what has served us so splendidly in the past. And you argue against that because...?

I do not argue against it. You are arguing that those moving to the US are overwhelming the US culture, which I disagree with. The US culture is incredibly powerful, and the vast majority of immigrants (by which I mean legal immigrants, not illegal aliens) are absorbed therein. I guess I have more confidence in the US to absorb foreigners that you do.

Originally Posted by melena29

3. With all the foreign worker visa programs, labor certification/condition, etc..., the sole purpose is to replace Americans with foreigners. Regardless of the wait required, foreign workers are a problem, and pose a major threat to our economic health.

In that you're just plain wrong. H-1b LCA is very much as you describe.

But EB-3 Labor Certification is a completely different process. A compnay is required to recruit US persons (I would say US Citizens, but they are not permitted to discriminate between citizens and lawful permanent residents). They must provide detailed reasons for any applicant that they do not accept. They must show that the qualifications are tied to the job (so you can't make fluency in Spanish a requirement for a landscaping job for example). They must show that there are no US persons who are qualified to do the job.

So, the company now has a job that they have advertised (on their web site, through the local State Workforce Agency, and in at least 2 Sunday newspapers), found nobody qualified to do. Now they need to wait 5-7 years before actually hiring someone to do the job.

Originally Posted by melena29

4. Xenophobe: one unduly fearful of what is foreign and especially of people of foreign origin.

I respectfully withdraw the charge of Xenophobia. I tend to get a bit worked up when I am lumped in with illegals, however, my rhetoric went beyond what was reasonable in the discourse. Please accept my unconditional apology.

JeffDG wrote:

OK...I guess I misunderstood from the title that "Americans for Legal Immigration" meant that there was support for those who come to the US legally, and opposition to those who break the law to get here. I now understand that it's just another gathering of Xenophobic people, 99% of whom are descended of immigrants themselves who feel that "We're here now, let's pull the ladder up behind us".

Immigration policies do not exist for the benefit of the immigrant, but rather for the protection of the nation and its people. It is the responsibility of any nation to limit, scrutinize, and tailor immigration quotas to ensure that they serve the best interest of its citizens.

Even legal immigration must have limits. We are on the verge of overpopulation; the only reasonable response to which is to:

1. Control our own population through responsible procreation, which we have been doing for years.
2. Limit the number of people allowed to enter through immigration, which we are working on now.

It’s all common sense, and in the best interest of America. That it doesn’t serve your objective is not my problem.

On another note: Granting citizenship to children of legal immigrants who are not citizens is folly for two reasons:
First, children will have the same allegiance as their parents (this is why you are having such a difficult time with Americans right now).

Second, because of chain migration, which brings in the rest of the family without demanding the same commitment that naturalized citizens have made.

I say this out of respect and admiration for foreigners who’ve made the same sacrifice and commitment my great-grandparents made. And I expect no less from today’s immigrants.

Originally Posted by melena29

On another note: Granting citizenship to children of legal immigrants who are not citizens is folly for two reasons:
First, children will have the same allegiance as their parents (this is why you are having such a difficult time with Americans right now).

Second, because of chain migration, which brings in the rest of the family without demanding the same commitment that naturalized citizens have made.

I say this out of respect and admiration for foreigners who’ve made the same sacrifice and commitment my great-grandparents made. And I expect no less from today’s immigrants.

Let me respectfully disagree a bit.

First, many legal immigrants are working toward becoming US Citizens. Denying children rights because their parents, who have made a commitment to the US but just haven't made it through the mandatory waiting period, is not reasonable. Were the US to permit people to become citizens as soon as they are accepted into the country, your argument would have more merit, as it would be reasonable to ask the parents to commit to the country. But at present, people are not permitted to commit to US citizenship for a lengthy period of time after they move here.

Chain migration is a horribly show process, and when applied to children of legal immigrants, is almost completely infeasible. First, a US citizen under the age of 21 has no right to sponsor family members whatsoever. So an "anchor baby" cannot even sponsor his/her parents for immigration for 21 years after birth. That's a level of patience that is unusual. Second, beyond sponsorship for spouses and parents, the process to bring other relatives into the US is even worse. For example, a common example is the right of US Citizens to sponsor their brothers/sisters for Green Cards. The current estimate for someone to sponsor a brother or sister for a Green Card to the US is ~30 years, during which time the sponsored relative cannot live/work in the US. That means that from the time a child is born to when they can get a brother or sister a green card is presently 51 years. That's a LOOOOONG time to wait!

[quote:2j6y9h5t]melena29 wrote:
2. That E Pluribu Unum has been abandoned is the problem, I and my fellow Americans are insisting that we get back to what has served us so splendidly in the past. And you argue against that because...?

I do not argue against it. You are arguing that those moving to the US are overwhelming the US culture, which I disagree with. The US culture is incredibly powerful, and the vast majority of immigrants (by which I mean legal immigrants, not illegal aliens) are absorbed therein. I guess I have more confidence in the US to absorb foreigners that you do. [/quote:2j6y9h5t]

I have all the confidence in the world in our capability to absorb. We are (or at least were) designed that way. The failure to enforce our laws and our willingness to accomodate have set up a paradigm that no longer requires that the foreigner assimilate. And if they are not required to, what incentive do they have to do so? In a very big way you can say the onus is on us. Now we intend to correct the problem, as is our right to do so.

I appreciate your apology, and certainly don't mean to argue or offend.

I will do whatever is necessary to defend my nation and my birthright from any and all threats. And the current foreign invasion, both legal and illegal, is most definitely a threat. I suspect you would do the same.

Originally Posted by JeffDG

The 1st Amendment does not apply to States. Under a pure 1st Amendment reading, which says "Congress shall make no law...", the state of California could pass a law banning newspapers from criticizing illegal immigrants.

It's through the "due process" clause of the 14th Amendment that these prohibitions apply to the States.

I see your concern, but some problems come to mind with the due process clause. It more completely puts the rights of the people in the hands of the Judiciary....which is precisely what Jefferson warned us about at the start of this country. Our rights today are safer spread among fifty state legislatives than seven individuals in Washington, D.C, would you not agree? Surely from a bribery approach, the logistics are on a different scale. And which do you feel you can more readily access and petition as a citizen: your state government or the federal Judiciary?

Additionally, as a whole, the 14th completely flips the purpose of the Constitution and was ratified at the point of a bayonet. Can a law unjustly passed truly be just?

The Supreme Court is actually in March considering a case as to whether the 2nd Amendment applies to the states via the 14th Amendment (the Heller case from a few years ago didn't cover this, as it was the District of Columbia, and not in a "state").

A pure, literal, or figurative reading of the second amendment would seem to protect the right to bear arms in a state. We'll have to see the ruling.

Let me throw out one thought. A child born on US soil is subject first and foremost to the jurisdiction of their parents until they have reached the age of majority. If their parents are legal immigrants, then I think that status should also convey to the child. Once that child has reached majority, they can decide whether they want citizenship. Same thing for illegal immigrants as they are getting pushed (and invited) over the border continually just to produce little US citizens to give parents a stake in this country, according to the current interpretation of the 14th Amendment.
And, JeffDG, what are the laws in Canada about children of illegal immigrants? Is it automatic citizenship, no matter the status of the parents, just because the child was born on Canadian soil?

WOW. Looks like the birthright citizenship repeal struck a nerve. I like vortex's idea best.
The Conservative Reform needs to include wording to deny taxpayer funding to groups that advocate for illegals. They are not citizens and have no legal standing in this debate.