Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456
Results 51 to 55 of 55

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #51

    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Daytona Beach, FL
    Posts
    747
    It has actually be argued that this is infact NOT what the 14th means.


    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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


    Key word is Jurisdiction. Does the US Governemnt really have jurisdiction over illegal immigrants?

    Was not until June 15th, 1982 that Illegals were able to be citizens (Plyler vs. Doe). Also, this decision did not directly pertain to "anchor babies". It was implied and infered. Isn't this about the time that illegal immigration exploded?
    This decision needs to be revisited!


    The dissenting minority agreed in principle that it was unwise for illegal alien children to be denied a public education, but the four dissenting justices argued that the Texas law was not so objectionable as to be unconstitutional; that this issue ought to be dealt with through the legislative process; that "[t]he Constitution does not provide a cure for every social ill, nor does it vest judges with a mandate to try to remedy every social problem"; and that the majority was overstepping its bounds by seeking "to do Congress' job for it, compensating for congressional inaction".

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourtee...s_Constitution

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plyler_v._Doe
    "Democrats Fall in Love, Republicans Fall in Line!"

    Ex-El Presidente' www.jorgeboosh.com

  2. #52
    Senior Member Husker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    the Christian Holy Town of Gretna, NE
    Posts
    790
    Quote Originally Posted by AmyCarter
    I don't support this change in the law, I think it's more smoke to distract us and waste our energy.

    We didn't have 20 million (plus all the amnesties since then) illegal aliens in this country 30 years ago, and we still had this law.

    I WANT THE LAWS ENFORCED THAT ARE ON THE BOOKS.

    Little Boots offered $4 billion in additional border enforcement funds to get this last amnesty bill through. I say, demand that $4B today and put an ICE/IRS/SSA agent in every payroll office in this country to identify the bogus social security numbers being used, arrest the accountants, arrest the officers, arrest the illegals, and this problem will be SOLVED.

    I also oppose the "new, tamper-proof" employment cards and the voter ID cards. More smoke, doesn't solve the underlying problem.
    Amy, I would recommend doing a little research, if you are truely interested (i.e. not simply trolling). The posts I have read from you have been here, and on the "eric the mofo" thread. Both have been against ending/blocking some of the VERY important goodies which the illegals are currently getting (or really wanting), and you have been "against" ending these perks.

    Remove the perks, and the illegals will go home. Yes, one of the HUGE perks, is that they can work with very little fear of negative consequences. However, things such as the judicial crap we have called the anchor baby problem. The 14th amendment was specifically written to NOT apply to illegals. It is the "way" the supreme court has "interpreted" it (i.e. ignoring the original wording, and making it into something that the court wanted it to say).

    H.

  3. #53
    jjmm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    744
    Well, something needs to be done. I am a nurse and I see this all day long. These young women are ALL pregnant, all in NEED of services, maternity care, labor and delivery services, and then the follow up care, feeding, and supply of just about anything and everything once they have given birth. They are clogging up the L &D's of our country, and we're just handing it over to them. They are also in our local health departments receiving year's suppies of birth control (which they just seem to "forget" to use), free counseling, home visits, WIC, you name it, car seats, and don't forget, follow up medical care for their children. It's the new welfare class! Meanwhile, "papa" is out on the construction job and can never be found to be found at the birth. And none of them are married - none. These are all single mothers giving birth to illegitimate children, many of them as young as 14.

    I have to ask .. .we don't tolerate this with our own young people -- I mean, we expect as a society for young people to be educated first, married, and able to support themselves and a family before becoming pregnant. These young aliens are NONE of these. They are rampantly having children they cannot support -- just expecting US to pick up the bill because, well, they're here picking lettuce and mowing our lawns. They just walk in and expect it.

    This is a travesty and amounts to thievery of our local health care systems and tax base. I don't see how this is just happening everywhere, without outrage from the American taxpayer. I tell you, as a country, we are ASLEEP.

  4. #54
    5
    5 is offline
    5's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    355
    While we are at it let's make it retroactive back to the 1986 travesty-opps I mean 'amnesty'.

    Make the parents prove that they were here legally when they dropped the little b@stards* in the lap of the taxpayers to feed, house and educate.

    Let's do an audit of the social system and send bills to the country that they came from.

    Anyone know the figures that a state funded child costs the taxpayers by the age of 21? I want to say a quarter of a million dollars but that may be off.

    *I'm speaking in the legal (receiving food stamps and welfare term.) even though in many cases the father is still quite in the picture.

  5. #55
    Senior Member redpony353's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    SF
    Posts
    4,883
    While we are at it let's make it retroactive back to the 1986 travesty-opps I mean 'amnesty'.

    WISH IT WAS RETROACTIVE. BUT IF WE WANT THIS WE WILL HAVE TO FIGHT FOR IT SINCE THERE IS A CLAUSE IN THE BILL THAT STATES IT IS NOT RETROACTIVE.
    Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •