Modify The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (1 Viewer)

[Monk-Eye]

"Change The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution"

Section 1 should be modified from:
"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.",

to:
"Section 1. All persons born of a US citizen, 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."

Have the social security office enforce the criteria with a paternal DNA test proxied through a legal medical institution.

 

[Monk-Eye]

What Is The likelihood?

"What Is The Likelihood?

Have the social security office enforce the criteria with a paternal DNA test proxied through a legal medical institution.

This is so that private medical records remain private.

Shouldn't this thread be under conspiracy theories also?
It is now an accusation that insidious malefactors are conspiring to keep the gates open for inordinate births by illegal aliens to create a quagmire of deportation issues, with the purpose of granting amnesty, thereby dissolving the social and political stature of american economics and culture.

 

[jamesrage]

"Change The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution"

Section 1 should be modified from:
"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.",

to:
"Section 1. All persons born of a US citizen, 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."

I think that is fair or at least have judge interpret the 14th amendment to only apply to children of legal US citizens since the time the amendment was written to give former slaves citizenship not so someone can sneak across the border like a dirt filthy disgusting rat to pop out a anchor baby.

 

[Rogue]

The anchor baby fiasco must be stopped. It rewards illegal immigrants and encourages more illegal immigration. It costs law-abiding taxpayers through the nose. It makes it harder to control the border, reform immigration and rein in the runaway welfare state. It cheapens American citizenship and mocks those who play by the rules.

Pregnant Third World women have discovered that the only thing they have to do is cross the U.S.--Mexico border. The Fourteenth Amendment is their ticket.

When these anchor babies turn 21, they will be eligible to bring their family members from Mexico, Central America and South America, i.e., chain migration on an ever-accelerating spinning wheel. Whole industries have now developed around abusing the Fourteenth Amendment. Pregnant Korean tourists come to the U.S. on travel visas to have their "anchor" babies. Coyotes dealing in human traffic are paid $1,500.00 to $25,000.00 per person to shuttle pregnant illegal aliens across our southern border.

Our politicians and elites wink at this blatant law breaking and do nothing. The colonization of our country continues with the cooperation of our government. That means your senator and representative aid this illegal baby invasion. None dare call it treason. Most Americans mistakenly trust their politicians to do the right thing. Congressional members from every state betray that trust daily.

 

[Rogue]

It doesn't have to be this way. Most European countries have done away with birthright citizenship because they experienced the same abuses we are seeing. The Irish Supreme Court recently ruled that immigrant parents could be deported even if they have an Irish child. It was becoming common for single pregnant woman, to come to Ireland from countries outside the 15-nation EU, most frequently from Nigeria, to claim political asylum. Ireland saw a wave of immigration abuse and promptly put a stop to it. Recently, the Irish voted to end birthright citizenship. Britain and Australia both changed their citizenship laws in the 1980's for the same reasons. If you are born in Switzerland you will not automatically become a Swiss citizen. Why should Americans allow our country to be invaded by people who do not honor allegiance to our laws?

 

[Thelost1]

Absolutely, Monk-Eye. It doesn't seem fair that someone can be a citizen just because their mother gave birth here.

 

[Monk-Eye]

Immigration Outside Of Quota

"Immigration Outside Of Quota"

When these anchor babies turn 21, they will be eligible to bring their family members from Mexico, Central America and South America, i.e., chain migration on an ever-accelerating spinning wheel.

Yes, that is absolutely true.

The Immigration and Nationality Act Amendments of 1965 (the Hart-Cellar Act) abolished the system of national-origin quotas. There was, for the first time, a limitation on Western Hemisphere immigration (120,000 per year), with the Eastern Hemisphere limited to 170,000. Because of the family preferences put into immigration law, immigration is now mostly "chain immigration" where recent immigrants who are already here sponsor their relatives. Family related immigration is often outside the quota system.

At the time, the then-chairman of the Senate Immigration Subcommittee Senator Edward Kennedy remarked that -- "The bill will not flood our cities with immigrants. It will not upset the ethnic mix of our society. It will not relax the standards of admission. It will not cause American workers to lose their jobs." (U.S. Senate, Subcommittee on Immigration and Naturalization of the Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, D.C., Feb. 10, 1965. pp. 1-3.)
And now that his pesumptions are wrong, he sets on his white bread duff, pandering for dispicable pleas of citizenship for illegals, crippling and hindering the need for prompt legislative action.

We are being invaded and the US military is setting in sand pit fighting a war for a situation that could have been resolved by well placed strategic missiles.

 

[AmericanOrator]

"Change The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution"

Section 1 should be modified from:
"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.",

to:
"Section 1. All persons born of a US citizen, 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."

Have the social security office enforce the criteria with a paternal DNA test proxied through a legal medical institution.

Wow, every centrist and liberal within the country would go against such a law. I am born of immigrant parents, and just because your parents are not American citizens doesn't mean you should not be a citizen. The far right conservatives are striking out against what makes America truly great. American society absorbs newcomers into American society and fully integrates them, which makes our nation so much different from Europe. Even the Muslims within are nation are successful and productive members with our society, while in Europe, they live in slums and are not integrated (racism is a factor). Why are you trying to hurt children who had no influence on the decision of their parents? Furthermore, the aggressiveness shown by the conservatives toward Latins is beginning to disturb the cohesiveness of American society as a whole, something that would be detrimental to our accepting culture.

 

[Monk-Eye]

Beyond Reason

"Beyond Reason"

Wow, every centrist and liberal within the country would go against such a law.

Centrists are kept ignorant. Most would not understand the term anchor baby, or the economic costs of health care, and education, and the loss of political decisiveness, if they were slapped upside their head with it.

The liberals to which you refer are economic authoritarian degenerates. The only decent socialist plan they could endorse is population growth, and they only see fit to enable those least deserving of procreation.

Mosts have no objection to reasonable legal immigration, but illegals are illegal.

I am born of immigrant parents, and just because your parents are not American citizens doesn't mean you should not be a citizen.

Firstly, this is about anchor babies from births by illegals. There is a legal immigration system; but the "chain immigration", which reaches 1 million a year outside of quota, is unrestrained and damaging.

It is estimated that 50% of the Mexican population in the US is illegal. Every birth is an economic cost to the US tax payer, where education standards and living standards circumvent and compromise the ability of US citizens to fund their own economic and populous growth.

The far right conservatives are striking out against what makes America truly great. American society absorbs newcomers into American society and fully integrates them, which makes our nation so much different from Europe. Even the Muslims within are nation are successful and productive members with our society, while in Europe, they live in slums and are not integrated (racism is a factor).

Europe is doing the same thing the US is doing, which is failing to supplement its cultural population of citizens; rather supplanting themselves, their political clout, and their economic future with a populous of ideological malcontents.

Why are you trying to hurt children who had no influence on the decision of their parents? Furthermore, the aggressiveness shown by the conservatives toward Latins is beginning to disturb the cohesiveness of American society as a whole, something that would be detrimental to our accepting culture.

Have an anchor baby, win a prize. It is a damn subversive conspiracy.
Noone asked the illegals to breed into political position, that is a choice they are choosing on their own. The Latins are pushing, they are causing the rift!
And you are bothered that their being called to account is going to put an end to the political deception of creating a populous vote that cannot be controlled?!

 

[1069]

The only decent socialist plan they could endorse is population growth, and they only see fit to enable those least deserving of procreation.

You know what's really scary?
You probably look like any other guy.
To meet you on the street, I'll bet one would never realize that your brain was infected with such perverse notions.

 

[SFLRN]

Re: Beyond Reason

"Beyond Reason"
Centrists are kept ignorant. Most would not understand the term anchor baby, or the economic costs of health care, and education, and the loss of political decisiveness, if they were slapped upside their head with it.

Your statement on the "Costs" are incorrect: Immigrants and their descendents add a net $80,000 to the tax base. (National Academy of Sciences). Furthermore immigrants raise American wages by nearly 10 billion dollars annualy (National Research Council for the National Academy of Science). To state it rather simply, most conservatives would not understand or fail to acknowledge the economic benefits of immigration, of all kinds. Generally, the sector of the workforce that is in competition with illegal aliens is around 9% of the workforce, generally the least skilled of all workers. This creates a pressure on these workers to enhance their human capital so they can find a job, or they can accept lower wages and not seek out higher levels of human capital. Overall, competition in this case, is better for the whole. At least thats the conservative mantra everywhere else economically, why not here?

The liberals to which you refer are economic authoritarian degenerates. The only decent socialist plan they could endorse is population growth, and they only see fit to enable those least deserving of procreation.

lol But most libertarians are not.

Mosts have no objection to reasonable legal immigration, but illegals are illegal.

By syntax, those who break the law are doing something illegal.

Firstly, this is about anchor babies from births by illegals. There is a legal immigration system; but the "chain immigration", which reaches 1 million a year outside of quota, is unrestrained and damaging.

It is estimated that 50% of the Mexican population in the US is illegal. Every birth is an economic cost to the US tax payer, where education standards and living standards circumvent and compromise the ability of US citizens to fund their own economic and populous growth.

That is incorrect as previous statistics have shown (in regards to the tax argument. Furthermore, a larger population leads to a larger domestic market for producers to sell in, this means a larger economy, meaning more jobs in all sectors.

Europe is doing the same thing the US is doing, which is failing to supplement its cultural population of citizens; rather supplanting themselves, their political clout, and their economic future with a populous of ideological malcontents.

lol and Europe's general unemployment rate of immigrants is horrendous. Whereas the U.S. has around a 4.3 percent unemployment rate for immigrants, thats right below the unemployment rate for regular citizens. There is a sharp difference between the the U.S. and Europe. Their policies demonstrate the economic authoritarian you complain about in terms of liberals.

Have an anchor baby, win a prize. It is a damn subversive conspiracy.
Noone asked the illegals to breed into political position, that is a choice they are choosing on their own. The Latins are pushing, they are causing the rift!

Is there any statistical data to prove that anchor babies are doing any such thing? People throughout history have said the same thing about every single other group, that they will cause a rift. The Irish, the Germans, the Pollocks, everyone, in fact, those groups immigrated more in relation to the U.S. population than immigrants from Mexico. As we all know, our society did not crumble as many of the xenophobes of the time would have had you believe. To say hard working families will destroy or cause a rift in America is to have very little faith in how flexible this country truly is.

And you are bothered that their being called to account is going to put an end to the political deception of creating a populous vote that cannot be controlled?!

First I will refute the general "Get tough approach." In 1986 there was the first big crackdown on immigrants. For 22 years before that there was very little to no enforcement of immigration laws. But what happened was a circular movement. 80% of all of those who immigrated to the U.S. from Mexico went back to mexico (Russel Sage Foundation). There was a flexible movement of people and that movement allowed for workers to fill job gaps as they became availible. However, when the "crackdown" came about circulation was stopped; instead of keeping illegal immigrants out, they just stayed longer than before. In fact, after the passage of 1986 legislation, the median stay of the illegal immigrant went from 2.6 years to 6.6 years by 1998 (Russel Sage Foundation). The regulation failed horribly, and ended up creating an incentive for illegal immigrants to stay rather than fill seasonal work. The reason for this was fear of not being able to get back into the U.S. so illegals just sat around and waited for job openings, rather than simply return to their families.
The get tough approach just doesn't work.

 

[SFLRN]

Re: Beyond Reason

Lastly, I will finish off by addressing the "breaking our laws" argument. Many people throughout history have broken our laws, and all for the better. Abolitionists helped free slaves, that was certainly illegal, but that did it destroy our society, most certainly not. Doing justice was indeed not following the law. Just because something is a law does not mean it is necessarily just or should be followed. Look to our Founding Fathers. Imagine if they would have just gone along with British Law of the time, well as you can imagine, there would have been no revolution in the first place. In fact, we're all illegals, you and I have probably driven over the speed limits, in fact the majority of Americans have broken speed limit laws, but did our society fall apart because we broke the speed limit?

 

[Monk-Eye]

Illegal Activity

"Illegal Activity"

Lastly, I will finish off by addressing the "breaking our laws" argument.

That argument is lame, sort of like the thief that says to himself, they can afford it.

Your statement on the "Costs" are incorrect: Immigrants and their descendents add a net $80,000 to the tax base. (National Academy of Sciences). Furthermore immigrants raise American wages by nearly 10 billion dollars annualy (National Research Council for the National Academy of Science).

Firstly, provide a link. I am not going to chase your numbers.
Secondly, see below. The $80,000 reference is a 300 year projection, and is contingent on initial education levels of immigrants, and speculation of second and third generation immigrant increase in education.
The dropout rate for hispanics is astronomical! And you are proposing that extra efforts be extended, for whatever reason, at the expense of other american's interests because theft is acceptable if the robbed can afford it?

The Demographics of Georgia IV: Hispanic Immigration Economic Policy Issues - March 2006
Fiscal Research Center, Interestingly, the fiscal balance of immigrants with regard to the federal government is a positive $1,258. That means that the federal government receives more in taxes than spends on immigrants unlike the state and local governments. This has been a major issue in the immigration debate as the state and local governments have complained that the majority of the burden of immigrant public service consumption is placed on them.
The average immigrant has an overall negative fiscal impact of $3,000 over his or her lifetime. However, the long-run fiscal impact of the immigrants and his descendants over the next 300 years is a positive $80,000. Observed educational level increases in the second, third, and subsequent generations are used to make projections that far into the future. Also note that the long-run impact varies with the educational level of the initial immigrant. Less than high-school level educated immigrants remain a net fiscal drain in the long-run, whereas more than high-school level educated immigrants have positive fiscal balance in the short-run and long-run.

TABLE 6. AVERAGE FISCAL IMPACT OF IMMIGRANTS AND DESCENDANTS BY
EDUCATION LEVEL
Education Level..........Immigrant Only.........Immigrant Plus Descendants Over
.............................................................the Next 300 Years
Less than High School -$89,000 ...................-$13,000
High School.............. -$31,000................... $51,000
More than High School...$105,000 .................$198,000
Overall.......................-$3,000...................... $80,000
Source: Smith and Edmonston (1997) as summarized by Hanson et al. (2000)

We can summarize the findings of fiscal impact of immigration as follows.
First, the overall effect of immigration on the fiscal balance of the country is small.
Second, most of the negative fiscal balance falls on state and local governments. This is because immigrants pay more federal taxes and receive more state and local level funded services. Third, the educational level of immigrants and their descendants is perhaps the most important determinant of the long-run fiscal impact of immigration to all levels of government.

The fiscal impact may be small but the ability to vote and make political decisions is not accounted. Illegals represent the lowest educated immigrants. And in the long run, as indicated above, they are a burden, in addition to creating a populous of entitlement driven voters.

 

[SFLRN]

Re: Illegal Activity

"Illegal Activity"
That argument is lame, sort of like the thief that says to himself, they can afford it.

Firstly, provide a link. I am not going to chase your numbers.

The problem with providing a link is that most of those citation are in MLA format, to collect all that data via online searches would take some time. I will however provide you with the Policy Analysis that has those citations. http://www.freetrade.org/pubs/pas/tpa-019.pdf. Mind you I am not citing the policy analysis, rather the statistics they cite from other sources.

Secondly, see below. The $80,000 reference is a 300 year projection, and is contingent on initial education levels of immigrants, and speculation of second and third generation immigrant increase in education.
The dropout rate for hispanics is astronomical! And you are proposing that extra efforts be extended, for whatever reason, at the expense of other american's interests because theft is acceptable if the robbed can afford it?

I will start off by saying I do not believe many of those benefits should be extended to any. Furthermore, how would an illegal immigrant receive such benefits, are you unfamiliar with the load of paperwork needed to receive any government benefits? After you get rid of such benefits, lets say just to immigrants, then there is no negative fiscal impact. I will explain at the end of this post the postive economic impact (mind you fiscal and economic are two separate things).
Furthermore, I have already demonstrated through statistics that illegal immigrants will stay longer with the usual "get tough approach." However, when immigration restrictions are sosmewhat limited then a circular migration takes place, one based on market conditions. In this immigrants from mexico average a 2.6 year stay versus a 6.6 year stay under "get tough" policies.
Generally most immigrants from Mexico would prefer just to take up short-time work to help address short term finance problems. In this way immigrants come in based off of job opportunities and leave when their objectives have been accomplished. This benefits the American economy. The first way in which it benefits the American economy is by filling job gaps, and by filling these job gaps we essentially prevent higher prices, because when there is a labor shortage employers raise wages to help attract the limited supply of employees. Immigrants from Mexico help fill this shortage in low-skill workers as less and less Americans are willing to do such work, most can seek employment elsewhere because they have beyond or a basic high school diploma.
Despite that dropout rate you mentioned Hispanic Males have a higher work force participation rate (80) than the male white population (66). Should we kick out those the 34 percent of white males who don't even participate in the economy?
http://www.rand.org/labor/DRU/DRU2913.pdf

I am not for extending extra efforts, as a Libertarian I am against most of the "free lunches" for both immigrants and native born Americans. If we are really worried about costs then why not kick out those who live off of the welfare state? the predictable answer is then "they're American" which bases assumptions off of nationality, and not merit.


It is not at the expense of American interests. The American economy has yet to see itself collapse from having too many immigrants. In fact after our biggest wave of immigrants we have had long-term sustainable growth.

The fiscal impact may be small but the ability to vote and make political decisions is not accounted. Illegals represent the lowest educated immigrants. And in the long run, as indicated above, they are a burden, in addition to creating a populous of entitlement driven voters.

The thing is, as stated earlier, most immigrants from Mexico do not want to stay in the long-term, it was about 20 percent of the immigrants from 1964-1986 who actually stayed. So the scenario you present is lacking in actual factual support.
lol If you wanted to get rid of entitlement driven voters it would be best to eliminate both the poor and the old from our voting pools. However, more of the next two generation s have a libertarian leaning and are more likely to oust some of these entitlement programs.

 

[Monk-Eye]

Threads Of Objective

"Threads Of Objective"

The problem with providing a link is that most of those citation are in MLA format, to collect all that data via online searches would take some time.

The reference appears to be a generalized, 2001 study, of familiar issues surrounding immigration. Summative excerpts would clarify your position and encourage digestion of the content.

I will start off by saying I do not believe many of those benefits should be extended to any. Furthermore, how would an illegal immigrant receive such benefits, are you unfamiliar with the load of paperwork needed to receive any government benefits? After you get rid of such benefits, lets say just to immigrants, then there is no negative fiscal impact. I will explain at the end of this post the postive economic impact (mind you fiscal and economic are two separate things).

The requirements to walk into a local hospital and deliver a child then, with a birth certificate, petition for a social security card for the child, and subsequently file for benefits on behalf of the child are minimal.
The prison population of undocumented criminals is minimal access to benefits.
The education standards of free lunch, and emergency medical services is minimal access to benefits.
Affirmative action in competition for education grant resources is an issue.
Uninsured drivers and financial responsibility is growing.
The list is substantial.

Furthermore, I have already demonstrated through statistics that illegal immigrants will stay longer with the usual "get tough approach." However, when immigration restrictions are sosmewhat limited then a circular migration takes place, one based on market conditions. In this immigrants from mexico average a 2.6 year stay versus a 6.6 year stay under "get tough" policies.

The argument is akin to, put it in and promise not to ejaculate. Proposing that the average illegal wants to enter the US, make money and leave, is hubris. If it is true, the objection remains that the accountability exist.
And it is agreed that guest workers should return with garnished skills to apply them in their land of origin.

The thread is about stemming anchor babies, by removing their use as a means of social subsistence for illegals, for removing the burden from the US taxpayer, and for diverting an accumulation of an entitlement populous and its future political influence.

This benefits the American economy. The first way in which it benefits the American economy is by filling job gaps, and by filling these job gaps we essentially prevent higher prices, because when there is a labor shortage employers raise wages to help attract the limited supply of employees. Immigrants from Mexico help fill this shortage in low-skill workers as less and less Americans are willing to do such work, most can seek employment elsewhere because they have beyond or a basic high school diploma.

My inclination is to support libertarian arguments but limit the anarchy.

Creating deportation madness via family separation dissonance, and creating an unaccounted, entitlement society of future voters is anarchy.
The first step is to stop citizenship by birth for children of non-citizens.

 

[Monk-Eye]

Threads Of Objective

"Threads Of Objective"

The problem with providing a link is that most of those citation are in MLA format, to collect all that data via online searches would take some time.

The reference appears to be a generalized, 2001 study, of familiar issues surrounding immigration. Summative excerpts would clarify your position and encourage digestion of the content.

I will start off by saying I do not believe many of those benefits should be extended to any. Furthermore, how would an illegal immigrant receive such benefits, are you unfamiliar with the load of paperwork needed to receive any government benefits? After you get rid of such benefits, lets say just to immigrants, then there is no negative fiscal impact. I will explain at the end of this post the postive economic impact (mind you fiscal and economic are two separate things).

The requirements to walk into a local emergency room and deliver a child, then, with a birth certificate, petition for a social security card for the child, and subsequently file for benefits on behalf of the child are minimal.
The prison population of undocumented criminals is minimal access to benefits.
The education standards of free lunch, and emergency medical services is minimal access to benefits.
Affirmative action in competition for education grant resources is an issue.
Uninsured drivers and financial responsibility is growing.
The list is substantial.

Furthermore, I have already demonstrated through statistics that illegal immigrants will stay longer with the usual "get tough approach." However, when immigration restrictions are sosmewhat limited then a circular migration takes place, one based on market conditions. In this immigrants from mexico average a 2.6 year stay versus a 6.6 year stay under "get tough" policies.

The argument is akin to, put it in and promise not to ejaculate. Proposing that the average illegal wants to enter the US, make money and leave, is hubris. If it is true, the objection remains that the accountability exist.
And it is agreed that guest workers should return with garnished skills to apply them in their land of origin.

The thread is about stemming anchor babies, by removing their use as a means of social subsistence for illegals, for removing the burden from the US taxpayer, and for diverting an accumulation of an entitlement populous and its future political influence.

This benefits the American economy. The first way in which it benefits the American economy is by filling job gaps, and by filling these job gaps we essentially prevent higher prices, because when there is a labor shortage employers raise wages to help attract the limited supply of employees. Immigrants from Mexico help fill this shortage in low-skill workers as less and less Americans are willing to do such work, most can seek employment elsewhere because they have beyond or a basic high school diploma.

My inclination is to support libertarian arguments but limit the anarchy.

 

[SFLRN]

Re: Threads Of Objective

The requirements to walk into a local hospital and deliver a child then, with a birth certificate, petition for a social security card for the child, and subsequently file for benefits on behalf of the child are minimal.
The prison population of undocumented criminals is minimal access to benefits.
What is the common offense for undocumented illegals?
The education standards of free lunch, and emergency medical services is minimal access to benefits.

Affirmative action in competition for education grant resources is an issue.

Uninsured drivers and financial responsibility is growing.
The list is substantial.


The argument is akin to, put it in and promise not to ejaculate. Proposing that the average illegal wants to enter the US, make money and leave, is hubris. If it is true, the objection remains that the accountability exist.
And it is agreed that guest workers should return with garnished skills to apply them in their land of origin.



The thread is about stemming anchor babies, by removing their use as a means of social subsistence for illegals, for removing the burden from the US taxpayer, and for diverting an accumulation of an entitlement populous and its future political influence.


My inclination is to support libertarian arguments but limit the anarchy.

Creating deportation madness via family separation dissonance, and creating an unaccounted, entitlement society of future voters is anarchy.
The first step is to stop citizenship by birth for children of non-citizens.

This is an argument about anchor babies, yet you have provided no statistical data on anchor babies specifically, it would be very hard to find such data. Furthermore, you had made claims that make general statements about immigration as a whole.
It would be hubris if you had actual statistical data to dispute the claim. However, as the data actually shows, the labor market is rather circular in this instance. Get tough policies prevent a flexible labor market in low skill sectors and applying regulation in other types of markets does the same thing, it limits flexibility or constricts the size of the market.

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.
And I am saying that we should limit those entitlements to all. Furthermore, if political concerns are really at play then why not keep out liberal minded individuals from immigrating at all? Would that not help prevent such a "entitlement minded" populous
"Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself." To quote Milton Friedman. This deportation madness is the sort of result of a get tough policy.

 

[Monk-Eye]

Cyanic

"Cyanic"

This is an argument about anchor babies, yet you have provided no statistical data on anchor babies specifically, it would be very hard to find such data. Furthermore, you had made claims that make general statements about immigration as a whole.
It would be hubris if you had actual statistical data to dispute the claim. However, as the data actually shows, the labor market is rather circular in this instance. Get tough policies prevent a flexible labor market in low skill sectors and applying regulation in other types of markets does the same thing, it limits flexibility or constricts the size of the market.

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.
And I am saying that we should limit those entitlements to all. Furthermore, if political concerns are really at play then why not keep out liberal minded individuals from immigrating at all? Would that not help prevent such a "entitlement minded" populous
"Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself." To quote Milton Friedman. This deportation madness is the sort of result of a get tough policy.

To make discussion purposeful, my dictum preference is to reference conservatism as any policy that conserves management by the\/a government. Liberalism is any policy that promotes individual choice over management by a\/the government.

Once liberalism adopts a policy of utility that concedes authority through management by the government, it ceases to become liberalism and becomes conservatism.

Economic libertarianism, untainted, is anarcho capitalism. Some advocate a free market world, where labor migrates and, border jurisdiction is minimal.

Libertarians, by definition, are adverse to unlawful agression.

Yet, at some point one trades the absolute freedom of survivalism, characteristic of darwinism, for the utility in an institution of laws, which enforces libertarianism. It is at this point that liberalism becomes an oxymoron.

Agression, the adversary of libertarianism is constrained as an option by the voluntary induction into the institution of laws.

The requirement for the libertarian to induct extraneous participants into the conserving institution is speculative. It is the purpose of the libertarian to extend its individual interests and exercise its advantage.

Each step, in an iteration to narrow the scope of liberal choices into a conservative institution void of agression, is a step towards the utility of government management and away from individual freedom.

Libertarian anarchy, where everyone acts in libertarian accordance, without agression, is a utopia. Once agression is levied, enforcement between individuals is subject to anarchy. Extending authority beyond the individual is a concession of freedom, conservatism.

One need not forget the ultimate objective to self interest, nor the dynamic of lawful agression, which is a fabrication, as is the entire institution of laws.

 

[Monk-Eye]

Mean And Extreme

"Mean And Extreme"

This is an argument about anchor babies, yet you have provided no statistical data on anchor babies specifically, it would be very hard to find such data. Furthermore, you had made claims that make general statements about immigration as a whole.
It would be hubris if you had actual statistical data to dispute the claim. However, as the data actually shows, the labor market is rather circular in this instance. Get tough policies prevent a flexible labor market in low skill sectors and applying regulation in other types of markets does the same thing, it limits flexibility or constricts the size of the market.
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.
And I am saying that we should limit those entitlements to all. Furthermore, if political concerns are really at play then why not keep out liberal minded individuals from immigrating at all? Would that not help prevent such a "entitlement minded" populous
"Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself." To quote Milton Friedman. This deportation madness is the sort of result of a get tough policy.

Where anchor babies are concerned there are sufficient statistics for one to speculate on the economic and social impacts. The actual conspiracy is listed under that category.

You have speculated that market growth is an aspiration, while ignoring recession or a Malthusian catastrophe.

In an economic downturn, what is your solution for deporting the labor which competes for american jobs?

 

[shuamort]

"Change The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution"

Section 1 should be modified from:
"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.",

to:
"Section 1. All persons born of a US citizen, 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."

Makes sense to me.

Have the social security office enforce the criteria with a paternal DNA test proxied through a legal medical institution.

Seems like overkill. Proof of paternity would need to be proven to the INS and all costs would need to be shouldered by the parent.

 

[SFLRN]

Re: Mean And Extreme

"Mean And Extreme"

Where anchor babies are concerned there are sufficient statistics for one to speculate on the economic and social impacts. The actual conspiracy is listed under that category.

You have speculated that market growth is an aspiration, while ignoring recession or a Malthusian catastrophe.

In an economic downturn, what is your solution for deporting the labor which competes for american jobs?

It is just that, speculation, without the economic backing to refute the idea of a circular and flexible labor market.

Firstly, I will refute the neo-Malthusians. The general claim here is that there will be a time or times of catastrophe where population will outgrow our resources.
This theory does not account for technological improvements in agriculture. Due to new seed varieties one sees significantly higher crop yields and thus more food to feed the population. As this technology continues to expand it will help meet the consumption needs of a rising population.
Second, due to the rise of contraceptives the birth rate in much of the 1st world is at or below 2.0 kids for every woman. This trend will continue for these countries as contraceptives become more effective and less children are had.
Secondly, with the evolution of women's rights women tend to have less children. The reason is that they can be more profitable by going into the workforce and earning a wage, this ultimately means less time at home raising children.
Thirdly, as per capita income rises in a country birth rates also decline. The large reason for this is that families need less hands for sustenance farming and as medical technology gets better and better they have less children because there is a higher rate of survival for said children; those children then help tend to their elderly parents.
The point being, that population growth rates tend to decline in more well developed countries, as other countries develop birth rates will decline as well. The problem, will correct itself.
To sum it up, that theory does not take into account much of modern technology or any relevant trends in population growth. (The trends described are from The End of Poverty.

Now lets talk about what would happen under a recession. If there was a recession then under a circular migration the workers would not immigrate and would go back to their home countries and families because they do not have job opportunities. Ultimately the market regulates itself and discourages such workers from sticking around because there would not be job opportunities for them.

Secondly, this group of immigrants competes with about 9 percent of the workforce, and this is the least skilled sector as well. This percentage will shrink as education levels continue to rise, but the demand for such low-skill jobs will not. So, there will be a job gap, with said job gap the cost of products and services would rise as employers raise wages. This means higher costs for all, whether it is take out or construction work. Higher costs hurt everyone, not just 9 percent of the workforce.

 

[SFLRN]

Re: Cyanic

"Cyanic"
To make discussion purposeful, my dictum preference is to reference conservatism as any policy that conserves management by the\/a government. Liberalism is any policy that promotes individual choice over management by a\/the government.

Once liberalism adopts a policy of utility that concedes authority through management by the government, it ceases to become liberalism and becomes conservatism.

Economic libertarianism, untainted, is anarcho capitalism. Some advocate a free market world, where labor migrates and, border jurisdiction is minimal.

Libertarians, by definition, are adverse to unlawful agression.

Yet, at some point one trades the absolute freedom of survivalism, characteristic of darwinism, for the utility in an institution of laws, which enforces libertarianism. It is at this point that liberalism becomes an oxymoron.

Agression, the adversary of libertarianism is constrained as an option by the voluntary induction into the institution of laws.

The requirement for the libertarian to induct extraneous participants into the conserving institution is speculative. It is the purpose of the libertarian to extend its individual interests and exercise its advantage.

Each step, in an iteration to narrow the scope of liberal choices into a conservative institution void of agression, is a step towards the utility of government management and away from individual freedom.

Libertarian anarchy, where everyone acts in libertarian accordance, without agression, is a utopia. Once agression is levied, enforcement between individuals is subject to anarchy. Extending authority beyond the individual is a concession of freedom, conservatism.

One need not forget the ultimate objective to self interest, nor the dynamic of lawful agression, which is a fabrication, as is the entire institution of laws.

You are arguing the extreme extensions of libertarian philosophy; most libertarians are not anarcho capitalists. Providing a relatively circular migration would not be anarcho capitalism. It would have regulations, but the regulations would limited. There is a role for government, stopping crime, providing a national defense, basic infrastructure, rights protection, a judicial system, a certain level of externality regulation, and a few others, but when it takes up too many roles it ultimately is unable to perform its core functions.

 

[Monk-Eye]

Feigning Truth

"Feigning Truth"

You are arguing the extreme extensions of libertarian philosophy; most libertarians are not anarcho capitalists. Providing a relatively circular migration would not be anarcho capitalism. It would have regulations, but the regulations would limited. There is a role for government, stopping crime, providing a national defense, basic infrastructure, rights protection, a judicial system, a certain level of externality regulation, and a few others, but when it takes up too many roles it ultimately is unable to perform its core functions.

What about government enforcement of the border and citizenship?

There are upwards of 20 million illegals, the tide is not being stemmed, and the objective to enter this country, create anchor babies, and remain is clear.
Every day one can witness illegals with two or three children in the basket and one on the way. The statistics for the annual costs to the taxpayer are not a fabrication. It is the very purpose of the illegals, to enter this country and have children with the intent of arguing that they cannot be separated and deported.

Circular migration is not going to be voluntarily accomplished. The statistics validating the desire or practice of leaving a well formed, first world society, to return to a second or third world society do not exist. The idea is preposterous.

Circular migration is a not true, as the first step to accomplish it would be to get rid of the loopholes in the 14th amendment which discourage it, and implement immigration and law enforcement to make it work.

Economic freedom does not imply social and political freedom.


In another grain, a Multhusianism collapse will not likely occur, because a critical resource causing it may not exist. Yet, overpopulation should be adressed worldwide. Claustrophobia from the human infestation is driving some of us to irreparable madness.

 

[SFLRN]

Re: Feigning Truth

"Feigning Truth"

What about government enforcement of the border and citizenship?

The way to acheive such a plan and a circular immigration would largely be through visas with a relative amount of flexibility for low-skilled workers. Now granted that program will not be perfect, none will, but it will provide workers the ability to one seek out work among a variety of fields allowing for less wage depression as workers force competitors to have a relative amount of competition for workers. These visas would also have to allow for multiple trips to and from Mexico. This would allow the kind of flexibility for immigrants to come in based off of job opportunities. Enforcing a get tough policy would cost an astronomical amount of money to help cut down on such immigration and, as has been shown, only ups the median stay of illegal immigrants.

There are upwards of 20 million illegals, the tide is not being stemmed, and the objective to enter this country, create anchor babies, and remain is clear.
The statistics for the annual costs to the taxpayer are not a fabrication. It is the very purpose of the illegals, to enter this country and have children with the intent of arguing that they cannot be separated and deported.

That 20 million figure is a gross over-estimation. It is more around ten million. I never said I was against eliminating the such benefits for illegal immigrants, although emergency hospital benefits may be the exception. I am in general for limiting those benefits on the whole, the taxpayer problem would be less present. Also, enforcing a tougher policy effectively would be larger or about the same as the costs of the current services.

Circular migration is not going to be voluntarily accomplished. The statistics validating the desire or practice of leaving a well formed, first world society, to return to a second or third world society do not exist. The idea is preposterous.

It is not preposterous. Most immigrants who seek such low-skill work do so for short term financial reasons. The fact is such circular migration does exist. 80 percent of the immigrants from mexico from 1964-1986 returned back to mexico, this states what I have been saying all along, these immigrants come based off of short-term job opportunities and then leave once they are done. Yes some do want to stay, but the overwhelming majority do not. Yet again, a "get-tough policy" of 1986 upped the median stay from 2.6 years to roughly 6 years, the get tough policy does not stop the demand nor the supply of such workers, it only serves to change incentives towards a prolonged stay.

Economic freedom does not imply social and political freedom.

Economic freedom is a necessary condition for social and political freedom.

 

[Monk-Eye]

Circular Logic

"Circular Logic"

The way to acheive such a plan and a circular immigration would largely be through visas with a relative amount of flexibility for low-skilled workers. Now granted that program will not be perfect, none will, but it will provide workers the ability to one seek out work among a variety of fields allowing for less wage depression as workers force competitors to have a relative amount of competition for workers. These visas would also have to allow for multiple trips to and from Mexico. This would allow the kind of flexibility for immigrants to come in based off of job opportunities. Enforcing a get tough policy would cost an astronomical amount of money to help cut down on such immigration and, as has been shown, only ups the median stay of illegal immigrants.
....
Economic freedom is a necessary condition for social and political freedom.

It is useful to keep the current system in mind when advocating changes. It is clear that economic libertarians and economic conservatives exist in the US government. Fair warnings are due when one shifts towards conservatism, as economic entitlement managed by the government. That is, since one is advocating an adoption of peoples whose society of origin characteristically elects authoritarians.

We can agree that work visas and travel flexibility are helpful to fulfill labor demands.

Time-out; the non-diminishing 20 million statistic, upon return.