14th Amendment

[Sten]

Originally Posted by Crue

illegal alien parents supporting their "legal" children? There must be someone paying them...

Are you saying we should go after the people who employ illegals or are you saying it is a conspiracy involving of some "Senior Blofeld" super villain funding it?

[Crue]

Yes, go after those that employ illegals. Maybe it’s a naive thought that this will change anything. but I think all avenues should be exhausted before amending the Constitution.

[ZonieDiver]

Arizona has, and has had for several years, an 'employer sanctions' law. The penalties in it for 'knowingly' hiring illegals can range up to revocation of one's business license, along with fines, etc.

To date, no one has even been fined. Everytime there is a 'raid' by 'Sheriff Joe' or ICE, or whomever - it is found that ALL had ID - checked through 'E-Verify'! I've never seen any follow-up as to punishment for those with stolen identity used to 'fool' E-Verify.

To me, it is a 'wink-wink, nod-nod' system created to give the 'impression' that 'something is being done' - much like the TSAs airport security measures.

[sf11b_p]

My take on loyalty would be innocent till proven guilty. Believing that one seeking citizenship legally intends to assimilate and be a law abiding and loyal citizen, until they prove otherwise. There are plenty of natural born citizens who's loyalty I'd question, seems their citizenship is unaffected.

If loyalty is a question how goes dual citizenship.

Anchor baby immigration can be pretty blatant. Air Mexico transporting mothers to Arizona, with a pretty good idea birth is imminent.

From Theodore Roosevelt.

"It is our boast that we admit the immigrant to full fellowship and equality with the native-born. In return we demand that he shall share our undivided allegiance to the one flag which floats over all of us." - 1917

"Every immigrant who comes here should be required within five years to learn English or to leave the country,"... "English should be the only language taught or used in the public schools." Kansas City Star 1918.

"In the first place we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the man's becoming in very fact an American, and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag, and this excludes the red flag, which symbolizes all wars against liberty and civilization, just as much as it excludes any foreign flag of a nation to which we are hostile...We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language...and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people." January 3, 1919

[LarryW]

BHO and his Chicago butt-buddies are trying to play.

Official: Justice Department plans to sue over Arizona law
By Terry Frieden, CNN Justice Producer
June 18, 2010 4:52 p.m. EDT

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/06/18/us....ex.html?hpt=T1

(CNN) -- Obama administration lawyers are planning to file a legal challenge to a controversial Arizona immigration law within a month, according to a senior administration official.

The Justice Department would not confirm the claim, saying only that "The Justice Department is continuing to review the law."

Federal government lawyers who have been working on the expected challenge for several weeks will most likely file their arguments in federal court in Phoenix in the days leading up to July 28, when the statute is scheduled to take effect, the official said.

Although the Justice Department indicates no final decisions have been made at this point, officials were put on the spot when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in a recent television interview in Ecuador the government "will be bringing a lawsuit" in the case.

Administration officials have indicated the question of Arizona usurping federal authority to control the border and enforce immigration law is the most likely federal point of attack against the state law signed by Gov. Jan Brewer earlier this year.

My money is on the SCOTUS, if it gets that far. ITMT, watch the delays in implementation of the law.

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by Brush Okie

[I]t seems we are limited on what to do with the children and still recognize the 14th amendment as written. Just because it is incovenient does not mean we should "change" the amendment otherwise we are no better than the communist idiots we complain about here all the time.

Brush--

My mind is duller than usual these days.

I think I am missing your point here. What I don't understand is how expelling American citizens does not violate their rights. To me, such expulsions would establish a second tier of citizenship that could be expanded to include other groups. Should the sins of the father be paid for by his kids? If we answer the question "yes" do we place ourselves on a slippery slope sliding to the road of unforeseen consequences?

(FWIW, I agree with Crue. I think focusing on the demand for cheap labor is a path that merits more exploration.)

[plato]

Originally Posted by NORMAL550GIRL

What am I missing here? Wouldn't it cost less to make them legal and pay taxes them holding hearings and deporting them?

Amnesty, then. But, amnesty is like an open invitation for the next 10 million or so. Even if we say "just this once", none of the potential invaders (undocumented is too mild IMHO), is going to believe it.

Sorta like "If you can beat me down at my front door, and get past me, then my house is yours".

Yes, I *do* occasionally overstate my position