Cool, be sure to let me know once the new rule is in place. I have some work I need done and I sure as hell don't want to pay American worker wages to do it.
Merely a 9-10 month holding action until Hillary appoints a liberal Supreme in early 2017.
There used to be a very good reason for providing citizenship for anchor babies...but this good reason went away over 100 years ago.So according this this, someone on a tourist visa who comes and has a child in the US should be allowed to stay with unlimited work authorization.
Someone on *any* visa can do this. The result is increased immigration by some 10-20x.
Do you believe in unlimited immigration?
Cool, be sure to let me know once the new rule is in place. I have some work I need done and I sure as hell don't want to pay American worker wages to do it.
There used to be a very good reason for providing citizenship for anchor babies...but this good reason went away over 100 years ago.
There used to be a very good reason for providing citizenship for anchor babies...but this good reason went away over 100 years ago.
"Your side" made it a political tool. Your chickens are coming home to roost.
I'm not republican, I'm disgusted with both sides equally.
Cool, be sure to let me know once the new rule is in place. I have some work I need done and I sure as hell don't want to pay American worker wages to do it.
The court did not issue a ruling on the merits of the main legal question. Therefore, its action set no legal precedent to bind future presidents. The decision indicates that any major immigration policy change that would address the long-term situation of the estimated 11 million people in the country illegally would have to be enacted by Congress.
The main reason for the birthright citizenship clause was to prevent state governments from denying citizenship to blacks born in the United States. However, your dishonest framing of the issue is duly noted.The main reason for the birthright citizenship clause was to prevent systemic racism and disenfranchisement of minorities by those wielding political power. It's a central part to the 14th amendment overall.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...08/27/the-debate-over-birthright-citizenship/
I must have missed the point over 100 years ago where systemic racism and disenfranchisement of minorities went away. Did you have a specific date in mind for this wondrous event?
Repeat after me. Enforce immigration laws and rules EQUALLY to EVERYONE. No exception. No excuse. Period.
Repeat after me: government resources are limited.
The main reason for the birthright citizenship clause was to prevent state governments from denying citizenship to blacks born in the United States. However, your dishonest framing of the issue is duly noted.
Birthright citizenship is embedded in the 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, which states: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside.
The idea was to grant citizenship to recently freed slaves. But the 14th Amendment also forms the basis of the countrys longstanding policy of granting birthright citizenship to anyone born on American soil.
The birthright citizenship portion of the amendment was upheld by the Supreme Court in 1898 in the case United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which involved a man, Wong Kim Ark, who was born in San Francisco to parents who were citizens of China but legally living in the United States. (There was no such thing as illegal immigration at the time.) Some argue that while that settles the issue of whether the 14th Amendment grants citizenship to children born to parents in the country legally, it doesnt necessarily settle the issue regarding children born in the U.S. to parents in the country illegally.
The only other Supreme Court involvement on the issue is a footnote in a 1982 decision in the case Plyler v. Doe, which dealt with the issue of whether states must provide education to children not legally admitted into the United States. In that case, Justice William Brennan, writing the majority opinion in the 5-4 decision, stated that no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment jurisdiction can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful.
As a matter of practice, the U.S. government has interpreted the wording of the 14th Amendment to mean that children born in the U.S., even to parents who are in the country illegally, are deemed citizens. And most constitutional scholars believe it would require a constitutional amendment to change that. Constitutional amendments are hard to enact. They must be proposed by a two-thirds majority in both the House and Senate, and then need to be ratified by three-fourth of the states.
Yup, considering I'll have to start paying US legal workers $15/hour to do my yard work soon due to upcoming CA minimum wage laws , I can't wait to hire some of the flood of new illegals at $8.75.
Repeat after me. Either follow the law or suffer the consequences. No more excuses and/or crying of "don't break up our family". Follow the law and you will be fine.
Million and million of people are waiting for years to get in the LEGAL way. Why can't the ILLEGALS do the same? What's that? Oh, just more excuses and even more excuses, just like you. Full of it.
Are you fucking retarded? Serious question. I just explained to you what the issue is, a lack of government resources to enforce the law, and you double down on your statement as if that negates the fact that the government has limited resources for enforcing the law.
If this concept of limited resources and the effects of these limitations is difficult for you to understand let me know now because I have no interest in your buckshatting this thread.
See my post above about everyone must follow the law. You were the one that quoted my post and now you are starting your insulting/name callings as usual.
I have no time for that kind of behavior.
Next!!!
Well lucky for you, this ruling will allow you to still hire illegals under the table and not have to pay them the standard legal wage because they can no longer get a work permit.
In my view,
1) The states did not have standing to sue,
2) Even assuming adequate standing, they should lose. The executive action was taken under the statutory authority. Obama did not do anything that has not done by his predecessors in this matter.
That is the legal perspective. Politically I am a bit more conflicted because on one hand there are real people behind this case and on the other hand the executive's expansion needs to be checked, especially when we have a brazen candidate who has no understanding of the Constitution and has a legitimate chance to win the presidency.
Hey that's cool, us capitalists enjoy having a permanent underclass of people with questionable legal status to exploit. It's like being able to tell them "just wait until your Dad gets home" only the 'dad' in question is a President who will apply the laws and deport the shit out of their criminal ass. My in-law family who is full of LEGAL immigrants turned U.S. citizens would love to be the ones sending them back to the where they came from after confiscating all their assets.
The main reason for the birthright citizenship clause was to prevent state governments from denying citizenship to blacks born in the United States. However, your dishonest framing of the issue is duly noted.
I know you aren't an idiot like the other poster I responded to so I'll say it again: GOVERNMENT RESOURCES ARE LIMITED.
Now being the smart guy that you are I'm sure you can figure out why a president (or any government official with authority) has to prioritize resources.
You aren't an idiot right?