We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Fred Reed (from Fred on Everything blog) would disagree with your assessment that we are getting the cream of the crop. Fred lives in Mexico and does not hesitate to note that the US mostly winds up with Mexico's losers. They can't compete in Mexico so they come north. Even Mexico lets central americans into mexico to do the jobs Mexicans won't do.
Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
Oh, that was Emma Lazarus on our Statue of Liberty.
Maybe Graham wants to replace that with his quote.
I'm glad I got into the US from the Hell hole my parents were in before Graham got into power.
I don't understand why we have to offer Mexicans who are here illegally citizenship in any form. If you want to offer them a work visa - fine, but their kids do not become citizens (there is precedent for that because the 14th amendment requires that you must be subject to the jurisdiction of the US to be a citizen at birth. This allowed Indians to still remain citizens of their Indian nation and not US citizens (I believe they were later included as US citizens by separate legislation).
This calls to mind how Democrats have politicized immigration policy. It used to be that if you were here because of political oppression, you were welcome but you were not if you were just looking for a job. That seemed to change with Clinton who had no interest in people fleeing Cuba - since they would likely end up as Republicans, but loved Mexicans - since they would likely end up as Democrats. Of course T. Kennedy pushed through legislation that changed the calculus for who was welcome from people who believed in freedom and would take care of themselves and their families to whoever could get here regardless of their opinion of the US - for some, it was a way to get free stuff. As grant implies, the welfare state changes a lot more than most think (despite that Pres. Johnson said that the Great Society would cause the days of the dole to be numbered - I guess we can't count that high).
mudbug: If you want to offer them a work visa - fine, but their kids do not become citizens (there is precedent for that because the 14th amendment requires that you must be subject to the jurisdiction of the US to be a citizen at birth. This allowed Indians to still remain citizens of their Indian nation and not US citizens (I believe they were later included as US citizens by separate legislation).
At the time, Indians were considered separate nations, under their own laws, hence not under the jurisdiction of the United States. Anyone born in the U.S. is a citizen, excepting children of diplomats, who remain under the laws of their own countries. It would require a constitutional amendment to change that. As the Fourteenth Amendment is considered a 'refounding' document of essential purpose to civil liberties, it is very unlikely any attempt to amend it would be successful.
mudbug: It used to be that if you were here because of political oppression, you were welcome but you were not if you were just looking for a job.
That is a modern notion. Originally, U.S. borders were open to most anyone. Then immigration of certain ethnic groups, first East Asians, then others, were limited by law.
I totally disagree. This idea that slipping across the border illegally and pushing out a child makes it a citizen is NOT what the 14th amendment says and was not the intent. It needs to be tested and ruled on by the Supreme Court. Of course the Supreme Court has been stuck in the politically correct swamp for decades so it will likely find something in the constitution that upholds the common interpretation of the 14th amendment. After all they did find a "right of abortion" in there somewhere.
GoneWithTheWind: It needs to be tested and ruled on by the Supreme Court.
You're a bit out of date. You're wrong in common law, and wrong on the constitution.
"Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children even of aliens born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto are subjects by birth." — Inglis v. Trustees of Sailor's Snug Harbor - 28 U.S. 99 (1830)
"A child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution" — United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
If you understand the purpose of the14th amendment then you understand that to use it to justify illegal aliens using it to acquire a citizenship for children born here illegally was clearly not the intent. Could you simply break any law and benefit from the fruits of that crime and twist and pervert the constitution to justify it. Let's let a typical case, such as a Chinese woman who flys into San Francisco and gives birth (a common event in todays world of illegal immigration) or a Mexican woman who crosses the border at San Ysidro and calls 911 to assist in the birth of the new American citizen (another common event) be the test. I want today's Supreme Court, (not one from a century ago when our population was a couple million people) to stand up and rule on this common illegal tactic that is draining our state and federal coffers and bankrupting our society. If we are to be invaded under the guise of the 14th amendment I want a court to today seal our fate I don't want to hear from unknown bureaucrats of over a century ago. If YOU and others who favor this perverted constitutional interpretation truely believe it to be correct then what would you be afraid of???
GoneWithTheWind: If you understand the purpose of the14th amendment then you understand that to use it to justify illegal aliens using it to acquire a citizenship for children born here illegally was clearly not the intent.
The language is clear. Do you really think only the children of citizens are citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment?
GoneWithTheWind: I don't want to hear from unknown bureaucrats of over a century ago.
Unknown bureaucrats? It was common law for hundreds of years, and ruled on specifically by the U.S. Supreme Court.