I never said that I didn't think that something needs to be done. I certainly do. I was very much in favor of President Bush's proposed immigration reform. What I don't support (and don't think is feasible) is the "round 'em all up and ship 'em back" type of approach.

 

I agree round 'em up and ship 'em back is not the answer, but I also don't think just granting citizenship to everybody is the answer either. I have a process that I think we need to follow. I'm not saying how it will be done just that it needs to be done.

 

First the border has to be closed. Nothing can be done until we stop the inflow of illegals and all the drugs and terrorists and weapons that come thru there.

 

Everyone that is here will get a fast track to legal citizenship. A large part of this group of people are good valued workers and are good citizens. I think we need to help them fulfill their dream. It would mean that they would have to identify themselves, they would receive work visas, start paying taxes, would be able to test and get a driver's license, and would be helped to achieve the requirements of citizenship.

 

If they don't identify themselves in a reasonable amount of time, they go back. If they commit a crime while working on citizenship, they go back. I'm not talking about moving violations, I mean a crime.

 

This is a very simplistic look at it, but it is what I would like to see happen.

I didn't read the article. Did it state how they plan on getting around the US Constitution?

 

I agree something must be done. But at the cost of violating constitutional rights?

 

The 14th admendment? The one that provided freed slaves citizenship?

 

The concept of 'anchor babies' has never made it to the SC. The intent of the 14th was not to grant automatic citizenship based only on jus soli. But it has been intrepreted, including by lower courts, as doing so.

 

From the article itself...

 

"It was intended to provide citizenship for freed slaves and served as a final answer to the Dred Scott case, cementing the federal government's control over citizenship. "

I never said that I didn't think that something needs to be done. I certainly do. I was very much in favor of President Bush's proposed immigration reform. What I don't support (and don't think is feasible) is the "round 'em all up and ship 'em back" type of approach.

 

There was a LOT in that proposal that made sense.

The 14th admendment? The one that provided freed slaves citizenship?

 

The concept of 'anchor babies' has never made it to the SC. The intent of the 14th was not to grant automatic citizenship based only on jus soli. But it has been intrepreted, including by lower courts, as doing so.

 

From the article itself...

 

"It was intended to provide citizenship for freed slaves and served as a final answer to the Dred Scott case, cementing the federal government's control over citizenship. "

 

Thanks.

 

You're sure its never been challenged?

Estimated at 300,000 illegal immigrant births per year.

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/07/eveningnews/main4000401.shtml

 

:eek::eek::eek:

I agree round 'em up and ship 'em back is not the answer, but I also don't think just granting citizenship to everybody is the answer either. I have a process that I think we need to follow. I'm not saying how it will be done just that it needs to be done.

 

First the border has to be closed. Nothing can be done until we stop the inflow of illegals and all the drugs and terrorists and weapons that come thru there.

 

Everyone that is here will get a fast track to legal citizenship. A large part of this group of people are good valued workers and are good citizens. I think we need to help them fulfill their dream. It would mean that they would have to identify themselves, they would receive work visas, start paying taxes, would be able to test and get a driver's license, and would be helped to achieve the requirements of citizenship.

 

If they don't identify themselves in a reasonable amount of time, they go back. If they commit a crime while working on citizenship, they go back. I'm not talking about moving violations, I mean a crime.

 

This is a very simplistic look at it, but it is what I would like to see happen.

 

:thumb: I think that we see things very similarly to each other. Secure the borders, develop and implement a practical method for valuable, work-oriented, otherwise law-abiding immigrants to start the process to become legal citizens, while paying taxes, etc.

:eek::eek::eek:

 

I'm surprised that it isn't higher. What is the current estimate of illegal immigrants in our county?

I'm surprised that it isn't higher. What is the current estimate of illegal immigrants in our county?

 

The 300,000 births number was based on 2008 numbers. I'm sure it's more now. The number I've heard recently for total illegals is 11 million to 13 million which is 3.5 to 4.25 percent of the total population.

:thumb: I think that we see things very similarly to each other. Secure the borders, develop and implement a practical method for valuable, work-oriented, otherwise law-abiding immigrants to start the process to become legal citizens, while paying taxes, etc.

 

:eek: Who would have thought that would happen. :lol:

The 300,000 births number was based on 2008 numbers. I'm sure it's more now. The number I've heard recently for total illegals is 11 million to 13 million which is 3.5 to 4.25 percent of the total population.

 

I would have guessed 12 million. After doing the math, the 300,000 equates to one birth per every 40 immigrants. It seems like a fair number now that I think about it a little more.

:eek: Who would have thought that would happen. :lol:

 

Next thing you know, RTS and RM will be agreeing on an issue. :sssh:

Thanks.

 

You're sure its never been challenged?

 

Not to the Supreme Court in the purest of forms when dealing with parents who are illegal aliens.

 

Some ruling have made reference but not made formal rulings.

 

The case most cited affirming anchor babies is Wong Kim Ark. But note that WKA's parents were in the country legally, not illegally. So it is not the definitive case. WKA was ruled a citizen due his birth in the US even though his parents where still subjects of China under a treaty between the US and China.

 

But also WKA is one of the more debated rulings of the SC.

 

http://federalistblog.us/2006/12/us_v_wong_kim_ark_can_never_be_considered.html

 

 

Minor vs. Happersett also includes interesting wording.

 

"The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens."

Plyler v. Doe is an interesting case which deals with the children of illegal aliens and public education. For anyone interested in reading the Wiki summary, here it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plyler_v._Doe

 

I am fascinated by this topic & how widely the opinions range, both on BGP & off. I am a little unclear as to what constitutional rights are in question here, though. Both Clyde & Rockmom asked how AZ plans to get around the constitution. I guess my question is which rights does the legislature need to worry about?

Next thing you know, RTS and RM will be agreeing on an issue. :sssh:

 

:laugh:

 

Dogs and cats living together...mass hysteria.

Next thing you know, RTS and RM will be agreeing on an issue. :sssh:

 

That happened once.

 

They made a movie about it. It was called "The Day the Earth Stood Still."