Illegal Immigrants In America

[Aoi Kurenai]

Why now? It's because of how bad it's gotten over the recent years. It's just THAT bad. You also have to factor in the state of our economy... the value of the dollar is going down. We're paying for an unconstitutional war and we're paying for illegals who qualify for social security while immigrants who try to get an american citizenship legally are left in the dust.

It's always been that bad though. This is what the United States is built upon, immigration, legal or not, this has been around for much longer than you think. Not just in the past ten years ago or in the early eighties during Reagan's administration.

I think it has a lot to do with mainstream media wanting it to be the hot topic in next year's election. It's always been a problem, but when you have tripe like Lou Dobbs on TV, you get people acting like it's a problem that just sprouted its head a few years ago. Today's immigration is essentially the same situation as in the 1800s, only instead of the Irish being seen as the primary focus, it's the Mexicans this time around.

Now I don't know by ending birthright citizenship whether people will be stripped of their citizenship if RP gets elected. Maybe there's a cut off line saying from now on, there's no more but for those that got it before, are off the hook. It's something I have to look more into.

I find his whole idea on that to be so poorly thought out. He himself is the son of two German immigrants. The remedy to this situation isn't to end birthright citizenship, if a person is born on US soil, they should be a citizen of the country, regardless of their parent's status, the child should be a citizen of the country. The remedy to this situation is a tougher stance on illegal immigration and reforming current legal immigration standards, not punishing people who are born in the US because their parents aren't/weren't legal at the time.

The cut off line thing doesn't sit too well with me either. That's punishing countless generations of would be citizens that could contribute so much to this country's future just because they weren't born as early as the past few generations were. That idea is ludicrous. If he wants to abolish the 14th amendment, he may as well make every single person that isn't a Native American an illegal.

And he's only popular on the internet because it's the only place where he can get attention. The mainstream media is definately trying to censor him so the only place to turn is a place where you're free to do what you want... through the web.

He's actually doing pretty well on a lot of polls lately, but again, thanks to mainstream media.

I'd also like to add that last month I heard that the governor of New York passed a bill allowing Illegals to get US drivers licenses. How ridiculous is that? I remember there was a lot of outrage over that.

Here's where I do agree with you. I think giving illegal immigrants rights like that is something that has to be done away with.

 

[x1xBladex1x]

Well they're illegal, so yeah that's bad, up the crime rate by being illegal which is a crime to begin with. But, there are some that would not be here if it weren't for legal U.S. people having the imported illegally for work such as construction. I know for a fact that there is a man near Washington D.C. that has a construction company & he imports illegal Mexicans & other illegal hispanics. So personally, I think if they're illegal, they should just stay in they're own country if they can't find a way to get here legally.

 

[Doggy Kruger]

It's always been that bad though. This is what the United States is built upon, immigration, legal or not, this has been around for much longer than you think. Not just in the past ten years ago or in the early eighties during Reagan's administration.

I think it has a lot to do with mainstream media wanting it to be the hot topic in next year's election. It's always been a problem, but when you have tripe like Lou Dobbs on TV, you get people acting like it's a problem that just sprouted its head a few years ago. Today's immigration is essentially the same situation as in the 1800s, only instead of the Irish being seen as the primary focus, it's the Mexicans this time around.

I find his whole idea on that to be so poorly thought out. He himself is the son of two German immigrants. The remedy to this situation isn't to end birthright citizenship, if a person is born on US soil, they should be a citizen of the country, regardless of their parent's status, the child should be a citizen of the country. The remedy to this situation is a tougher stance on illegal immigration and reforming current legal immigration standards, not punishing people who are born in the US because their parents aren't/weren't legal at the time.

The cut off line thing doesn't sit too well with me either. That's punishing countless generations of would be citizens that could contribute so much to this country's future just because they weren't born as early as the past few generations were. That idea is ludicrous. If he wants to abolish the 14th amendment, he may as well make every single person that isn't a Native American an illegal.

He's actually doing pretty well on a lot of polls lately, but again, thanks to mainstream media.

Here's where I do agree with you. I think giving illegal immigrants rights like that is something that has to be done away with.

It actually wasn't. The difference between the immigrants from the 1800s and the new immigrants is that the Irish/European immigrants you speak of from the 1800's were legal immigrants. The majority came here embracing their new identity as Americans. You also have to factor in that the situation back then was totally different than it was now economically and politically.

Ron Paul may be the son of two German immigrants, but they were American citizens. Now when I was talking about the cut-off, I wasn't saying that was Ron Paul's ideas. I don't know his plan on that so I was just guessing what might happen. That is not his idea.

Secondly, Ron Paul is a strict constitutionalist. He strongly supports the constitution and he lives by the book. It's not just a piece of paper. They are the set laws and foundation of this country written by the founding fathers. Ron Paul doesn't want to abolish ANY amendement. To say that is truly ignorant. The 14th amendment states:

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.

That's section 1 of the 14th amendment.
Skip to the 2:10 mark on this video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnUXb6n-3_A

Think about it. If you are illegal, are you really under the jurisdiction of the government? I personally don't believe so.

The remedy to this situation is a tougher stance on illegal immigration and reforming current legal immigration standards, not punishing people who are born in the US because their parents aren't/weren't legal at the time.

Yes, the remedy of this situation is a tougher stance on illegal immigration and that's EXACTLY what Ron Paul is for. Just read his positions on immigration. Is that not tough enough for you?

And for a candidate who gets almost no mainstream media coverage, he is doing well on the polls. Believe it or not, it's not due to the media. Take a look at Mike Huckabee... few weeks ago he was at the same level as Ron Paul but lately due to the CNN youtube debate where he was given a lot of time and media coverage, he skyrocketed to the top. Now, if Ron Paul had the same air time as Huckabee, wouldn't you think he'd soar to the top as well? It's up to us supporters to get the media's attention with the money bombs. November 5th helped out a lot when his supporters raised 4.3 million in one day in online donations and I'm proud to have been a proud donor of $100 that day.

We're going to catch the media's again on December 16th where we'll raise more than that amount. It's because of events like these we get media attention.

 

[Impulse87]

waits for the thread to get so out of hand that keith closes it :rolleyes2:

 

[Mr. Underachiever]

I've found in the past everytime they come up, you find out that someone you really like ends up like, being for bringing back slavery or who knows what else.

WHAT? :O_O: What kinda forums do you hang around?

 

[Kouji Kabuto]

waits for the thread to get so out of hand that keith closes it :rolleyes2:

And yet surprisingly, it hasn't... yet.

 

[Doggy Kruger]

What baffles me is how Keith said this was a place where you can freely discuss things. This isn't a flame war, this is a thread dealing with our country's issues. I thought the purpose of this place was to talk about things openly that were unheard of at other places. Nothings getting out of hand here... I don't see the problem.

 

[x1xBladex1x]

I don't find it suprising, DK & R are having a pretty good discussion.

 

[MaraJade]

~snip

Secondly, Ron Paul is a strict constitutionalist. He strongly supports the constitution and he lives by the book. It's not just a piece of paper. They are the set laws and foundation of this country written by the founding fathers. Ron Paul doesn't want to abolish ANY amendement. To say that is truly ignorant. The 14th amendment states:

That's section 1 of the 14th amendment.
Skip to the 2:10 mark on this video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnUXb6n-3_A

Think about it. If you are illegal, are you really under the jurisdiction of the government? I personally don't believe so.

While this is true, strict constitutionality is iffy...The Constitution is always being interpreted and re-interpreted. Nobody will be forthright enough to come out and say "let's abolish this/that amendment, but people will skirt around that idea of "jurisdiction" forever. Heck, just getting that idea down alone is mind-boggling enough. Jurisdiction can mean a lot of things, and while I think I'm a bit iffy on Ron Paul's stricter interpretation of the birthright citizenship, I don't think grounds for being born on the soil alone should constitute a right alone, but I don't think it should be discounted either. In my original statement, I addressed this but didn't answer; I still believe that the majority of citizenship should be granted on certain duties/responsibilities one upholds to their nation of choosing.

The cut off line thing doesn't sit too well with me either. That's punishing countless generations of would be citizens that could contribute so much to this country's future just because they weren't born as early as the past few generations were. That idea is ludicrous. If he wants to abolish the 14th amendment, he may as well make every single person that isn't a Native American an illegal.

Here's where I do agree with you. I think giving illegal immigrants rights like that is something that has to be done away with.

Yeah, when you put down absolutes, you're asking for trouble. Mainly because of human nature, but moreso because you really can't draw hard lines. But with the driving rights...I still maintain driving is a privilege it is not, a right.

 

[Aoi Kurenai]

Your Post

I don't really see how the situation in the past was too different from what it is today. You have one major minority (yay contradiction!) coming to a new country looking for a better life. Yes, a good amount of the Irish that came here back then were legal, just like there are quite a few Mexicans and others that come the US in a legal manner, though thanks to the broken system, not as many as there could be, but there were also quite a few that didn't come here in a legal manner. I forgot to mention this in my last post, but I think one of the few differences is that there isn't as much racial discrimination these days in comparison to that situation because the world loves to be so PC and the slightest thing might offend someone these days.

One of the other reasons that I'm really not for something like abolishing citizenship by birth is because of how fickle certain people like to be. Ron Paul may be the son of legal immigrants, but I've heard of similar plans like his that would go as far as to deny citizenship to any person born under a parent that became a citizen through amnesty, and that would be an enormous amount of people being denied citizenship when they would likely have all right to be here.

"Abolish" may have been too strong a word, but to me it seems like he wants to fundamentally change things. It goes back to him opposing a generally agreed upon meaning for the amendment. I wasn't talking about the person that got here illegally, but then again, if they're here illegally and the country's laws prosecute them, they technically are under jurisdiction of the country, but that's a matter for a different day and just goes back to how fickle the world can be sometimes. My main point is that a person born here, on US soil, is under the jurisdiction of the country and therefore should be allowed to retain citizenship, regardless of the status of their parents. Getting rid of that is something that I can't really ever see myself supporting.

I've yet to see any proposal from any of the major candidates that I think would be a fair and tough stance on immigration. A lot of it is either amnesty under a different name or just fundamentally flawed. The only thing I agree with on the issue with the candidates is that the legal immigration system is broken and needs an overhaul, but like I said, I've yet to see anything that I think would truly bring about much needed changes.

As for his support, I do believe a lot of it is due to the media. When you consider the way CNN is today and how they will give anyone air time if they have a large enough following, I think that's what has helped Ron Paul out a lot. It's pretty pathetic that people fall back on the news for this stuff and don't do any leg work themselves, but I guess that's the type of world we live in these days. Anywho, I'm digressing here. I can't seem to find a list of who was in the Republican CNN YouTube debate, was Ron Paul in it? If he was, I think something like that could have also done wonders if he was given the right amount of air time, from watching the Democratic one, it seems that they more or less just gave major airtime to the big names.

By no means am I discrediting all the work his supporters have done, but I believe that given more air time, he would have quite a bit more in his campaign's pocket.


---
Right. About the locking of this thread, I don't see it happening. Everyone's being civil and all, and as long as it stays that way, we're in good shape.