For my Libertarian friends

thellama73 wrote: The kids can either stay here and fend for themselves or stick with their parents. See, I'm not entirely cold hearted. I give them a choice!

That would be one tough 3 year old who decided to stay.

Aiight, you're using a bit of my sillyness, but really you have no issue sending a whole family back then?
OK, so according to god er Wikipedia...
"Penalties for employers who hire illegal immigrants range from $2,000-$10,000 and up to six months' imprisonment. However, penalties for employers go largely unenforced."
I suppose that's part of the problem. One of the few smart things I've heard on MSNBC is that Obama, or anyone, needs to be more of an executive. As in actually running the country we have.

I know you'll disagree, but I honestly think a governmental solution (harsher laws) will solve the problem better than just the courts. However, it needs to actually be enforced!
The person who said that was commenting on the BP spill and how everything thats in place is pretty good, just the groups in charge of regulation became corrupt, mainly because neither Bush or Bama did anything about it.
More government may not be the answer, but I dont think less is always an answer. If only someone would actually run what we have....



Edited by JJLehto - July 29 2010 at 14:30

My goodness, me and llama/llama and MSNBC....we are bridging all kind of gaps today!

And Pat what do you mean?
I assume we are talking about the 14th Amendment.
Section 1. 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.

Interpretation? Doesn't it say if you are born in the US you are a citizen?




Edited by JJLehto - July 29 2010 at 14:41

Sorry have to do some stuff, job interview tomorrow
Real quick, why wouldn't they be?

Seems weird to me to say that someone who is born of an illegal, thus in the country unbeknown to the government, is really under the jurisdiction of its laws.

The Supreme Court case in 1898 which established that children of immigrants are citizens (chinese couple in the case I believe) didn't distinguish between illegal and legal immigration, as at the time there was little distinction in America.

I mean if the Supreme Court ruled that the clause doesn't give citizenship to children of American indians, or the Indians tribes themselves it doesn't seem so clear cut to me

Well, the US system follows the jus solis principle... These are problems that arise with it. 

I suppose Pat
I see what you mean, it is a weird thought, but if one takes it as is...if you are born in the US then you are a US citizen thus under the jurisdiction of its laws. The parents are Mexican, but the children are not. Maybe it is not the parents intent to be citizens, (if thats what you're getting at) but I think its pretty clear cut still.
At least if you take the constitution as is.

Are you saying some expansion may be needed?


Edited by JJLehto - July 29 2010 at 15:21

Well Im glad you like your argument, but I'm guessing you're not a lawyer? 

And are children born of parents on green card citizens?
I hope so.....

Also, while we're on the topic, does anyone know this definitively?
If you serve in the US military are you automatically a citizen?

My Uncle was born in Germany, came here when he was young with his parents. Green card, but never actually became a citizen. However, he served in Vietnam and was informed that he was granted citizenship because he served.

Never actually got anything though....
Not one to distrust the US military, but there is no physical proof. So to this day, we are not 100% positive if he's an American.
Though we're pretty sure, and when his wife called to inquire she didn't actually get an answer....just:
"Ma'am the United States Military does not make mistakes"

You would be a good lawyer though. You certainly have the grasp of logics. You know how to argue things. With politics is more difficult for you Pat Shields, since you sometimes lack... charm. 

The T wrote: I see my comments on Facebook and my general view of things and I must say I'm very close to libertarianism in liberties issues... I'm all for freedom for everything as long as it doesn't harm others directly or indirectly. On the other hand, I still think that economically that same total liberty is harmful. And both don't have to go together. But in some fields at least, I'm not so different. I just believe government is a useful institution which can exist and help in a world with full personal liberties.

Pretty much agreed 100%

And yes Pat, you certainly would make a great lawyer! Though I am glad you are pursuing what you want to do.
I hope to do that eventually, (gotta work on a masters) but for the next few years its a corporate job for me...
The irony. And the $$


Edited by JJLehto - July 29 2010 at 20:54

The T wrote: By the way, don't avoid this one please. Libertarianists, what do you think of Sarah Palin? I'm not implying anything. I just ask as I would about any public figure who, correctly or not, is identified with the right and even with your movement.

Like a lot of politicians, I liked her, and now I'm not sure that I do.