Dreamers

[NEPAKevin]

Not to be insensitive, but... I am about to the point where when the topic of "dreamers" comes up, I pretty much tune it out. But, last night, I was doing something and had the news on as background noise and some talking head was jabbering on about immigration reform and I hear him speculate that one of the reasons the Left doesn't want to actually solve the DACA thing is that they would like to see the optics of federal agents forcibly deporting children who immigrated to the country because of their parents... and something in my brain clicked. "Why does this sound so familiar?" I said to myself. Then I remembered. It's because this has happened before.
https://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/170823101634-elian-gonzalez-photographer-alan-diaz-pkg-00014317-super-169.jpg
Elián González (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eli%C3%A1n_Gonz%C3%A1lez)
No wonder the Dems are so familiar with the optics. It was under the Clinton administration that Janet Reno had federal agents pose for this Pulitzer Prize winning photo. Memories... like the corners of my mind...

[JRB]

That picture is a self-evident mathematical proof on how MP5's *ALWAYS* look good.


I'm just getting sick of the moving goalposts on 'illegal' vs 'undocumented' and the cognitive dissonance with that in regards to State vs Federal laws & what powers the State has to govern itself.
In short, I'll agree that they can have 'undocumented' people and 'undocumented' marijuana after and ONLY after they agree that I can have 'undocumented' machine guns and suppressors and liquor stills without any Federal repercussions, legal or otherwise.
Let's 'have a discussion' and 'compromise' like they've been hounding for. If not?

Then I don't care and they can cry and wail all they want about being held accountable to the same laws I willingly and painstakingly obey, because, you know, it's the damn law! If I can take the time to worry about & stay away from constructive possession of an unregistered SBR, to the point of having friends of mine store parts until a pistol-marked lower arrives in my safe - these knuckleheads can all figure out how to get compliant for the sake of their lives.

[shiv]

This entire thing is optics for the democRats. Anybody that doesn’t want to make the “dreamers” full American citizens (their whole families, and everybody they’ve ever met) is an insensitive racist. The democRats know that they can throw around the “children” card and we can continue to play this game with illegals so long as the border is insecure and pretend as though they have the moral high-ground.

I have an easy solution to this problem, however. First, birth on US soil shouldn’t guarantee citizenship if your parents came to this country for the sole reason of giving birth on US soil, your parents were here illegally, or at least one parent wasn’t a natural-born or naturalized US citizen.

Make it a felony to knowingly hire, provide housing, or extend financial services to any person illegally residing within the US with a minimum five year sentence and $20,000 fine.

No way to make money, no way to wire money, and no way to rent a home. It sounds harsh, but we are at war with these invaders (and democRats) who would see our way of life and system of government destroyed from within. We don’t want people from crap-holes coming here and turning our country into the crap-holes they are fleeing the way hippies have ruined Colorado.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JRB]

This entire thing is optics for the democRats. Anybody that doesn’t want to make the “dreamers” full American citizens (their whole families, and everybody they’ve ever met) is an insensitive racist. The democRats know that they can throw around the “children” card and we can continue to play this game with illegals so long as the border is insecure and pretend as though they have the moral high-ground.

I have an easy solution to this problem, however. First, birth on US soil shouldn’t guarantee citizenship if your parents came to this country for the sole reason of giving birth on US soil, your parents were here illegally, or at least one parent wasn’t a natural-born or naturalized US citizen.

Make it a felony to knowingly hire, provide housing, or extend financial services to any person illegally residing within the US with a minimum five year sentence and $20,000 fine.

No way to make money, no way to wire money, and no way to rent a home. It sounds harsh, but we are at war with these invaders (and democRats) who would see our way of life and system of government destroyed from within. We don’t want people from crap-holes coming here and turning our country into the crap-holes they are fleeing the way hippies have ruined Colorado.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't disagree with your proposed legislative changes, I also don't disagree that one political party in particular is trying to secure millions of votes for themselves by granting citizenship unjustly to a lot of folks who did it all the wrong way.

I do disagree, however, with the notion that they're trying to destroy the country. They don't see it that way, and the moderates you might win over usually don't see it that way.
Similarly, your selective use of capitalization when spelling 'Democrats' simply destroys any intellectual credibility your argument might have had with the very people that need to hear it.

You have to win the arguments and debates with calm facts and deliver it all respectfully and with tact. Or it simply turns into a yelling match where nothing good happens. If you're looking for the latter, or you're looking for a bunch of hug-box agreement about the profound evil of the (D), you're probably not on the right forum.

[TiroFijo]

I have an easy solution to this problem, however. First, birth on US soil shouldn’t guarantee citizenship if your parents came to this country for the sole reason of giving birth on US soil, your parents were here illegally, or at least one parent wasn’t a natural-born or naturalized US citizen.

Make it a felony to knowingly hire, provide housing, or extend financial services to any person illegally residing within the US with a minimum five year sentence and $20,000 fine.

No way to make money, no way to wire money, and no way to rent a home.

THIS IS THE SOLUTION! The law is the law, either you like it or not.

Coming from a non US citizen that doesn't think the US is all that, and that shitholes are very much in the eye of the beholder.

[Peally]

The US has its share of shithole areas too. Turns out the world is a shithole :D

[Totem Polar]

The US has its share of shithole areas too. Turns out the world is a shithole :D

Gotta have places to put the shit.

Progressives often dig a mean latrine while they’re moving society forward; gotta hand it to them.

[shiv]

I don't disagree with your proposed legislative changes, I also don't disagree that one political party in particular is trying to secure millions of votes for themselves by granting citizenship unjustly to a lot of folks who did it all the wrong way.

I do disagree, however, with the notion that they're trying to destroy the country. They don't see it that way, and the moderates you might win over usually don't see it that way.
Similarly, your selective use of capitalization when spelling 'Democrats' simply destroys any intellectual credibility your argument might have had with the very people that need to hear it.

You have to win the arguments and debates with calm facts and deliver it all respectfully and with tact. Or it simply turns into a yelling match where nothing good happens. If you're looking for the latter, or you're looking for a bunch of hug-box agreement about the profound evil of the (D), you're probably not on the right forum.

While I appreciate your tact and desire to have a civil debate, it’s been the narrative from that side that those opposing them are evil hateful racists. Evidently, that hasn’t been a problem for their recruitment. Their narrative continues.

They may not see their ideal as a destruction of the county but their policies necessitate it. Hence “the fundamental transformation” comments from the ex-president and his wife.

While you’re right, strong talk doesn’t win moderates, it wakes our side. And that is half the battle. Look at the stupid crap Trump states constantly, yet that’s what it took to keep a Democrat out of office.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[beenalongtime]

I appreciate your attempt but would point out that a true discussion on that point, would point out that your picture involved not "dreamers" as kids born here with parent(S) that violated immigration laws, but as a kid in a custody battle between a parent and other relatives (extended family).

[BehindBlueI's]

Neither the left nor the right wants to solve immigration problems. If either did, they've had plenty of opportunities. To recycle what I posted elsewhere when someone proposed the Republicans will fix this in November:

Sure. It'll be different this time. He really loves us. He's changed. Trump's Amnesty is completely different than Reagan's Amnesty. Reagan's was 3 million, Trump figures 2 million, but hey...tough on illegal immigration. Make illegals legal, and ta-dah, fewer illegals! Tougher border security in exchange for letting the illegals already here stay is how it gets sold to the base...which was also the Reagan marketing. Sure worked great in the 1980s, I'm sure it'll work just as well today.

It's a cycle. Let the illegals come and set up roots, give them amnesty, talk a good game on border security but don't actually stem the tide. Then blame the other party for the "necessity" of amnesty because what else can you possibly do with all these people...and then distract your base so they'll forget soon. Repeat as necessary.

[farscott]

I am very reluctant to amend the Constitution to get rid of birthright citizenship as we could end up with two classes of people, citizens and an underclass. Take a look at Mexico if you want to see what no birthright citizenship can cause. The correct answer may be to deport the parents and make the children, who are citizens, wards of the state. As distasteful as disrupting families is, there are no easy or clean solutions to this issue.

[JRB]

I am very reluctant to amend the Constitution to get rid of birthright citizenship as we could end up with two classes of people, citizens and an underclass. Take a look at Mexico if you want to see what no birthright citizenship can cause. The correct answer may be to deport the parents and make the children, who are citizens, wards of the state. As distasteful as disrupting families is, there are no easy or clean solutions to this issue.

No other country offers birthright citizenship. Not all other countries are third-world corrupt disasters like Mexico, either.

I'm all for abolishing birthright citizenship. I fail to see its benefits, all I see are specific maternity vacations to the US from all over the world and chain-immigration messes that do not ultimately benefit the citizens of this country in any way.

[richiecotite]

The correct answer may be to deport the parents and make the children, who are citizens, wards of the state.

That might be the fucking worst solution I’ve heard.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BehindBlueI's]

No other country offers birthright citizenship. Not all other countries are third-world corrupt disasters like Mexico, either.

Right. My son was born in Qatar. That doesn't make him Qatari.

Flying into the US on a tourist visa and having a kid here shouldn't make your kid American, either.

[AMC]

Though birthright citizenship has long been debated here because of a number of varied and complicated factors, up until the Wong Kim Ark case in 1898 it was widely assumed (in Case Law and legal opinion) that this did not include children of foreign Nationals born on US soil. Even after the Wong Kim Ark case, it was argued that it only applied to children born of LEGAL residents. Only in the last several decades has the frankly suicidal current practice become the accepted legal framework for birthright citizenship.

[HCM]

The following countries have unrestricted jus soli (citizenship by birth on their territory):

Antigua and Barbuda
Argentina
Barbados Barbados
Belize
Bolivia
Brazil
Canada
Chile
Costa Rica
Cuba
Dominica
Ecuador
El Salvador
Fiji
Grenada
Guatemala
Guyana
Honduras
Jamaica
Lesotho
Mexico
Nicaragua
Pakistan
Panama
Paraguay
Peru
Saint Kitts and Nevis
Saint Lucia
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
Tanzania
Trinidad and Tobago
Tuvalu
United States
Uruguay
Venezuela

[OlongJohnson]

I'll agree that they can have 'undocumented' people and 'undocumented' marijuana after and ONLY after they agree that I can have 'undocumented' machine guns and suppressors and liquor stills without any Federal repercussions, legal or otherwise.

Add undocumented motor vehicles, while you're at it.

[Zincwarrior]

This entire thing is optics for the democRats. Anybody that doesn’t want to make the “dreamers” full American citizens (their whole families, and everybody they’ve ever met) is an insensitive racist. The democRats know that they can throw around the “children” card and we can continue to play this game with illegals so long as the border is insecure and pretend as though they have the moral high-ground.

I have an easy solution to this problem, however. First, birth on US soil shouldn’t guarantee citizenship if your parents came to this country for the sole reason of giving birth on US soil, your parents were here illegally, or at least one parent wasn’t a natural-born or naturalized US citizen.

Make it a felony to knowingly hire, provide housing, or extend financial services to any person illegally residing within the US with a minimum five year sentence and $20,000 fine.

No way to make money, no way to wire money, and no way to rent a home. It sounds harsh, but we are at war with these invaders (and democRats) who would see our way of life and system of government destroyed from within. We don’t want people from crap-holes coming here and turning our country into the crap-holes they are fleeing the way hippies have ruined Colorado.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Considering that pretty much goes against all of US history and the Constitution I am pretty sure that's not going to happen.

[critter]

Immigration that benefits the host country consisting of only what it needs and when it needs it. Tap on; tap off -- may petition for only immediate family who also must pass extensive vetting - criminal, mental, medical, associations, affiliations, whatever. No chain. No lottery. No "annual number".

Dreamers? Parents are criminals. Parents absolutely *must* be deported. They can take their kids with them. If they choose not to take the kids, those dreamer kids are never granted citizenship. They may be granted a work visa, three years at a time, but no path to citizenship. Ever. It may not be their fault, but there should be no gain from the criminal behavior. Sure, it's unfortunate, and I may feel sorry for them, but they are *entitled* to nothing. Let 'em hate their criminal parents for it.

Illegal -migration-, and especially amnesty for criminal behavior is a spit in the face of any immigrant who obeyed the rules.

No one has the right to enter any other country. The host country has the authority to create whatever rules and regulations it deems necessary and it should do exactly that. It has the authority to ban individual people, groups of people, nationalities, whatever the hell it wants -- because it's their country and their rules for admittance much less immigration. I'll never understand all this entitlement mentality that has permeated throughout a large portion of th ementality.

[Zincwarrior]

The US has its share of shithole areas too. Turns out the world is a shithole :D
I went to Detroit once. Yowsa.

[Zincwarrior]

No other country offers birthright citizenship. Not all other countries are third-world corrupt disasters like Mexico, either.

I'm all for abolishing birthright citizenship. I fail to see its benefits, all I see are specific maternity vacations to the US from all over the world and chain-immigration messes that do not ultimately benefit the citizens of this country in any way.

Let's remove yours. Tell me if that's ok.

[blues]

Add undocumented motor vehicles, while you're at it.

My neighbor has undocumented motor vehicles. He swaps the same tag from one vehicle to the other as required every few days. Class. Nothing but class. (It's a struggle not to snitch. And no, he's not a dealer. At least not a car dealer. ;))

[critter]

My neighbor has undocumented motor vehicles. He swaps the same tag from one vehicle to the other as required every few days. Class. Nothing but class. (It's a struggle not to snitch. And no, he's not a dealer. At least not a car dealer. ;))

Can we deport 'em to detroit?

[OlongJohnson]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmjY8lmzWBc


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRLFqa1y1Qo

[blues]

Can we deport 'em to detroit?

From your keyboard to God's screen!

[shiv]

Considering that pretty much goes against all of US history and the Constitution I am pretty sure that's not going to happen.

It was amended to what it is now. That doesn’t mean it *shouldn’t* be changed. What I know is that our country is being destroyed based off what is essentially a loop hole.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ichiban]

Can we deport 'em to detroit?

Take him to Detroit!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=bVDDYQlmq0w

[HCM]

I am very reluctant to amend the Constitution to get rid of birthright citizenship as we could end up with two classes of people, citizens and an underclass. Take a look at Mexico if you want to see what no birthright citizenship can cause. The correct answer may be to deport the parents and make the children, who are citizens, wards of the state. As distasteful as disrupting families is, there are no easy or clean solutions to this issue.

Mexico does, in fact have Jus Soli aka Birthright citizenship.

Mexico simply has uneven distribution of wealth and little to no middle class.

[FNFAN]

23622

Workplace enforcement works great. Just too little of it done by too few enforcers. Need to have progressively stronger sanctions on employers and boost enforcement on welfare and identity theft fraud.

[TGS]

I am very reluctant to amend the Constitution to get rid of birthright citizenship as we could end up with two classes of people, citizens and an underclass.

Isn't that essentially what we have with the current system of citizens and LPRs?

LPRs (and any person in the US) have the same constitutional protections of citizens, can get a SSN and are eligible for SSA benefits following 40 quarters of SS-covered work, though LPRs can have their status changed and be deported, can be excluded upon attempted reentry when travelling abroad, are not eligible for a US passport, etc. They essentially have limited claim to residing in the US.

I'll go a step further and say we've created a much more severe third class by knowingly allowing IAs to live here. They can get a work card regardless of not having legal status, but are eligible for little else and subject to deportation when the federal government sees fit.

So, in my estimation we already have a system that allows two descending layers of underclass.

[Zincwarrior]

It was amended to what it is now. That doesn’t mean it *shouldn’t* be changed. What I know is that our country is being destroyed based off what is essentially a loop hole.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You are against the 14th Amendment? Wow, ok.

[Lex Luthier]

The following countries have unrestricted jus soli (citizenship by birth on their territory):

Antigua and Barbuda
Argentina
Barbados Barbados
Belize
Bolivia
Brazil
Canada
Chile
Costa Rica
Cuba
Dominica
Ecuador
El Salvador
Fiji
Grenada
Guatemala
Guyana
Honduras
Jamaica
Lesotho
Mexico
Nicaragua
Pakistan
Panama
Paraguay
Peru
Saint Kitts and Nevis
Saint Lucia
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
Tanzania
Trinidad and Tobago
Tuvalu
United States
Uruguay
Venezuela

I am very surprised to see Canada, Chile, and Peru on that list.
It's a fascinating tidbit about national mindsets. Where did you get the list, HCM?

[HCM]

I am very surprised to see Canada, Chile, and Peru on that list.
It's a fascinating tidbit about national mindsets. Where did you get the list, HCM?

http://harvardhrj.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/Culliton-Gonzalez.pdf

Depending on how you define it there are either 30, or 33 countries which follow Jus Soli. It is mostly a new world / Western Hemisphere phenomenon.

The only two I know of which had it and subsequently eliminated it are Malta, and more in point, India which eliminated in 2004 it due to illegal immigration from neighboring Bangladesh.

Most countries follow Jus Sanguinis or “Law of the Blood” as found in Roman Law.

[HCM]

Isn't that essentially what we have with the current system of citizens and LPRs?

LPRs (and any person in the US) have the same constitutional protections of citizens, can get a SSN and are eligible for SSA benefits following 40 quarters of SS-covered work, though LPRs can have their status changed and be deported, can be excluded upon attempted reentry when travelling abroad, are not eligible for a US passport, etc. They essentially have limited claim to residing in the US.

I'll go a step further and say we've created a much more severe third class by knowingly allowing IAs to live here. They can get a work card regardless of not having legal status, but are eligible for little else and subject to deportation when the federal government sees fit.

So, in my estimation we already have a system that allows two descending layers of underclass.

IAs are not able to get Enployment authorization cards without attaining some lawful status even if it’s temporary.

I think you are referring to ITN Individual Taxpayer ID Numbers which are issued by the IRS. They are supposed to go to aliens lawfully present but not eligible for SSNs such as the spouses of non immigrant workers, students etc. the IRS seems to give them to IAs because, let’s face it, who doesn’t like free tax money ?

[shiv]

You are against the 14th Amendment? Wow, ok.

I am against illegal immigrants coming here for the sole purpose of having their children here so they can be US citizens. I’m against vacation babies? Are you for that? Wow!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Zincwarrior]

I am against illegal immigrants coming here for the sole purpose of having their children here so they can be US citizens. I’m against vacation babies? Are you for that? Wow!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I follow the Constitution, amended after 600,000 died in a war that made all men citizens. If you are born here, you are a US citizen same as everyone else.

[critter]

I follow the Constitution, amended after 600,000 died in a war that made all men citizens. If you are born here, you are a US citizen same as everyone else.

Not really much to argue against there. I personally don't like it. I don't think jumping across the border illegally and popping out a baby is really in the spirit of the law, but it is the Supreme law. They are U.S. Citizens.

[shiv]

I follow the Constitution, amended after 600,000 died in a war that made all men citizens. If you are born here, you are a US citizen same as everyone else.

You conveniently didn’t answer my question.

Are all laws just? Do you think unjust laws should stand?

Do you think the law should allow people to illegally cross our border so that they can give birth in the US? Do you believe people should have birth vacations?

And you wouldn’t follow it if amended again not to allow anchor babies?

The constitution has a means of amending it.

So are you saying the constitution wasn’t worth following before the 14th amendment?

For your opinion to carry any weight, you should easily be able to answer my questions. If you can’t/won’t, I don’t think your opinion holds much water in this conversation.

Perhaps all the anchor babies and illegals will get their way and we won’t have a constitution for you to follow.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[critter]

And you wouldn’t follow it if amended again not to allow anchor babies?


Perhaps all the anchor babies and illegals will get their way and we won’t have a constitution for you to follow.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well, if it is amended, we need to repeal 16 simultaneously, and while we're at it, expand the definition of Treason to include any elected or appointed official lying to We the People :p

[PNWTO]

Not really much to argue against there. I personally don't like it. I don't think jumping across the border illegally and popping out a baby is really in the spirit of the law, but it is the Supreme law. They are U.S. Citizens.

That's the hurdle I'm having with the reports of Russian women doing this... I hate to argue against it but we know that the best interests of our nation are definitely not at thought there.

I don't think any amendment or new law would be "right" anyway. Like BBI noted this is just a fun distraction piece as it is politically toxic to the "other". I grew up surrounded by migrant workers in the orchards and I can't criticize their desires or work ethic. Without them there would be a insurmountable labor shortage in Ag.

[shiv]

Well, if it is amended, we need to repeal 16 simultaneously, and while we're at it, expand the definition of Treason to include any elected or appointed official lying to We the People :p

You won’t get any argument from me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[HCM]

Not really much to argue against there. I personally don't like it. I don't think jumping across the border illegally and popping out a baby is really in the spirit of the law, but it is the Supreme law. They are U.S. Citizens.

The kids are U.S. citizens. That doesn’t automatically do anything for the parents. The kid has to be 21 to petition for the parents so Anchor babys are definitely a long game.

[critter]

The kids are U.S. citizens. That doesn’t automatically do anything for the parents. The kid has to be 21 to petition for the parents so Anchor babys are definitely a long game.

Yes, that's actually what I meant, but didn't convey it properly. The mother gets to remain as guardian, or whatever, with her U.S. Citizen baby, doen't she?

[HCM]

Yes, that's actually what I meant, but didn't convey it properly. The mother gets to remain as guardian, or whatever, with her U.S. Citizen baby, doen't she?

No. There is no legal provision for that.

In fact that was what Obama tried to implement as DAPA for the parents of the DACA kids and their USC siblings but it was shot down by the courts.

An alien with minor USC children who is ordered deported can either make arrangements for their kids to accompany them back to their country or make arrangements for someone else to care for the USC kids here. Third option is is CPS and the foster care system but that is rare.

[HCM]

So here is the deal with DACA / the Dreamers.

They are kinda screwed by their parents actions. As a group they are a bell curve like any other group. Some are shitbags and some will make great Americans.

I don’t have an issue with them in general assuming you set the standards for dreamer status properly to weed out the criminals.

I do have a serious issue with what Obama did in implementing DACA. He took a discretionary executive tool intended by congress for limited application, deferred action, and used it to unlawfully and unconstitutionally usurp Congress’ authority and create a de facto amnesty by executive fiat. He should have been impeached for that stunt.

Deferred action is normally granted to give temporary status to persons for a specific public benefit, such as a facilitating the testimony of a confidential informant or a witness to a crime.

[critter]

No. There is no legal provision for that.

In fact that was what Obama tried to implement as DAPA for the parents of the DACA kids and their USC siblings but it was shot down by the courts.

An alien with minor USC children who is ordered deported can either make arrangements for their kids to accompany them back to their country or make arrangements for someone else to care for the USC kids here. Third option is is CPS and the foster care system but that is rare.

That's surprising actually. Add that to the list of shit I didn't know. Definitely a long game to legally go that route. So what's all the hoopla about anchor babies then? Are thousands of people actually doing this? or are they simply disappearing into the night?

[HCM]

That's surprising actually. Add that to the list of shit I didn't know. Definitely a long game to legally go that route. So what's all the hoopla about anchor babies then? Are thousands of people actually doing this? or are they simply disappearing into the night?

Hundreds of thousands of IA’s have their kids here and either keep their heads down and hope for the best or drive drunk / beat their spouse etc and get put into deportation proceedings.

The Chinese and others are literally coming, having the kid then going home ASAP- they are doing it for the kids future or as a long term plan to eventually bring the family to the US or at least have the option. These people are rich by Chinese standards, just not quite rich enough to legally “buy” a US investor visa or otherwise stay here legally.

[RJ]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmjY8lmzWBc


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRLFqa1y1Qo

That was painful to watch.

We had our Honda serviced at Cooper Garages in Ferring UK while I was on assignment. I ran into Mr. Cooper in the showroom and struck up a conversation.

He invited me into his office and we had a nice chat about him getting engines from Mr. Honda, and having Bruce McLaren drive for him. What a nice man.

I had two minis there; my ‘67 1275 S with a balanced and blueprinted engine by Avonbar, and an M Reg Rover Cooper Muffy, M294AUF.

Muffy was my commuter car, and might as well be the twin in that video that got crushed.

I know they have to do this stuff I guess but that was just sad.

[Zincwarrior]

You conveniently didn’t answer my question.

Are all laws just? Do you think unjust laws should stand?

Do you think the law should allow people to illegally cross our border so that they can give birth in the US? Do you believe people should have birth vacations?

And you wouldn’t follow it if amended again not to allow anchor babies?

The constitution has a means of amending it.

So are you saying the constitution wasn’t worth following before the 14th amendment?

For your opinion to carry any weight, you should easily be able to answer my questions. If you can’t/won’t, I don’t think your opinion holds much water in this conversation.

Perhaps all the anchor babies and illegals will get their way and we won’t have a constitution for you to follow.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's not a "law." That's the Fourteenth Amendment, put in place as a result of the ACW, to insure slaves would be free.

[BehindBlueI's]

Are thousands of people actually doing this?

Yes. Either living here long term, crossing the border temporarily, or flying in on worker/tourist/student visas and having a child.

Several of my cousin-in-laws are US citizens because fly in to California while pregnant, don't leave, have baby, go home. Also, don't pay hospital bill. They think their kids will get free college and a bunch of other magic American benefits.

[shiv]

That's not a "law." That's the Fourteenth Amendment, put in place as a result of the ACW, to insure slaves would be free.

“The US Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land”.

I see you won’t answer. I didn’t figure. You’d rather play semantical games. Your silence is evidence you’ll blindly support anything because “it’s the law”.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JRB]

The following countries have unrestricted jus soli (citizenship by birth on their territory):


I had thought Canada had done away with it a long time ago. I was ignorant of the rest. Thank you.


Add undocumented motor vehicles, while you're at it.

Seriously! When I can legally weld a bunch of 2"x2" square tubing together and stuff into it an engine, wheels, steering, a windshield, and lights/turn signals onto it and register it as a 'kit car', tags and all - but HEAVENS FORBID I get a diesel Land Cruiser, TVR Cerbera or a Skyline GT-R and attempt to register it in the US!


Let's remove yours. Tell me if that's ok.

Remove my what? Birthright citizenship for having been born on US soil to two U.S.-born, U.S. citizens, and can trace my family lineage to before the Revolutionary War?
So you're proposing that anyone born in the U.S. period should be vetted before being granted citizenship, even if born to two U.S. citizens?

That's completely ridiculous.


I follow the Constitution, amended after 600,000 died in a war that made all men citizens. If you are born here, you are a US citizen same as everyone else.

Until the NFA and GCA are repealed to restore the full integrity of the 2nd Amendment, this is a non-argument. Nevermind the very real current issues with state's rights and the 10th Amendment.




That was painful to watch.
.....

I know they have to do this stuff I guess but that was just sad.

No, they *don't* have to do that - Mercedes just bought off the right politicians in the 80's so Mercedes USA could stem the tide of German-market imports into the US, which were substantially cheaper than their US-priced counterparts and usually had better specs.

It's a bullshit law that protected greedy corporate interests for a brief period of time long ago, and has done nothing but fuck enthusiasts since - and at considerable gov't expense in manpower and effort, and for what gain to the public?!?!

I have an even lower opinion of the NHTSA/DOT sorts that get paid GS-whatever to comb craigslist and eBay for cars that 'may' have been illegally imported, and going to the point of the DHS raiding houses with assault teams to seize Land Rovers that *may* have been imported illegally!
https://jalopnik.com/why-are-the-feds-obsessed-with-seizing-these-peoples-ol-1672381729

Why the hell is the DHS involved in the enforcement of crap like that? It's purely an NHTSA/DOT/EPA regulation and a stupid one at that!

[Zincwarrior]

“The US Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land”.

I see you won’t answer. I didn’t figure. You’d rather play semantical games. Your silence is evidence you’ll blindly support anything because “it’s the law”.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No. A law is subservient to the Constitution. You know that right? If not, as a review. The Constitution is superior to federal law. Indeed federal laws must comply with the Constitution or they are void.

As to the issue, I avoided nothing. If you are born here you are a US citizen. Whether or not its too easy to get here is a completely unrelated issue that should be dealt with separately.


Remove my what? Birthright citizenship for having been born on US soil to two U.S.-born, U.S. citizens, and can trace my family lineage to before the Revolutionary War?
So you're proposing that anyone born in the U.S. period should be vetted before being granted citizenship, even if born to two U.S. citizens?
Irrelevant. If you change the Constitution then there is no reason for you to be a citizen either. After all, just being born here wouldn't make you or your parents a citizen. Now do you see the problem?

[critter]

Yes. Either living here long term, crossing the border temporarily, or flying in on worker/tourist/student visas and having a child.

Several of my cousin-in-laws are US citizens because fly in to California while pregnant, don't leave, have baby, go home. Also, don't pay hospital bill. They think their kids will get free college and a bunch of other magic American benefits.

So it really is as bad as I thought with an even wider variety of motives - farther outside the spirit of the 14th. It's strange (to me) that for some of them there's actually a twenty-one year game plan involved to get the family here. I was thinking there was more of an immediate gratification for the the mother with a waiver/card/whatever. I have no idea where I got that notion.

[RJ]

JRB I’m unfamiliar with the story behind this Mini Cooper, I’ll have to go check into that.

When I imported my ‘67 Mini Cooper after my assignment in the UK in 1998, I believe it qualified as being older than 25 years since it did not meet Federal safety standards.

My M Reg Cooper wasn’t built to US (M Reg is roughly a 1994 model year) automotive specs and hadn’t been certified (crash tested) for type approval as required by every other imported car. At least that’s what I recall from looking into it at the time.

ETA: One other story I recall, there were tales of people illegally using a number plate off an old junk Mini that was importable, and attaching it to a modern Rover Group Mini Cooper. I attended quite a few Mini shows (my ‘67 S was in nice shape) in the US, and saw quite a few modern Rover Coopers running around with 60s or 70s UK registration plates. It was no coincidence, IMHO. :(

[shiv]

No. A law is subservient to the Constitution. You know that right? If not, as a review. The Constitution is superior to federal law. Indeed federal laws must comply with the Constitution or they are void.

As to the issue, I avoided nothing. If you are born here you are a US citizen. Whether or not its too easy to get here is a completely unrelated issue that should be dealt with separately.


Irrelevant. If you change the Constitution then there is no reason for you to be a citizen either. After all, just being born here wouldn't make you or your parents a citizen. Now do you see the problem?

Article VI states that the Constitution is law. You’re going to seriously sit here and argue about me calling the Constitution law when it says within the Constitution that it is the law?

I get it, you won’t answer simple questions. You know you probably hold an unpopular position. You’d rather snipe at people from the shadows over semantics and phrasing. We all know what the constitution says. We all know what law is. Quit playing childish games. We are talking about solutions to a serious problem.

How can you assume that changing the constitution to not grant automatic citizenship to anchor babies make myself or my parents citizens? I suppose you never read my suggestion above? You know, requiring that at least one parent be natural-born or naturalized citizen of the United States; permanently residing here legally. Guess what, before your often-referenced 14th Amendment, people were citizens.

We get it, you you have an affinity for illegal immigrants. You can donate your time and money to them. Go feed and clothe those poor kids. Their countries are terrible for a reason. When we bring outsiders on that don’t understand our system, our Constitution, and our lifestyle that ultimately get to have a say-so in how things run, our country ends up looking more and more like theirs. Look at the states Californians are fleeing to.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[blues]

Well, I don't have the answer to all the constitutional issues but I will say that one thing we can and should impose is that if you receive public assistance of any kind and are not deemed medically disabled, (by an agency approved physician, not some pill dispenser in it for the quick buck for a disability diagnosis), you must perform your community service in return.

Whether this is digging ditches, cleaning highways, or using some particular skill one may have...it becomes a requirement. There are too many folks on the dole that other than being poor or unemployed are perfectly capable of pitching in.

No service, no check. I'm all for no one going hungry or without medical assistance. I'm also for taking responsibility. Those who can, must.
Lots of great things were accomplished several decades back through public works.

[shiv]

So it really is as bad as I thought with an even wider variety of motives - farther outside the spirit of the 14th. It's strange (to me) that for some of them there's actually a twenty-one year game plan involved to get the family here. I was thinking there was more of an immediate gratification for the the mother with a waiver/card/whatever. I have no idea where I got that notion.

It really is a mess. Those illegals; they are clever. They have to be. What is even crazier is when I drive through the neighborhood and see Mexican flags flying, but homeowner associations and schools are banning the American flags our fathers and grandfathers fought and died for time and time again.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[critter]

Well, I don't have the answer to all the constitutional issues but I will say that one thing we can and should impose is that if you receive public assistance of any kind and are not deemed medically disabled, (by an agency approved physician, not some pill dispenser in it for the quick buck for a disability diagnosis), you must perform your community service in return.

Whether this is digging ditches, cleaning highways, or using some particular skill one may have...it becomes a requirement. There are too many folks on the dole that other than being poor or unemployed are perfectly capable of pitching in.

No service, no check. I'm all for no one going hungry or without medical assistance. I'm also for taking responsibility. Those who can, must.
Lots of great things were accomplished several decades back through public works.

Absolutely agree... I've also thought about suspending the right to vote for anyone who receives assistance from government for the duration of that period due to obvious conflict of interest. Makes perfect sense to me.. but I'm mostly the polar bear on the iceberg with that one, and probably wouldn't withstand SCOTUS scrutiny (besides not a dem alive who'd allow that to happen).

[JRB]

No. A law is subservient to the Constitution. You know that right? If not, as a review. The Constitution is superior to federal law. Indeed federal laws must comply with the Constitution or they are void.

As to the issue, I avoided nothing. If you are born here you are a US citizen. Whether or not its too easy to get here is a completely unrelated issue that should be dealt with separately.


Irrelevant. If you change the Constitution then there is no reason for you to be a citizen either. After all, just being born here wouldn't make you or your parents a citizen. Now do you see the problem?

Honestly, I don't. I'd be a citizen by blood same as my parents and their parents before them.

Also, there's countless Federal and State laws that are flagrantly incongruent with the Constitution as-written. Again, see the NFA/GCA/FOPA/AWB etc vs "Shall Not Be Infringed".
Or the numerous 10th Amendment messes right now with the so-called 'Sanctuary states' and Med MJ, non-enforcement of NFA/GCA issues, etc.

If you're sympathetic to the so-called 'Dreamers' then simply say so and advocate for them from a humanitarian or national benefit perspective. A Constitutional argument is a non-starter.



JRB I’m unfamiliar with the story behind this Mini Cooper, I’ll have to go check into that.

When I imported my ‘67 Mini Cooper after my assignment in the UK in 1998, I believe it qualified as being older than 25 years since it did not meet Federal safety standards.

My M Reg Cooper wasn’t built to US (M Reg is roughly a 1994 model year) automotive specs and hadn’t been certified (crash tested) for type approval as required by every other imported car. At least that’s what I recall from looking into it at the time.

ETA: One other story I recall, there were tales of people illegally using a number plate off an old junk Mini that was importable, and attaching it to a modern Rover Group Mini Cooper. I attended quite a few Mini shows (my ‘67 S was in nice shape) in the US, and saw quite a few modern Rover Coopers running around with 60s or 70s UK registration plates. It was no coincidence, IMHO. :(

Yes, the 25 year exception for direct import on an HS-7 was established in the 80's and Mercedes USA heavily donated to a lot of supporting elected officials to make that into law. Through that time and around it, lots of newer Minis snuck in on older VIN's, same with Mexico-made VW Beetles. Naturally plenty of Land Rovers and a few Land Cruisers came in too, along with some Z-cars. Most Z-cars that were brought back to the US in RHD configuration were imported as 'substantially similar' to a US model, which was an exemption that was eliminated for RHD versions of LHD cars around 1999-2000ish.

But the first time the depths of stupidity involved in those laws were really explored came with the establishment and subsequent failure of a company called MotoRex that sought to import Nissan Skyline GT-R's to the U.S. legally. Some Google-fu will find all the stories on it. Long story short is that you have to crash test 8-10 of them and the car needs to be brought into compliance for NHTSA/DOT regs for that model year if it's 25 years old or older, and EPA regs for that model year if it's 21 years old or older.

For something like an R33 Skyline GT-R, the process cost around $25k. For Cali-specific SMOG approval (which applies only to that particular vehicle once complete) add another $10k or so. Then there's a DOT Bond release process that starts around 2x the cost of the car.
But once it's 25 years old from date of production, direct import on an HS-7 with deregistration papers from country of origin and you're good to go.
Stupid, stupid, stupid.

[critter]

... double tap

[OlongJohnson]

Seriously! When I can legally weld a bunch of 2"x2" square tubing together and stuff into it an engine, wheels, steering, a windshield, and lights/turn signals onto it and register it as a 'kit car', tags and all - but HEAVENS FORBID I get a diesel Land Cruiser, TVR Cerbera or a Skyline GT-R and attempt to register it in the US!

I believe this guy does it right.

https://www.importavehicle.com/inventory

[JRB]

I believe this guy does it right.

https://www.importavehicle.com/inventory

Sean Morris got his start with the MotoRex fiasco so he's well versed in the legalities as well as making a vehicle Cali CARB legal as well. His prices are typically higher and tends to cater to the Cali market exclusively.

There's a myriad of newer operations that specialize in 25 year law vehicles, specifically from Japan. Rivsu imports and Japanese Classics are both excellent operations if you're interested in a 49-state legal Japanese import. I'm less familiar with things from the European market like Land Rovers, but the HS7 and importation requirements are the same so long as it's 25 years old or older.

[Jaywalker]

Article VI states that the Constitution is law. YouÂ’re going to seriously sit here and argue about me calling the Constitution law when it says within the Constitution that it is the law?

I get it, you wonÂ’t answer simple questions. You know you probably hold an unpopular position. YouÂ’d rather snipe at people from the shadows over semantics and phrasing. We all know what the constitution says. We all know what law is. Quit playing childish games. We are talking about solutions to a serious problem.

How can you assume that changing the constitution to not grant automatic citizenship to anchor babies make myself or my parents citizens? I suppose you never read my suggestion above? You know, requiring that at least one parent be natural-born or naturalized citizen of the United States; permanently residing here legally. Guess what, before your often-referenced 14th Amendment, people were citizens.

We get it, you you have an affinity for illegal immigrants. You can donate your time and money to them. Go feed and clothe those poor kids. Their countries are terrible for a reason. When we bring outsiders on that donÂ’t understand our system, our Constitution, and our lifestyle that ultimately get to have a say-so in how things run, our country ends up looking more and more like theirs. Look at the states Californians are fleeing to.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Shiv, I have a serious question and it's not meant to inflame you - it's based on my opinion and therefore can be completely wrong, so here goes.

Have you ever been wrong and have you admitted it?

I'm serious, as I see a lot of your writing as aggressive and to the given to offering false alternatives, simple choices like bumper stickers, such as repealing 16 amendments to the Constitution. Unfortunately, since your postings read to me much like a person who hasn't changed his mind since he was house-broken, I need to know whether you're willing to accept another point of view, if it's persuasive, or if your facts are wrong. It takes quite a lot of time to research and craft an answer to some of the questions you've posed, and if you're just going to ignore them anyway, why should I bother to go to all that trouble?

So, following on to my first question, can you tell me the purpose you have in posting political stuff here? Validation? Rousing the side? Other?

Thanks, and apologies if they're too direct, but you strike me as a man who likes a direct question.

[critter]

such as repealing 16 amendments to the Constitution.



Actually, I think that was me, sarcastically (well, halfway anyway) referring to repealing the 16th amendment along with expanding the definition of treason... of course I may have missed something.

[NEPAKevin]

I appreciate your attempt but would point out that a true discussion on that point, would point out that your picture involved not "dreamers" as kids born here with parent(S) that violated immigration laws, but as a kid in a custody battle between a parent and other relatives (extended family).

You are absolutely factually correct. However, the concept I was trying to convey was not that the incident pictured was specifically a DACA case, which would have been impossible as it occurred a year before DACA was even first proposed, but rather that the left has actually done the heavy handed deportations that they are using as scare tactics to garner support for "the resistance" while proclaiming themselves morally superior.

And I concur that HK sub machine guns are sexy.

https://i.pinimg.com/236x/85/31/82/85318219ccca5c06ff7575ed81e20876--bad-girls-sexy-girls.jpg
wouldn't want to be gender biased
https://i.pinimg.com/736x/c3/40/fd/c340fdae138791591cd1e82b2e3161e9--daniel-craig-james-bond-daniel-oconnell.jpg

[shiv]

Shiv, I have a serious question and it's not meant to inflame you - it's based on my opinion and therefore can be completely wrong, so here goes.

Have you ever been wrong and have you admitted it?

I'm serious, as I see a lot of your writing as aggressive and to the given to offering false alternatives, simple choices like bumper stickers, such as repealing 16 amendments to the Constitution. Unfortunately, since your postings read to me much like a person who hasn't changed his mind since he was house-broken, I need to know whether you're willing to accept another point of view, if it's persuasive, or if your facts are wrong. It takes quite a lot of time to research and craft an answer to some of the questions you've posed, and if you're just going to ignore them anyway, why should I bother to go to all that trouble?

So, following on to my first question, can you tell me the purpose you have in posting political stuff here? Validation? Rousing the side? Other?

Thanks, and apologies if they're too direct, but you strike me as a man who likes a direct question.

I’m wrong on a daily basis and openly admit it when I am. However, it’s rare that I’m going to flip flop without compelling evidence. In this case zinc is just being indirect and picking something apart with semantics. We were actually talking about the 14th Amendment. That’s one of the beauties of our Constitution, we can admit when we are wrong and make changes; however rather than an outright repeal, we have to amend and leave our mistakes for future generations to see.

For your second question, the topic was brought up and I see a serious crisis on our hands that will seriously alter the future of our nation if ignored or not properly dealt with. I may be a bit abrasive to those weak in their convictions but it’s purely out of genuine concern in this urgent situation we’ve found ourselves in. Unfortunately, most Americans need quick and direct messages because their attention span is about this big.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TGS]

I may be a bit abrasive to those weak in their convictions.....

I'm saying this as someone who actually hunts IAs that prey on Americans....

...no, you're just an insufferable dolt.

[shiv]

I'm saying this as someone who actually hunts IAs that prey on Americans....

...no, you're just an insufferable dolt.

That’s very nice of you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk