Hey Constitutional Originalists ...

#51
#51
MG1968 said:
I addressed this issue once before.

It would be inconsistent to agree with what the GOP is currently planning in regards to the 14th Amendment and disagree when the left uses a similar argument regarding the 2nd Amendment.
Click to expand...

As I stated earlier I think that correlation gets awfully shaky when you consider the entire POINT of the argument is that we're talking about an issue that's based on a wholly unambiguous illegality.
 
#52
#52
lawgator1 said:
Well, let's see. I've got the law itself which is that the parents can apply for a visa when the baby turns 21 but that until then the parents are subject to deportation.

And I've got you insisting that the parents are nonetheless allowed by Immigration officials to stay if they had a baby here. When I ask you for data on that (and I really would be interested to see it), you dismiss the question as immaterial.

Starting to sense that maybe the "baby anchor" thing isn't real at all, and is conjured up to justify general opposition to a part of the 14th amendment.
Click to expand...

This is for anyone as much as you but what if an illegal has a child with a US citizen? By this I mean knowingly break the law to come here, knock up/be knocked up by a US citizen and thereby become a parent of a US citizen. Would that not meet the requirement of an "anchor baby"?
 
#53
#53
JTrainDavis said:
LG you know damn well that that was one of the Reconstruction Amendments that wasn't worded well. Stop, man, you know exactly what it was intended to do.
Click to expand...


You are proving my point: the words of the Constitution are subject to interpretation.

Yet, the same people who screech that a judge is a liberal rewriting it when they don't like the result are now arguing that it doesn't mean exactly what it says.

At least the liberals admit that their position is based on their perception of intent, the context at the time, the context now of the problem.

The right wingers rigidly demand adherence to the precise words. Unless they don't like the words. Then, conveniently enough, they find merit in interpreting.
 
#54
#54
lawgator1 said:
Well, let's see. I've got the law itself which is that the parents can apply for a visa when the baby turns 21 but that until then the parents are subject to deportation.

And I've got you insisting that the parents are nonetheless allowed by Immigration officials to stay if they had a baby here. When I ask you for data on that (and I really would be interested to see it), you dismiss the question as immaterial.

Starting to sense that maybe the "baby anchor" thing isn't real at all, and is conjured up to justify general opposition to a part of the 14th amendment.
Click to expand...

the law says if someone is an illegal and is in a car accident that they ahve to be detained and deported. this never happens as well. it's fact that rarely if ever do people get deported if their kids are legal citizens. google it if you like. you really expect data on lack of enforcement? are you really arguing we break up families in this country? give me a ****ing break.
 
#55
#55
lawgator1 said:
What's up with this?

Legislators set sights on 'anchor babies' - CNN.com

The Fourteenth Amendment says:

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.



So how is this misapplied?
Click to expand...

What part of original intent did you miss? What was the original intent and purpose of this Amendment? It must be narrowly interpretted to address ONLY the issues it purposed to resolve. You are STILL trying to twist the Constitution to justify things the writers/amenders never intended.

Make you a deal. You accept the Originalist doctrine on the rest of the issues and I will give you this one... for as long as it takes to change it which would be something on the order of 6 months.

Once you admit that your side had absolutely no lawful right to invent all the rights and programs that have landed us in the mess we're in... You will have no credence to oppose a legitimate and procedurally legal change to clarify that those twisting the USC to violate the spirit of immigration law cannot stay nor will their children be citizens.
 
#56
#56
lawgator1 said:
You are proving my point: the words of the Constitution are subject to interpretation.

Yet, the same people who screech that a judge is a liberal rewriting it when they don't like the result are now arguing that it doesn't mean exactly what it says.

At least the liberals admit that their position is based on their perception of intent, the context at the time, the context now of the problem.

The right wingers rigidly demand adherence to the precise words. Unless they don't like the words. Then, conveniently enough, they find merit in interpreting.
Click to expand...

How noble.

So their intent in this case is increasing their future voting base.

Got it.

You basically started a thread to grip about the right doing something the left already does (by your admission), and the whole point behind it is not the "real" issue, but that fact the left graces us with their intentions.
 
#57
#57
droski said:
the law says if someone is an illegal and is in a car accident that they ahve to be detained and deported. this never happens as well. it's fact that rarely if ever do people get deported if their kids are legal citizens. google it if you like. you really expect data on lack of enforcement? are you really arguing we break up families in this country? give me a ****ing break.
Click to expand...


No, I am saying that there is actually no evidence that babies are being used as anchors.

You'd like to contend that they are, because of the nice rhetorical value of it and the snide insinuation you can make using it.

But then, as is so often the case, it turns out there are no facts to support that bad-sounding characterization.

This is classic right wing technique. Use some harsh, awful-sounding rhetorical trick to hide the absence of fact and get everyone up in arms over "baby anchors" when there is nothing to get up in arms about.

Unless, of course, you want to revisit the very benchmark law and principles of equality that the Civil War led to. This, of course, is the real agenda.
 
#58
#58
BeecherVol said:
How noble.

So their intent in this case is increasing their future voting base.

Got it.

You basically started a thread to grip about the right doing something the left already does (by your admission), and the whole point behind it is not the "real" issue, but that fact the left graces us with their intentions.
Click to expand...


No, to gripe about the right's utter dishonesty about it.
 
#59
#59
lawgator1 said:
You are proving my point: the words of the Constitution are subject to interpretation.
Click to expand...
But NOT in such a way as to apply them to something clearly different from the issue being addressed at ratification. A constitution is effectively a contract governing the relationship between a people and their gov't.

Let's apply your reasoning to a different contract. Are you saying it would be legitimate to intentionally apply that contract to something different from the original intent just because you could make the words fit?

Let's say I contracted to sell you a piece of land for $10000/acre then the county redesigned the maps so that you were buying a swamp instead of a building site. That would be wrong specifically because I would be trying to apply the contract to something different from what it was intended... in spite of what my brother-in-law the judge said.

Yet, the same people who screech that a judge is a liberal rewriting it when they don't like the result are now arguing that it doesn't mean exactly what it says.
Click to expand...
NOTHING... and I mean NOTHING... simply means "exactly what it says". EVERYTHING ALWAYS means what the author intended when there is a dispute over what is meant.

At least the liberals admit that their position is based on their perception of intent, the context at the time, the context now of the problem.
Click to expand...
Liberals have absolutely NO respect for intent. The other two "points" are nothing more than excuses to write law rather than interpret and apply it.

The right wingers rigidly demand adherence to the precise words. Unless they don't like the words. Then, conveniently enough, they find merit in interpreting.
Click to expand...

You really, really, really have no clue about what those who disagree with you ACTUALLY believe, do you?

Adhering PRECISELY to the words can only be done if you take into consideration the specific intent, context, and limits of what the author was addressing.

Unless you are arguing that the writers of the 14th Amendment had legitimizing anchor babies in mind... then you are once again wrong.
 
#60
#60
lawgator1 said:
No, I am saying that there is actually no evidence that babies are being used as anchors.

You'd like to contend that they are, because of the nice rhetorical value of it and the snide insinuation you can make using it.

But then, as is so often the case, it turns out there are no facts to support that bad-sounding characterization.

This is classic right wing technique. Use some harsh, awful-sounding rhetorical trick to hide the absence of fact and get everyone up in arms over "baby anchors" when there is nothing to get up in arms about.

Unless, of course, you want to revisit the very benchmark law and principles of equality that the Civil War led to. This, of course, is the real agenda.
Click to expand...

no facts my ass.
 
#61
#61
lawgator1 said:
No, to gripe about the right's utter dishonesty about it.
Click to expand...

The words say what they say. The intent and scope of the ORIGINAL intent is discernable from the arguments associated with passage. Nothing dishonest about it.

You and the left seek to remove the USC from its context then complain when the right protests.

The original context was not anchor babies or illegal immigration. It therefore does NOT apply to anchor babies or illegal immigration. Not very difficult at all.
 
#62
#62
A Portrait of Unauthorized Immigrants in the United States - Pew Hispanic Center

In addition, a growing share of the children of unauthorized immigrant parents--73%--were born in this country and are U.S. citizens.

For many pregnant Chinese, a U.S. passport for baby remains a powerful lure

The couple's service, outlined in a PowerPoint presentation, includes connecting the expectant mothers with one of three Chinese-owned "baby care centers" in California. For the $14,750 basic fee, Zhou and Chao will arrange for a three-month stay in a center -- two months before the birth and a month after. A room with cable TV and a wireless Internet connection, plus three meals, starts at $35 a day. The doctors and staff all speak Chinese. There are shopping and sightseeing trips.

The mothers must pay their own airfare and are responsible for getting a U.S. visa, although Zhou and Chao will help them fill out the application form.
 
#64
#64
L.A.County's $48 Million Monthly Anchor Baby Tab | Judicial Watch

In June 2009 alone Los Angeles County spent $48 million ($26 million in food stamps and $22 million in welfare) to provide just two of numerous free public services to the children of illegal aliens, which will translate into an annual tab of nearly $600 million for the cash-strapped county.

The figure doesn’t even include the exorbitant cost of educating, medically treating or incarcerating illegal aliens in the sprawling county of about 10 million residents. Los Angeles County annually spends more than $1 billion for those combined services, including $400 million for healthcare and $350 million for public safety.
 
#65
#65
droski said:
no facts my ass.
Click to expand...


For the fourth time, I'd be happy to look at them. I had not heard of this problem before so am not familiar -- where is some evidence that some significant number of illegal immigrants are actually being allowed to stay here because they had a baby here?
 
#66
#66
lawgator1 said:
No, I am saying that there is actually no evidence that babies are being used as anchors.

You'd like to contend that they are, because of the nice rhetorical value of it and the snide insinuation you can make using it.

But then, as is so often the case, it turns out there are no facts to support that bad-sounding characterization.

This is classic right wing technique. Use some harsh, awful-sounding rhetorical trick to hide the absence of fact and get everyone up in arms over "baby anchors" when there is nothing to get up in arms about.

Unless, of course, you want to revisit the very benchmark law and principles of equality that the Civil War led to. This, of course, is the real agenda.
Click to expand...

Insert Obama's "hispanic family out for ice cream" quote.
 
#67
#67
droski said:
L.A.County's $48 Million Monthly Anchor Baby Tab | Judicial Watch

In June 2009 alone Los Angeles County spent $48 million ($26 million in food stamps and $22 million in welfare) to provide just two of numerous free public services to the children of illegal aliens, which will translate into an annual tab of nearly $600 million for the cash-strapped county.

The figure doesn’t even include the exorbitant cost of educating, medically treating or incarcerating illegal aliens in the sprawling county of about 10 million residents. Los Angeles County annually spends more than $1 billion for those combined services, including $400 million for healthcare and $350 million for public safety.
Click to expand...


Ok. And that is evidence that the babies anchor the parents here because ????
 
#68
#68
LG's right, they aren't anchors because that would mean the Fed gov't actually intends to remove an illegal from the US.
 
#70
#70
lawgator1 said:
For the fourth time, I'd be happy to look at them. I had not heard of this problem before so am not familiar -- where is some evidence that some significant number of illegal immigrants are actually being allowed to stay here because they had a baby here?
Click to expand...

how many illegals do you think actually get deported in the first place?
 
#71
#71
lawgator1 said:
Ok. And that is evidence that the babies anchor the parents here because ????
Click to expand...

because a) they can milk the state govt for welfare, education, health care, and food stamps and b) it makes it harder to get deported.
 
#72
#72
if you are saying this isn't really a problem then surely you should have no objection to the change in the law.
 
#73
#73
is there any evidence that parents come across, the wife gives birth and then they go back home? That would seem to prove the anchor doesn't exist
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top