Jenksismyhero

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Aug 11, 2010 -> 03:51 PM) So tourists have to show their passports and/or vacation itineraries for a routine traffic stop? How is that worse than having to provide a drivers license?

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Aug 11, 2010 -> 03:49 PM) I dont think the govt should have the right to ask for citizenship papers at a lawful stop. It has no relationship to whether or not the person was speeding or committing another vehicle related offense. They have a right to ask for license, registration and insurance because those (in some states) are prerequisites for being able to drive legally on the road. Unless Florida makes being a citizen a prerequisite for driving on Florida roads, I dont see why it would be relevant whether a person was an US citizen, Japanese Citizen, Illegal immigrant, or martian. Now if Florida makes a law that says only US citizens can drive on their roads, they would definitely have a legitimate right to ask for proof of citizenship. In Illinois you have to provide proof of residency and your SS# to obtain a license. So yeah, I think you have to be a citizen/legal alien to drive.

On a related topic, Florida's Attorney General proposes a stricter version of the Arizona immigration bill, REQUIRING immigration status checks for any lawful stop. Who has issues with this? What if it became a law that every citizen of the state was required to provide proof of citizenship during a stop, just like a drivers license and insurance are already required? What if the state can put the immigration status onto your drivers license? Is that still discrimination?

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Aug 11, 2010 -> 03:17 PM) This is where we get into fundamental disagreements. I can't justify changing the way someone is considered a US national based on cost. In fact, I can't justify amending the constitution in a way that affects the legal status of any person for the sake of a deficit. Economics and the rights of persons are two things that should remain mutually exclusive. Since when are economics and the Constitution incompatable? Money is used as a basis for a lot of things.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 11, 2010 -> 03:15 PM) No one's been able to give us anything more than anecdotes on cost savings, and we can respond with possible significant extra costs associated with enforcement that could easily offset any cost savings. As BS pointed out...having a mechanism to actually fully research the immigration status of every child born in this country would not be cheap. We're already spending about $15-20 billion this year on the Mexican border and enforcement as it is...which happens to be a similar number to some estimates of the cost of the benefits that all those illegal immigrants would get if they became citizens. Well, if it's up to your party any "enforcement" is just racist discrimination right? And so fine, if it turns out that enforcement costs that much, you again say that the change is effective from this day forward, not the past. I just don't see what the big deal is to proving your citizenship. You gotta provide papers for a baby's birth certificate already right?

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Aug 11, 2010 -> 03:14 PM) Im not sure there would be cost savings. People dont come here illegally so that they can be citizens, they come here for a better life. If you make it so that their children are illegal too, it just will create more illegal immigrants in the US. It will mean that the govt has to spend more time and money on deportation etc. I dunno how there wouldn't be. If illegals are doing things the "right way," i.e., paying their taxes, paying for education and healthcare and all that, then there's no gain or loss. If illegals are doing it the wrong way, living here illegally, getting paid in cash, sending all the money home, AND utilzing the social services for the kids, then it's a net gain because the cost of providing those services will go elsewhere. You have what, 20 million illegals in this country? How many of them are children? I think a significant amount. Moreover, I think people DO come here for the benefit of their children, and if that incentive is gone, I think there's a reasonable chance that illegal immigration goes down. Again, I'm saying that eliminating the birth right to citizenship is just one of many changes that need to be made. I'm in agreement with you - I think if you have your ducks in a row it shouldn't take years to get to the US. But, just because the system sucks now doesn't mean we should excuse illegal activity.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Aug 11, 2010 -> 03:01 PM) Still looking for a good reason to change the amendment. I think they were provided, but cost savings would be the biggest one. Taking away a benefit of coming here illegally (so hopefully a decrease in illegal immigration in general) would be another. Also keep in mind that I think a lot of people would argue that you can amend the 14th as part of a larger immigration overhaul. For those that do things the right way, it should be easier to gain citizenship or long term resident status. It's not like people (at least i'm not) are arguing that we do away with the birth right while also making immigration as a whole more difficult.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Aug 11, 2010 -> 03:01 PM) And what about non-citizens who are permanent legal residents? What about their kids? Do we make them eligible for citizenship when their parents are? Do they have to apply for babygreencards? All good points, and should be part of the longer, more detailed discussion about the best policy to have.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Aug 11, 2010 -> 02:54 PM) So will he have to staff government employees at hospitals to ensure at least one parent is a citizen for any newborns? Really? So a pain in the ass process to prove something to the government is an argument against it? You've worked with the government before right?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 11, 2010 -> 02:52 PM) Seriously...you guys are dramatically parsing the language here. If you were to change the amendment and a child were to be born before that change or after that change...the child after that change would face a dramatic curtailing of his or her rights. The only way you can say it wasn't taken away is that the child just happened to be born on the wrong date so that it never received them. And that differs from any law that gets enacted.....how?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 11, 2010 -> 02:44 PM) That's an incredibly awkward way to try to slip around the reality that yes, for a ton of people, you are taking away that right. And doing so in a way where they'd have zero defense, and where it would not be their fault at all. Any change would be retroactive. No one would have a right taken away if the 14th was amended.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Aug 11, 2010 -> 02:22 PM) Im trying to find out if Godwin is jewish. My guess is he is not. Disagree. By making the Nazi reference, in this specific case, you are showing how a very small law, can set the stage for something far worse. You dont think its relevant that one of the first steps to the holocaust was removing Jewish citizenship? For similar reasons to the ones that people are making today? And most Germans didnt want gas chambers for Jews. The problem is once they gave the govt the power to make these rules, the German people lost all control. Most Germans never would have believed taking away Jewish citizenship, restricting their right to marry, would lead to the death of millions. If they were told that do you really believe they would have voted for it? They were told that this was a way to protect them, to make sure that the Jews didnt take all of their money, etc. If Godwin cared about the Holocaust or Jews he would never dissuade anyone from bringing up the crimes of the holocaust. We must never forget. His law, creates a disincentive to speak about the holocaust/Nazi's because his law can be used to create a strawman argument. Instead of focusing on the true facts. Yep, because by believing that citizenship in a country isn't a right to every human on Earth I'm a Nazi. Start up the fires boys, we got some work to do. f***ing ridiculous, and pretty god damn insulting actually.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 11, 2010 -> 01:04 PM) Any other time you'd be angry about the government getting involved in people's lives. I think issues involving citizenship and issues involving say, me being forced to buy health insurance, are a little different. And i'm asking you, why is that such a big deal? It's like arguing that the government has the power to determine the age requirements of the President. "Well if you allow that to happen, then the whole thing falls apart!" GMAB.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 11, 2010 -> 12:56 PM) And this is why I have a problem with any concept of this and why I think it's insane that any little-c conservative would support anything like this...because now the government is going to be deciding standards for how long you need to be here for it to count, or what you need to be doing, or maybe which country you need to come from to qualify. Any limit you try to set, I can come up with an easy example to get around it that will require you to give up and strengthen your rule. how is this different than any other standard the government arbitrarily sets?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 11, 2010 -> 12:37 PM) You'll note...the proposal that 2k5 and NSS agreed to says that is entirely ok. Good for them. I think part of the discussion should be that the "born here" requirement, if any, would be that a temporary stay wouldn't suffice.

QUOTE (bmags @ Aug 11, 2010 -> 12:30 PM) Sureeee. Yep, because the only immigrants in this country are brown.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 11, 2010 -> 12:17 PM) So, it's OK to distrust and beat up Mexicans because we used to do that to the Irish? Why pigeonhole this to mexicans only? Pretty sure the debate has been "immigrants," which could be any race.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Aug 11, 2010 -> 12:14 PM) I'm pretty sure you just called me a racist, which is laughable. No, the reason to explore this (at least for me - certainly SOME of these voices in the debate are racist) is simple. Citizenship is this country's single greatest commodity. And the more you flood the country with that commodity, the less value it has, NOT because it means "undesirable" people are here, but because there are limits to the OTHER resources we have. Jobs, government services, water/land/natural resources, money, etc. Just as I have said in here in many ways that you HAVE to be careful with the consumption of natural resources if you want society to thrive, similarly, you HAVE to be careful of the rate at which people are coming into the country to access them. The U.S. is the place more people want to live than anywhere on Earth, far and away. We have something really great going here, even with its flaws. If you just fling open the doors with no restrictions to access and citizenship whatsoever, you will get huge floods of people that will inevitably make life more difficult for everyone here. This is why we have restrictions on citizenship and visitation, just like every country on earth (or close) does. So... since most people would agree that SOME sort of controls must be in place... the debate is not something ethereal and idealistic as you seem to think. What it really is, is deciding where you want that line to be. And all I'm saying is, maybe when deciding to draw that line, you should make life EASIER for the immigrants who do things right, and HARDER for those who don't. Agree 100%, and I think that's why the discussion is an important one. No one is saying close the borders completely.

QUOTE (whitesoxfan101 @ Aug 11, 2010 -> 12:04 PM) I'm not sure we were ever truly a free society. But I find it hard to argue with his point that we're inching closer to what we despise, particularly in regards to our freedoms. And I'm not sure why you bolded the 2nd point you did, I think he's right there too. How are we getting closer to something we've always been? Supplant immigrant in this situation (or brown people, since a lot of you think this is all about hating on them only) with black, irish, german, catholic, jew, whatever.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Aug 11, 2010 -> 11:57 AM) It has nothing to do with race, it's based on citizenry. Then why have ANY requirements, INCLUDING having to be born here? So, if they don't, they shouldn't be given that right? Some don't pay taxes, but still want to be citizens. And it's not "eventually," in this case, it's immediate. Yes, because "citizen" has no meaning or benefit.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Aug 11, 2010 -> 10:56 AM) People should be granted citizenship just because they are born here. People should be able to build a Mosque next to the site of the Twin Towers. (eventhough its not really next to the site) We once were a city upon a hill, where we were the model of free society. But we inch closer to being nothing more than what we allegedly despise. Everyone who is born in America, deserves to be a citizen. But then again I believe the the idea of America was to be a place where those who are persecuted, those who seek a better life, would be free to join whenever they please. I dont agree with immigration quotas, I dont agree with refusing to allow people to come to America to seek a better life. Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame, With conquering limbs astride from land to land; Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame. "Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!" I understand that people want to have advantages and not let other people immigrate here and potentially compete with them for jobs and benefits. But is that not the American way? Are we not capitalists? Do we not believe in competition and that the hardest and best working will rise to the top? To me that is America. And it actually bothers me to see that people can claim to care about freedom, equality, etc. but at the same time do everything in their power to prevent all people from having that. Can you please cite to the time period you're talking about?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 11, 2010 -> 08:49 AM) Let me turn this around then...changing the Constitution, or even attempting to overhaul how we interpret a phrase like that is, by all accounts, a major overhaul. If you can't provide concrete, unchallengeable numbers to justify that it should be done, then isn't the default, conservative position that we shouldn't change anything? For example...is the power to deny citizenship to people based on limited standards a power you genuinely want the Federal government to have? It's not about interpreting any phrase, it's asking whether we want to grant someone citizenship merely because they were born here. As NSS said, that's a discussion that I think is a good one to have. And he gave concrete examples, citing the "resort" system that exists. Just because we don't know the precise number of people doing this every year doesn't mean we don't know that it happens. I'm not sure what you mean by the bolded. What is a "limited standard?" As a liberal, you're well aware that the Federal government can do (and does) anything it wants, regardless of how many facts or statistics they have to back up its claims. You know, like the executive arbitrarily demanding a private company cough up 2 billion dollars for a disaster it created, despite the fact that the government had/has no idea how much damage has been caused.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 11, 2010 -> 08:29 AM) Politifact link So, basically what he says is true? What a crappy article. It's misleading because he doesn't have concrete numbers? How could he? IMO this is just one of many steps that is needed to overhaul the immigration system.

Anyone play Limbo (360 arcade)? Little pricey at $15, but wow, what a cool game.

QUOTE (FlaSoxxJim @ Aug 9, 2010 -> 12:26 AM) There is no proof of that, of course, because history played out one way and not another. Historic evaluations benefiting greatly from hindsight invariably conclude that Japan was literally incapable of continuing any meaningful war effort. The war in the Pacific had already been won before the first bomb was dropped, though I'll concede that couldn't possibly ave been known at the time. What remains thoroughly striking to me is how detached America was to the reality of what we were unleashing on fellow human beings. Much is made about the fliers dropped over Hiroshima and Nagasaki prior to the bombings warning the citizenry about what was to come. Far less is made of the fact that we dropped the same fliers over several other cities that didn't get bombed — because we didn't know what the wind and weather conditions would be over any of the potential targets on the days the bombs were to be dropped. We were also amazingle meticulous in selecting target cities that had largely been spared from the routine conventional bombing raids that many other Japanese cities were subject to. This was not because Truman had some relative living in Hiroshima or Nagasaki as the Japanese rumors of the day would have suggested. It was, however, the best way to get a cold and calculated before/after picture of what Fat Man and Little Boy were really capable of. We can demonize the Pearl Harbor attack, but at the very least we can accept that it was a legitimate military target. That cannot be even remotely said about Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Not to be crass, but what's the difference really? A bomb is a bomb. A regular bombing raid could inflict as much damage, if not more. The a-bomb just made it easier to do.