Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Guests Or Gate Crashers Part II (Thomas Sowell Continues His Illegal Immigration Debate Alert)
Townhall.com ^ | 03/29/06 | Thomas Sowell

Posted on 03/28/2006 10:31:33 PM PST by goldstategop

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-32 last
To: I got the rope
Yes, Sowell is on to something here, it's the very first provision in section one of the 14th Amendment: "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."

The only way around this aspect is through the amendment process...and I don't see this one changing anytime soon.

21 posted on 03/29/2006 4:50:23 AM PST by LowCountryJoe (I'm a Paleo-liberal: I believe in freedom; am socially independent and a borderline fiscal anarchist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: LowCountryJoe

So true.
Does anyone remember when they (Government) gave away cheese to reduce stockpiles in the mid 1980's(I think)?
Farm policy is another area that needs drastic revision (along with the Post office, Dept. of Education, etc.,etc.,)
I can't find the source for this, but I'm sure I've read that there are now 3 Dept. of Agriculture employees for evey farmer in the Country.
Help with a source, anyone?


22 posted on 03/29/2006 5:07:46 AM PST by mikeybaby (long time lurker)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: LowCountryJoe
It's been argued on FR that the 14th amendment didn't mean to those in Congress who wrote it what we now mean it to be, that the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" clause was meant to avoid the born here, can stay here problem. I've seen arguments for both sides posted. I'm not a lawyer and can't decide their relative merits, but in principal it should mean now whatever it meant when it was enacted. If those who argue its meaning has changed are correct it should be correctable without having to do another amendment. The main problem in doing so would be the reeducation of the generations who had been taught black is white.
23 posted on 03/29/2006 6:13:59 AM PST by JohnBovenmyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

Can you believe this comparison of Mexican and U.S. immigration laws?

http://www.directory.com.mx/immigration

Talk about a racist legal system...


24 posted on 03/29/2006 7:17:11 AM PST by Shuttle Shucker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnBovenmyer; LowCountryJoe
It's been argued on FR that the 14th amendment didn't mean to those in Congress who wrote it what we now mean it to be, that the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" clause was meant to avoid the born here, can stay here problem. I've seen arguments for both sides posted. I'm not a lawyer and can't decide their relative merits, but in principal it should mean now whatever it meant when it was enacted. If those who argue its meaning has changed are correct it should be correctable without having to do another amendment. The main problem in doing so would be the reeducation of the generations who had been taught black is white.

In an environment in which "the right to privacy" can be convoluted to legalize the killing of unborn babies -- yet, amazingly enough, NOT actually protect any privacy (in the "Fourth Amendment" sense), I hardly think it much of a problem to decree that the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" clause provides all the "out" needed to kick out the invaders.

25 posted on 03/29/2006 10:36:21 AM PST by Don Joe (We've traded the Rule of Law for the Law of Rule.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: TomGuy
The argument fails because there ARE Americans who work in the fields, who pick lettuce, who clean toilets at Holiday Inn, who sweep up office buildings, etc. Every day there are Americans doing those jobs. It is an insult to imply that they don't. It is elitist to assume they don't.

That's not entirely true. Yes, there are some Americans willing to do those jobs. There are also a fair number of the unemployed who are uemployed because they lack any kind of work ethic. I've seen this a million times in my profession. When the unemployment rate starts getting low, you start getting some real lousy workers. Sure, they'll accept the job. But then they won't show up on time, if they show up at all. They'll sleep on the job, or not do it at all. They'll show up drunk, or drink on the job.

That's the reality. The idea that there is an American willing and able to put in an honest day's work for pay for every job is fanciful.

26 posted on 03/29/2006 10:46:09 AM PST by XJarhead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

If you read Sowell's argument closely, he's really taking aim at farmers and farm subsidies big-time. No domestic sugar production, no more overproduction stored, etc. I'm not saying he's wrong about that, but that is one mighty powerful political ox he's goring there.


27 posted on 03/29/2006 10:47:52 AM PST by XJarhead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Don Joe
We should be careful here. Unlike the left should not warp the just to serve our wishes. If the original intent of the 14th really didn't mean born here equaled citizenship then restoring that intent is congruent with the rule of law and actions by the appropriate branch(es) of government to do that is a legitimate goal. If the original intent really was what we were all taught in government schools than, if we want to change it we should amend it. Illegal immigration is a major problem, but it is not worth screwing with the constitution, nor worth giving up our constitutional high ground, just because the other side has already screwed with it.

If original intent is on our side we, the constitutional good guys, DO still have a problem, a political education one. When the left invented Roe they had an easier task. They had a large base of support that didn't care about the constitution, but just about their desired result. Most of those who didn't desire the result were law abiding and accepted Roe because the Court said it was so. The left wing media propaganda kept most such from knowing better. Now, even though many may wish the status quo weren't so nearly everyone believes the 14th mandates the status quo. Few, even here, have ever heard otherwise. Our reverence for what we think the constitution says and our Roe enhanced aversion to judicial rewrites would keep most of those wanting these ends to oppose those means. Lots of reeducation would be needed first. Currently Roe would be easier to fix. And it's worth repeating, I don't know where the original intent really is. I've seen arguments for both sides here and decided I don't have enough historical and legal knowledge to determine that. I just know it's not necessarily a closed issue as most have presumed.

28 posted on 03/29/2006 7:52:49 PM PST by JohnBovenmyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: JohnBovenmyer
Unlike the left should not warp the just to serve our wishes.

Oops. Should read: "Unlike the left we should not warp the constitution just to serve our wishes."

29 posted on 03/29/2006 7:54:11 PM PST by JohnBovenmyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

Quotes from Chairman Wormtongue's Red Book, aka "Just Give Up":

"You can't deport 12 million people"

"The border is 3,000 miles long, you can't put a fence on it"

"There is nothing you can do to stop people from sneaking into the U.S."

"They are only doing jobs Americans won't do"


30 posted on 03/29/2006 7:57:49 PM PST by Pelham (Treason: Not just for Democrats anymore)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

BTTT!


31 posted on 03/29/2006 8:09:45 PM PST by LibertarianInExile (Freedom isn't free--no, there's a hefty f'in fee--and if you don't throw in your buck-o-5, who will?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnBovenmyer

We should be careful here. Unlike the left should not warp the just to serve our wishes. If the original intent of the 14th really didn't mean born here equaled citizenship then restoring that intent is congruent with the rule of law and actions by the appropriate branch(es) of government to do that is a legitimate goal. If the original intent really was what we were all taught in government schools than, if we want to change it we should amend it. Illegal immigration is a major problem, but it is not worth screwing with the constitution, nor worth giving up our constitutional high ground, just because the other side has already screwed with it.
This one's really easy to address. The putative original intent of the 14th Amendment was to protect the rights of the emancipated slaves. I'm fairly certain that all of those involved in that situation have gone on to their reward.

I'm likewise fairly certain that "working for slave wages" or "working under slave labor conditions" -- to which the illegal aliens willingly subject themselves -- does not undo the Emancipation Proclaimation. And, I'm quite certain that whatever the original intent of the 14th was vis-a-vis the emancipated slaves, it has zero merit regarding the estate of illegal invaders, who force their way into our country, and then assert a "right" for their progeny (and by extention, themselves, through their progeny).

It's just absurd.

In any event, the amendment itself is not without its detractors: Truth About the 14th Amendment.

But, whether it was bad law to begin with, or, has merely outlived its usefulness (being in effect a "one-shot" remedy for dealing with the aftermath of the Civil War), it would be so intensely politically UNcorrect to even consider repeal, that I do not expect it to happen, period.

But, my main point is that inasmuch as the illegals are not former slaves, emancipated as a result of the Civil War, any efforts to affect a force-fit for citizenship for their offspring via the 14th Amendment is an abomination.

At the risk of being ponderously obvious, I'll close by mentioning that the combined effects of tens of millions of "former Mexicans" having taken up residence, a gutless and spineless government, caught between the lust for the illegal votes of the illegal aliens and the lobbybux from the "interests" who benefit from the presence of the illegal aliens, things will not be getting better any time soon -- if ever.

Things are so bad that the ONLY ones left objecting to this invasion are the hundreds of millions of American citizens.

Isn't that something? The ONLY ones who object to it, are the ONLY ones with no political power!

Yes, I am being farsical. The "only ones" are in fact the vast majority of actual Americans. Yet, "we the people" are in the process of having the Mother of All [insert-unspeakable-word-of-choice] crammed down our throats. We are in the middle of a triangle of "minor" interests -- all far fewer in number than us, but, all endowed with political POWER.

The triangle is comprised of the government, the illegals, and the lobbyists and those they represent (those who benefit from the "cheap labor").

We are cattle, being herded by three cowboys, trigger-happy with their electric prods. They zap us, we move where we're pushed, and they laugh. Imagine that -- over two hundred million of US, and so darned FEW of them. Behold the majesty of political power in the hands of a few.

These are the closing days of what this country used to be. These ARE "the good old days"; take in the sights, so that you'll have memories to pass down to your children. Quietly, of course. Don't want to make waves, after all.

32 posted on 03/29/2006 8:47:41 PM PST by Don Joe (We've traded the Rule of Law for the Law of Rule.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-32 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson