The Slaughterhouse Cases, the Key to Controlling Illegal Immigration?

US Supreme Court ^ | 1872 | MILLER, J., Opinion of the Court

[Carry_Okie]

This is the first interpretation of the 14th Amendment on record.
The following text is from the majority opinion (about 3/4 of the way down the page):

http://www2.law.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/foliocgi.exe/historic/query=[group+f_slavery!3A]/doc/{@6621}/hit_headings/words=4

Slaughterhouse Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1872) (USSC+)
Opinions
MILLER, J., Opinion of the Court

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 first observation we have to make on this clause is that it puts at rest both the questions which we stated to have been the subject of differences of opinion. It declares that persons may be citizens of the United States without regard to their citizenship of a particular State, and it overturns the Dred Scott decision by making all persons born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction citizens of the United States. That its main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the negro can admit of no doubt. The phrase, "subject to its jurisdiction" was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.

Enjoy!

[skeeter]

You understand economics. Here's a question for you: in general, do industries within technologically advanced societies become MORE labor intensive as time progresses, or less?

Here's another related question: what is the primary impetus for labor saving innovation, which benefit productivity and typically improve overall standards of living?

Finally, is it possible for you to argue a point without assuming nefarious motives in your opponents? If not, why not amble on over to DU, where I'm sure you'd feel far more at home.

[madfly]

uh, who is Tom McDonnel?

[Carry_Okie]

Tom McDonnell (my typo) is a technical director for the American Sheep Industry Association, a rancher, feedlot operator, and Director of Sovereignty International (Henry Lamb's parent organization).

He's read three drafts of my book too (that means he's a brave man).

[FITZ]

If you want racism brought into the argument ----then why were the Spaniards hundreds of years ago not illegal aliens in Mexico ----but if I go there now without a tourist card or passport, they can arrest me? Are you saying Mexicans are just a bunch of racists? They also have their immigration laws only they expect their laws to be followed.

[FITZ]

the issue of illegal immigration will be solved about 18-20 years after americans start having more children

If having children is the factor in economic success ---then how do you possibly explain Communist China's huge economic success with it's forced abortions and one-child policies (and little immigration)???? You do realize that China is now in the top three economies ---along with Japan and the US and is actually gaining while the US is falling.

How can millions of kids who lack education and basic skills and lack health insurance so free medical care and education must be provided by the US taxpayers be really so great for our economy? You may not have heard ----but actually our economy isn't doing so well lately ---and California and Texas with their very high numbers of illegals and other immigrants are facing impossible state budget deficits. If immigrants were so helpful there should obviously be surpluses ----and you know there are not!

[FITZ]

if you want to solve the problem, then have children!

They are doing that in Mexico ---and they've got a very bad economy ----so how will bringing the exact same ways to this country help exactly? Mexico is way way behind China now.

[FITZ]

thank god! the leaders of this country understand economics.

Then tell us why our economy is so sluggish ----growing at less than 2%? Why the increasing joblessness and government deficits? Why are taxes so extremely high? Why are people working now 30 years to buy a house when 50 years ago it only took 15 years?

[inquest]

no doubt george w bush, the republican party, and of course, the democrat party do not agree with you.

Are you saying that the administration doesn't want to crack down directly on illegal immigration? Well, that certainly seems to be true - unless of course doing so provides an excuse to grab more power. But other than that, you're absolutely right. They don't care much about illegal immigration.

[nanny]

your hate is not appropriate to this forum.

Any hate you read in my post was something you chose to interject. I was simply telling the truth.Perhaps you should examine your own feelings before you lable; someone else.

I suspect it is the truth that is not upi don't appreciate. It is a usual, and very transparent way to try to deny the truth is to call people names like, RACIST, HATER - ETC. That is standard fare - but most people recognize it for what it is.

I grew up on a farm myself - but for the most part, people don't hoe anything. IF they are hoeing beets these days it is because it is cheaper to get taxpayer subsidized labor than to use the machinery that might be available.

I grew up on a farm also -

[liberalnot]

you are not only rude, but ignorant.

i can tell you for a fact that substantial crops are hand weeded.

there is no equipment--yet--that can distinguish between a weed and a cultivar.

cal-osha just last week announced that they may not allow mexicans to hand weed because of possible injuries to the back.

if mechanical equipment were available, believe me, farmers would buy the equipment and forego the labor costs and politics.

bye.

[liberalnot]

simple.

30 years ago the wants were managable. the average house sq footage was probably 1500. my father built a brand-new house for us in 1965 and it was 1000 sq ft. when i moved to california, i had a girl friend in long beach, near mcdonnell douglas, that had inherited part of the family home, and had paid off her siblings for the rest. after i got acquainted with the house, built circa 1950s, i noticed that there were only 2 bedrooms,and one bath, but she had 2 brothers. i inquired, where did you sleep? she said, my parents had the master bedroom, my brothers shared the second bedroom, and i slept on the day room couch.

this was normal in the 1950s. after ww2 fathers were usually the only working parent, the mother stayed home. on this one salary southern californians in the booming 50's could afford a new house, one new family car, a swimming pool, a yearly vacation, etc. life was good.

but tastes and wants have changed in the intervening years:

today, people in california, are building HUGE houses, 4-5 bedrooms, 2 1/2-3 baths, etc. some middle class homes now have his and her bathrooms for the master bedroom. "gotta have a weight room", etc.want larger spaces. one bath would not be acceptable in today's culture. sharing bedrooms for most middle class kids would be an issue; sometimes you read in the papers about new college freshmen, frustrated with sharing dorm rooms; they had never shared a room before. also, in california buying the largest house you can afford, assures security from other races and gangs.

and third, the housing development companies enjoy larger profits from 4-5 bedroom houses because the so-called "footprint" is approximately the same size. they make much more money from the larger house than a two bedroom house. a two bedroom home might allow less fortunate, undesirables access to the neighborhood; knowing recent judicial decisions, city ordinances concerning the number of inhabitants are not enforced. middle class californians do not want to live in neighborhoods where 15 cars grace one home, some, of course, parked on the lawns.


finally, fourth, environmentalists, nimby's, opportunist lawyers, and democrat policy officials all contribute to higher housing costs. today's reality is that it can take 5 years to push through a new housing development. the lawyer costs are astronomical. only the largest developers need apply.

in sum, life has changed dramatically. now, most families cannot afford a new home unless both parents are working. this means that the kids have substantial amounts of time to get into trouble. also, democrats and unions have pretty much outlawed kids from working. when i was a kid everyone i knew worked after school and on the weekends and in the summers. no more. most southern california kids, if their parents are comfortable, do not work. as bill handel of radio kfi, los angeles, said: my kids are not going flip burgers. the implication is, that's for kids less fortunate, and most probably immigrants.

[liberalnot]

mexico and the u.s. are hardly comparable, in fact, we have almost opposite problems.

[madfly]

Thanks. Very impressive!

[Reaganwuzthebest]

you are not only rude, but ignorant.

For someone who just signed up two weeks ago, you're not only the rude one, but quite bold. You might want be careful with nanny, she'll run circles around you.

[Reaganwuzthebest]

why don't you address the real issue, as i mentioned in my original post--the problem is that baby boomers and succeeding generations do not have enough children to keep our economy humming. and the politicians know that.

Are you sure about that? I'll say it again, maybe you didn't see it the first time. Where I live illegals haven't taken over yet and the economy is humming along just fine thank-you. So is Canada's, where illegal immigration is a blip on the screen compared to us.

If all this immigration is so wonderful, why is California 35 billion dollars in debt, with Texas and NY close behind, all major destinations of illegal immigrants?

[4Freedom]

BTTT!

"It isn't a race problem. It's a rate problem, it's a crime problem and it's a public health problem."

This is worth repeating for all the race-baiters on this thread that may have missed it. ;^)

[liberalnot]

why don't you look up some federal stats on the birthrate?

look at the 50's, 60's, and especially the 70's, when the birthrate, if i remember correctly actually it 1.7 or 1.8 in the late 1970's, after the effects of prosperity feminism began, etc.

since then the american birthrate is above replacement, 2.0.

[liberalnot]

well first get your facts straight.

machines have not replaced manual labor in farmfields.

why would cal-osha be issuing new rules on california laborers if machines were doing the work as she says?

[Reaganwuzthebest]

We're not talking about ending immigration completely, just slowing it down. As far as illegal immigration, there should be no tolerance for it. If we need illegals to work in restaurants and hotels, then maybe we have too many restaurants and hotels. It's called supply and demand. The economy is flexible enough to adjust and survive without millions of illegals.

The old "they do the jobs no one wants to do" line is the most overused untruth I've ever heard. Good thing the communists weren't as good at the propaganda game, we would have lost the Cold War.

[4Freedom]

You want to see Americans have more babies? Let them keep their tax dollars to support their own families instead of confiscating them to support the families of illegal aliens.

Give middle and upper class American families a tax cut for every child they have.

Feminism? Who are you kidding?