Immigrants Rally in City, Seeking Rights

The New York Times ^ | October 5, 2003 | STEVEN GREENHOUSE

[Age of Reason]

Mexico is a neighbor but not a true ally and it will contuinue to encourage illegal immigration, covertly and overtly.

Ally has nothing to do with it.

You don't impose an embargo on an ally.

There should be no trade with Mexico until Mexico controls its people.

[PRND21]

Tancredo sure stirred up Karl Rove.

Ridiculous.
Tancredo = McClintock minus the public service wonking.

[Vast Buffalo Wing Conspiracy]

I don't believe that voters would throw out politicians who want to enforce immigration laws.

Large majorities of Americans from all social classes and ethnic groups (including legal immigrants) support restrictions on immigration, and the cowardly GOP, with control over Congress and Presidency, still won't even do so much as attempt to enforce our national borders.

It's not a matter of what the voters think (contra what has been asserted here by some) but rather who controls the media. The media sets the agenda and fills the voters minds with images and slogans and suggestions and information/misinformation/"spin".

Due to that, there is no doubt what would happen if real attempts to rectify the situation were made by the GOP without first addressing the problem of media power and control. We don't have real democracy as long as the people controlling the media can use it to frame the terms of debate and subtlely skew the opinions and emotions of the voting public.

Someone mentioned the last time we had a major roundup and expulsion of illegals: during the Depression. It may take another depression, and perhaps "Civil War 2", to bring about another such rectification.

[Hoverbug]

Make the announcement. They have until a certain date to get out of the country. After that date, arrest and make an example out of some with stiff prison sentences as a message to the others.

They'll deport themselves, "voluntarily."

Hb

[Consort]

They'll deport themselves, "voluntarily."

And I thought it was going to be difficult. My wrong.

[Cacique]

bttfl

[Hoverbug]

You forgot the < /sarcasm> tag.

What you are overlooking is the the illegal aliens don't care what we say, they care what we do.

We say we don't want them to come illegally, but what we do is entice them with jobs, welfare, free medical care, free Jr. College in CA, driver's licenses, amnesties from time to time, etc. The message is delivered loud and strong: Please come, we want you here.

If these things were cut off, along with an announcement to get out, coupled with enforcement, they would get the opposite message.

Hb

[RockyMtnMan]

I have a friend that was born in S. Korea and he is an American citizen by virtue of his parents not s. Korean. Mexican parents here illegally that have children are giving birth to a new Mexican citizen not an American.

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

Illegals are not subject to US juridiction because they have not been recognized by the government, hence our authority to deport them. Legal immigrants have rights under our system of law and are protected by those rights. So I guess a legal immigrant's children are naturalized citizens. Illegals are subject to Mexico's jurisdiction not ours, therefore their children are citizens of Mexico.

The "and subject to..." is a conditional not an optional or it would have read "or subject to..". It's in plain English and I read it as such.

[Consort]

If these things were cut off, along with an announcement to get out, coupled with enforcement, they would get the opposite message.

It would work if both parties supported it as I said. Otherwise, politics will prevail and any attempt by one party to make it happen will aggravate the problem and make it harder to deal with, IMO.

[Hoverbug]

You got that right. It wouldn't be easy with one party doing it, but with 70% of the population against illegal immigration,it would secure a voting block.

Now, you've not even brought up the problem of liberal judges in all this. Remember prop 187??

Hb

[El Conservador]

Ius soli applies regardless in the United States in the 50 states and outlying areas. Ius sanguinis does not apply. A child born in the 50 states or the other American territories is a citizen of the United States of America.

His/her parents may not be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, like I am, being a legal immigrant, but the CHILD is, and thus, the child will be a citizen of the United States of America.

That's where the concept of "anchor baby" comes to play: An illegal immigrant couple jumps the border and settles wherever in the US, generally being the woman in an advanced state of pregnancy, and this baby will be born in the United States, thus making him an American citizen, with all the entitlements (welfare, education, healthcare...), all of those perks taken adavantage of by his/her parents.

Also, there's not ius sanguinis in Mexico: To be a Mexican citizen by birth, the child must've been born within Mexican territory, so the baby from the last example won't be a Mexican for legal purposes, and this will save the Mexican government a bunch of money they'd have had to spend on this kid in things like welfare, education, healthcare...

So, the anchor baby has allowed his/her parents to stay in America, no matter what, and won't be a burden for the Mexican government, but the US's.

[texastoo]

"and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"

This is a good point coupled with the fact that Vicente Fox claims all of these illegals are Mexican citizens working in the U.S. at this time. He has even arranged it for them to have dual citizenships and encourages them to vote in the Mexican elections. The Mexican government encourages the illegals to send money HOME to Mexico.

[Consort]

...the problem of liberal judges in all this.

The law suits on this will last for generations and the lawyers will be coming out of the woodwork and getting rich in the process. Don't rule out reparations, campus riots, kumbaya sung in Englsh and Spanish, flower children....

[Hoverbug]

I wouldn't rule it out, but I wouldn't let it stop me from doing it.

Hb

[Consort]

I wouldn't rule it out, but I wouldn't let it stop me from doing it.

The person/party that replaces you will reverse it and add a few more problems while they're at it. It looks like either both parties make it happen or it won't happen.

[humblegunner]

[Paulie]

"We cannot go on simply ignoring and tolerating the plight of our brothers and sisters," Cardinal Egan said...

But the persecution of fellow Christians in China, the Sudan, Africa, etc., continue to fall on deaf ears, including yours, Cardinal. Just a touch of hypocracy here, methinks.

[4.1O dana super trac pak]

I remember going there as a kid to see the rockets, damn shame.

Oh, its not a third world slum, its either "thriving" or "vibrant"...