Border Patrol agent fired on

Arizona Daily Star ^ | 5/22/02 | Tim Steller

[Poohbah]

Yup, that's me.

[WRhine]

Why do we need guest workers? How about the anchor baby nightmare that makes many 'guest workers' permanent?

That's exactly right TF. Before we even contemplate a guest worker program (which I am against anyway) the 14th Amendment loophole allowing immigrants to circumvent our immigration laws by bearing babies on our soil has to be permanently fixed. Moreover, the millions of illegal aliens living here have to be deported. Anything short of this is AGAIN putting the cart before the horse. When our government evidences competence and a commitment to uphold its own immigration laws at least this issue could be debated "honestly". Of course this will never happen--at least with this president and this congress.

[Tancredo Fan]

We'll need to figure something out on that front...

Definitely. These guest-worker sending countries know full well how to work that game.

[4Freedom]

"I just draw the line at deporting people who only want a better future."

You're going to get a ton more crap for that position and justifiably so.

We don't owe everyone in the world that enters our country, illegally, a better future. If anyone owes it to them, it's the country of their birth.

We don't need a guest worker program.

We need to pay Americans a living wage to do these jobs.

You just sound like any other 'cheap labor' Republican and you don't have any right to complain, because you receive a ton of crap for it.

[hchutch]

Well, that might be something that's a long-haul item. Changing the Constitution is VERY difficult. You need two-thirds of the House and Senate, and 75% of the state legislatures to get an amendment passed. Until then, it is the law of the land.

[hchutch]

Don't be too upset when I return fire, then.

[4Freedom]

Your "return fire" doesn't bother me, it's always off target. You couldn't hit the main point of a thread, if it was painted on the broad side of a barn.

[jcenso]

THIS IS AN OUTRAGE!!!!!!

PUT THE MARINES WITH TANKS AND M16S ON THE BORDER NOW!!!!!!!!

This is got to stop ... before MORE Americans are killed! Myself and other individuals are willing to protect OUR LAND if the US government WILL NOT!!!!

[hchutch]

I consider your shots at me to be just as inaccurate, so we have a choice. We can agree to disagree, we can try to reach some form of solution that won't be perfect, or we can sling mud.

Those are the three options.

[usurper]

"FIRE BACK GOD DAMM IT"

In this instance, I think the agent responded correctly by making a tactical withdrawal. This is the second time this type of incident has accrued and I don't see anything changing.

Saddly, one or more of our agents is going to get killed on the altar of open borders. Our agents are prepared to do nightly battle with alien and drug smugglers, but they are not prepared to go toe to toe with combat troops. I see this ending in tragedy. But what are a few federal employees' lives worth compared to the promise of unlimited cheep labor and the next generation of voters? It seems both governments have already done the math.

[varon]

The last time they did this, we took about half their country.

Riiiiight! That was before all this diversity and PC crap and when the people in power cared more for the constitution and the security of our nation than about the "feelings" of illegals.

[jcenso]

Militia Act of 1792, Second Congress, Session I. Chapter XXVIII Passed May 2, 1792, providing for the authority of the President to call out the Militia

Section 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That whenever the United States shall be invaded, or be in imminent danger of invasion from any foreign nation or Indian tribe, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States, to call forth such number of the militia of the state or states most convenient to the place of danger or scene of action as he may judge necessary to repel such invasion, and to issue his orders for that purpose, to such officer or officers of the militia as he shall think proper; and in case of an insurrection in any state, against the government thereof, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States, on application of the legislature of such state, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) to call forth such number of the militia of any other state or states, as may be applied for, or as he may judge sufficient to suppress such insurrection.

Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That whenever the laws of the United States shall be opposed or the execution thereof obstructed, in any state, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the marshals by this act, the same being notified to the President of the United States, by an associate justice or the district judge, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States to call forth the militia of such state to suppress such combinations, and to cause the laws to be duly executed. And if the militia of a state, where such combinations may happen, shall refuse, or be insufficient to suppress the same, it shall be lawful for the President, if the legislature of the United States be not in session, to call forth and employ such numbers of the militia of any other state or states most convenient thereto, as may be necessary, and the use of militia, so to be called forth, may be continued, if necessary, until the expiration of thirty days after the commencement of the ensuing session.

To get the whole thing goto: http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm

[Redcloak]

Here's a map of the area where the incident occured.

The real question for the Mexicans is not "What were your soldiers doing on the wrong side of the border?"; it's "Why were your soldiers firing on a US agent regardless of who was on which side of the border?"

[bam]

Well, that might be something that's a long-haul item. Changing the Constitution is VERY difficult. You need two-thirds of the House and Senate, and 75% of the state legislatures to get an amendment passed. Until then, it is the law of the land.

The 14th Admendment reads "born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof", so mandatory citizenship granted only on the basis of birth within the U.S. is subject to interpretation and can be clarified by Congress (apparently), as done by H.R. 190 introduced by Bob Stump in 2001.

A BILL

To clarify the effect on the citizenship of an individual of the individual's birth in the United States.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. BASIS OF CITIZENSHIP CLARIFIED.

In the exercise of its powers under section 5 of the Fourteenth Article of Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the Congress has determined and hereby declares that any person born after the date of enactment of this Act to a mother who is neither a citizen or national of the United States nor admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident, and which person is a citizen or national of another country of which either of his or her natural parents is a citizen or national, or is entitled upon application to become a citizen or national of such country, shall be considered as born subject to the jurisdiction of that foreign country and not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States within the meaning of section 1 of such Article and shall therefore not be a citizen of the United States or of any State solely by reason of birth in the United States.

link

[hchutch]

The key word is apparently. We'd probably have a serious court battle for it. I'm surprised this isn't already law. If this can solve the "anchor baby" issue, then we have part of the solution.

[WRhine]

I just draw the line at deporting people who only want a better future.

You completely undermined your credibility with that statement. Try as you might to find common ground on immigration reform, from what I have seen, you are an open borders "cheap labor" republican looking for excuses to continue the immigration “free for all” in America. Imagine for one moment if America could never, under any circumstances, deport illegal aliens. How do you think the enemies of America would respond? You don't think that the PRC would dispatch wave upon wave of their political/military operatives over here to set up colonies for the future conquest of our country or, at a minimum, create a threatening domestic force to blackmail our government from protecting its international interests?

This is the road we are going down because of the inability to control immigration. Already we see the political influence of the Muslim contingent in America with EOs coming out of the WH prohibiting racial profiling at airports—even if a person looks suspicious. Then we have the exponentially growing Hispanic groups that are making it politically difficult if not impossible for our government to enforce its own immigration laws or even protect our borders. This country is coming apart at the seams in lock step with the rapidly expanding 3rd world immigrant population in this country. Little by little our government is being compromised away and with it the ability of our government to act in the citizens’ best interests. You like this trend?

[Reaganwuzthebest]

You are right that the "subject to jurisdiction" wording of the 14th Amendment may be a loophole that allows Congress to legislate that children of illegals are not automatic citizens. There have been interpretations of the Amendment made in the last century that would suggest Congress cannot deny citizenship to anyone, but depending on the wording of the legislation, I'd give it a 50-50 chance this conservative Supreme Court would uphold it. If so, then that would save a lot of time and almost improbability of amending the Constitution.

[hchutch]

You lose credibility by calling me "open borders." You've not read a THING I've posted here. I'm calling for serious upgrades to the Border Patrol, and I'm all for increased penalties and enforcing the laws.

My only deviation from what you want is that I'm willing to give those currently in the country who have no criminal record a 30-day period to register into a "guest worker" program, in which they learn English, acquire certain levels of proficiency in math and U.S. History, and stay off welfare. After that 30-day period, if they're in the country, not a permanent resident, and not in this program (due to an expired visa or illegal entry), they are out. If they're on welfare, they are out. But I refuse to deport people merely because they want a better life, and are willing to bust their butts to get that better life. I'll give them a chance to stay in through a guest worker program.

That stand is based on a very basic principle: "...all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." (emphasis added)

If you think this makes me a sell-out, I can't help it, but I've got a principled stand on this as well, and I will make that stand. I'll secure the borders, but I won't deport people who are merely in the pursuit of happiness, and I WILL oppose any effort by those who wish to do just that.