What if they were willing to mow the lawn, do the dishes, cook, clean and take care of the kids, leaving you with more time to produce widgets. Now granted you only need so many people to mow your lawn and do your dishes…
Which is why we should staple a greencard to every science, engineering and math degree.
Apparently not for a price we are willing to pay otherwise there would be no advantage.
Why not admit citizens the same way you would hire employees or recruit club members?
With all that said, it still doesn’t justify trying to deny birth certificates to children born in the USA. That just smacks of overreaching at the very least and more likely outright racism.
In fact, a huge number of “undocumented aliens” in the US are visa overstays. For obvious reasons it’s impossible to calculate, but I’ve seen estimates of anywhere from 40-60%. Most of the undocumented Irish, for example (the Irish government estimates there to be about 40,000 of them) entered legally but just didn’t leave when they were supposed to.
And for those wondering about the circumstances of Bricker’s father’s entry, he’s discussed them on this board before. Do a search.
Since you didn’t quote anyone, I don’t know if this was in reference to my post to magellan01 or to something completely different. In case it is directed at me, I can’t explain it to you, because I don’t agree with that sentiment. I called magellan01 a homophobic racist because he is one, not because he has a problem with our immigration laws, or the enforcement thereof. There is a large overlap between anti-immigration (legal or otherwise) types and racists, but it’s certainly not universal.
I’ve never ever seen a post by you that would lead me to believe you had a racist bone in your body, regardless of our differences of opinion on immigration issues, for example.
You could pass an amendment to change the law. But claiming that was the original intent is still just an opinion, which has already been trumped by the Supremes. Sorry.
That’s not right. Yes, the Supremes have ruled on what the law is, but not as to whether they ruled that way because that was what they viewed as the original intent. Not all laws are decided on original intent grounds. Surely you heard the the term “penumbras”. In this very thread there have been cites showing what the actual crafters of the law wanted the law to do and not do. The congressional record contains their actual words explaining that.
So, unless you can show me where the Supremes specifically argued original intent in their decision, you’re wrong. Sorry.
So when SCOTUS rendered their decision, they were too stupid to read the so-called “actual words” and interpret them in their decision? Why should I give them more weight than the Supreme Court does? Fail.
The Supreme Court is only correctly interpreting the constitution when they agree with the far right, don’t you know.
The current interpretation of the 14th amendment wasn’t some Roe v. Wade 5-4 decision, I believe it was a 8-0 decision with one justice not participating, there is no question about what those words mean, its not a close call.
So now that Arizona is target Americans for harassment simply because of who their parents are, does anyone deny the folks in the Arizona state government are being racist bigots?
But originalism is only one of three ways in which the Constitution is construed. Textualism is substantially more common – the actual words put to paper, proposed by Congress and ratified by he states, not a reconstruction of what might have been their intent in so doing, governs. If the actual words are that “Congress shall pass no law … abridging the right of the people peacably to assemble and to petition for a redress of grievances,” then regardless of the First Congress’s intent in including that right in the First Amendment, it means that any peaceful assembly and any petitioning for redress of grievances is protected against government infringement. “Living Consittuionalism” also starts with the text but takes the premise that the meaning of the words may evolve with the nation. “No cruel and unusual punishment” means, not adherence to some metaphysical objective ideal of what cruelness and unusualness in punishment might be, nor what the First Congress meant by the phrase, but what it means to a reasonable man with passing familiarity with legal precedent today. The mocking “penumbras and emanations” derive, first from language used by Justice Douglas in one decision, and second from their being applied to efforts to determine what “no deprivation of life, liberty, or property without due process of law” might mean in practice. Almost everyone would see a law forbidding you from going anywhere but your home, place of employment, or nearest grocery store without prior permission from DHS as violating the guarantee of liberty. But the question of whether you may be compelled to devote your body to the nourishment of an unborn fetus which you did not choose to conceive suddenly brings to light the question of how far liberty extends. (And yes, I know Magellan is male; that “you” is generic, including the roughly 45% of the population which can get pregnant.)
In this case, whatever may have been the intent of the Reconstruction-Era Congress, the precise words of the law specify that any person born or naturalized in the U.S. and subject to the laws thereof is a U.S. citizen, and that no state may deny that U.S. citizen his rights as a U.S. citizen. That includes young citizens born to people subject to the laws against being illegal aliens.
You are correct. And my point was simply that originalism is not what was used in the Supreme’s decision in this particular case. That’s it. So, Fear Itself is wrong on that point. But he’ll come back a try more semantic gymnastics to just to insist that I was wrong on even that specific point, when I’m not. But I’ve come to expect such nonsense from him. I told him to supply the language by the Supremes exhibiting original intent as their reasoning, he comes back not with that, but with an argument for a different point.