Were I to answer this myself, as a person born in this country, two of my answers would still be no. As far as I know I can’t register for the draft since I’m female, and I’ve yet to be called for jury duty. I suppose these things make me selfish too… and I know a few people who aren’t doing their duty of driving, or didn’t begin to do so until well into their 20s, selfish bastards.
You have a very strange way of looking at what benefits the country, Updike.
Betcha I can name someone who doesn’t (benefit the country). Updike. 
So you chose to be American? My mother gave birth to me in New Zealand, being a New Zealander wasn’t my choice just a lucky accident of birth…I’m eternally grateful that my mother had a bloody good accident.
You and I both come from countries where we get to make choice. The fact that you disbelieve that there are people who never have choice in their lives shows your ignorance.
As what I hope is a final little aside, I just want to officially disassociate myself from Updike. Even if he has a few valid points (and I’m not sure about that), he’s making them in a manner guaranteed to make people mad. Seriously, Updike, do you listen to Limbaugh and think that he’s the archetype of conservative thought and interaction? I even (maybe I can take a tiiiiny piece of credit) had this thread on an even keel, and you came back to just wack it in the head with a bat. Do you get off on this?
Sweet Jesus! I’d rather have my testicles sliced up by a sushi chef and served to the masses Edomae style.
Fallacy one- that we get significantly cheaper produce because of illegal immigrants. Farmers do save quite a bit on labor by hiring braceros, but that term means “migrant farm worker” and not “illegal immigrant”. Many braceros are “legal”. Please provide a cite that we pay less for produce because of illegal immigrants.
Fallacy two- that “illegals” get paid less than “legals”. I worked extensively with Farm Laborers here in CA. Other than a few extremelyrare highly publicized cases of nigh chattel slavery, “undocumented aliens” are paid exactly the same as “greencarded migrant farm workers”. Both are generally hired by Farm-labor contractors or the farm itself. Many have Union representation. Now- let me make this perfectly clear- no farmer or farm labor contractor (with anything to lose) will pay “illegals” less than “legals” And there’s an excelent reason for this- they all pretend all their workers are legal, so that if the INS makes a sweep, the employers won’t get arrested too. If you can put on a good act and say "We didn’t know they were illegal! :eek: " as an employer you often are safe from penalties and arrest. But if you were paying "illegals’ 1/2 that of legals- then you are shit out of luck, and you’re going to jail. Thus, just about all farmers & FLC pay all their workers the same- which is not very much, sure. (“Same” is often based upon amount harvested, so experience helps, of course).You’d have to be an idiot to pay an illegal less- thus showing you know they are illegal. So- cite that illegals are commonly paid less than legals? (not less than “the average wage”- farm workers- even those white and born here are paid rather poorly for very hard work, sure. But “illegals” aren’t paid significantly less).
Now- don’t get me wrong- illegal immigration is wrong. There are those who prey on the illegals wanting to cross, and some who prey on them here. Some “illegals” die trying to cross the desert. Social Services here are already overburdened, so extra population growth is problematic.
I suggest a strong "guest worker’ program for Mexico and Canada. This would allow just about anyone to enter for the purpose of work. They would not be eligable for most social services. They wouldn’t be able to bring their families. It could be possible for a contract/treaty to be signed saying that any child born of a “guest worker” is considered only a citizen of the parents nationality. Combine this with a much stronger "fence’ along the Mexican border. If the braceros could enter at any time to get work, then go back home also at any tiem to be with their families, this would end most of the problems right then & there.
This was incredibly easy to find.
The effect of stemming the flow of illegal aliens working on farms will increase prices but would not, as many farm owners are saying, drive farms out of business nor result in 5 dollar a head of lettuce:
Now, what this has to do with literally alienating American citizens, I do not know.
But it doesn’t answer either of my requests for cites.
Where does it show that illegals * get paid significantly less than legal braceros? It does show that braceros (both illegal and legal) often get paid poorly and far too often live in substandard housing (and one reason for that is because most braceros don’t spend their money here, they send it home- thus they choose to live in substandard conditions- which aren’t all that “substandard” compared to the conditions for the a good number of the poor in Mexico). In fact, your cite even claims that of those braceros, only 40% are here illegaly- which means that 60% are here legally.
Next- where does that cite claim that our produce prices are signficantly less due to ILLEGAL migrant farm workers? Biggirls excellent cite shows a very reasonable estimate of 3-6%, which I think sounds about right. Now, without ANY bracero labor those prices could be signficantly higher.
In Salinas & Watsonville CA, where I worked with these people, I never saw conditions that bad. I did see young men staying 8+ to a cheap motel room, eating very cheaply, and sending every dime they could “back home”.
I know, and I’m terribly disappointed in you. Where do you think you are, anyway?
Well, obviously the current way of doing things makes sense to me, otherwise I wouldn’t be disagreeing with you in just about every possible way, except as regards the utility of Updike’s posts in this thread. Personally, I think the concern about illegal immigration is way overblown - which, I think, was the point of posts mentioning historical attitudes towards the Irish/Italians/Jews/whoever the immigrant du jour was. Not to say that you’re a racist for worrying about Mexican immigrants, but to point out that people have been claiming that immigrants are damaging the country for centuries, and that such claims are usually unfounded. I feel the same way about current concerns - that there’s really very little substance to them, and that efforts to address the problem only create larger, more dire problems.
Canceling citizenship for children born in this country is a prime example of a (forgive me) really stupid idea that does nothing to address a problem of questionable importance to begin with. People aren’t coming to this country just for citizenship itself: they already had that in their home countries. They’re coming here to escape political oppression, seek economic opportunities, and generally make a better life for themselves in a way that’s not possible in their home land. Taking away the possibility of citizenship doesn’t take away their incentive to come here, it just makes it harder for them to ever be anything other than a disadvantaged underclass.
I don’t think you’re heartless, I think your idea is, because it will cause significant harm to address essentially a legalistic, largely unimportant complaint. I know you’re not saying that we should strip citizenship from people who already have it; that would take a much more drastic ammendment than the one you’re proposing. But you didn’t answer my original question: say we change the law today, and tomorrow a kid is born here to illegal immigrants. Fifteen years later, he and his parents are busted by Immigration. The kid has lived here his entire life. He’s never been to his “homeland.” Everyone he knows lives here. Maybe he doesn’t even know that he’s not here legally. Should he lose all that, should everything and everyone he knows be taken away from him because of something that his parents did before he was even born? I don’t think that’s morally justifiable. I think it’s entirely without any form of compassion or humanity. Again, I’m not saying you have those traits, but I really don’t think you’ve thought out your position on this, because that’s what the results would be if you got your way.
The point is two-fold: first, that the authors of that ammendment knew very well the consequences of illegal immigration, which you had suggested might not have been the case at the time it was drafted. But more importantly, that the ammendment was created so as to address that very problem in the most efficient, effective way possible. We can’t stop illegal immigration. Walling off Mexico is impractical, enormously expensive, and will almost certainly be ineffective. These people are going to be here, one way or another. Do we try to assimilate them, or do we do every thing in our power to keep them disaffected and seperate from our society? Giving their children citizenship means they have a stake in the future of the country beyond using it as an opportunity to put food on the table. Taking that away from them seems to me to be the first step on the road to the sort of massive, violent social disconect that led to weeks of widespread rioting in France lately.
And seeing as you’re a conservative, I know that last thing you want to see is America becoming more like France. 
Well, best estimates show that most braceros are illegal (52%) which speaks to your first point. Reducing the workforce by more than half would, I think, improve working conditions for all migrant workers-- firstly by making each of the much more valuable and secondly by drying up the illegal ones, those migrating farmers would have a much louder political voice.
By reducing the migrant work force, I think the increase would be much more significant than predicted because, not only would real wages rise (as my cite indicates, real wages have fallen because of the large influx of illegals) but also living conditions would improve dramatically. I think this would be a good debate topic for GD. I don’t hang out over there anymore because I really, really don’t have time to (Good Lord does looking up cites and formulating semi-coherent posts take a looooong time.)
However, the legislation being pitted does not speak to this problem at all.
But again, I ask: what does that have to do with alienating American citizens?
Your 1st cite claims only 40%, not 52%. But I agree. Reduce the illegal immigrant problem, and things get better for just about everyone- other than the illegals. However- I propose an open number of “guest worker permits”, see above.
It does to a small extent- some women cross the border just to have their babies in America. How big the problem is, I dunno.
As to this last point- I dunno. Who claims it does? 
This is ostensibly what this thread is about, remember? Legislation to ensure certain American citizens aren’t.
The debate can’t be quashed by saying how thankful we should be for the low cost of supermarket lettuce, restaurant meals, or gardeners for hire. Instead we should be considering the long term effects of mass immigration, galloping population growth in the exactly areas that are least able to accommodate that growth with regard to the water supply, and the social and economic implications of importing a growing underclass. The reason your immigrant construction workers earn $100 a week is because so many have come the bottom has dropped out of the labor market.
Every country has its laws about immigration. There was a time when I naively thought I could move to Europe one day, blend in, and work for a living, and then I found out how profoundly difficult it is. The country of my paternal ancestry, Holland, does not accept immigrants at all, or did not at the time I made inquiries. I didn’t like that either, but guess what? I abided by it.