As I’ve said elsewhere, this issue has given me a new appreciation of the concept of irony. Because I’d like any S.O.B. that thinks we should get rid of citizenship-by-birth to lose his own citizenship.
–Cliffy
And you knew that all those “what-have-you”'s were illegal because? And you know that they’re primarily responsible for the decline in those species of fish how?
Question 1: Because they tell me, with great pride, about how they do it. Being an immigrant myself (albeit legal), I meet plenty of illegals, who think I am automatically on their side merely because I immigrated.
Question 2: Nope, can’t say for 100% sure, but I’ll believe my SO’s family, who has lived on Long Island for 30 years, and whose dad is an avid fisherman, out there every couple of days almost, and hwo sees them doing it.
Honestly, why are you so reluctant to believe it? Why are you so determined to prove it’s not them, when they are proud of it? They’re not ashamed or guilty in the least.
Well, yes, it COULD be clearer if it explained what “subject to the jurisdiction” meant.
For example, the Fourteenth Amendment does NOT operate to grant citizenship to the children of foreign diplomats assigned here.
Why not?
This isn’t an illegal immigrant issue it’s a poor people issue. In other areas of the country a lot of poor or uneducated people use the hospital ER as a clinic. They lack health insurance and the money to pay for a regular doctor visit, so they wait until the situation is dire and wind up going to the ER. Or they don’t wait and just treat the ER as a free clinic.
If it’s the only place to go where you are guaranteed not to be turned away and get the medical care you need, what else would you have people do?
You have not seen any such shit. The Long Island Sound was out-fished by good ole USA fishermen long before such limits where imposed. It was commercial fishing that fucked Long Island. Now that Long Island is well and truly fucked, limits have been set on recreational fishermen-- and guess who breaks those rules more-- illegal immigrants or your average CEO who takes his buddies out on his baby?
Do you know what the illegal immigrants do on Long Island? Build houses they can never afford to live in because they make $100 a week, watch “legal” children and clean big, fancy houses. THIS I’ve seen with my very own eyes.
So your avid fisherman dad who fishes every couple of days is off the hook, but the illegals have out-fished the sound? How self-serving!
You know I’m not a lawyer. I’m going to say it’s tied in with the diplomatic immunity thing. Diplomats (and their families) are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction.
Illegal aliens, as should be clear from the fact that they can be tried, and are tried, for crimes commited on U.S. soil, are.
Seems pretty clear, though, since Diplomatic Immunity means they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US.
I’m sure there are plenty of American Indians who are all for this.
Nobody could be grandfathered of course.
And because we are using personal ancedotes as data points, who about this one:
I was at a co-worker’s home one fine weekend when the hubby took a bunch of guys out on his boat and invited me along. I don’t fish and don’t like boats and declined. I was bothered for over an hour because he wanted me on the boat so that they could fish more blues than legally possible and wanted a higher head count in case they were stopped. I still didn’t go.
When these American Citizens came back that night with 3 tubs full of blues and none of the wives wanted to clean them-- they THREW THEM AWAY INTO THE GARBAGE. Good old red, white and blue-blooded American citizens over-fished the blues and then threw them away. Go team!
Just out of curiosity, what *are * the limits on babies or pregnant mothers? 
Because the evidence you’ve offered in support of it (your boyfriend’s dad, a fisherman, has seen non-whites overfishing–therefore, illegal immigrants are responsible for the decline of the long island fishery) is really, really poor.
I’m not determined to prove it’s not them; I’d simply like to know the truth. And I don’t think you’re going to be the source of that.
I agree with this being as much a class issue as it is an immigration issue. Poor people, in many cases, take from society more than they put in. It’s just a fact (based on my personal experience). While the big fatcat CEO takes as well, he, or his company, often has a contribution to make to society. What one CEO takes from the jar in tax breaks, is equal to what 100 poor people take from the jar in services they don’t pay to manage or maintain. There are WAY more poor than there are CEO’s.
The immigration issue, at least in my eyes, isn’t that people are coming to take jobs that americans won’t do, it’s that we’ve got enough people living in squalor and misery, the last thing we need is MORE people coming here. who have nothing, and need everything.
And let’s not forget that simply because you’re an immigrant doesn’t make you a saint. There are plenty of people coming here because this country will support their criminal activity. America IS the land of plenty, that also means plenty to steal.
All that said, I agree with the desire to change the rules, and think it should be an amendment. If you come here illegally, just because you pop out offspring, doesn’t, or at least shouldn’t mean that your offspring is a citizen. That’s one loophole that ought to be shut tight.
Beat me to it, grayhairedmomma. As long as we’re going with anecdotal evidence:
As an (ex)emergency room nurse, I can tell you that in my experience, the people who most “abused” emergency rooms were people with Medi-Cal. Why? Because doctors in private practice are reluctant to accept medicaid patients because medicaid pays squat. So women bring their babies in with ear infections because they can’t get appointments for weeks. Or they come in for UTI’s. Or bronchitis. Or a dozen other little things they can’t get treated for by a private physician because he can’t get paid enough to be bothered. Medi-Cal takes more money in man hours to get a claim paid than the amount they end up eventually paying. THAT is why the abuse of emergency rooms by Medi-Cal patients.
Tell that to the employees of Enron and see if they agree.
Can you support this “fact” based on anything but personal experience?
Let’s put it this way. The average poor person might receive some government assistance, but they also work – let’s be generous and say $6-8 an hour for many low skill jobs. A CEO, through their work, can earn hundreds of thousands or millions a year. Sure, skill is work more, but is it worth that much more from society?
In my opinion, many of the rich take more from society than they put in when they are far overpaid. It’s not uncommon for corporate executives to get huge bonuses, for example, for cutting large amounts of staff (whether or not this actually increases productivity – simply because it reduces costs). What purpose does that serve society? Sure, a wise executive can cut unnecessary jobs – but there are lots of highly paid, incompetent executives who even get fired (with a huge severance) that are not contributing much. Comparably, someone who works hard all of their life (like many in the working poor) have contributed more.
Besides which, we actively benefit from having a working poor through lower prices for goods and services. As far as I’m concerned, we should step up and be responsible for health care costs, child care costs, etc. with social programs because we do have that benefit. If companies didn’t resort on pools of temporary, seasonal, part-time, or otherwise unbenefited employees, and instead had to cover employees for all of their benefits, we would still be paying – just through higher prices of consumer goods.
Note that he said “often”, not “always”. And he’s correct. Enron is the exception, not the general case.
I don’t see how anyone can say he’s correct or not without fairly rigorous definitions of “put in” and “take out.” I don’t think it’s a foregone conclusion, especially if you compare class-to-class instead of individual-to-individual.
Also, the company isn’t the CEO’s, unless he’s also the owner. There is a distinction. The person who started the company and built it up (creating all those jobs and innovations) is often (especially in the case of the largest companies) not the CEO.
OK, not only Enron. How about Sumitomo Bank, Provident Insurance, Elan, Laidlaw, Twinlab, Worldcom, Newest Way to Wealth. . . I could go on and on and on and on.
Did I mention that my line of work deals directly with corporate officers who defraud employees and shareholders alike? Ayup, CEOs and coporate boards are just as greedy as anyone but when they fuck people they do it thousands and hundred of thousands at a time.