Cooch Proposes Birthright Citizenship Reform
By Greg L | 22 January 2008 | National Politics, Illegal Aliens, Virginia Politics | 92 Comments
One of the more significant developments during the visit by members of Save The Old Dominion to Richmond yesterday was the announcement of Senator Ken Cuccinelli that he would be introducing legislation calling for a Constitutional Amendment to clarify the intent of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution and not grant automatic citizenship to those present born to parents in the country illegally. This is a really significant legislative development that should generate a host of discussion in Virginia and beyond, although chances of this initiative passing the General Assembly seem rather slim. It was an unexpected development during the press conference in which it was announced, but a welcome one.
Why would we automatically grant citizenship in this fashion when this circumstance is subject to such legendary abuse? It doesn’t make much sense. Anyone trying to subvert the law by unlawfully entering the country shouldn’t be rewarded for that effort by ensuring that their children receive citizenship. It creates a troubling special legal situation that benefits these lawbreakers by virtue of them creating a mixed-nationality family through unlawful actions. Normally, we want to reward lawful behavior with legal status, and in this one case we reward unlawful behavior through application of a Constitutional Amendment that was never intended for this purpose.
This proposal should start an interesting debate, and perhaps in the end we’ll sort out what the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment really was, and what the proper application of it should be. I look forward to that debate.
The opinions expressed here are solely the views of the author, and not representative of the position of any organization, political party, doughnut shop, knitting guild, or waste recycling facility, but may be correctly attributed to the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. If anything in the above article has offended you, please click here to receive an immediate apology.
You can follow the discussion through the Comments feed.
92 Comments
Views: 1637
Loading ...
Excellent - at the very least it will get the subject discussed and out in the open!
Cuccinelli has impressed me lately - of course he’s rubed the uber-liberals the wrong way, we will need to do our part to defend him and expose them.
Question is? How many parents will be required? My gut feeling says 1 would be it and very little would change.
It’s about time someone tried to do something about this.
Here is the 14th Amendment:
Amendment XIV
Section 1. 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. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.amendmentxiv.html
Ducky
You still haven’t answered my question. Are you the Ducky from Woodstock?
The key term in the 14th Amendment is “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Illegal aliens are not subject to our jurisdiction - they are subject to the jurisdiction of whatever country they came from.
If a child is born to a foreign diplomat posted in the U.S. - the child can choose what country it wants to be a citizen of…
The 14th Amendment was not created to provide anchor babies’ citizenship status - and shouldn’t be used as such.
ducky posts the 14th amendment from the cornell website..ok, so what’s your point dude?
the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is likely one of the hottest debates in the legal profession.
however, remember that the 14th amendment was meant to represent the slaves not your everyday immigrant. It’s my opinion the founding fathers did not intend for this to apply in that context. You can debate the 14th to death, it’s been done before. It would be quite nice to see something done about the situation.
“however, remember that the 14th amendment was meant to represent the slaves not your everyday immigrant.”
Correct. By the time the 14th was ratified (1868), the importation of slaves had been outlawed for 60 years (although smuggling still occurred). The 14th was intended to give those few surviving slaves born outside the US legal status, as well as those who were born here into slavery, and later freed.
The practice of automatically granting citizenship to the children of illegals must stop. I commend the Sentator for making a bold statement regarding this issue.
A few observations on the subject of the 14th amendment:
’subject to the jurisdiction thereof’-yes, illegal immigrants are very much subject to the jurisdiction thereof. To say they are not is to say that they do not have to follow our laws. I don’t think any of us want that.
The founding fathers did not write the 14th amendment, if we take the founding fathers to be those dudes who wrote the original constitution. The 14th amendment was added right after the Civil War.
Funny thing about constitutional amendments–they often cause unintended consequences. 26th amendment seems to come to mind. Who would have thought so many reprocussions would have followed just giving 18 year olds the vote?
It seems that RULE OF LAW (tolling from the hillsides) is only when we like the law and is somewhat less attractive when we do not like the law.
Batson,
You are so right regarding the 14th.
The slaves didn’t ask to come here and they certainly didn’t cross our borders illegally. ILLEGALS ALIENS choice to violate our immigration laws.
****
Here’s what the MJM is saying..
http://www.manassasjm.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=MJM/MGArticle/WPN_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1173354304882&path=
Here’s some good news regarding SB-90. We need this to pass.
“It’s very telling that the most senior senator of the senate introduced an E-verify bill,” he said, referring to a measure proposed by Sen. Charles J. “Chuck” Colgan, D-Manassas.
If approved, it would require employers to use the online federal E-verify system to verify the working status of every employee.
On Monday the Senate Commerce and Labor Committee referred Colgan’s bill to the Courts of Justice Committee.
Are illegal aliens “subject to the jurisdiction thereof?”
If they commit a murder, can they be arrested, tried and go to jail? Yes. Therefore, they are “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” American laws apply to illegal aliens. They may be violating those laws, but the laws still apply.
It seems to me that the phrase excludes children of diplomats, but little else. Diplomats can’t be tried in American courts. Nor can their families. Illegal aliens can, so they are subject to our jurisdiction.
You can change the 14th amendment with another amendment, but you can’t just explain it away with clever legal arguments. It doesn’t matter if granting citizenship to people born here is destroying the country. The Constitution must be respected if we value any of the rights found in it.
I’ve read over all of the essays explaining how the 14th amendment doesn’t say what it says and found them all to be unpersuasive. The language may be a bit vague about some things, but I it does say if you are born here, you get to be a citizen.
Lafayette said on 22 Jan 2008 at 8:03 am:
On Monday the Senate Commerce and Labor Committee referred Colgan’s bill to the Courts of Justice Committee.
Unfortunately, this gentleman who leads the Senate and chairs the Commerce and Labour Committee and sits on the Courts of Justice Committee has already stated that bills being passed on illegal immigration “AINT GOING TO HAPPEN.” (HIS WORDS)
http://www.dicksaslaw.com/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC=%7B6192A01F-94C7-4436-AA16-EEA316C7E943%7D
Vigilant1,
Grrr!
All I can say is my what a fitting first name.
RHarrison,
No argument here. I agree.
RHarrison said on 22 Jan 2008 at 8:24 am:
Diplomats can’t be tried in American courts. Nor can their families.
That statement is not entirely true. Foreign diplomats and their families can be tried in U.S. courts. In order for this to happen though, the country that they are a citizen of must grant a waiver. This happens, but not very often. A case in point was a few years ago when I believe a high-ranking diplomat from the former Russian state of Georgia was tried in this country for killing a person while driving DWI. He spent a number of years in a U.S. prison before being allowed to return to his country to finish his sentence.
Lafayette said on 22 Jan 2008 at 8:38 am:
All I can say is my what a fitting first name.
Agree!
RHarrison,
Here is a news item re the sentenced Georgian diplomat.
http://www.lubbockonline.com/stories/122097/LA0654.shtml
This fight needs to be waged on the national level. I would rather see our state legislators working on laws that can have an immediate impact. It would be a shame for this to become a distraction when other laws, deterring illegal immigrants from living in the state, could be passed and provide the same result.
http://federalistblog.us/2007/09/revisiting_subject_to_the_jurisdiction.html
Vigilant1,
There are going to be anomolies in every circumstance in life. I believe RHarrison meant generally speaking. That doesn’t discredit his original statement or make it less credible.
dolph said on 22 Jan 2008 at 9:27 am:
I was not attempting to discredit RHarrison’s original statement. I just wanted to let everyone know that there were exceptions to his statement and his statement was not “cut in stone.” Your statement IMHO (”there are going to be anomolies in every circumstance in life”) has nothing to do with his wording or the subject. A positive statement was made that was not correct.
Vigilant1
You are correct, but this is the exception that proves the rule. In this case, a drunk Georgian diplomat killed an American pedestrian. U.S. courts had no authority to charge or try the man because, as a diplomat, he was not subject to our laws. It was not until the Georgian government lifted his diplomatic immunity - that is, they declared that he was no longer a diplomat - that he became subject to our laws.
Had the Georgian government decided not to lift immunity, he could have been expelled from the U.S., but not charged with a crime. Diplomats are not subject to the laws of the U.S.
I still don’t see how this could possible apply to illegal aliens. If a drunk illegal alien kills a pedestrian he most certainly could be tried in an American court - because he is subject to our laws. This seems perfectly clear to me. As such, it is clear the 14th amendment says anyone who was born here is a citizen. The history and intent of the amendment is not important. It means what it says, and it says they are citizens.
Cooch is correct. If you want to change this, you have to use a Constitutional amendment, not a fancy legal argument.
jfk,
By the introduction of this legislation, a serious problem is being given attention and publicly acknowledged. A problem that needs clarity. By all means, let’s move the debate up to the federal level.
Let the Supreme Court have a go at this.
RHarrison said on 22 Jan 2008 at 10:03 am:
Cooch is correct. If you want to change this, you have to use a Constitutional amendment, not a fancy legal argument.
I agree with you 100%. My intent with my original post was just to clarify the situation, that in fact diplomats and their families can be held accountable for their actions in this country. The trial and conviction of the Georgian diplomat only came about because his government decided that the crime he comitted and his previous record warranted it and waivered his diplomatic immunity. In most situations, the diplomat would not be prosecuted for the crime and would be returned to his homeland Persona Non Grata. Sorry that some feel I “chastized” you for your comment. That was not my intent and if it was taken that way by you, I sincerely appologize.
Birthright citizenship is the biggest magnet for the illegals. That anchor baby entitles them to all kinds of goodies. I’d go farther and rescind citizenship for these anchor babies. After due process, of course.
re: the 14th amendment. Don’t we have to look at original intent? It’s purpose was to give former slaves citizenship. It has been twisted and perverted via “the living Constitution”.
Any US and state laws that apply to foreign diplomats do so under treaty with the foreign entity, thus the diplomat is subject to only to the jurisdiction allowed by treaty or practice (which, in legal terms, means they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the state). Note in Vigilant1’s example of the Georgian diplomat, it took the Georgian government’s permission to try the diplomat in US courts. The 14th Amendment also excludes certain Indian tribes who are considered nations separate from the jurisdiction of the state. Native Americans from most tribes were granted US citizenship under separate acts of Congress. The third group the 14th Amendment ignores are hostile invading armies occupying US territory. Clearly, they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the state.
Illegal aliens are, indeed, subject to the jurisdiction of the state. They can be tried in US courts and held accountable for following US laws. In fact, if they were not subject to the jurisdiction of the state, the state would have no power to deport them (i.e., under whose authority would deportation take place?). When a diplomat is recalled, it is rare that the US has expelled them. Normally, it is the home country that “asks” the diplomat to come home. Under deportation proceedings, we send ‘em home whether the home country wants them or not.
Bridget, all these proposed laws in VA are a mile wide and an inch thick. I don’t want this argument to be a distraction to getting real, ENFORCEABLE legislation on the books. We need to get VA fixed before worrying about the Supreme Court.
Monticup:
The biggest magnet for illegal immigration? Are you kidding? You don’t think the promise of jobs and money rank a little higher?
monticup said on 22 Jan 2008 at 10:31 am:
You are correct. The debates I read from the Senate floor for the 14th clearly state its intention and what is happening today, was not the original intent.
—-
http://federalistblog.us/2007/09/revisiting_subject_to_the_jurisdiction.html
Framer of the Fourteenth Amendments first section, John Bingham, said this language meant “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” As applied to aliens, this meant those aliens who first declared their intent to become citizens of the United States, and who had renounced their allegiance to some other sovereignty as required under U.S. naturalization laws.
—-
Pretty cut and dried when it is left alone and not spun around to mean ILLEGAL aliens. This is the way the Amendment was meant and nothing more.
—-
Sen. Trumbull and Sen. Howard then settled upon a construction for “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” with Trumbull declaring:
The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.
—-
The above statements by Howard and Trumbull give us a good idea of what “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” as employed under the Fourteenth Amendment means: Absence of owing any allegiance to any other foreign power, which in return allows the United States to exercise full and complete jurisdiction over the person.
—-
To understand how an alien might not owe allegiance to some other sovereignty upon arrival to this country, one need to look no further then the naturalization laws of the United States. Under United States law, an alien was required to make a declaration of his intention to become a citizen, and renounce all allegiance to his former government two years before he could make a final application.
Therefore, it does not require a leap of faith to understand what persons, other than citizens themselves, under the Fourteenth Amendment are citizens of the United States by birth: Those aliens who have come with the intent to become U.S. citizens, who had first compiled with the laws of naturalization in declaring their intent and renounce all prior allegiances.
Sen. Trumbull further restates the the goal of the language: “It is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens…” He could only be referring to the laws of naturalization and consent to expatriation by the immigrant in order for him to come completely within the jurisdiction of the United States and its laws, i.e., he cannot be a subject of another nation.
Let’s stop second-guessing the founding fathers and either repeal the 14th, change it or let the Supreme Court decide. I’m for changing it to reflect that all persons born in the U.S. must have one parent who is a U.S. citizen in order to be a citizen. The other parent should not be able to utilize the child as an immigration sponsor.
I agree with Johnson. As I said before, I feel this is truly a national issue, and states would be better served tightening down on the problem of illegal immigration with tough legislation against employers and detainment/deportation of illegal aliens. I think we are foolish not to see that this is a crest for the anti-immigration movement, and a prime opportunity to get meaningful legislation in place.
Very nicely explained RHarrison. I take it from your “destroying the country” comment, that you would like to see an Amendment proposed and ratified to end birthright citizenship?
Medic64
Exactly my point. In my earlier post - I indicated the key term was “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” and there were multiple posts saying illegals are under the U.S. government jurisdiction. I know that and I should have been more concise.
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”
My point was that the parents of those being born here need to be United States citizens and subject to U.S. jurisdiction - and the children of illegal aliens should be considered being citizens of the country where there parents are from - and not citizens of the U.S.
Birthright citizenship should be ended for the children of illegal aliens post haste!
Loudoun said on 22 Jan 2008 at 1:37 pm:
We are saying the same thing and are on the same page here my friend
“Let’s stop second-guessing the founding fathers and either repeal the 14th, change it or let the Supreme Court decide.”
Johnson,
We shouldn’t 2nd-guess the founding fathers, but it wasn’t the founding fathers who wrote the 14th. The 14th was ratified in 1868, long after the deaths of the founding fathers. But, your point is well taken.
RHarrison,
I don’t agree that it will take repealing the ammendment, or ratifying a new one to solve this issue. The SCOUS could issue a ruling on a specific test case which addresses the children of illegal aliens. Back to that “original inent” logic.
Batson,
Exactly!! As you can see from my earlier post on the debate in the Senate, the way it has been interpreted is not the way the framers intended it to be.
We need the SCOUS to look at it and study the intent of the Amendment instead of looking at how to cover their a$$ in a PC way.
Medic64,
I know we are on the same page - I was clarifying my point for Dolph and RHarrison
May I take this opportunity to thank you for all of you have done for our country and the American people?
How is OK able to work on legislation to make sure hospitals notify the country of origin of the parents of babies born in OK? This will truly test the 14th, IMHO.
Loudoun,
YW, I did not serve during a war, but I did volunteer my service willingly and would go back if I wasn’t 60% service connected disabled vet. They wouldn’t take me. I could do desk work there just the same as I do here
I appreciate all of those who serve and say we should put military service in place for ALL. As soon as they graduate or reach the age of 18 and are out of school. This gives them discipline, structure and a job skill. Of course not all will qualify for the highest rated jobs, but everyone can chip paint or grease a bearing. The better you do in HS the better your opportunities are. This would encourage kids to do better in school, provide for the common defense and give them money for college and or a job skill. Win win for all.
I know of the legislation in Arizona dealing with birthright citizenship and I reported it in the HSM January newsletter:
Della Montgomery, an Arizona citizen, filed the proposed “Birthright Citizenship Alignment Act” initiative with the Secretary of State’s Office, which would allow Arizona voters to prohibit the state from issuing birth certificates to children of non-U.S. citizens and require hospitals to check the citizenship of parents of newborns. State Representative Russell Pearce is drafting a similar referendum to be placed on the November 2008 ballot. While generally banning issuance of birth certificates to non-citizens, the measure would permit one to be issued to a child whose mother is a foreign citizen and whose father is a U.S. citizen if the father formally acknowledges parentage and agrees in writing to financially support the child until adulthood.
I wish they would do the same here in the Commonwealth!
You were a volunteer - that is the same as serving to me. Those who serve as well as those who volunteer are selfless and worthy of the highest honors. The most noble jobs are in the military, the fire and police departments.
Well then I covered 2 of them since I was an entry LT and Paramedic on the Fire department in Southern IL.
I think they will when we get Kaine out of there. Have you seen the report on OK doing the same? OK seems to be proactive.
This is the biggest no-brainer in the history of Earth. The birthright non-sense should have been a non-starter from the get go. Seriously, who in their right minds could ever think this was the intent?
Anyway, the argument is irrelevant. Regardless of past precedent, America will not survive the century as a sovereign, unfied nation if we continue to allow this. There is enough ambiguity here for common sense to prevail and put a stop to it.
America’s altruism will be its undoing. It is beyond frustrating to watch our impotent politicans destroy this country from the inside out, and be nearly powerless to stop it. Where have all the conservative and patriotic statesmen gone that made us great? Following politics in this country is like watching a train wreck.
After reading Loudoun’s post, I think I just changed my mind….
What a novel concept!
Children should NOT be granted US citizenship if their parents are here illegally!
ANd for you that wish to grant the child dual-citizenship, then great, ship both of the parents and children back to their country of origin and when that child turns 18, he/or she can request their US citizenship become their choice (they must chose one or the other) and they (the child) will be allowed to return.
Not their parents, cousins, brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles or anything else.
VA_Magoo,
There is nothing wrong with that!!!
VA_Magoo said on 22 Jan 2008 at 4:47 pm:
What a novel concept!
Mexico allows them to keep their Mexican citizenship even if they obtain U.S. citizenship. This allows them to buy a hacienda back in the old country after they start collecting social security. Just imagine, laying on the beach with a corona in one hand and a joint in the other. Se puede!
Isn’t dual citizenship against the allegiance to the US part of the 14th Amendment?
Medic: Correct. How can an anchor baby born to la raza-type parents pledge allegiance to the USA? What with the incursions on our soil by the Mexican military we can’t really say they are allies, can we?
No we can not. They have invaded the US and something should be done about it. Nothing probably will mind you, but if someone else had done it, it would be an immediate call to war. We are asleep on our watch just like we were when the Cole was bombed and the first WTC bombing. This has to be nipped in the bud right now.
Reference to monticoup’s comment:
http://www.newswithviews.com/NWV-News/news27.htm
Bat-
Ya got me. I’ll try to be more precise in the future. It just seems to me that a lot of these legal issues involving illegal aliens can’t pass the “common sense” test. If I fly to Mexico or Honduras with my wife and deliver a baby there, will the baby automatically be a citizen of Mexico or Honduras? I doubt it.
/\/\3|)iç 64 (Winner of the BVBL 40k and 50k post award) said on 22 Jan 2008 at 5:39 pm:
Isn’t dual citizenship against the allegiance to the US part of the 14th Amendment?
No, a U.S. citizen can hold both foreign and U.S. citizenship at the same time. The only time where a U.S. citizen could loose his U.S. citizenship is if he was born in this country and renounced his citizenship for another. If he/she were born in a foreign country, most countries consider the new born a citizen of that country but if he/she was born of at least one U.S. citizen parent, the child then can claim U.S. citizenship along with the foreign one.
http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1753.html
Further to my last post, Mexico considers a Mexican a citizen for life even though somewhere along the line they obtained U.S. citizenship. Caldaron made the statement that “wherever there is a Mexican, there is Mexico.” It wasn’t just a play on words. Fox was the one who initiated the “Mexican forever” notion about two years ago.
Speaking of Cuccinelli
Cuccinelli Uses Subterfuge To Keep Abuser Fees Alive
How sweet it is?! NOT.
http://goodbyefaisal.com/cuccinelli-uses-subterfuge-to-keep-abusers-fees-alive
If we are revisiting our founding fathers, how about a discussion based on the Declaration of Independence, you know that whole outdated John Locke philsophy of Natural Law, unalienable rights, life, liberty and property premise. When John Locke wrote about Natural Law, it was a philosophy based on basic human rights. Jefferson practically plagerised Lockes words when he created the Declaration. It IS the foundation for our democracy, it superceeded the Constitution, it IS what our American democracy is based upon and it is meant FOR all humans on earth, not just American citizens. So when you talk about “illegals” , as if you were using a noun, you insult the very tenet of our democracy. No one has yet, on the other side, addressed the reality of our broken immigration system. If we keep having to revisit the issue of mexicans coming across the border, because that IS what we are talking about, then clearly this country is not keeping up with an economic need. As Dolph said, there is a need the unskilled laborer is filling. These “illegal” immigrant workers that do the jobs Americans do not want to do, do them in hopes of offering their children a chance at a better life. That IS the American Dream that parents from every generation hope for their children, that their lives will be better than their own. If you are suggesting that we invite people here to the crap work that no one wants to do and then just send them back home to a place to raise their children that YOU would never subject your children to , THAT is slave labor!
Vigilant1 said on 22 Jan 2008 at 6:34 pm:
Thank you, I didn’t know that.
___________
One Voice,
You do not think that paying them a lower wage for their work is not slave labor as well? Is that giving them the ability to pursue life, liberty and happiness? I do not see struggling to make ends meet as pursuing happiness.
IT, you’re full of crap. First, this country is not responsible for the reprehensible situation the poor of Latin American countries find themselves in. Their leaders are. And who is responsible for their leaders being in those position? The people themselves are responsible. TJ also said a people get the government they deserve.
Second. Disavow yourself of the concept that anyone is “doing jobs that Americans won’t do.” They are doing jobs that Americans won’t do at the wages that Mexicans, El Salvadorans, Hondurans, Peruvians, Nigerians, and Brazilians WILL do them for. Offer a decent wage, and Americans will do the jobs. It’s not an economic NEED the illegals are fulfilling, it’s an economic DESIRE. The desire for cheap labor by big businesses and patricians who can’t stand the thought of having to wash their own toilets. The hell with those economic interests. I can pick my own apples and strawberries. I can grow my own tomatoes.
Advocator,
Very well said. I agree it is the desire for cheap labor and the fact that americans won’t do the job for pennies on the dollar. Yes, it will raise prices, but people will be able to afford it because they are making money, not pulling welfare and other gov’t subsidies.
Advocator,
Where did you get the idea that I said this country was resposible for the situation in Latin American countries? For centuries people emigrated to the United States BECAUSE of the economic or political situations in their country, it IS how our nation was built. You are clearly not paying attention to the economic impact that immigrants bring to this nation, legal and illegal. Illegal is a word used to disguise the underlying message “too many hispanics not fitting in to our culture” . If a comprehensive immigration package is passed, and the people who came here during the real estate boom (which is when the largest influx of immigrants occured and you can see it plain as day from opposing sides doing research), are given an opportunity to earn their path to citizenship, neighborhoods will STILL be dealing with the issues I see described here.
All kidding aside…do you people here seriously think that high school graduates are going to pick tomatoes for a living?
Please, weigh in here. I am beginning to think we live in parallel universes. I live in the one that has young adults who think they are too good to do all sorts of things.
So, Medic and Advocator, if it is the *desire* to find cheap labor that is fueling the illegal alien migration, why aren’t we going harder after the very people desiring that labor instead of going after the ones desperate enough to be willing to work for mere pennies? I’m not saying that illegal aliens should be let off the hook, but the measures of enforcement certainly seem to be one sided.
We should learn from the “War of Drugs” that going after the lowest tier (in that case, users) does little to stem the flow of drugs. You have to go after the supply network–the dealers and their bosses.
Want to make a dent on illegal immigration? Start really punishing those who hire illegal workers. Start making them feel the pain and the “desire” will dissipate. No jobs for illegal aliens will cut the flow more quickly than anything else.
But, who want to fight big business? Who’s the easiest target for our venom?
IT,
However, if we do not have an amnesty path, then they will not have to deal with the same issues. Again, the Hispanics seem to think they have the market cornered on ILLEGAL aliens. Yes there are quite a few Hispanics that are ILLEGAL aliens, but not all ILLEGAL aliens are. I read the article where the US is deporting Vietnamese aliens. GOOD!!! They are here ILLEGALLY and should be deported. It is not racist or racial profiling when ALL ILLEGAL aliens are being deported.
Turn PW:
I agree. We need state laws that require use of E-verify and that would allow our state police to audit Home Depot’s and Walmart’s compliance.
TPWB-
Start by refusing to use illegal alien labor to mow your lawn, clean your house or put up drywall in your converted attached garage. We could put half of them out of work by hiring contractors who won’t use illegals. If enough people refuse to support illegals by hiring them, their jefe’s will stop going to the 7-11 at Coverstone.
Turn PW Blue said on 23 Jan 2008 at 11:01 am:
So, Medic and Advocator, if it is the *desire* to find cheap labor that is fueling the illegal alien migration, why aren’t we going harder after the very people desiring that labor instead of going after the ones desperate enough to be willing to work for mere pennies?
Tell us how the average person can go after business that hire illegals? Give us some legitimate ways we can go after them.
It is our ‘living beyond our means’ that is fueling the illegal immigrant more than anything.
We hire them for cash to tend our garden, paint our ceilings, etc. When I hire a contractor, I insist that all of the workers are legal.
Did you have a landscaper when you grew up? Probably not, you may have been the one mowing the lawn. I look around my neighborhood, and the only thing I see the youth of today doing is listening to their ipod, and killing time. They do not do a thing - and it is the parent that has caused this. This is also why the youth of today do not want to do ‘those jobs’ - they are reluctant to get a job fliping burgers, because the parents funnel money to them - .
How do you fix the problem - the problem is caused by the free flow of cash - how does the contractor get so much cash every week - I was under the impression that any wihtdrawal of cash over $10k was reported - that is how you go after the corrupt (cash paying) business.
Dolph, what in the heck is up with you and tomatoes? You related to the Heinz folks?
Holy hot house. Pardon my french but toss tomatoes. Or at least put them down for a moment.
Like Advocator suggested - grow your own or get them from local farms during the growing season. Many local farms and orchards will allow you to pick your own produce. Strawberry season is fantastic - my kids loved the experience when they were little … one for the bucket, one for the mouth … they freeze well and neighbors love the overflow.
This, on the other hand, is not the America I want my kids to inherit:
http://www.wftv.com/news/15082706/detail.html
Econ 101. Supply and demand. If consumers, and that includes the manufactures of tomato based products, demand tomatoes, and are willing to pay for them …some farmer - without imported labor - will get those tomatoes to the market. The deal is he will have to pay market wages to his employees and not third world peasant work force wages.
Credit for this goes to someone else - name escapes me for the moment:
“In the world of business - there is no such thing as a (labor) ’shortage’.
There is, however, a price that someone with political influence would rather not pay.”
Who has that influence? Big agriculture. They are the ones who pay the lobbyists and fill the campaign coffers of politicians - who in turn spread the word that there is a labor shortage for …. well, frankly, whichever industry has padded their pockets. A tidy little life cycle.
999,
I would ask the contractor to prove the status of the employees. If they are not willing to do so, red flag! Don’t use them for the project. Yes you will probably have to pay more, but the contractor that uses the ILLEGAL alien labor will eventually start using properly documented labor or go out of business. Either way, the contractor that is doing the right thing will become competitive and the prices will go back down some.
That is one effective way to start.
_____
Pat Herve said on 23 Jan 2008 at 4:26 pm:
This is correct. Everything is given to children these days to make up for the time that is not spent with them. We shower them with iPods and other electronic gadgets. They don’t want to work whether it is flipping burgers or anything else. Today’s children are not going to work as hard as we did. I had 4 lawns to mow to make money for gas and insurance. I used one of my parents vehicles. If I didn’t pay my bills on time, I was driven around to my jobs. I made sure I paid my bills.
Bridget,
That very sentiment was in one of your articles you posted. Yes it will cost up more in the short term, but the lower cost of education, health care and transportation structure costs will eventually equal it out. I do not think for a minute that the economy will fall. The same thing was said when slaves were freed, who is going to pick the cotton now, guess what, a machine was invented to that very job. The reduced peasant labor force will breed new machinery to do the work the peasants are doing. Is it really fair to those doing that type labor not to be paid a fair wage?
Speaking of Tomatoes, I find it interesting when I went to wash the bell peppers for dinner last night, they had stickers that read product of Mexico. I think it will be very interesting to see what country of origin we buy our produce from. I noticed that at the beach over the Summer. You figure the seafood is fresh caught from the Ocean….wrong!
I chose tomatoes because they can be grown anywhere and don’t limit us to Florida or California. It doesn’t matter. Substitute a crop that needs harvesting and isn’t easily mechanized. I hate tomatoes other than local ones grown in the correct season, so this isn’t a personal thing.
Interesting that people nowadays look at kids not helping out with the chores and act like this is something new. I heard the same crap back when I was a kid and I am an alpha boomer. Happens with every generation.
Back when I was a kid…..______________(fill in the blank)
I see many folks responding to the foreign labor issue who really haven’t answered the questions I am asking. You are telling me I am full of it but not really coming up with the simple answer of who is going to do the menial labor when most young adults are high school graduates at a minimum. If you set a standard, as a nation, that basic education is a high school diploma, you just aren’t going to have many people who are willing to do those nasty little jobs that others don’t want to do, regardless of wages.
And speaking of those wages, how much are we going to pay someone to pick tomatoes if there are no foreign workers? (or lettuce or cucumbers) Are we going to pay them more than cops? More than bus drivers? More than teachers? More than computer programmers? Of course not.
The more education the work force attains, the more demanding it will be come about the type of work the workers do.
Right you are, Medic.
How cool is this?
http://www.robots-dreams.com/2008/01/new-robot-suit.html
We put a man on the moon. For crying out loud. We can do better.
Dang. The open thread has gone to white page mode. Who went over the 300 post limit? ‘Fess up … I, for one, had nothing to do with it’s demise …
Dolph,
I replied to your last post in the open thread, but it appears there is an issue with that thread.
To recap my post. My post was not about who has traveled, rather it was to call attention to the fact that Americans are doing jobs the elites say we are not doing. From fast food workers to maids to janitors to construction workers. From Erie, PA to Tucson, Az over to Clearwater, Fl, there are no shortages of Americans willing to do those types of jobs. Do you think every teenager has rich parents to provide them with spending money? Many adults find no shame in doing such jobs.
I am shocked that you hold such an elitist point of view.
Prices will not go through the roof, that is another scare tactics of those that just want to continue to use illegals.
COM,
I don’t think I am the elitist here but I have been called a lot worse things.
I just know that people who graduate from high school do not expect to work in a burger place or do menial labor. If graduation is the expectation of all American high school students, who is going to be able to do the work that needs to get done?
I have not mentioned prices going through the roof. I just do not think people with skills want to do non skilled labor. America cannot run its labor force on teenagers not yet out of high school.
There really isn’t anything else to say. Either we set the educational bar a lot lower for our kids or we find a way to provide workers from countries that do not educate their kids. Supply and demand will mandate it.
alot of our fruit and stuff is imported so I think lack of workers isnt going to hurt as much as everyone things.
as far as the non-desirable jobs, there will always be people to fill them. Create a vacuum and something will eventually fill it up. I wasnt a kid too long ago and I worked during high school and college at various jobs. They were always easy to find and I always had money in my pocket as well as college paid for. When my kids get old enough, they will work as well. Although their college will be paid for, they will be expected to contribute a significant sum by proving some work ethic.
I’m sure there are many parents who think like me.
and what about all those people on welfare, they need jobs…perfect opportunity to fill that vacuum I mentioned earlier.
dolph,
There are people out there that when they get hungry enough, they will do those “nasty little jobs”. Remove the welfare system and make people work. If we can not get rid of the welfare system, then they have to do work for the benefits and welfare will supplement. There, you have your workers.
/\/\3|)iç
Yea, but we have a welfare system. That is the problem with your argument. And more than a welfare system, we have all sorts of components that are part of a welfare system.
Sure, there are always going to be Americans to do those nasty jobs…but will there be enough Americans to do them? I am looking very broad-based when I ask the questions.
It just sounds like to me, that most people on bvbl want to illiminate immigration to this country. That is a whole other issue. I see a need for foreign workers. If we give them permission to be here, based on business need, then they will not be illegal.
For the record, I can accept we don’t want them easier than I can accept we don’t need them. The later simply is not true. The former is an opinion.
I’ll have to disagree with you there Dolph,
although I have no problem with the proper visa’s being issued to foreign workers I think they should be limited (and they are). If they want to work here permanently they should gain citizenship the right way.
I dont think we “need” anything, the country should drive to be as self-sufficient as possible and that includes importing foreign workers. There is all this talk about becoming self-sufficient on energy resources, we should be self-sufficient on labor as well.
I think there are always going to be people to fill the jobs. I’m not for immigration elimination by the way, I’m for controlled immigration the way it should be (like many other countries). There is also a security factor involved here as well, I for one would love to rest assured the govt. knows everyone coming through our borders but the fact remains is that they dont and this needs to be fixed.
we do have all sorts of components to the welfare system, but If I remember correctly one of the goals of the welfare system is to assist people with getting off it i.e. providing job locating assistance, etc..people who really want to get off welfare will take whatever job they can find to do it. There is the fill for the vacuum of jobs currently filled by illegal labor. Not a perfect solution, but I’m sure it will help bridge the gap some.
Another Cost of the Illegal Immigrants, here’s a story from arizona..they actually came up with how much the ESOL cost the state, it’s astronomical
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0124englishcosts0124.html
as one commenter mentioned “not only do we have to deal with forced colonization by another country, but we have to pay for them to do it”
does that seem very fair? not in my world
dolph said on 24 Jan 2008 at 2:07 am:
COM,
I don’t think I am the elitist here but I have been called a lot worse things.
I just know that people who graduate from high school do not expect to work in a burger place or do menial labor. If graduation is the expectation of all American high school students, who is going to be able to do the work that needs to get done?
I have not mentioned prices going through the roof. I just do not think people with skills want to do non skilled labor. America cannot run its labor force on teenagers not yet out of high school.
There really isn’t anything else to say. Either we set the educational bar a lot lower for our kids or we find a way to provide workers from countries that do not educate their kids. Supply and demand will mandate it.
Many places demand at least a high school diploma these days. Teenagers work during the summer and after school, and while in college. The next generation then takes the place of those workers who have moved on.
It is not that people(not teenagers, but adults) should expect to take such jobs, but end up in such jobs for any number of reasons. Maybe a house wife just wants to earn a few extra dollars and works part-time while her kids are in school.
Dolph,
We have guest worker programs and they are adjusted as needed. But to reward illegals with legal status is just wrong.
I suppose we can allow legal immigration of every single person who wants to come to America, it will after all create new markets, but at what point do we put a limit on it? Or, we can just open up for every single person the World. I think we can handle another 6 billion people living in our Country. Just think about the job market then?
I think we’ll be able to find plenty of jobs here in the united states to satisfy our need for menial labor. Those menial jobs were filled by others before the illegals came here, they’ll be filled by others again whether legal immigrant or native.
The state legislature doesn’t have any jurisdiction on this matter. Congress doesn’t care about Ken Cuccinelli’s legislation.
Why doesn’t the Faisal-Gill-endorser Cuccinelli pass bills about the Iraq War and the fighing in Kenya while he is at it?
COM,
I do not know how else to say it. I am talking about LEGAL workers coming to the United States. If we say they can come in and give them proper government documentation, they will not be illegal. Secondly, our current guest worker program is not satisfactory to business, according to what I have read.
I do not want to open the flood gates. I want to accommodate the needs of our country, not vice versa.
Awesome news about the VA General assembly, the potomac news has a good write up about what all went on. Appears a bunch of immigration related stuff was passed in committee, not a slam dunk by any means but it looks like a start. I would love to see some (or all) of this stuff get passed to force our absent governor to do something about the illegals.
The flood gates have been open for a long time.
http://www.vdare.com/sailer/060522_bush.htm
http://www.zazona.com/ShameH1B/
http://www.zazona.com/ShameH1B/
http://www.zazona.com/ShameH1B/
http://www.vdare.com/francis/under_control.htm
http://www.vdare.com/letters/tl_120705.htm
http://www.vdare.com/guzzardi/070831_rotting.htm
http://www.vdare.com/sutherland/permanent.htm
http://www.vdare.com/letters/tl_032903.htm
Thanks much for the heads up, josh. I’ll be sure to fire off a few letters …
http://www.potomacnews.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=WPN/MGArticle/WPN_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1173354350547&path=
Don’t you love how the special interest groups are always agitating for more of our tax money for funding, support, assistance and services - yet in a heartbeat will make the claim that without their exclusive constituents, we would be without those never-before-seen in the U.S. traits of work ethic and family values.
Sort of a “You need us to get what we want” deal.
Andres Tobar is the fat and happy middleman in a race-based wealth distribution gambit.
And don’t ever forget, folks, racial profiling is an abuse, unless it’s being used to pick your pockets.
there’s also another commentary in the potomac news opinions section about some of the more recent articles and comments, the author does a pretty good job dissecting them.
http://potomacnews.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=WPN%2FMGArticle%2FWPN_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1173354342582&path=!news!opinion
j
Dolph,
I agree that is why I support guest worker programs, and have said so here many times(on the blog). As I said the numbers can be adjusted as needed. At this time with unemployment up and the future not looking too bright, I would hope the Feds do not increase the numbers any time soon.
COM, the problem is that if you allow people from another country to come to USA with proper government identification, do you really think they’ll will leave USA when their term is up? They’ll try to stay in the USA even if they have to live under the bridge from fear of going back to their country of origin. After receiving their paychecks in dollars? what incentives would they have to go back? None! They will receive their paychecks in dollars, yes they’ll be paying taxes but how that would improve our economy when with the money they’ll send to Mexico or another country, they are stimulating their economy since they know they won’t stay here permanently.