Home > Thinking Right > Archives > 2007 > July > 30 > Entry
DEL.ICIO.USTo be deported: Mom
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Is Maria Rivera a victim? She is an illegal immigrant from Mexico, a married mother of three, sitting in the Cobb County Jail awaiting deportation. Her offenses, initially described as driving without a license or proof of insurance and with an expired tag, are somewhat more serious, as is later revealed. She was previously deported for illegal entry in March, 2006. She turned around and came back the same year.
She perfectly illustrates the choice the nation has to make in determining how to deal with the problem of illegal immigration. Efforts to fashion a comprehensive bill on dealing with illegals collapsed last month because much of the country had no confidence that Congress or the Bush Administration would secure the borders.
The Senate last week took a step in that direction, adding $3 billion to the Homeland Security funding bill to bring the Border Patrol to 23,000 agents by 2012, finish the 700 miles of border fencing and 300 miles of vehicle barriers, double detention space to 45,000 beds and to add the sophisticated technology intended to bring the U.S.-Mexico boundary under operational control within two years. Bush had threatened to veto the additional spending, but may relent, since it passed 89-1.
The $3 billion would also be used to pursue those who overstay visas and the 632,000 illegals who have ignored deportation orders.
Cobb is doing its part.The Sheriff’s department is checking the status of inmates in the county jail. In four weeks, working with U.S. Immigration and Customs and Enforcement agents, they’ve interviewed 86 inmates, putting immigration holds on 68 and filling out the paperwork to begin deportation proceedings against 42. It’s kind of shocking, actually, that of 86 interviewed, almost half are readily subject to deportation for illegal entry.
Undoubtedly some or even many of those subject to deportation will be like Maria Rivera, a parent with children in this country. Any born here are U.S. citizens.
But the fact is that if immigration law is to have any meaning, all illegals who come to the attention of law enforcement officials should be deported. During the recent national debate, legalization advocates made two points repeatedly. One is that by failing to secure borders and to police employers who hired them, the U.S. had sent an invitational message that illegal entry is OK. The other is that an easy route to legalization was the only alternative to “rounding up” 12 or 20 million illegals.
There is a third way. It’s what Cobb County and other law enforcement agencies across the country are beginning to do: Deal with illegals when they break the law. Shocking? Hardly. There’s no round-up, but Cobb’s action takes away the argument that intentionally failing to enforce immigration law is an implied invitation to illegals.
Comments
By DebbieDoRight
July 30, 2007 8:41 AM | Link to this
Undoubtedly some or even many of those subject to deportation will be like Maria Rivera, a parent with children in this country, children who by virtue of being born here may be U.S. citizens
Try ARE US citizens — it sucks I know but pretty soon Mexican Americans will be in the majority statistically, carry a lot of political fire power and hopefully will be putting old gray mares like you, out of the propoganada business. Guess that Vick publicist job is looking better and better huh?
By RCH
July 30, 2007 8:42 AM | Link to this
Jim,
As I have stated numerous times , much to the dismay of my fellow progressive bloggers, the 12 million illegals here can be deported. It can be made so difficult to reside and work here that they will leave on their own volition. Great article on the Brazilian immigration reversal in the paper today. Maybe then we can right a bill that makes sense, Now we just need to implement the ” non-anchor baby rule”, and we will be well on our way to solving this problem.
By DebbieDoRight
July 30, 2007 8:44 AM | Link to this
Undoubtedly some or even many of those subject to deportation will be like Maria Rivera, a parent with children in this country, children who by virtue of being born here may be U.S. citizens
Try ARE US citizens — it sucks I know but pretty soon Mexican Americans will be in the majority statistically, carry a lot of political fire power and hopefully will be putting old gray mares like you, out of the propoganada business. Guess that Vick publicist job is looking better and better huh?
By DebbieDoRight
July 30, 2007 8:44 AM | Link to this
Undoubtedly some or even many of those subject to deportation will be like Maria Rivera, a parent with children in this country, children who by virtue of being born here may be U.S. citizens
Try ARE US citizens — it sucks I know but pretty soon Mexican Americans will be in the majority statistically, carry a lot of political fire power and hopefully will be putting old gray mares like you, out of the propoganada business. Guess that Vick publicist job is looking better and better huh?
By Analchord
July 30, 2007 8:47 AM | Link to this
Free Maria!
Do you know how much it would cost to deport the illegals here in Atlanta Metro?
More than Peachcare.
Just leave the damn Mexicans alone. They’re here. Deal.
The General Assembly commits more crimes during one session than all the illegals in all the world combined.
By DebbieDoRight
July 30, 2007 8:47 AM | Link to this
Now we just need to implement the ” non-anchor baby rule”, and we will be well on our way to solving this problem.
I’m interested in reading on how you propose to implement that one — this ought to be good.
By Jim Wooten
July 30, 2007 8:53 AM | Link to this
Morning all. Debbie, I’ll fix the sentence that causes confusion.
By Redneck Convert
July 30, 2007 8:54 AM | Link to this
Sister Dusty’s complaints yesterday was just about heart braking. I know how tough it is to stand up for what is Right and Godly in spite of the constant mistakes being made by the people that work for My President and the Republican Congress people being caught wearing diapers in a House of Ill Repute or chasing young pages around or maybe taking $2 million salarys from the industry you tryed to help when you was in Congress.
I’m with Wooten and all for deporting the moms that are here illegally. It was a big mistake made by our Founding Fathers to allow kids to be citizens just because they were borned here. But I guess the kids will get to stay because they are U.S. citizens while mom gets shipped back to Mexico. We can just put the 10 million or so illegal kids that are citizens in a orphanage. But I don’t want my tax money used to support them. I don’t want them on Peach Care or any other welfare program. Maybe that Father Flanigan guy I use to read about will adopt them all. They ain’t important. What’s important is Law and Order like God intended and keeping the Mexicans from taking jobs from us God fearing rednecks.
Anyway, Cobb County has a great idea. Just arrest every Mexican you see and check to see weather they are legal. If not just ship them straight to Mexico and ship their kids off to Father Flanigan or whoever will adopt them. I bet if you go around all the construction and yard mowing places you could round up about 500,000 illegals here in the Atlanta area alone. But lets be Christian about it. Make them say a big prayer to Jesus with you before you ship them out.
Well, I’m getting off this blog. By the time this posts jbmlaw will be licking Wootens butt and saying how much he agrees with Wooten and how evil the libruls are. Then soon as he sobers up and gets on his meth TFTT will be cussing and ranting about black crime and the illegals. I guess @@ will be on here soon as she gets the kids started on some worthless classroom project and can stop having to do much, and Sister Dusty will be rolling out of bed around 10 or so and giving the libruls a dose of cut ‘n run.
By RCH
July 30, 2007 8:55 AM | Link to this
DebbieDoRight As we have debated before,the Constitutional clause entitling citizenship to those born here was* ” written in the spirit of the law”* to protect slaves not illegal aliens who cross our borders illegally to have children.
You defend Mr. Wilson using the same argument.Lets try to be consistent.
By DebbieDoRight
July 30, 2007 8:57 AM | Link to this
Sorry for the multiple posts.
By Analchord
July 30, 2007 9:02 AM | Link to this
Why cant Medicaid negotiate volumne discounts from the RX industry? Graft. Kickbacks. Corruption.
That’s the Right.
Notice how our constitution says that Humans only have certain RIGHTS?
Thomas Jefferson forgot about the LEFTS.
Boo Hoo, fascism is baked into our republic. Our founding fathers were Third (Rate) Reichers.
ZEIG………HEIL!
By DebbieDoRight
July 30, 2007 9:02 AM | Link to this
DebbieDoRight As we have debated before,the Constitutional clause entitling citizenship to those born here was ” written in the spirit of the law”* to protect slaves not illegal aliens who cross our borders illegally to have children.*
As you so and others of your peculiar abnormality, (repuglicanism), love to state - the law is the law, no exceptions.
You defend Mr. Wilson using the same argument.Lets try to be consistent.
OK — you’ve got me, what does Wilson have to do with illegal immigration? EMWK.
By jbmlaw
July 30, 2007 9:03 AM | Link to this
Good morning all. I deem illegal immigration a crime on a par with driving 56 on I-285. Of course, we execute those who exceed the speed limit, so certainly we should execute Ms. Rivera. The police authorities in Cobb County have no serious crimes to investigate other than sitting in the hot sun looking for speeders.
Clearly we have a surfeit of laws, and a dearth of intelligence in our national legislature. Until recently I could claim that the foolishness had not spread to our Georgia legislature. If the crime does not merit execution, it does not merit enforcement.
By harold
July 30, 2007 9:05 AM | Link to this
what if we just imported mexico as a new state? That way all the mexicans could get what they want from us (jobs), but could stay where they are, keeping us happy.
just move all the chicken processing plants down there and the rest of the car plants plus all the construction jobs too (think fab down there, pre-fab assembly up here) and everybody will be happy and there will be more trucks driving more stuff back and forth making more money for the oil and asphalt men
By Analchord
July 30, 2007 9:08 AM | Link to this
Ever notice how hot illegal Mexican chicks are? Lets deport our legal fat chicks, (and hags), and keep the illegal exotica.
Free Maria!
By RCH
July 30, 2007 9:18 AM | Link to this
DebbieDoRight
When the Ga. legislator passed the sex crimes provision, both the Senator and Ga. delegation never intended the law to be used against a 17 year old. Neither was the clause in the Constitution to make babies of illegals legal.
By DebbieDoRight
July 30, 2007 9:26 AM | Link to this
Neither was the clause in the Constitution to make babies of illegals legal.
How do you know? How many illegal aliens were around back then? Did anyone keep a count/record?
By catlady
July 30, 2007 9:26 AM | Link to this
One positive about what Cobb Co is doing: They are sending out a message that you need to be VERY CAREFUL not to attract their attention if you are illegal. That is probably good advice for everyone: don’t do things that attract the attention of the police. The other counties, who have pooh-poohed the special training Cobb Co took will now look with interest to see if ICE does their part and permanently removes those people caught by Cobb Co.
I have a hard time understanding the problem with the “born here” rule, although I think it should be amended (retroactive signing statement, anyone?) to specify that the mother must be here legally. That is about the most important thing we can do, in addition to sealing the border. But, as it now stands, the children are legal citizens. Fine. The parents are still subject to deportation, and they can decide, as can all parents, where their children will live. Either they can locate a (legal) relative or friend with whom the children can stay in the US, or they can take them back “home” until such time as the child is ready to be repatriated to the US, presumably as an adult. We could even expedite getting the child an American passport for future use.
95% of the Latino children I teach are US citizens. Almost every one of them, no matter how poor their familiy, has already obtained a US passport. Their parents apply for them immediately upon birth. This amazes me. My children did not get passports until they were teenagers, and I was in my 50’s (I don’t get out much.) My students frequently fly back to the old country, and mom and dad follow, going over and coming back illegally.
WE ALL have to make choices about our children. US citizens in trouble and in jail have to make those same choices. We don’t say, “Aw, we can’t send her to jail—she has small children.” It dumbfounds me that people would claim a different standard for illegal immigrants than for any other lawbreaker.
Now, one problem that needs to be thought of, perhaps, is the education that American citizen children should get in the old country. I will leave that for consideration for another day.
My opinion is: enforce the law. At any “contact points” between government and illegal immigrants, we should apprehend and deport.
By Analchord
July 30, 2007 9:29 AM | Link to this
Catlady has obviously never had to do all the paperwork necessary to deport an illegal.
Forget it.
They’re here. Deal.
FREE MARIA!!!
By @@
July 30, 2007 9:30 AM | Link to this
This illegal immigration problem is a real buggerboo Jim. The only gratification I get from where we are today is that representatives who have been idle are now having to “think” about what they’ve allowed to happen over the last 30 years, and come up with a solution.
What the heck do we pay those people for?
Anyhoo, poor Maria. She’s already returned once. I’ll bet she does it again. In this country parental rights trump the child’s rights so Maria’s kids need to go back with her.
Give Maria’s job to one of America’s Less Wanted inmates. Tell the employer he’ll be paying double what he was paying Maria. Half goes into Less’s personal account, and the other half pays for his/her overnight stay at the Hooscow Hotel, breakfast and dinner. A workplace lunch must be provided by the employer.
I’ll keep my own grass cut at the roadway in front of my home. I’ll pick the trash up too. I already do that anyway. I’m sure the prison labor appreciates my efforts.
What…a…mess. Not the roadside in front of my house. This immigration situation.
By RCH
July 30, 2007 9:33 AM | Link to this
DebbieDoRight
“How do you know? How many illegal aliens were around back then? Did anyone keep a count/record? “
Debbie, your reaching.
catlady Point well made. If you break the law, be ready to pay the cost.
By Eve
July 30, 2007 9:34 AM | Link to this
As a former legal immigrant and now a US citizen, I know what I went through to obtain legal residential status in this country; it’s not just Mexicans either, there are illegals here from every country, every walk of life. Why not deport then??? Why give them a free ride???
I went through countless interviews and 3 years of filing paperwork (not to mention the financial cost) just to obtain my green card - lets not discuss how long citizenship took!
Ok they have families here - but they knew the risk when they crossed the border illegally; why should we by sympathetic to their cause now??
By jbmlaw
July 30, 2007 9:36 AM | Link to this
I see one additional bizarre element to Ms. Rivera’s story, a legislative sop to protect the business plans of the companies in the insurance business has become the basis to expel an otherwise decent potential citizen. The lengths we pursue to protect business!
By Adam
July 30, 2007 9:41 AM | Link to this
DebbieDoRight - Try ARE US citizens
So what does the citizenship of the children have to do with it? If Maria is to be deported then she has a decision to make about what to do with her children. She can take them with her or find relatives to keep them, whatever. Just like when Debbie gets thrown out of the multiplex theatre for talking loud on her cellphone, all of her kids have to go too.
By Analchord
July 30, 2007 9:43 AM | Link to this
For a while, illegals were roadkill on US roads. Every day there was news about some poor illegal killed by traffic. There were so many arriving so fast, they couldn’t keep out of harm’s way.
What do illegals think about Americans, who only see them as roadkill or criminals to be prosecuted?
We’re about to find out. They’re here.
FREE MARIA!!
By jbmlaw
July 30, 2007 9:45 AM | Link to this
Dear Eve @ 9:34, congratulations on successfully navigating our Byzantine immigration laws. As one of those who benefits directly from all of the peculiar restrictions our legislators place on normal daily life I should not complain (is it any wonder that Jesus regarded the lawgivers poorly?) You ask a great question, (I paraphrase) “Why should we be sympathetic to someone who has illegally crossed the border twice?” Far from condemning this woman, she ought to get a medal. Anyone who wants to be here so badly that they will brave the militias and shoot-first-ask-questions-later border agents ought to be awarded full citizenship without further costs. I have many more problems sympathizing with those native born “Americans” who doubt the value of freedom, much less lift a finger or voice to make it happen everywhere. (Well, I guess they will lift a finger, but that is not what I am talking about.)
By time for the truth
July 30, 2007 9:46 AM | Link to this
BYE BYE ILLEGAL LEECH MARIA
Parting is such sweet sorrow … utterly sweet though when it comes to illegals!! Sensible patriotic folks wish for many more happy endings like this one!!
One less freeloading mexican type with its snout in the taxpayers’ trough!!
Nice to see INS and Cobb County FINALLY stepping up to the illegal leech plate and doing the honourable - long overdue thing. JUST ANOTHER 20 MILLION OR SO TO GO
Seeing the VT based child molestor Mrs Oedipus-NAMBLA’S deranged hatefit under cover of its craven, cowardly GHTrash id from yesterday was very very funny - at least it made it back from S. Georgia/Myrtle Beach in one piece - mores the pity. Why couldn’t the thuggish hippety hop pariah Vick have used the filthy yanKKKee scum rednekkks NAMBLA in one of his fights and given a poor dog a break?
And the pathetic AIDS infested Aryan Nation sex toy inbred rednekkk is still puking up its daily imbecilic racist drivel.
Funny how the non-white leftist hack who assembled this Urinal story makes NO mention of the overwhelmingly disproportionate black responsibility for the huge increase in the Fulton County murder rate. There’s just a sullen silence in the media - from the bigoted supposedly concerned racebaiting black clergy and corrupt incompetent racebaiters like Franklin. Same thing in Philly and Detroit etc where black killings are through the roof … just business as normal. Yet I bet if Bill Cosby pointed out the huge black responsibility in the spike in killings some of the despicable black racist racial spoils crowd would actually have the freaking cheek to loudly sneer at him for simply pointing out the facts!!
So that poor nine year old girl shot in her flat while doing her homework has died for absolutely NOTHING - just two black underclass scumbags trying to rob another black victim. And after WSB TV puke up the funeral footage - that will be it … until the next victim and the next and the next and the next and the next …
AND THE STONY SULLEN SILENCE FROM vermin like the micky mouse so called reverends sharptongue and jackasson is infinitely more eloquent than anything the philandering adulterous academic cheat MLK could ever have said!!
Can’t be seen dissing the murderous bruthas!
Plus NO money in it for them - so why bother????
http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/atlanta/stories/2007/07/29/homicide0730.html?cxntlid=homepagetab_newstab
By time for the truth
July 30, 2007 9:46 AM | Link to this
BYE BYE ILLEGAL LEECH MARIA
Parting is such sweet sorrow … utterly sweet though when it comes to illegals!! Sensible patriotic folks wish for many more happy endings like this one!!
One less freeloading mexican type with its snout in the taxpayers’ trough!!
Nice to see INS and Cobb County FINALLY stepping up to the illegal leech plate and doing the honourable - long overdue thing. JUST ANOTHER 20 MILLION OR SO TO GO
Seeing the VT based child molestor Mrs Oedipus-NAMBLA’S deranged hatefit under cover of its craven, cowardly GHTrash id from yesterday was very very funny - at least it made it back from S. Georgia/Myrtle Beach in one piece - mores the pity. Why couldn’t the thuggish hippety hop pariah Vick have used the filthy yanKKKee scum rednekkks NAMBLA in one of his fights and given a poor dog a break?
And the pathetic AIDS infested Aryan Nation sex toy inbred rednekkk is still puking up its daily imbecilic racist drivel.
Funny how the non-white leftist hack who assembled this Urinal story makes NO mention of the overwhelmingly disproportionate black responsibility for the huge increase in the Fulton County murder rate. There’s just a sullen silence in the media - from the bigoted supposedly concerned racebaiting black clergy and corrupt incompetent racebaiters like Franklin. Same thing in Philly and Detroit etc where black killings are through the roof … just business as normal. Yet I bet if Bill Cosby pointed out the huge black responsibility in the spike in killings some of the despicable black racist racial spoils crowd would actually have the freaking cheek to loudly sneer at him for simply pointing out the facts!!
So that poor nine year old girl shot in her flat while doing her homework has died for absolutely NOTHING - just two black underclass scumbags trying to rob another black victim. And after WSB TV puke up the funeral footage - that will be it … until the next victim and the next and the next and the next and the next …
AND THE STONY SULLEN SILENCE FROM vermin like the micky mouse so called reverends sharptongue and jackasson is infinitely more eloquent than anything the philandering adulterous academic cheat MLK could ever have said!!
Can’t be seen dissing the murderous bruthas!
Plus NO money in it for them - so why bother????
http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/atlanta/stories/2007/07/29/homicide0730.html?cxntlid=homepagetab_newstab
By Analchord
July 30, 2007 9:49 AM | Link to this
FREE MARIA!!!
By RCH
July 30, 2007 9:49 AM | Link to this
Eve You have my admiration and respect. Why can’t everyone do it the way you did.
” it’s not just Mexicans either, there are illegals here from every country, every walk of life. Why not deport then??? Why give them a free ride???”
All illegals are not welcome. Our progressive friends try to play the race card , stating “we don’t like Latinos”, however as you and I know they consist of many colours and nationalities.
By Van
July 30, 2007 9:53 AM | Link to this
Eve,
Great post and thought -
“Ok they have families here - but they knew the risk when they crossed the border illegally; why should we by sympathetic to their cause now??”
If we look at the law, there is no room for compassion with the law. The statue of Justice is blindfolded, she only hears the evidence.
Now the lefties would have us feel sorry for law breakers. By their way of thinking, no one should be in jail, unless they hurt a dog or cat.
Like Beretta said, “If you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime.”
Personally, I would like to know how she got a job? Did she lie on her I-9 form? Did she use another persons SSN? Was it stolen or just rented? Did she make one up? What other crimes did she commit to get and hold a job?
By Curious Observer
July 30, 2007 9:58 AM | Link to this
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.
The sophistry of RCH in claiming that the 14th Amendment does not apply to native-born children of illegal aliens is typical of neo-con thinking. He would have us guess what Congress was thinking in the drafting of the amendment.
It’s interesting that the neo-cons always ask their enemies to point out where a position appears in the Constitution. However, when the Constitution proves inconvenient to the neo-cons’ thinking, they like to revert to what’s outside the Constitution. For instance, they decry “activist” judges who find a constitutional right to privacy as inherent in the Constitution but not explicitly stated.
The language of the 14th Amendment is perfectly clear to me. It does not include the phrase “except in the case of children born of illegal aliens.”
Children born in this country are citizens, period. If you don’t like it, then start a movement to amend the Constitution. However, you cannot do so retroactively, and your inconvenient little problem of 10 million citizens—who will grow up to become voters against the neo-cons—will remain. And good luck with that amendment. You’ll need it, given the requirements in the Constitution for amending it.
By catlady
July 30, 2007 10:02 AM | Link to this
analchord, no I have not done the paperwork to get someone deported. What I HAVE done, many times, is the paperwork required for the illegal immigrant’s child to be in school. I will match you on it, and I think I will “win”.
I admit I would consider going one further on the identification of illegal immigrants: I would take every opportuntity to verify status, rather than just at points of lawbreaking behavior. For example, I would expect EVERY parent to show their legal status before their child gets free lunch, EVERY parent to show legal status before getting Peachcare or Medicaid, EVERY parent to show legal status before enrolling their child in school, or getting shots at the health department, or ….. The effects would be three: some folks would be caught and returned to their home country, some folks would avoid using those services, and some folks would decide not to risk coming/staying at all. We would start to see the numbers diminish, and then we could “let in” those who have been waiting patiently, legally, to come and do those “jobs Americans won’t do.” Of course, at the same time we need to be SEVERELY punishing those companies who hire illegal aliens. (Big hint to employers: if your employee cannot speak a fair amount of English, you should double check those documents they ar presenting). The chicken processing company near me, which hires hundreds and hundreds of patently illegal immigrants, should be fined millions of dollars, and its executive put in jail.
At the current time, there is too much excuse-making from those with power and not enough listening to the citizens. We made our point with Saxby and the others (although they think they can be forgiven) but now we are not continuing to press the point with the others. Until we do, we will hear “lack of resources” and “no place to put them” and other excuses.
By RCH
July 30, 2007 10:05 AM | Link to this
Curious Observer When the 14th amendments drafted, children of slaves was the issue at hand. It is perfectly clear to most that was the spirit of the law. I am sure the authors did not mean to include law breaker’s dividends (children).
By harold
July 30, 2007 10:09 AM | Link to this
rather than pouring all these trillions of dollars into iraq, what if it had been poured into commuter trains / light rail instead?
americans would be safer and way less oil money would be headed to those who wish to kill us
instead we still have 45,000 americans killed by cars annually, we have the iraq tar pit and we have increased dependence on foreign oil
brilliant
By deegee
July 30, 2007 10:10 AM | Link to this
I would love to hear some stories of how the workplace raids and deportations are working in the favor of the average American. We have about 18 months of history now between border enforcement and state governments enacting tough laws. I want to see the fruits of their efforts. I want to hear about Americans going back to work making a good wage doing the work that deported workers used to do. I want to hear about the state and local government coffers filling up with money that used to go to benefits for illegal immigrants. I want to hear about decreases in crime and the increase in the quality of life for the average American. I want to hear how small and medium sized businesses are faring now that illegal immigrants are leaving. I want to hear about how nice it is to visit the emergency room now that tens of thousands of illegal immigrants are leaving. Come on, Chip Rogers. Give us something to smile about.
By catlady
July 30, 2007 10:17 AM | Link to this
Has anyone else traveled outside the US and had to produce their passport at a moment’s notice, based on the official’s suspicion that you are not a resident? Why are we so scared to do that here? I understand our fears based on other countries’ abuses in the past, but right now, in “friendly” countries that love us, we still have to do that, and no one even questions it. Are we too “good” (stupid) to expect people living here to be able to prove that they have permission to?
By AmVet
July 30, 2007 10:44 AM | Link to this
Good morning all.
Ah, the debate today swirls around that most interesting of sacred documents - the US Constitution.
In one way it reminds me of the Bible, but ONLY in that it is subject to constant interpretation, reinterpretation and misinterpretation.
And though I’ve stated this obvious fact before, I am no expert on jurisprudence, much less the US Constitution.
RCH, in spite of your assurances about the “spirit of the law” or intent of the Founding Fathers regarding the 14th amendment, I tend to disagree and see this as a maddeningly slippery slope and a two-edged sword.
If your argument is correct, it also could mean that the second amendment is essentially null and void, as “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,” applied to the circumstances on this continent two hundred plus years ago, but clearly not today.
And in light of that, should be interpreted to mean something else or it is invalid.
By DebbieDoRight
July 30, 2007 10:46 AM | Link to this
RCH: Debbie, your reaching.
No I’m not. Any half way decent lawyer will bring up that fact when they go before the Supreme Court,(I’m saying this because sooner or later this will get taken up by the courts). They will ask how could the legislature of the 1800’s possibly know and/or come to a reasonable conclusion about the immigration problem of today when they penned the law that “born here, citizen here”? This is not just an AMERICAN law. My father was in the service and I was born in Germany… I hold dual citzenship for Germany AND America, (as do most GI babies born abroad); what you’re trying to do is change a precedent that is not only part of this country’s culture but the world’s culture. The only precedent being in some countries that you must reside in the country at least 90 days before the birth of said child.
PS: Doesn’t that Jolie/Pitts baby hold dual citizenship too?
By deegee
July 30, 2007 10:48 AM | Link to this
Overheard in the office of Saxby Chambliss, “we need to deport 8 million Mexicans so that we have room to import 8 million Iraqis after the fat lady sings.”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20031683/
By DebbieDoRight
July 30, 2007 10:55 AM | Link to this
Adam: DebbieDoRight - So what does the citizenship of the children have to do with it?
Nothing. Before Jim changed the sentence it was incorrectly posted and open to debate.
By JK
July 30, 2007 11:02 AM | Link to this
Mr. Wooten, I’m sorry about the loss of your collegue this morning.
By RCH
July 30, 2007 11:07 AM | Link to this
DebbieDoRight
“My father was in the service and I was born in Germany… I hold dual citzenship for Germany AND America, (as do most GI babies born abroad);
So was I, but we were born to legal citizens, and under the Armed Forces visiting Act given citizenship by the host nation. All legal actions.
Surely you do not want to extend the prize of citizenship to the motivation of an illegal act?
By the way Debbiedoright you never answered my qestion about you and Janet Reno? Is it now Debbiefrightnight? LOL
Amvet Point well made. However, today we are deliberating the 14th regarding anchor babies.
By vandstra
July 30, 2007 11:24 AM | Link to this
I have to say that this is the first column I have read by Jim Wooten that I am in total agreement with. It is unfortunate that this lady has children, but she put them in this position by making the choice to enter the US illegally even after having been kicked out previously. Illegal immigration to me is one of the few issues that requires very little thought. If you are here illegally, you must be held accountable. Oh, and Mr. Wooten, if you have not already please take the time to go and see “Sicko”. I know that when you wrote an article about America’s poor dietary habits you stated that you would not go and see it. Please do. It would not be fair for someone to criticize the substance of your column without having read it first. I saw it this weekend, and while the Cuba scenes were such propaganda that I wanted to throw up, the film does has some very valid points.
By getalife
July 30, 2007 11:48 AM | Link to this
89-1?
Well, the gop did not block this one but will w veto?
His vetoing other overspending.
“Today, Paul Krugman takes him to task on children’s health care”.
It’s not because [Bush] thinks the plans wouldn’t work. It’s because he’s afraid that they would. That is, he fears that voters, having seen how the government can help children, would ask why it can’t do the same for adults. […]
There are arguments you can make against programs, like Social Security, that provide a safety net for adults. I can respect those arguments, even though I disagree. But denying basic health care to children whose parents lack the means to pay for it, simply because you’re afraid that success in insuring children might put big government in a good light, is just morally wrong.
So much for compassionate conservatism.”
Geez.
By getalife
July 30, 2007 11:51 AM | Link to this
RCH is an anchor baby selling out American jobs.
Geez, go figure.
By RCH
July 30, 2007 12:08 PM | Link to this
getalife
“debbiefrightnight” and I both.
By DebbieDoRight
July 30, 2007 12:14 PM | Link to this
By the way Debbiedoright you never answered my qestion about you and Janet Reno? Is it now Debbiefrightnight? LOL
Har dee har har!!! :) I’m a black female, 6 feet tall, (my husband is 5’10 — go figure, love is a strange thing), I am the small forward on my B-Ball team, (I play with the guys), I guess the closest person that you’d probably know that I look like would be a much taller CeCe Winans, (although I can’t sing). I grew up in Washington State, (outside of Ft. Lewis), and I came to the south for college. Mostly I like the south, the people here are very polite and helpful and friendly, not that they aren’t in Washington, just a different type of friendly. I love to cycle and when I’m not travelling for the job I try to get in a couple of miles a week. But if not, no matter where you go there’s always a local Y with a pick up basketball game going on.
By BS Aplenty
July 30, 2007 12:19 PM | Link to this
Re: jbmlaw
Problematic logic there my legal compadre. I, too, understand Maria’s desire for a more economically entriched life but much as my diligent efforts to rob a bank (or commit some lesser crime) shouldn’t entitle me to the proceeds of that illegal act neither should her efforts entitle her or her children to citizenship. Much as I might admire her “pluck.”
The answer is more useful guest worker programs. Then you’ll have those lower wage industries locating plants along the Texas/New Mexico/Baja regions and that makes economic & immigration sense. Citizenship should simply be a longer, more thoughtful process.
What tries my patience and that of the vast majority of American citizens (and the dually licensed tftt & RCH) is the un-codified but spoken law that squatters rights apply. I find it troubling that the first step to citizenship for many of today’s immigrants is an illegal act. My grandparent’s emigrated from Europe in 1910 - legally.
By RCH
July 30, 2007 12:26 PM | Link to this
B.S. What tries my patience and that of the vast majority of American citizens (and the dually licensed tftt & RCH) is the un-codified but spoken law that squatters rights apply. I find it troubling that the first step to citizenship for many of today’s immigrants is an illegal act. My grandparent’s emigrated from Europe in 1910 - legally.
You surely must not have read my blogs. I have never advocated this position.
By Van
July 30, 2007 12:28 PM | Link to this
I still would like to see a definitive definition of or explanation of
“and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, “
This part of the 14th amendment is what I consider the key point.
By jm
July 30, 2007 12:28 PM | Link to this
One thing seems to be missing from the article. Was Maria employed and if she was, what if anything is being done to the employer for hiring a person without proper work documentation. Probably nothing. As long as employers can safely hire undocumented workers (and suppress labor costs), people will find a way to come here to work.
By BS Aplenty
July 30, 2007 12:33 PM | Link to this
RCH
I believe you misunderstand me. I’m not advocating “squatters rights” merely indicating that there is an un-codified argument by “illegal apologists” that once here, citizenship for all should be guaranteed. This does not conflict with the impetus of your prior posts.
By jbmlaw
July 30, 2007 12:34 PM | Link to this
Dear BS @ 12:19, you offer an excellent argument, but one that partially evaporates on review. In your bank case, there is an identifiable owner whose right to the money is compromised by the thief (sounds like you are copying one of my “government spending” arguments there.) In the case of the migrant worker, nobody’s “right” is usurped. The better analogy is the speeder on I-285 – one of those thousands of victimless crimes. As to entitlement to membership in our society, I think there is greater merit in awarding that membership to one who provably wishes to be here than one who asks only, “how much is my government check this month?”
My spirited defense of my position notwithstanding, I can support your broader argument for a guest worker program and phased citizenship. The real problem is “allocation of positions” – how many to allow in. I say, “let ‘em all in.” How many do you allow, and who do you ration the positions? Sell to the highest bidder (my preference if we are to allocate)?
By jbmlaw
July 30, 2007 12:44 PM | Link to this
Dear Van @ 12:28, while an activist court could surely interpret a phrase to mean anything under the sun, from the perspective of 1868 the language would surely apply to those Americans and foreign-resident nationals living within the jurisdiction of the United States at the time a cause of action accrued – those “subject to the jurisdiction” of the courts. The language would prohibit a foreign jurisdiction from using American law to unduly restrict Americans abroad, and would prohibit American courts from attempting to enforce American law against a non-resident.
Dear jm @ 12:28, I hold a different perspective – if Maria was a prostitute or drug dealer, I still don’t have a problem with her presence here. (I know that attitude pains my conservative friends, but in such transactions I hold the “buyers” as primarily at fault, inducing innocent sellers into a life of crime; execute the buyers. I guess in a peculiar sense, I can thus support your argument for sanctions against employers, as they are buyers, like any druggie or sex-john. Punish them all equivalently.)
By BS Aplenty
July 30, 2007 12:46 PM | Link to this
Re: jbmlaw
It’s a victimless crime unless you count the value of benefits accessed by illegals and paid for by the American taxpayer.
By RCH
July 30, 2007 12:51 PM | Link to this
jbmlaw
A migrant or(illegal alien)presence cannot be considered a victimless crime. Those individuals use services which costs the taxpayer. It can be argued that this could be considered theft of services. A crime!
A better example of your victimless crime would be prostitution. And I don’t think it will be made legal any time soon.
The real problem is “allocation of positions” – how many to allow in. I say, “let ‘em all in.” How many do you allow, and who do you ration the positions. At one point and time allocation of visas and citizenship ,was based on the existing cultural structure. The percentage of White, to black, to Latino etc. Also the country of origin played a large part of Visa applications. This has all fallen by the wayside.
By Van
July 30, 2007 12:51 PM | Link to this
jbmlaw,
My question deals with an example I saw where a foreign diplomat’s(an ambassador for example) offspring, born here in the US, would not be given automatic citizenship.
By jbmlaw
July 30, 2007 12:52 PM | Link to this
Dear BS, I think it still victimless even after you count benefits. I believe the industry among our guests is such that they are subsidizing “real” Americans.
By jbmlaw
July 30, 2007 12:54 PM | Link to this
Dear BS, a follow up, I do not dispute that our welfare and tax-transfer programs are screwed up. However, our immigrant guests are not the primary cause of the screw up, and I would not penalize them (and run off good workers) merely because of screwed up welfare laws. Amend the welfare laws instead.
By Captain Freedom
July 30, 2007 12:57 PM | Link to this
The Captain offers a simple solution, slicing the Gordian knot with almost surgical precision.
We are on the cusp of providing our stalwart allies the Saudis with $20billion worth of advanced military equipment. This is only proper to reward Our Leader’s good friends for their excellent assistance in fighting terror and helping out in Iraq.
But while we’re at it, we could sweeten the pot. Say we offer the House of Saud a free wetback with every $2000 worth of materiel? At that rate, we would clean out our backlog, and the Saudis would garner a solid pool of hardy and cheap labor. Besides, they look kind of the same as the A-rabs.
Sec State Condolezzba Rice will be able to put another feather in her cap. Our Leader gets Lou Dobbs of his case. And we get to go back to not having to “Press 1 for English”.
It’s a win-win for everyone.
By jbmlaw
July 30, 2007 12:57 PM | Link to this
Dear Van, customarily, a foreign ambassador (and their dependents) would be exempt from the laws of our country unless the foreign country “subject” them to our jurisdiction. That is a chronic aggravation for New Yorkers, whose cars are clipped occasionally by wild-driving foreign consuls and UN types. Treaties have standing in our jurisprudence fully equal to the Constitution.
By Captain Freedom
July 30, 2007 1:04 PM | Link to this
The Captain wishes to apologize for his egregious typo in the previous post. The Captain in no way wishes to cast aspersions on the sexual preference of Sec Rice. She is clearly a Godly woman who has been more than generous in her servicing of Our Leader. Her (lack of) marital status, advancing years, and unwillingness to breed should in no way reflect adversely upon her suitability to participate in Our Glorious Christian Cultural Revolution.
Though close to infallible, the Captain is not perfect. Mea culpa.
By JD
July 30, 2007 1:06 PM | Link to this
jbmlaw@9:03,
If the crime does not merit execution, it does not merit enforcement.
Surely you jest.
If we do nothing to discourage the flood of illegals, or better, stop the flood and deport those now here, you have no problem with the displaced American workers stopping by your home, weapon in hand, to pick up some food, money and electronics?
Since the Americans had lost their jobs to illegals working for less, you would not call 911 or interfere in any way with their shopping spree at your expense?
I find the Left point of view amusing and yours abhorrent. The Dems claim to be the party of the less fortunate, yet as illegals flood the US and take jobs of Americans who are under-educated or unskilled, the Dems scream “Discrimination” at the Conservatives trying to stop the flood; as those who have voted Democrat for decades are left to become homeless and unemployed.
Progressive? I think not.
Liberal? Hardly - just more of the keep-me-in-power crowd in Washington.
Just as the Iraq war, the Left has a “blowin’ in the wind position” on every issue.
Here are the Democrats on Saddam and the WMD’s:
http://www.bercasio.com/movies/dems-wmd-before-iraq.wmv
By Curious Observer
July 30, 2007 1:07 PM | Link to this
In the case of the migrant worker, nobody’s “right” is usurped.
I seem to recall something about the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The illegal workers are taking jobs that could be performed by citizens and suppressing the wages the job might otherwise afford. Sounds like taking away part of the pursuit of happiness to me.
Almost everyone in the world wants to be here. I don’t recall anything in the Constitution about awarding citizenship or residency on the basis of someone’s perceived value or attitudes. If such were the standard, I think we could make a case for excluding all lawyers from attaining citizenship or residency, for they exploit hapless individuals who have run into conflict with the law, and there are simply too many of them.
I say, “let ‘em all in.”
Sure. Just tear down the boundaries and turn the U.S. into a third-world country. After all, those little people who can’t bill at the rate of $300 per hour don’t count for much. Let them bid with the unlimited number of immigrants on the wages for which they will perform a job. We can be back to, say, 25 cents per hour as the prevailing wage in no time.
Jbmlaw, you remind me of the scientist-persona of Jonathan Swift’s A Modest Proposal. You are so wedded to dogma that the horror and eventual consequences of your positions never occurs to you. Or perhaps you really do lack a conscience, as I have suspected for some time.
By Captain Freedom
July 30, 2007 1:10 PM | Link to this
jbm,
It is indeed important to remember that treaties, when negotiated by the exexcutive and duly ratified by the Senate, are binding legal documents on the parties to said treaty.
As you so ably put it, Treaties have standing in our jurisprudence fully equal to the Constitution. However, the Executive Branch and the Cheney Branch (hovering in the nether world) are no longer bound by the quaint notions in the Constitution, and are therefore empowered to disregard any treaty they wish.
(In fact, this Executive Power of Treaty Ignoral has been enshrined as far back as the earliest treaties entered into with the Injuns, or as the Islamobedwetters call them, “Native” Americans. If they were so “Naaaa-tive”, why didn’t they protect themselves from the illegal immigration at Plymouth and Jamestown. See where it got them, with their liberal open borders.)
By DebbieDoRight
July 30, 2007 1:31 PM | Link to this
My question deals with an example I saw where a foreign diplomat’s(an ambassador for example) offspring, born here in the US, would not be given automatic citizenship.
If the parents of said offspring want to request citizenship for their child they can. They, (the parents), are still legally the citizens of another country and their child is also considered a citizen of the parents’ country; but can apply for dual citizenship at the time of birth.
I would suppose that most illegal aliens, (judging by the post from catlady), immediately after a child is born make sure that the child’s citizenship is listed legally as American.
Persons may have dual nationality by automatic operation of different laws rather than by choice. For example, a child born in a foreign country to U.S. citizen parents may be both a U.S. citizen and a citizen of the country of birth. A U.S. citizen may acquire foreign citizenship by marriage, or a person naturalized as a U.S. citizen may not lose the citizenship of the country of birth.U.S. law does not mention dual nationality or require a person to choose one citizenship or another. Also, a person who is automatically granted another citizenship does not risk losing U.S. citizenship.
By RCH
July 30, 2007 1:40 PM | Link to this
I see that this question will have to go to the Supreme Court. And soon!
By RCH
July 30, 2007 1:43 PM | Link to this
I see that this question will have to go to the Supreme Court. And soon!
By Bush's Colon Polyps
July 30, 2007 1:53 PM | Link to this
jbmlaw has applied to membership in our society, as he has his head up Dumbya’s butt. So has BS Aplenty, but he might be too stupid to be a colon polyp. After all, Andi/e and @@ are our token ‘tard polyps.
By BS Aplenty
July 30, 2007 1:59 PM | Link to this
Bush’s Colon Polyps (seem to always be on your mind, anal-boy)
P.S. Happy to Disappoint !!
By jbmlaw
July 30, 2007 2:01 PM | Link to this
Dear JD @ 1:06, sorry to break your heart. I believe in freedom first, and I find victimless crimes abhorrent. If a crime does not merit execution, it ought not be on the books. Mere rudeness ought not be punished.
Dear Curious @ 1:07, no migrant takes anyone’s right to life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness. No lazy American has a vested right to take money from his employer, especially if his employer can get someone else to work better and for less.
You also argue, “I think we could make a case for excluding all lawyers from attaining citizenship or residency, for they exploit hapless individuals.” Do you apply the same logic to leftists who keep voters on the Democrat plantation via government checks? I would support your campaign excluding lawyers from citizenship or residency, as I happen to hold other skills, but you might find there was no citizen then willing to fund Democrats – are you sure you want to void the last big special interest group they can count on?
As to “apocalyptic” visions, you parade your list of unreal “consequences” and accuse me of being wedded to dogma? I realize you think immigration is as terrible as global warming, Y2K, freon vs ozone, the coming ice age, the population bomb, and Amchitka. Time to start thinking, Curious. Free people engaged in free enterprise are a threat only to the idle.
By jbmlaw
July 30, 2007 2:06 PM | Link to this
Dear BCP @ 1:53, are you endorsing the 8:54 view of our friend Redneck, that all who side with Jim Wooten (and oppose the President on this issue) are “Wooten Polyps?” Surely you are not calling our friend Debbie a “Bush Polyp?” Your onco-ideology is baffling, please clarify.
By jm
July 30, 2007 2:40 PM | Link to this
jbmlaw@12:44 - I do not fault the Maria’s of this world for seeking a chance to better themselves. I do fault the corporations that by hiring the Maria’s of the world. I wonder how many people who lost decent jobs, with health benefits (for them and their children) because it became more “cost effective” to hire undocumented workers to perform those tasks (usually through outsourcing). One of the weaknesses in the works of Hayek and Friedman is how to eliminate “cheating”.
By jbmlaw
July 30, 2007 2:54 PM | Link to this
Dear jm @ 2:40, as you surely observed in my earlier post, I do not challenge the internal consistency of your argument. I do challenge the “value” you magnify, “cheating.” I call it “efficiency.” One of the “weaknesses” in the works of Hayek and Friedman is that it maximizes efficiency, to the denigration of wishes and wants of those who are uncompetitive.
By jbmlaw
July 30, 2007 2:59 PM | Link to this
Dear jm, just to follow up, I will support restrictions on the employer only if we agree that (1) the HR person responsible for the “inappropriate” hire shall be subject to execution for the crime of hiring an illegal, and (2) the civil rights act is repealed insofar as it addresses employment discrimination based on national origin.
By Dusty
July 30, 2007 3:15 PM | Link to this
Well..great arguments but seems I’ve heard them before. So….
I agree with Catlady.
jbmlaw wants to turn us into “Lil’ Mexico” and do the fandango.
I’m not arguing with DebbieDoRight. She’s six feet tall and in shape!!
Has anyone checked Captain Freedom’s papers? He’s definitely a foreign body.
Redneck Convert’s trailer is full of formaldehyde, poisonous to the brain, obviously.
Bush’s Colon Polyps 1:53 is a liberal lollipolyp best removed.
By RCH
July 30, 2007 3:16 PM | Link to this
jbmlaw
Point 1 agreed upon, with further cop ability within the organization including the CEO.That will get their attention. Amend the civil rights act in relation to employment to contain the phrase “legal eligibility without regard to national origin” to gain employment within the United States.
By DebbieDoRight
July 30, 2007 3:25 PM | Link to this
RCH: Reagan already did that with the I-9; (proof of citizenship for employment purposes).
By GA is Not the Ukraine
July 30, 2007 3:27 PM | Link to this
RCH you state, “The real problem is “allocation of positions” – how many to allow in. I say, “let ‘em all in.” How many do you allow, and who do you ration the positions. At one point and time allocation of visas and citizenship ,was based on the existing cultural structure. The percentage of White, to black, to Latino etc. Also the country of origin played a large part of Visa applications. This has all fallen by the wayside.”
You imply by your statement that we should just “open the borders” via your random lottery proposition. Let’s review your methodology. Einstein. Allow in others to immigrate in lottery-style drawing based on, what?, their reported population concentration in the world. Hmm, that sounds like someone who might have an agenda. No discrimination from you, RCH, you’re way too PC.
Just a hint, Brainiac, it’s going to be discriminatory when anyone is allowed in this country - but it does seem like a good idea to let the owner choose who gets hired, don’t ya think, comrade?
Keep your chin up, kid, you’ll have a second bad idea soon.
By jbmlaw
July 30, 2007 3:29 PM | Link to this
Dear Dusty @ 3:15, actually I see a profit opportunity selling maracas.
Dear RCH @ 3:16, your amendment is insufficient – merely asking for the “materials of proof” is discriminatory, as it is levied only against people of Hispanic (or other similar facial foreign-) heritage. Or maybe you would agree that an Anglo born in Atlanta would be obliged to prove his legal eligibility? A little more on the execution of the culpable – suppose the HR office claims they were defrauded, that there was a piece of paper that proved phony – can we still execute them? (What I am leading to is that you are going to have to implement a “national registry,” the ultimate Big Brother tool. Leftists, of course, have no problem with that idea, but my conservative brethren usually have the same issues there as I.)
By deegee
July 30, 2007 3:29 PM | Link to this
Can we hear from the ICE workers carrying out the workplace raids? I want to hear from our State human resource agencies on how the raids and deportations are working out. Can Lou Dobbs or JW find anyone that has a job now that didn’t have one before an illegal immigrant was deported? Where are the success stories? Please give us something to celebrate.
By RCH
July 30, 2007 3:47 PM | Link to this
GA is Not the Ukraine Obviously, you never read the blogs I write. It is jbmlaw that would like to have the open borders. I was just mentioning that at one point and time ,how it was determined which countries and cultures received the Visas and citizenships allocated for that year.
jbmlaw All those considered for employment would have to surrender the appropriate documentation. And yes, there would need to be better controls available to employers to catch deceivers. A data base with finger prints, photos and SS numbers can and should be implemented.( of course businesses that acted in good faith should not be held accountable.
By SET
July 30, 2007 4:39 PM | Link to this
There is only once way to deal with an invasion of the USA. Set a deadline and at that point seize the colonists (which is what they are) and place them into detention camps with or without their children. Confiscate their property. Give the nation that sent them into the US a deadline to end the invasion, recover their nationals and pay damages or else deal with that Nation by military means.
Obviously from the roundup day deadline, nationality or legal status would be established for any schooling, healthcare, employment or banking, court process or air travel. At least long enough to flush out invaders.
Later we can set deadlines for the Green Card holders to go home at least for awhile unless they have offical sponsorship.
We could use a buffer zone taken from territory of the invading nation. Baja California would be a nice start. We can also end birthright citizenship which most nations don’t have for exacly this reason.
And no more foreign languages or flags in government services or public discourse at all.
The alternative, which is what will most likely happen, is the USA no longer being the USA but a 3rd world nation a’la Brazil. With all the pathology of a 3rd world nation.
By getalife
July 30, 2007 5:16 PM | Link to this
I’m not arguing with DebbieDoRight. She’s six feet tall and in shape!!
How unpatriotic and unAmerican to want to cut and run.
Geez.
By Nick
July 30, 2007 5:33 PM | Link to this
Jim,
Not sure what happened between Friday and today. Do you even remember what you wrote on Friday?
http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/shared-blogs/ajc/thinkingright/entries/2007/07/27/americaschildrenneedamom_d.html
…largely ignores the most significant factor in determining the well-being of the 2.2 million children in Georgia: whether they have a mother and father in the home.
You can’t advocate “family values” one day and then be willing to separate a family the next day.
And, yes, I’ll say it. Race and the stigma of a stereotypical Mexican plays a factor in what you wrote today. There’s no other explanation for such an absurd flip flop.
By Analchord
July 30, 2007 5:46 PM | Link to this
Rarely does a blogger score a cleaner bullseye than Nick just did. Point, set, match to Nick, unt Wooten is left only with his kleine antzenfarmen, and most of those are in his leiderhosen.
bwa
By Jackie
July 30, 2007 5:52 PM | Link to this
The mother is clearly an illegal, while the son is a citizen of this country. The Constitution gives him full rights and privileges of the law. The question is, does the US create an orphan an possibly violate the son’s Constitutional rights?
By catlady
August 1, 2007 8:34 AM | Link to this
Jackie: we are not “creating an orphan”. The US citizen can live here with family/friends or he can live there with mama till he is ready to leave. Just like any other situation.
Does putting a woman in jail for, say, homicide, “orphan” her children or take away their rights? No, it means they have to be provided for some other way.
If you have children, you have to have a plan b in case something happens to you. If you are an illegal alien, you have to have that same type of plan. She made the initial decision, and now she must make the next decision of what happens when she is no longer here. Like any other parent, except her decisions are as a result of illegal activitiy on her part.
By Mad as Hel
August 23, 2007 2:19 PM | Link to this
They do not belong here - They have no right to break into my country - Maybe you would like it if I broke into Your house - They can apply to come here like every other Nation on the face of the earth - ILLEGAL - End of discussion - If they die breaking the law it is thier fault - I would put mine fields along the Mexican Border