In this video on cnn.com a woman tells of how she used her tourist Visa to come to America to have her baby in Texas. She admits to hiding her pregnancy and hopes that in the future the child will help her to immigrate to the US. The hospital in which she had her baby has recorded that 70% of the children born in that hospital are from undocumented workers.
Here is another article where China has developed a birth tourism. They sell vacation packages to expectant mothers so they can come here and have their anchor baby.
Consultants sell ‘birth tourism’ to expectant Chinese mothers
“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.”
I still think an amendment isn’t necessary. The “AND” in “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” (as opposed to an “or”) I think allows one to make a pretty compelling argument that someone who is here illegally, is therefor not subject to the jurisdiction of the US… or they’d be gone, and therefore their kids ain’t citizens.
[quote]Spartiates wrote:
“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.”
I still think an amendment isn’t necessary. The “AND” in “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” (as opposed to an “or”) I think allows one to make a pretty compelling argument that someone who is here illegally, is therefor not subject to the jurisdiction of the US… or they’d be gone, and therefore their kids ain’t citizens.[/quote]
I did read something that Push had posted that explained that argument and I am all for it. The only problem is, is that current policy is not interpreting the Amendment that way.
[quote]Spartiates wrote:
“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.”
I still think an amendment isn’t necessary. The “AND” in “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” (as opposed to an “or”) I think allows one to make a pretty compelling argument that someone who is here illegally, is therefor not subject to the jurisdiction of the US… or they’d be gone, and therefore their kids ain’t citizens.[/quote]
I did read something that Push had posted that explained that argument and I am all for it. The only problem is, is that current policy is not interpreting the Amendment that way.
[/quote]
Someone with some money and some good lawyers needs to make a federal case out of it.
…or congress needs to pass a law, which of course will be challenged, and that needs to go to the SCOTUS. I think anyone with a half-a-brain can figure out that the goal of the 14th was not to allow anchor babies, but merely to insure that our citizenry all became full and legal citizens automatically.
Where do people get the right to tell other people they cannot invite someone to live or work on their property?
Where do people get the right to give uninvited people permission to trespass on private property?
Don’t you see both sides of the argument are flawed.
If you do not rigorously defend property rights then you cannot complain about anything the government does whether it is allowing foreigners in to your home or taxing you to jail drug users.
The entire realm of humanity is centered around property rights, first and foremost.
Where do people get the right to tell other people they cannot invite someone to live or work on their property?
Where do people get the right to give uninvited people permission to trespass on private property?
Don’t you see both sides of the argument are flawed.
If you do not rigorously defend property rights then you cannot complain about anything the government does whether it is allowing foreigners in to your home or taxing you to jail drug users.
The entire realm of humanity is centered around property rights, first and foremost.[/quote]
Where do people get the right to tell other people they cannot invite someone to live or work on their property?
Where do people get the right to give uninvited people permission to trespass on private property?
Don’t you see both sides of the argument are flawed.
If you do not rigorously defend property rights then you cannot complain about anything the government does whether it is allowing foreigners in to your home or taxing you to jail drug users.
The entire realm of humanity is centered around property rights, first and foremost.[/quote]
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
I know, I know : LONG LIVE ANARCHY!
go get 'em fella
[/quote]
Snappy comeback! A little weak in the dialectic but what’s to be expected from someone who spends her time posting boob pics in SAMA?
Where do people get the right to tell other people they cannot invite someone to live or work on their property?
Where do people get the right to give uninvited people permission to trespass on private property?
Don’t you see both sides of the argument are flawed.
If you do not rigorously defend property rights then you cannot complain about anything the government does whether it is allowing foreigners in to your home or taxing you to jail drug users.
The entire realm of humanity is centered around property rights, first and foremost.[/quote]
I know, I know : LONG LIVE ANARCHY!
go get 'em fella
[/quote]
So what exactly do you disagree with?[/quote]
I don’t want to pay taxes but they are needed to run the government, I may not like how my taxes are spent but I I do use the services and roads they provide.
If I am not happy with my government I do my best to vote out those that are not enacting policy I stand behind.
I don’t rail about having to pay taxes and that we shouldn’t and that the government is inviting illegals to suck up the benefits.
The entire realm of humanity is centered around property rights, first and foremost.[/quote]
Do you believe this to be a historical truth (what I’d call a real or actual truth), or is it a thought experiment/philosophical “truth”, like the “state of nature” for Hobbs?
[quote]OctoberGirl wrote:
I know, I know : LONG LIVE ANARCHY!
go get 'em fella
[/quote]
Snappy comeback! A little weak in the dialectic but what’s to be expected from someone who spends her time posting boob pics in SAMA?
You’re out of your league here, sweetheart.[/quote]
Well then if I manage to post anything remotely better it will be a nice surprise for you.
My problem with illegals stems from the fact that they come here and get on all the welfare programs, as long as we have handouts we should not allow stuff like birthright. If we where to get rid of the programs then I would be taking a similar position as Lift.
The entire realm of humanity is centered around property rights, first and foremost.[/quote]
Do you believe this to be a historical truth (what I’d call a real or actual truth), or is it a thought experiment/philosophical “truth”, like the “state of nature” for Hobbs?[/quote]
It is the truth, freedom is intertwined with property rights, if you do not have property rights you are not free.
The entire realm of humanity is centered around property rights, first and foremost.[/quote]
Do you believe this to be a historical truth (what I’d call a real or actual truth), or is it a thought experiment/philosophical “truth”, like the “state of nature” for Hobbs?[/quote]
It is the truth, freedom is intertwined with property rights, if you do not have property rights you are not free.[/quote]
Question because I don’t know, how does that affect people who don’t own property? What would that relate to then?
EDIT: So I suppose that would apply to renting? But then don’t you have to go by what is allowed by the Landlord? Something like the Government?
How do property rights relate to religion and speech?