#2 VS #14
 

According to some people, the second amendment cannot be touched. It is part of the Constitution of The United States of America, and true patriots don't think about changing this sacred document.

According to some of the same people, the fourteenth amendment is... well... touchable.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/...amendment.html

There's a big difference between the two, Spexxvet.

You can thank the 14th for encouraging people to enter the country illegally to pop out their anchor babies thus making them eligible to stay.

You can thank the 2nd for Japan not invading America during WWII.

"Admiral Yamamoto: "You cannot invade mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass." Advising Japan's military leaders of the futility of an invasion of the mainland United States because of the widespread availability of guns. It has been theorized that this was a major contributing factor in Japan's decision not to land on North America early in the war when they had vastly superior military strength. This delay gave our industrial infrastructure time to gear up for the conflict and was decisive in our later victory. "

http://factcheck.org/2009/05/misquoting-yamamoto/

OK...you can dispute that quote. Neither of us were there. Here a few more.

Adolf Hitler: "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let's not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country." Adolf Hitler, dinner talk on April 11, 1942, quoted in Hitler's Table Talk 1941-44: His Private Conversations, Second Edition (1973), Pg. 425-426. Translated by Norman Cameron and R. H. Stevens.

John F. Kennedy: "Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom."

John F. Kennedy: "By calling attention to 'a well regulated militia,' 'the security of the nation,' and the right of each citizen 'to keep and bear arms,' our founding fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our economy... The Second Amendment still remains an important declaration of our basic civilian-military relationships in which every citizen must be ready to participate in the defense of his country. For that reason I believe the Second Amendment will always be important." John F. Kennedy, Junior Senator of MA in a 1959 letter to E.B. Mann [From the 1974 Gun Digest, article titled Gun Laws]

James Earl Jones: "The world is filled with violence. Because criminals carry guns, we decent law-abiding citizens should also have guns. Otherwise they will win and the decent people will lose."

The Dalai Lama: "If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun." (May 15, 2001, The Seattle Times)

No, there is not.

Either the constitution is the be-all end-all of sacred documents, or it isn't. You can't pick and choose, or so we've been told 50 billion times, because you have different feelings.

Both amendments have been touched. Repeatedly.

I must strongly disagree, Shawnee.

The right to keep and bear arms is spelled out in the Constitution. You can dispute what a "well regulated militia" means all you want. The right of citizens to own firearms has been upheld by the USSC. It is not illegal for law-abiding citizens to own firearms for hunting and self protection.

It IS illegal for someone to come into the country by sneaking across the border to pop out an anchor baby (or to smuggle drugs, find work...whatever). It doesn't matter WHY they're coming here...it does not change the fact that they are in the country illegally.

I'm sure you do know that the Constitution has been tweeked from time to time. So, in that respect, you are correct. It is NOT never-changing.

To sum it up...
1. The 2nd Amendment is about freedom and protecting our democracy. Are you anti-gun people against freedom and protecting the democracy?
2. The 14th Amendment needs to be changed to close this giant loophole which allows a flood of illegals into the country. I am all in favor of the children of LEGAL immigrants being citizens because they have gone through the process to do so legally.

So, we can agree to disagree.

To sum it up...
1. The 14th Amendment is about freedom and protecting our democracy. Are you anti-foreigner people against freedom and protecting the democracy (upon which our country was founded)?
2. The 2nd Amendment needs to be changed to close this giant loophole which allows a flood of crazy people to buy semi-automatic assault rifles.

Yep, matter of perspective.

Either off limits, or not. Guess what...NOT.

Oh, I see what you did there. You clever girl, you.

Awesome back and forth, Shawnee.

Hmmm, making the point that our perspectives differ but you turn it around to "my" perspective. Huh what?

As I said, they're all off limits or they're not. Yeah, I figured you would understand that I meant the 14th too. I should be more clear.

I don't give a fuck about guns, I give a fuck about people saying gun amendments are untouchable and other amendements aren't. However, you turn this into your personal agenda, it matters not to me.

Why do all y'all argue exactly the same way? :p:

I guess it's just how us God-fearing, gun-toting, freedom lovers are wired. ;)

Awww, you're not weird, just different than me. ;)

Oh, oops, I can't read either! :biggrinje

Hey! Who said I'm not weird. Just ask my wife. :p:

The Constitution of the United States of America is a living document. It is changeable, and was meant to be changed, as required, by the current opinions of the American Citizenry. If the majority of those opinions line up with yours, great. If your in the minority on a given issue, not so much.

JEJ???? One of these things is not like the others ... ;)

I pretty much agree. welcome to hell.

Damn straight. James Earl Jones wasn't a philandering irishman, a failed artist, or a weird little peacenik. He only answered to only one being in the entire freaking galaxy!

Plus, he said it in that fine voice, so it bears more weight as a quote.

Bell Atlantic?

Clodfobble's Brain?????????

Yes, my secret's out. I am actually Emperor Palpatine.

Which is why, incidentally, I've always hated the Star Wars series. They painted me in such a negative light!

No woman is a prophet in her own country.

Yeah, I just threw him in the because he has a cool voice.

Possibly. But you may not be the best judge of that. :cool:

The constitution is the operating system of the united states. It may need to be tweaked, but you better be damned careful of the results before you apply the changes.

First you'd have to convince me that this is a bug that needs to be fixed.

but you would be, right?

I'd say that all of the money we spend on illegals annually and the crimes they commit make it a pretty damn big bug.

Noooo. But I bet Wolf could do it.

Anyway, the truth is that I was pulling your leg and it came off in my hand.

How much is that in dollars, and do you have substantiated documentation to back it up?
How does that compare to the general population?

If you can do all that, then make a case that this problem can only be fixed through a change to the constitution - as opposed to just enforcing the laws we already have.

If we stop looking the other way when employers hire undocumented workers and if we stopped providing government support, then I suspect we'd have a lot fewer undocumented workers.

I wholeheartedly agree Pete...the government does very little to prevent illegals from entering the country. In many cases, certain law enforcement agencies might as well be fishing with the catch and release policies they have. I've heard stories about locals calling ICE when they have an illegal in custody only to be told to release them because they don't have the time or manpower to do anything about it. That's why some states are taking matters into their own hands. Hell, some cities in Kalifornia actually declare themselves as a "sanctuary city" for illegals! How fucked up is that?

I also agree that we need to come down HEAVILY on companies that employ illegals. Maybe the threat of a $250,000 fine per illegal found during a raid would change their minds about hiring them.

As far as the figures...I don't have them and I'm sure they vary according to who you believe. I think it's safe to say that it is in the billions upon billions of dollars per year. Changing 14 will at least be a start by defining that just because a pregnant illegal is lucky enough to evade capture on the way here...she can't legally put down roots because the child is a citizen.

Are you denying that illegal aliens cost us citizens money? If not, then why do you need specific numbers? If yes, then you're nuts.
Since when has this been the standard? AZ is trying to enforce the laws we already have, with law enforcement officers already employed. Not allowed to at the moment...
Who's we? I'm not looking the other way. I'm not hiring illegals. I'd like to not support them either.

The 14th has been interpreted many different ways over the years, depending on political climate. The political climate right now calls into question the soundness of the current interpretation because of those who are abusing it.

Best be careful if the 14th is going to get re-worded... Roe v. Wade is based entirely on some rather innocuous wording within the 14th Amendment.

Fundamental right to privacy. Should be anchored on something much stronger imo. Perhaps it's own amendment.

The part that comes into question with regard to anchor babies is the Citizenship Clause

which is pretty straight forward - and yet wasn't enough to grant citizenship to native americans.
Political climate...

I'm looking for a frame of reference.
Is this a big problem or a little problem? How does it compare with the other problems we have? Will it cost more to fix this problem than to leave it alone? If you don't have the answers to these questions, then why are you focusing on this particular problem? America's got lots of problems and this is just one of many.
Because changing the constitution is brain surgery. You don't want to do this unless the problem is a major problem. You also don't want to do this if the problem can be fixed with less drastic measures.

The economy is in the toilet, unemployment is very high. Re-evaluation of where the money is going is happening at a familial level all the way thru national level- that's why this issue is in the forefront (imo anyway). America does have a lot of problems. It's not an either-or thing though, you can address this problem AND any other problem you personally want to focus on. Focusing on this one to say we shouldn't be focusing on it is helping how?

The costs: How much does it cost to NOT grant citizenship, issue birth cert. and social secuirty cards, to infants who's mothers can't prove they are here legally?
How much does it cost to have a federal task force inspect paperwork at ever business in America, frequently? (Keep in mind that targeting businesses that most commonly hire illegals would be profiling, so they would have to check every single one. Frequently.)

I agree that business should face penalties for hiring illegals. If done effectively it would reduce incentive for illegal immigration, just like getting rid of the anchor-baby option. Unfortunately, it would also cost a lot.

What does passing an amendment really cost, other than legislators' time? (Which, let's face it, they're on salary and I don't believe they'd necessarily be doing anything better with that time...) I don't think the cost is a valid argument against, nor do I think it's a useful exercise to gauge precisely how important this problem is in relation to other problems--if it's large enough to be a hotbutton issue that can alter the course of an election, it's large enough to address.

However, I'm not sure whether I support the idea yet or not, but only because I think it might have counterintuitive results. The way I see it, the fundamental problem is that illegal immigrants are living outside the system--they use a host of social services that they contribute no taxes to. (This is where someone might try to jump in with the notion that some illegal immigrants, by virtue of using false social security numbers, are paying taxes they will never see a return on, but the budget sheets from the border states consistently show that the expenditures far outweigh the small amount that comes back this way.)

Anchor babies, for better or for worse, are "in" the system. As minors they will continue to freely benefit for another 18 years, but then at some point they will, indeed, feed back into the system. On the other hand, if we remove the anchor baby option, I don't think it's really going to turn away that many illegal immigrants. They'll still be here, but their babies will be illegal too, and in 18 years you will still have yet another person feeding off the system without contributing. What's more, the anchor babies encourage their worker parents to truly set up home here, rather than sending the money back to Mexico, which is an even worse thing to do to our economy than just feeding off it.

This is, again, why Texas has very high sales taxes instead of state income taxes. Because that's how you tax your illegal immigrant base, thus getting back a portion of what you are spending on them. If they were paying for the services they use, no one would be complaining.

:corn:

Good touch or bad touch?

Increasing manpower would mean enlarging the federal government and increasing taxes. The same people who want to stop illegal immigration don't want to enlarge the federal government or increase taxes.

I think Pete is correct in asking for specifics. You poo-poo the notion that illegals pay payroll taxes, and you assume that all illegals are "feeding off the system without contributing". I'd like to know if either of those situations is true, and if it is, is it impactful. There's also the lower sales tax revenue that states will see, given the vast reduction in "spenders". Another factor in analyzing the cost will be the increase in the cost of products and services that will now have to be performed at a US Citizen-level wage, as opposed to the (more than likely) lower than US Citizen-level wage that the illegals have been paid.

According to the bipartisan report generated by the Texas State Comptroller, it is.

"Local taxes" mostly means sales taxes, here--the state has a base rate of sales tax, then each city gets to add their own percentage on top--plus a small amount of property taxes, though most undocumented immigrants tend to be renters.

Either way, you seem to have completely missed my point and inserted someone else's. I am not in favor of mass deportation. I am in favor of rapid assimilation into the system. I think the United Farm Workers' "Take Our Jobs" campaign makes it very obvious that most citizens will not choose to do this work for this amount of money. It's the government's fault that immigration is such a painfully long, expensive, bureaucratic process. Once again, if they were paying for the services they use, no one would be complaining. But the flip side is, a magical amnesty program won't fix that problem either, because most illegal immigrants would actually prefer to continue receiving cash payments off-the-books. They want their children to be citizens for the future, but for right now, they are not particularly interested in any program that causes them to start having to pay income taxes. Many, if not most, want to be un-deportable, but still off-the-books.

Just to make sure I understand this correctly ...
According to the Texas State Comptroller Illegal Immigrants costs the state between $800 and $900 million per year?




For those who won't click on the link...

What is EMS if not Emergency Medical Services? If that is correct then how does that differ from Emergency Medical Care?

I would guess that EMS would be more ambulance related (or outside of the hospital, in general), and EMC would be emergency rooms.

I don't understand your interpretation of the link you cited. The first paragraphs list services available, but then the next section says:

I think "services" is the paramedics and ambulance, and "care" is the ER. But I could be wrong.

Edit: I see HM beat me to it.

I believe EMS funds are for the ambulance and first responders programs that are serviced, in part, by the state and counties, whereas Medicare / Medicaid etc are services within hospitals etc.

On a national level, even the Bush administration's report concluded that immigrants are more economically positive than negative:

$1K per year for an 80 yr-old is not a lot, but it's not negative.
Another "odd" thing about this 2007 Impact report... at the end they write:

It's explained in more detail on the main page of that document (which doesn't actually seem to be linked, but if you cut off the last bit of the URL you'll get there.) Overall, the state as a whole breaks even. However, the local governments are A.) bearing a huge portion of the services costs that the state is not, and B.) not getting back in taxes what they spend, as opposed to the state.

And this was my point--the numbers work out when you include the taxes paid by their descendants, who are often legal because of the anchor baby clause. Take that away, and the balance sheet may change.

So if we change the Constitution to remove the "anchor baby clause", the balance sheet may go from positive to negative?

I can't speak for others but I do NOT have a problem adding manpower to the ICE and Border Patrol. What I (and others I'm sure) have a problem with and think about when we mention big government is the bureaucracy and having a czar for everything. We don't need more red tape...we just need to enforce the laws we have and give ourselves the means (manpower) to do the job.

In fact, I support mobilizing the national guard...but in an ENFORCEMENT capacity. Putting a few national guard troops down there with some technology is a band-aid on a gaping wound. Put them down there and give them the same arrest powers as the border patrol agents have. Our leaders have pussy-footed around too long and America is PISSED.

Do you not like having one person in charge of helping the President with a particular issue, or do you just not like the word? It seems odd to hate both bureaocracy and a method used to counteract it.

Well said dmg. What I think you are saying is that you want a MORE EFFICIENT Gov't?
That would be nice. Reminds me of what Ross Perot said. Gotta run it more like a business.
There is too much waste and bureaucracy. This isn't a D or R thing - its a Gov't thing that we can no longer afford. Reallocating resources or removing redundant layer upon layer of duplication would certainly help.

Czars are a means to avoid the appointment process, accountability and oversight ... the checks and balances. IIRC we can thank the R's.

This is untrue. Unless you want to raise taxes, there is only so much money to spend on solving americas problems. You can't focus on everything, so you've got to pick and choose.

People seem to be in "the sky is falling" mode over this issue. Call me a skeptic, but if people want me to be all upset over this, then I need more than rhetoric. Someone must be out there saying we need to change the constitution. Isn't that the focus of this thread? All I'm saying is that changing the constitution is (or should be) a big deal, and should not be done for issues that can be handled in cheaper simpler ways.

This sounds ok to me. What is the current law on this? Are children of illegals legal or is this just bad record keeping?

Any child born in the US is a US citizen. This is one of the hot-button issues as it creates situations whereby there are millions of families who have both legal and illegal members here. Typically the parents came here illegally and had a child.
Parents = illegal
Child = US citizen.

One argument is that this is not what was intended when it was originally written.

One argument about the 2nd amendment is that this is not what was intended when it was originally written.

And, we're right back to the OP, yes?

They're single-issue advisors. I'm not sure why the Senate should get a veto on who gives advice to the President.

The extent of their power is that, as the President's point-person on a particular issue, the people with statutory powers will probably take their suggestions seriously, on the assumption that if they don't then the President will tell them to do so anyway. And, of course, if their statutory powers are such that they don't have to do what the President says on that particular point, then there's not even that.

Of course, the term has no legal meaning and is usually assigned by the press, and some people have been called "Czars" who actually have statutory power. But as far as I know, they're confirmed by the Senate, so that complaint doesn't apply.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/08/0...ex.html?hpt=C2

So you're saying we should repeal the 14th amendment because there are probably no living slaves that have yet to be granted citizenship?

Have you ever heard the saying "too many cooks spoil the broth"? It's the reason that a kitchen has a head chef, a sous chef and on down the line. You can't have more than one head chef and expect the kitchen to run smoothly and efficiently.

There are TOO many oversight positions being created in government. Our government is probably the most bloated and wasteful in the world. What's next...an oil czar? a natural gas czar? a coal czar? a bank czar? a czar overseeing the other czars (I guess that would be a czar czar)? Where does it stop?

Americans have been very long in waking up to the fact that our politicians fuck us every time we drop our keys and bend over to pick them up...but we are waking up. We're also tired of the government doing nothing about illegal immigration...but we're waking up.