Navarrette: A humane way to deportations

Navarrette: A humane way to deportations

There are 24 comments on the Ventura County Star story from Sep 29, 2012, titled Navarrette: A humane way to deportations. In it, Ventura County Star reports that:

Allow me to say a few words in defense of a concept that is so simple and so steeped in common sense that it shouldn't need defending: the self-deportation of illegal immigrants.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Ventura County Star.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last

The Notorious Rico

“Conservatism is a Disease.”

Since: Nov 11

Lake Los Angeles, CA

#22 Oct 12, 2012
tomin cali wrote:
with the help of hr2885 this thing would be easy and very cheap.
then can we start sending their homelands the bill cutting them off the American teat
H.R. 2885: Legal Workforce Act???
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr2...
nym8387

Lawrence, MA

#23 Oct 13, 2012
The Notorious Rico wrote:
<quoted text>
The chances of carving an exception to the 14th Amendment to disenfranchise citizens born to illegal immigrants are zero. Any federal law setting forth such preposterous proposal will be immediate challenge in federal courts and based on prior United States Supreme Court precedents it will be ruled unconstitutional (see United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898); Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982); INS v. Rios-Pineda, 472 U.S. 444 (1985). In Rio-Pineda case the Justice White wrote his opinion with no dissent stated the following: "RESPONDENT WIFE HAD GIVEN BIRTH TO A CHILD, WHO, BORN IN THE UNITED STATES, WAS A CITIZEN OF THIS COUNTRY.” Granted that this statement is dicta and had no bearing on the holding of the case. What is more important is that this opinion was signed off by seven of the Justices (Justice Powell took no part in the consideration of the case) including Chief Justice Burger, Justice Rehnquist and Justice O'Connor, the court's most conservative members. If anyone of these Justices had problems with this language in the drafting of the opinion then the language would have been stricken from the opinion in its final version. What this means simply is that Supreme Court will not overturned prior case law on this matter.
As such, no matter how vocal or hateful the opposition is to these citizens who were born to illegal parents they are citizens of this country.
they are citizens but they shouldn't be. The 14th amendment is for Americans and legal residents. According to federal law anyone who enters the country illegally must be deported. If the federal government did its job and enforced immigration laws there wouldn't be such a thing as a anchor baby. So how the hell does the 14th amendment apply to illegal parents. Oh and by the way I think its funny how you think this won't be made clear to illegals not amended but made clear.

Since: Apr 10

Houston, TX

#24 Oct 13, 2012
nym8387 wrote:
<quoted text>they are citizens but they shouldn't be. The 14th amendment is for Americans and legal residents. According to federal law anyone who enters the country illegally must be deported. If the federal government did its job and enforced immigration laws there wouldn't be such a thing as a anchor baby. So how the hell does the 14th amendment apply to illegal parents. Oh and by the way I think its funny how you think this won't be made clear to illegals not amended but made clear.
Illegal aliens have to think things will never change. They have to, to keep themselves going.

"What Law Requires Birthright Citizenship?

Is automatic birthright citizenship for children of all legal and illegal aliens expressly required by the U.S. Constitution? On its face, the answer is “no.” No language in the Constitution specifically addresses how the children of foreigners must be dealt with in regards to citizenship. The 14th Amendment confers citizenship through “naturalization” or by birth to persons “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States, but provides no guidance on when an alien is to be regarded as subject to U.S. jurisdiction. The next question, then, is whether any statute enacted by Congress specifically directs the granting of citizenship to children born in the United States to illegal aliens. Again, the answer is “no.” The executive branch’s birthright citizenship policy is not based on any federal regulation. One might say that the practice has become policy without becoming law.

Because the current policy has not been taken through the standard legislative or regulatory processes, it has become official practice without any input from the American public or their elected representatives. A recent survey found that only 33 percent of Americans support the practice of granting automatic citizenship to children born to illegal aliens."

http://www.cis.org/birthright-citizenship
ima

El Paso, TX

#25 Oct 13, 2012
Juan wrote:
<quoted text>
How do you know the intent, was you there ?
was you there?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Illegal Immigration Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Poll: 80 Percent of Voters Would Allow 'Dreamer... 4 hr Wildchild 1
News Republicans try to link sanctuary cities to the... 5 hr FART JUICE 5
News Black Panther actor lived in Richmond as an und... 7 hr Common sense Rich 3
News Pence Calls on Congress to Act on Immigration, ... 12 hr Sweet TrailerTucky 10
News Trump offers 'Dreamers' a path to citizenship, ... 16 hr spud 255
News Why Employers In Georgia Are Watching The Immig... 17 hr tomin cali 6
News Evangelicals may be driving Republican stance t... 19 hr Postit 3
More from around the web