quote:Regarding the right of a child to grow up with his parents, that right is often taken away because of the actions of said parents. The parents could be unfit or in jail or unable to care for the child. It's a sad situation, but the child had nothing to do with the circumstances in those instances either, yet he still has to live with the consequences.
True, but usually either when the removal is better for the child (neglect, abuse, etc. - at least as best we can determine it) or the parent has committed a crime worthy of jail. Because removal is not supposed to be a punishment - rather, it is a remedial action for a civil wrong - I think the costs are two high when it requires the choice we're discussing.
quote:I do agree that it's not the greatest situation that a child may be denied the right to either live in his country of birth or be denied living with his parents, but I would be hesitant to change the situation because of what I see as undesirable consequences. I don't want it to be that easy to get around citizenship laws--just have a baby and you can stay. It's a horrible reason to bring a child into the world, and it is not respecting our boundaries.
I think there are other possibilities to correcting the problem, though. Better border security, more realistic guest worker programs, etc. Moreover, the consequence of the current rule is to have citizens with no significant connection to America, something I find more undesirable than allowing a mother and father to raise their child in America.
quote:I suppose I might come across as heartles
I don't think you're heartless at all.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
How about if the constitution were changed that you were a citizen if (you were born here AND one of your parents were born here) OR (one of your parents was a citizen or became one while you were a minor.)
That would eliminate the "generations of non-citizens" problem and reduce the "Anchor Baby" problem.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:That would eliminate the "generations of non-citizens" problem
It would still create single generations of stateless people.
quote: and reduce the "Anchor Baby" problem.
What is the "Anchor Baby" problem, exactly? People with a so-called "anchor baby" are still removable under the current law. I haven't seen any convincing argument that there are significant numbers of people here illegally who would not be here if they had not had a child while in the U.S.
The 14th Amendment's creation of a right to jus soli citizenship is one of the best things in the Constitution, and was directly aimed at overturning one of the most pernicious acts of our government (the Dred Scott decision). It creates a bright-line rule that keeps the political branches from defining people out of citizenship. It also creates what I think to be an excellent statement against tribalism and racial superiority - concepts that are often intertwined when citizenship is limited by blood.
I'd hate to see something so beautiful removed from our constitution when there isn't even good evidence that this is a huge problem.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dagonee, I don't follow what you're referring to here:
quote:I think there are other possibilities to correcting the problem, though. Better border security, more realistic guest worker programs, etc. Moreover, the consequence of the current rule is to have citizens with no significant connection to America, something I find more undesirable than allowing a mother and father to raise their child in America.
Would you mind elaborating? I think I'm missing something. What current rule are you talking about?
Also, yes, I do believe that there are better ways to deal with the problem. I've said before (perhaps not on this thread, but on an illegal immigration thread) that denying birthright citizenship is a very bad idea--the time to fix the problem is before people have children here. And if they do, we have to deal with those consequences. Those children are now citizens. I'm just not sure the consequences should be altered for the parents and child either.
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Would you mind elaborating? I think I'm missing something. What current rule are you talking about?
The current rule forces aliens to either find a U.S. citizen or resident to raise their U.S.-born children or to raise those children in another country. We then have U.S.-citizens raised outside America who presumably have no significant connection to America, a consequence encouraged by the current law.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
The first part of your post ignores other deterrents like international treaties and economic sanctions.
I didn't say a first strike should be the first resort. I said that I didn't see any benefit in taking it off the table.
Posts: 781 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah. Okay. What you said makes perfect sense, I just wasn't getting it. I get it now. I can't say I disagree with it either. Food for thought.
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, you aren't the only one who doesn't like Ron Paul. Fred Thompson gave a speech in San Fransisco and they had a straw poll afterwards. However, too many Paul supporters showed up and they thought it was unfair--even tho the Paul supporters were from San Fransisco and paid the ticket.
Originally there was a $33 dollar dinner fee and a $5 dollar fee to vote. Lots of Paul supporters paid the $5 fee so they canceled the poll and refunded the money. I guess that is one less poll Paul can win.
Video here. And of course GOP Straw polls left Paul off, even tho he has won more straw polls then anyone else. However, they are not the official GOP. They are a private organization and I find that less disturbing then San Fransisco.
But back to Iran. Paul did say this addressed to Bush at Congress, regarding a possible bombing/war with Iran. This was said before the latest NIE came out.
quote: “It’s a bad idea. There’s no need for it. There’s great danger in doing it. America is against it, and Congress should be…
We don’t need to do this. The threat is overblown. The plan is an hysterical reaction to a problem that does not yet exist.
“Hysteria is never a good basis for foreign policy. Don’t we ever learn? Have we already forgotten Iraq?
“The plan defies common sense. If it’s carried out, the Middle East, and possibly the world, will explode. Oil will soar to over $100 a barrel, and gasoline will be over $5 a gallon.
“Despite what some think, it won’t serve the interests of Israel. Besides-- it’s illegal. It’s unconstitutional. And you have no moral authority to do it. We don’t need it. We don’t want it.
“So, Mr. President, don’t do it. Don’t bomb Iran!
“The moral of the story, Mr. Speaker, is this: if you don’t have a nuke, we’ll threaten to attack you. If you do have a nuke, we’ll leave you alone. In fact, we’ll probably subsidize you. What makes us think Iran does not understand this?”
posted
Well I certainly don't think he's wrong with this:
quote:if you don’t have a nuke, we’ll threaten to attack you. If you do have a nuke, we’ll leave you alone. In fact, we’ll probably subsidize you. What makes us think Iran does not understand this?”
I think that's exactly the sort of logic the rest of the world has come up with, and we've given them ample proof that it's true.
I'm not entirely convinced of the effects of a bombing on oil prices though. It would depend I suppose on what we bomb and how investors react, but oil going over a $100 a barrel isn't exactly soaring, it's been very nearly there in the last month and we've been fine. Our economy is much more energy resilient than it was in the 80's during our last confrontation with the Middle East, and for that matter, our import partners for oil are a lot more diverse. Not that I think there won't be consequences, but I'm not sure I buy his guesstimation.
Still, it's all the more ample proof that renewables, energy efficiency, and electric cars are national defense necessities.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Additionally, I don't see anything wrong with more people being able to stay in the US.
Really? You don't see anything wrong with a bunch of people who are not citizens staying in our country? They are getting free benefits that take away from American citizens.
Posts: 1287 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Elmer's: Yep, no problem to speak of. Especially as, immigrants are routinely found to be a net benefit. They tend to commit fewer crimes and go to the emergency room less often (especially illegal immigrants, in both cases), but the legal ones are paying the same taxes, and many of the illegal ones are too (get a job with fake papers and you'll find yourself paying real taxes). There've even been places where it seems high immigration has increased wages.
IOW, how are you getting this 'free benefits that take away from American citizens' thing? Immigration is a good thing, even in the short term. In the long term, it is even more a good thing. Open immigration policies have helped the US stay on top of the world in a number of areas, including graduate programs, scientific accomplishments (atomic bomb, anyone?), and general productivity.
But those're all part of 'especially'. It fundamentally boils down to, for me: people should be able to live where they want. Given practical limits and considerations, policies that make that more possible are better than policies that make that less possible. I view it as an issue of human rights.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'll reiterate that we already have a social security crisis because we don't have enough taxpayers to support the number of beneficiaries.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The "immigrants get free benefits" thing is easily gotten to. So long as you rely on two things: total tunnel vision, and anecdotes as evidence. The tunnel vision permits you to ignore the plethora of contradictory evidence, and the anecdotes lets you bring in a bunch of stuff that isn't really evidence at all.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
...This legislation focuses the weight of the US government inward toward its own citizens under the guise of protecting us against “violent radicalization.”
... These so-called “suspension” bills are meant to be non-controversial, thereby negating the need for the more complete and open debate allowed under regular order. It is difficult for me to believe that none of my colleagues in Congress view HR 1955, with its troubling civil liberties implications, as “non-controversial.”
There are many causes for concern in HR 1955. The legislation specifically singles out the Internet for “facilitating violent radicalization, ideologically based violence, and the homegrown terrorism process” in the United States. Such language may well be the first step toward US government regulation of what we are allowed to access on the Internet. Are we, for our own good, to be subjected to the kind of governmental control of the Internet that we see in unfree societies? This bill certainly sets us on that course.
This seems to be an unwise and dangerous solution in search of a real problem. Previous acts of ideologically-motivated violence, though rare, have been resolved successfully using law enforcement techniques, existing laws against violence, and our court system. Even if there were a surge of “violent radicalization” -- a claim for which there is no evidence -- there is no reason to believe that our criminal justice system is so flawed and weak as to be incapable of trying and punishing those who perpetrate violent acts.
This legislation will set up a new government bureaucracy to monitor and further study the as-yet undemonstrated pressing problem of homegrown terrorism and radicalization. It will no doubt prove to be another bureaucracy that artificially inflates problems so as to guarantee its future existence and funding. But it may do so at great further expense to our civil liberties. What disturbs me most about this legislation is that it leaves the door wide open for the broadest definition of what constitutes “radicalization.” Could otherwise non-violent anti-tax, antiwar, or anti-abortion groups fall under the watchful eye of this new government commission? Assurances otherwise in this legislation are unconvincing.
In addition, this legislation will create a Department of Homeland Security-established university-based body to further study radicalization and to “contribute to the establishment of training, written materials, information, analytical assistance and professional resources to aid in combating violent radicalization and homegrown terrorism.” I wonder whether this is really a legitimate role for institutes of higher learning in a free society.
Legislation such as this demands heavy-handed governmental action against American citizens where no crime has been committed. It is yet another attack on our Constitutionally-protected civil liberties. It is my sincere hope that we will reject such approaches to security, which will fail at their stated goal at a great cost to our way of life.
posted
I guess that depends on your belief system. There is nothing specific in the bill that I can see that uses heavy handed governmental action against American citizens, but if you have a belief system that governmental programs tend to "artificially inflates problems so as to guarantee its future existence and funding," then you could see a direction this bill could take us. The first baby step is always nonthreatening.
I have worked in social services and watched how client charts are written as to secure funding.
He could of emphasized more that the heavy handed government action is a future possibility, tho he did address it here:
quote: What disturbs me most about this legislation is that it leaves the door wide open for the broadest definition of what constitutes “radicalization.” Could otherwise non-violent anti-tax, antiwar, or anti-abortion groups fall under the watchful eye of this new government commission? Assurances otherwise in this legislation are unconvincing.
quote:You know, the way I see this; if this doesn’t change, I see what has happened to the American people is we have accepted the notion that we should be treated like cattle. “Make us safe, make us secure, put us into barbed wire, feed us, fatten us up”, and then they’ll eat us. And we’re a bunch of cattle if we have to wait and say, “We’ve had it”. I think this whole idea of an opt-out day is just great. We ought to opt-out and make the point, get somebody to watch it and take a camera, it’s time for the American people to stand up, shrug off the shackles of our government and TSA at the airport.
... And his stance on WikiLeaks ...
quote:“In a free society we're supposed to know the truth,” Paul said. “In a society where truth becomes treason, then we're in big trouble. And now, people who are revealing the truth are getting into trouble for it.”
“This whole notion that Assange, who's an Australian, that we want to prosecute him for treason. I mean, aren't they jumping to a wild conclusion?” he added. “This is media, isn't it? I mean, why don't we prosecute The New York Times or anybody that releases this?”
I think I'm approaching some sort of tipping point. I think I'm going to have to go right for this small government movement.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Eh, you don't really have to go right for it. Honestly, you can do it while still leaning leftward. I see no reason not to pick and choose positions consistent not with a political party, but with yourself.
And Ron Paul, here, does say some good things. Doesn't mean I agree with him on everything, of course, but that's different than acknowledging someone's good point.
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow, I never saw this thread in the first place. The OP is remarkably honest about only supporting the Iraq war out of party loyalty.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nicely seized on point there.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
I think I respect and like Ron Paul as a person although I find many of his positions foolish, although he may have become more moderate recently I wouldn't know, not American so its not my concern.
IP: Logged |
posted
When I think about it, it's actually kind of remarkable to me how much less principled rand paul is than his daddy. in contrast, he pretty much sold out for electability on deus unum.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: When I think about it, it's actually kind of remarkable to me how much less principled rand paul is than his daddy. in contrast, he pretty much sold out for electability on deus unum.
posted
I have a similar impression of the two Pauls, Samprimary and Lisa. I think Ron Paul's got integrity, though I also think many of his ideas are pretty darn terrible, but Rand Paul...well, man, I just get a distinct scumbag vibe off of him.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
