Lindsey's back with another peculiar idea.
Lindsey Graham recently mentioned that he might be introducing a constitutional amendment restricting (or banning) citizenship to babies of illegal aliens. “I may introduce a constitutional amendment that changes the rules if you have a child here,” Graham said to Greta Van Susteren of Fox News. “Birthright citizenship I think is a mistake ... We should change our Constitution and say if you come here illegally and you have a child, that child's automatically not a citizen.”
So, I am curious how he and the others who are interested in collaborating with him will contruct this bill and make the process efficient [if that's what you call it]? What's ironic is that this is coming from the same guy that supports amnesty for illegals. He goes on to say,
People come here to have babies. They come here to drop a child. It's called "drop and leave." To have a child in America, they cross the border, they go to the emergency room, have a child, and that child's automatically an American citizen. That shouldn't be the case. That attracts people here for all the wrong reasons.
Graham goes further and says that he is a "fair" guy. Why don't we just end the Welfare State, Lindsay? Wouldn't that inevitably end illegal immigration and decrease "anchor babies"? And where the hell does his support for a national ID card fall on all this? Any thoughts? I know this is getting a mixed reaction.
Ron Paul actually has proposed the same sort of thing: http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=480.
Immigration is pretty much the one issue where I significantly disagree with him, but I can see how this might make sense -- in combination with a number of other measures, of course -- like getting rid of the welfare state and making sure we actually apply consitutional rights appropriately, especially to noncitizens.
I also vehemently disagree with Ron Paul on this issue. He is far from his views in 1988.- "As in our country's first 150 years, there shouldn't be any immigration policy at all. We should welcome everyone who wants to come here and work." –Ron Paul, 1988
I think he is just pandering to his constituency.
I don't agree with most of Sen Graham's positions.
But elimination of birthright citizenship is at least somewhat consistent with illegal amnesty.
Q: Why do people object to free foreigners having free access to the US?
A: Foreigners come for free access to social services made possible by taxation of US citizens. It's a wealth transfer from citizen to non-citizen. The wealth transfer is not voluntary on an individual basis but coerced on a group basis at the direction of some part of that group. Ergo - people don't like being robbed.
A: The transit of foreigners is often associated with violence because of its ties to the black-market drug trade.
A: Foreigners come for jobs that they can only get because, by virtue of their illegal status, the employer doesn't have to comply with minimum wage laws, insurance laws, or other nanny-state laws. This leaves Citizens who would otherwise work these jobs unemployed.
A: Foreigners who become citizens by virtue of birth, and not by virtue of ideology, lend their votes to purposes that citizens-by-ideology find abhorent.
If the illegals and their children cannot be citizens by birth, then they may not affect the political process by voting.
If the illegals get 'amnesty' then employers (in theory) can be coerced into complying with the rest of the nanny-state and employment laws. Of course...this means that 'amnesty' may not be so attractive to the illegals because it could cause them to lose their jobs.
But, if the illegals get amnesty and the children of foreigners born in the US will not be citizens then it will have no effect on the violence related to the black-market drug trade. It will also not disassociate foreigners from that trade, as the foreign smugglers will still be both foreigners, smugglers and violent.
And if illegals get amnesty, and children of foreigners born in the US will not be citizens then it will ONLY mean that any welfare the foreigner receives will not be due to the citizenship status of their children... But there's still a lot of welfare they receive regardless.
Now, if Sen Graham also acknowleged that the Common Government also has no authority over private consumption of substances, and supported bills to that effect, (whether or not they can tax, restrict or otherwise infringe on interstate commerce of those substances) that would seem to be a good addition. Then the Drug War would be over and States and communities could decide what substances to allow to be produced in their borders.
AND
If Sen Graham ALSO supported repeal of all the nanny-state and federal employment laws THEN he would be fully consistent.
If he successfully did all of these things, then why would people care if foreigners came then? Why would foreigners want to be illegal then?
Gordo
"It's a wealth transfer from citizen to non-citizen"
The problem is the wealth transfer. Who it goes to, citizen or not, doesn't really matter. I cannot see why an American has any more right to my money than a Mexican or anyone else.
"It's a wealth transfer from citizen to non-citizen"
Precisely. I did not say I agreed with it. But I did say, and hopefully explain, why it is somewhat consistent with illegal amnesty.
The root problems are the inappropriate (and unconstitutional) impositions already being made upon the people of Arizona (and elsewhere). Were it not for those impositions the immigration may or may not occur...but would be no problem.
FWIW, I don't agree with Judge Napolitano on this. He says that enforcing the federal immigration laws, as Arizona has chosen to do, is an unconstitutional violation of the 14th amendment because it causes hispanic people to be treated differently under the law. To me this is a non-sequitur argument because equally failing to enforce those laws treats hispanic people differently under the law. Specifically, it treats employers of illegals, and their hispanic employees, as exempt from a whole host of nanny-state and employment laws that others must support.
Judge Napolitano also states that the Federal Government has sole jurisdiction over all relations both with foreign nations and foreign entities. But while I can find authorisations in the Constitution for treaties, I can find no authority to limit the imporation of people at all except that it will not be limited prior to 1800 but can be taxed upto $10 per head, and that any state imports are taxable by the federal government, and that the federal government may designate a uniform rule of naturalisation - the rule of how one becomes a citizen.
But the Constitution does say, "No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another:"
But, in fact, by opposing Arizona's enforcement of Federal Law such a preference does exist. It prefers the land ports of border states, who are de facto unregulated for immigration over the sea and air ports of other states who are regulated.
My wife is an immigrant. I had to pay thousands ... even after we were married ... to be with her here. We have to submit to all kinds of government examination and observation, permanently - or until she chooses to naturalize.
Yet, if we were to have transited a land-port, we would have been treated differently? We have had to stop and show her papers many, many times.
My wife is not hispanic. Would it be different if she were?
The answer is a resounding, "YES".
This is racism. This is a violation of the 14th and 15th amendments. It is abhorent, and a violation of human rights.
Yet the solution is not for everyone to be ruled under the same tyranny. The solution is to repeal all of these laws and the laws which made these laws necessary.
No nanny-state means no wealth transfer to illegals, and little reason to restrict foreigners. No un-evenly distributed labor laws means no reason to prefer illegals for hiring.
Coming out for or against Arizona is simply showing a preference to raping one set of individuals over another. The solution is to stop the violation altogether.
Honestly, it could be a smart move. My concern is how will they effectively apply it? Many illegals have different ways of slipping through the cracks. Another concern is Lindsey Graham. I know if he makes a move on this, it is likely that the bill will violate certain rights for the individual. However, as I said before, it could be a smart move. Illegal immigration is a huge problem, especially in my home state of Texas. We have hundreds of them in government and private hospitals getting everything for free.
My mom's friend is a nurse and a few years a go, this illegal man was hospitalized in Memorial Hermann. He had no insurance obviously. He stayed there for 3 months and got everything for free. Eventually, the staff told him that they would help him find a decent hospital in Mexico and someone will even pay for his trip there. He still refused. Stories like this are very common here.
Lindsey Graham might be the worst republican statist weenie of our time. In a quick list of five I'd put him there with, Rudy McRomney, George W. Cheney, Donald Rumsfield Rove and Bob Corker.
These beautiful yet fickle personalities are highly combative to our challenge of exposing the perils of central banking, fiat script and pre-emptive war
God save the republic, let the the queen go
Also to, my federal representatives from here in sunny Athens, Isakson Chambliss, would also be in consideration for most slithery RINO.
"Dey tuk er jerbs"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLni3wbndls
LOL
Yeah, it's a heated topic. But dang if Southpark cannot make humor out of it. That episode got me through half of my junior year at school. hahaha
Post new comment