When the Riots Begin

Post Reply New Topic

You have guns to protect you and yours when it happens. You think the government can be trusted to protect you and yours when chaos is the order of the day?



The issue is more involved in that. First, nobody has a "right" to education. In fact, the requirement to go to school is imposed by law upon those here legally, and that end at the age of 18/graduation from high school/completion of GED program, whichever applies.

The punishment of a crime must not be negated or you are encouraging the commission of that crime. Mexicans come here illegally knowing they and their kids will receive thousands in government-subsidized programs that law-abiding citizens don't get. Most of it imposed by some liberal judge who feels it's wrong to punish the child of a parent that broke the law. Fine. Take the kids away from the parent, put them into foster homes, deport the parent, right? No. We look the other way as the parent breaks the law and give them all this as a reward for being a lawbreaker.

They have schools in Mexico. California public schools are among the worst in the nation. Deporting the kids and their parents is what should be done.

Of course a nuclear land mine in your back pocket is much more economical and just as efficient as blowing up your entire neighborhood to discourage a housebreaker.

The United States did not lose its manufacturing base because of NAFTA. It was the interplay of many complex factors which lead to the deindustrialization of America. Having lost the bulk of the country’s production capability, the academic spin doctors then invented the idea of the post-industrial society to make everyone feel better about consuming far more than the country could ever produce. There were also all sorts of myths told about how the U.S. government, and in particular the Federal Reserve, had gotten so good at managing the economy that inflation and the business cycle was henceforth no longer a problem. It was stupidly self congratulatory but the tide was such that all naysayers were crushed. And now the problem has come to head.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me ... 2035.story

The people proposing this incredibly racist piece of legislation do not seem to understand that if you are not a citizen of the country which you are born in, then everyone's citizenship is in doubt. You can then be kicked out of the country for having skin color that is too dark, a waistline that is too big, breasts that are too small or a head that is too bald. In other words anyone who does not conform to some idea of normality/perfection is in danger of losing their place in the American republic. Tyranny oppresses, but it is evil that seeks to deny the humanity of others.

The count down to social mayhem begins.

I agree that much of the anti-immigrant sentiment has its roots in racism.

There are various theories of citizenship - the doctrine of the soil (where one is born) and the doctrine of blood (inheritance of citizenship from parents) are both established. The doctrine of blood seems to me to be the most logical - if your parents are citizens of Freedonia, you should have Freedonian citizenship. The idea that citizenship is linked to place of birth also makes sense, but is not as firm an idea. If a woman is granted permission to go to school or be a tourist in a country, and she gets pregnant and delivers a child in that country, must all laws grant that child citizenship in the country of birth? Not necessarily. Fine if a country does have a law, but there is not an inherent need.

Anti-immigrant sentiment always goes up in an economic downturn. I think your predictions of major stuff hitting the fan need to be tempered with more historical perspective.

If we accept the argument that not everyone who is born in the United States is an American citizen, then there are a lot of people whose citizenship is in question and not just Latinos with Mexican parents. Where do you draw the line? If we arbitrarily say that anyone whose lineage does not extend back to the Declaration of Independence for instance, then a lot of so called Americans could be denied citizenship. Included in that list would be all the Jews, all the Asians, all the Blacks and so on. We are actually staring at a justification for genocide.

It is not simply a question of statute. The questions that are being raised by the Californian initiative attack the very foundation of the republic. Who is a citizen and why is that claim just? You take the view that the doctrine of blood is best, but what claim did your parents have and what claim did their parents have? At some point, unless you are a full blood Native American, your ancestors were not of America and in fact knew nothing of the existence of this land. Such a position lands you back to the problem of arbitrarily assigning citizenship rights only to people who conform to a set criteria.

There is no historical precedent for what is happening. In some ways, the movement of people from Mexico northwards is a replay of an old historical drama, but like the much celebrated movement of the White Man west, the Latino population growth in America is a new and unfathomable factor. No one really knows what will come of it. But at the rate things are developing, I grow more confident everyday that a major dislocation is just around the corner. What these people are doing in California is simply too much. It is not as if these migrants come and just take. The truth is that migrants, legal or otherwise, tend to give everything to the societies they try to make their home and in fact contribute far more than they take. Their position is weak and they must therefore work much harder just to make do. Without them, America would cease to function pronto just as it would collapse if it refused to accept China made goods.

Life is too good for these racist Californians. Orange County, San Francisco and Napa need to be ransacked and pillaged before these hate mongers learn to show some respect.

Zeno: bloodline citizenship would extend to the children of naturalized immigrants, and we have established procedures for immigrants gaining citizenship. My great-grandfather immigrated to America from Italy, and he went through all the proper channels to legally obtain citizenship. His descendants are, of course, natural-born citizens. That would not be in doubt even if we eliminated birthright citizenship.

Switching the laws to strictly bloodline citizenship instead of birthright citizenship would clear up some troublesome legal difficulties, as well as the possibility of "anchor babies." It's a less ambiguous and IMO more logical way of treating citizenship. That said, I also think our immigration policies need to be liberalized to allow people to gain citizenship more easily.

On one side of my lineage, it goes back to a few years after the Mayflower, and includes several who fought in the US Revolutionary war. On the other side, it was through people that immigrated in the 1930s. Both sides are equally citizens. No one is being denied on that basis.



Well, if one wants to go back to the 13 colonies, it can get murky for most people. But no one is proposing that - once a country is formed and is stable, rules can be set up to determine citizenship. The idea that people who today immigrate legally can be citizens, while those that come illegally cannot is not so radical in and of itself. It is certainly not unique to the US.




I think you are being a bit too dramatic. The biggest casualty of the demographic transition will be the Republican Party, which has tied itself to white supremacy since the 1960s. They love 'wedge politics' and are now unwittingly driving a huge wedge between themselves and the Latino community by the way they are opposing Sotomayor. But in the long run, Latino-Americans are like every other type of Americans .. they want jobs, a home, a family. An overwhelming majority will become a permanent, positive part of America.

Have you seen "The Gangs of New York" ?? Very dramatic - what strikes people most about that movie is how we have gotten over that conflict. The same will happen for other animosities ... over time, they will lessen and disappear.




You sound like a cheerleader for bad karma!

You make a valid point, but there is also the cross issue.

If you come to the USA and get married to become a citizen by marriage, your marriage will be scrutinized by the INS to ensure it's not a sham marriage just so you can get instant citizenship without complying with the traditional naturalization process. If you divorce, they will look even closer if you are not married for a given number of years.

"Anchor babies" is the exploitation of the "American by birth" rule where illegals find ways to come into the USA just to induce labor and have a child on US soil. Then, the child is American by birth, has "rights" to certain things, and by virtue of the child's citizenship, the mother (at least) and perhaps others can easily become US residents for the "welfare of the child."

That medical clinics across the Mexican border EXPLOIT this and encourage mothers to come into the USA daily in their last month of pregnancy shows that something NEEDS to be done.

This is not a matter of "good faith" where a Mexican visiting family goes into premature labor and gives birth or a Mexican comes here with her husband on a work visa and has a child while here under otherwise legal circumstances. This is about Mexicans deliberately exploiting a loophole in the system and the cost of tolerating it for so long is breaking the back of state economies.

Does it seem racist? Of course, but if the law was changed, it would prevent ANYONE who tries to do the same thing as the illegal Mexican immigrants are now doing.

So long as the legal system effectively rewards criminal behavior, there will be no incentive to do things lawfully.

QFT

Everyone seems very confident that no one will ever question your claim to citizenship. As naturally as you breathe, you are an American. But if everyone who is born on American soil is not American by birth, then some other test for citizenship must be used. You favor looking at the parentage of the child. For some reason, you believe that the test of citizenship worthiness stops if your parents were citizens at the time of your birth. You do not seem to see that the next logical step would be to test the worthiness of your parents, and then their parents and so on and so forth. Records were not properly kept and usually not preserved prior to the Second World War and for the vast majority of Americans it would be impossible to prove definitively that you are of the right stock. If parentage, which leads to testing one’s lineage, is impossible, how else do you think one’s worthiness as a citizen might then be established?

Even if you remain unmoved by the argument that citizenship by birth is the only fair way to determine membership of the American republic, perhaps you should consider just how insulting and humiliating it is to Latinos who have already claimed citizenship but whose parents meet your definition of law breakers who benefited from a crime. Why can you not see the rage that you are forcing down the throats of these young men and women? To be born to parents who are illegal immigrants is to be part of an underclass. Now, despite all the sacrifice and suffering, you want to deny them citizenship? Never mind that their fathers, uncles and brothers fight and die for you as soldiers in armies which you will not serve and in wars of your making, this insult alone is insufferable. By forcing such degrading violence upon them, you impel them to respond with like brutality.

I urge you to think more carefully about who is an American and why that claim is just. California’s financial problems have little to do with illegal immigration. Far from being destroyed by illegal immigrants, California has been sustained by it. Denying citizenship or taking away benefits from the poorest and most vulnerable will do little to solve California’s economic problems.

There is a saying, "The truth hurts. Doesn't it?"

I am an American. I was born on the sovereign land of the Florida Republic, member of the united States of America. I was born to parents who were also born on the sovereign land of New York, member of the united States of America. My mom's parents were born in America. My dad's parents LEGALLY immigrated and NATURALIZED to become American citizens.

I am legitimate.

Many Latinos (particularly from Mexico) who were born in America had their parents ILLEGALLY enter the country (a criminal act) and refused to naturalize (become an American citizen). Their parents sought to exploit a loophole in the law to impart American citizenship to their children by having them born here. Some of that was for the child's benefit, but part of it was a self-serving interest because it's hard to deport an illegal with children who are lawful American citizens by birth.

Ending the loophole (can't be American by being born here if parents are not here legally via immigration, naturalization or work visa...NO ALLOWANCE for vacationing/visiting; which is the loophole being exploited right now), means if your parents are Mexican citizens and try to give you American citizenship by having you born here, you get nothing....that or your "right" to being an American comes when you turn 18. Until then, you are still a citizen of Mexico.

All people want is an end to Americans having to foot the bill for people who commit crimes so that they and their families can EXPLOIT the system to their benefit.

Oh, and regarding Mexicans fighting and dying for us. Here's a fact you need to remember. First, I don't approve of letting foreigners serve in the military. Rome did that before the fall and the soldiers ultimately were not very loyal to Rome as compared to their homelands when push came to shove. Second, EVERYONE who is a foreigner in the military is fast-tracked to becoming U.S. citizens via the naturalization process. So, many Mexicans who want to be Americans can get through the naturalization process very fast by choosing to serve only 4 years in the military. They are getting something they want in exchange for giving 4 years of their life in military service. Arguably, there are a lot of Mexicans who will not serve in the military but rather prefer remaining Mexican citizens living illegally in America while they get the benefits of both worlds.

For Pete's sake....the Mexican government actually publishes a flier that not only encourages its people to ILLEGALLY come to America, but helps them learn how to do it. How bad is that?

Not so bad. Millions and millions of people were already doing so for economic reasons, there is no evidence that the flier increased illegal immigration by even one person. The flier offers a number of tips for such people to reduce the risks of getting killed - it warms of the dangers of desert heat, of abusive smuggling rings, of the increased risk to those carrying drugs or illegal weapons when they enter the US, it advises Mexican's of their ability to contact a Mexican consulate if arrested.

It is like the needle exchange programs some areas have. No one is going to start a heroin addiction simply because it is possible to get paraphernalia. But needle exchange programs can reduce the risk of HIV and hepatitis in populations that are already engaged in such behavior. Is it a perfect, holistic solution to every problem? No. It is mitigation - it may reduce some peripheral problems.

If the right to claim citizenship by birth is lost, no one can really be certain that they are legitimate. Practically every American today has ancestors who were recent migrants to the country. In the first half of the twentieth century, almost anyone who landed on American shores had the right to stay and in time claim citizenship. In other words, most Americans today are descendents from people who are not so different from the Mexicans who crawl into the country from across the desert. Like the Mexicans today, your ancestors probably did not speak English. Like the illegal immigrant today, your ancestors accepted low paid jobs and worked under terrible conditions. The immigration laws then were racially biased and excluded only Asians from entering the country, but it does not mean that people cannot retroactively claim that the immigration of certain groups like Jews, Southern Europeans and Eastern Europeans was not legitimate. Most ‘White’ Americans are likely to have ancestors who are not pure bred Anglo Saxons and thus their legitimacy as Americans could then be undermined and their citizenship of the American commonwealth called into doubt. This issue is not just about Mexicans hopping the border.

Most Americans no longer appreciate what it means to serve in the military especially at times of war. You believe that your armed forces will always remain loyal to you the people. But you can hold such childish beliefs only because you are a navel gazing TV switching overindulged people. Look at Honduras for what the Armed Forces can do when it feels that its interests are threatened. And men who have been through the experience of war can be expected to stick with one another through thick and thin, right and wrong. How certain can you be of your men under arms if you so wantonly deprive their brothers and sisters, sons and daughters, of a life that they are fighting for?

Domestic violence will come soon enough. Losing the chance to meet with the Chinese President means that Obama is stymied from taking further action. The country is already borrowing more than ONE TRILLION dollars this year and it will certainly need the approval of creditor nations if it wants to borrow more. Where will it start? How long will it last? If there arose an opportunity to loot say a Nordstrom, would you do it?

I would start revolutionary nazi, right-wing extremist or left-wing extremist party and try to enrage mob by telling them Jewish bankers have stolen all their money. Just bake in what is popular for moment and see mob go rampage.

Not so. There is a legal concept called "'but for' causality." That means this....BUT FOR X, Y would not have happened. It's also known as "proximate causality." In a civil suit, you don't sue the defendant's mother for giving birth to the defendant or the grandmother for giving birth to the mother....the defendants are limited to people whose actions (or inaction) arguably are the proximate cause of the injury to the plaintiff.

I was born here in America. If we threw out the right to citizenship SOLELY by birth, then the question is, "Were my parents in the America lawfully at the time of my birth?" If the answer is "yes," then by being born here I am an American citizen.

For my parents, my mom's parents were here in America lawfully when she was born. My dad's parents (immigrants) were here lawfully when he was born.

All a change in the law would do is deny citizenship to people born here as the result of their parents being in the united States ILLEGALLY. It would not deny citizenship to foreign nationals who come here legally and give birth while in America.