#2 VS #14

[jinx]

Both amendments have been touched. Repeatedly.

[dmg1969]

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.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by dmg1969

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.

To sum it up...
1. The 2nd Amendment is about freedom and protecting our 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.

I pretty much agree. welcome to hell.

[ZenGum]

Originally Posted by jinx

Both amendments have been touched. Repeatedly.

Good touch or bad touch?

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by dmg1969

because they don't have the time or manpower to do anything about it.

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.

Originally Posted by dmg1969

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.

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

What does passing an amendment really cost, other than legislators' 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.

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.

[dmg1969]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

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 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.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by dmg1969

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.

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.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

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.

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

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by classicman

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

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.

[dmg1969]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

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.

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.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by dmg1969

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.

The President is the head chef. The czars are tools he uses to manage the other chefs. Where does it stop? When the President doesn't feel that it would be useful to have someone help coordinate various agencies' efforts for a particular issue.

[lookout123]

Originally Posted by dmg1969

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.

I completely disagree. I think Americans are so used to the fucking that, at most, they'll ask for a little lube so our sleep isn't disturbed.