Undocumented: 5.4 percent of workforce

5.4% is a low estimate, I'd say.
At least in Chicago.

Anyway, when the children turn 21, then they can petition for the parents. However, under current law, the parents will have to leave for 10 years before they can come back.

So much for the "anchor baby" myth.

Kick em all out and put them on a long train to Mexico. Really. Sieze their large assets up here and sell them as illegally begotten gains and have the profits go to pay down our national debt. Any kids born on US soil to illegal immigrants (both parents) shall not be granted US citizenship. Really, I don't see what is so hard about this issue. We have laws and we all should abide.

Historians will look back at this time in our history with the same lens with which they view slavery and the underground railroad. There must surerly be a humanitarian solution - rather than just an economic convenience. ...........

http://thefiresidepost.com/2008/10/11/immigration-underground-railroad/

Xcellentform-
Easier said than done for the simple fact that someone HERE is giving them the jobs to make up 5.4% of the workforce.

Look at my local McDonalds, used to be a rite of passage of your teen years to work there, now its all immigrants. Maybe if Buffy and her hubby actually went out and did their own yard work instead of hiring cheap immigrant labor...

You get my drift? Its the American way- we want the best but also want to pay as little as possible.

Take one look at manufacturing jobs moving to China and the number of people who shop at WalMart and you'll see this isn't going to change. We are lazy, we are cheap, and frankly we seem to want it all as if it was our right.

Its why we're all maxed out on credit cards. Its why we are a nation of obesity. Its why we dont put the effort into getting our kids educated "those dang teachers should be doing that, I shouldnt have to help junior with his math, I want to watch Dancing with the Stars!"

Its a shame and I know both of my beloved grandfathers, rest their souls, would shake their heads in shame at our laziness.

Posted by: Xcellentform | April 16, 2009 2:14 PM

So when are you planning a repealing the 14th Amendment to the Constitiution?

Xform, who's your daddy?
Or should I say, who's your
housekeeper
landscaper
waiter
cook
nanny,
etc.

But you do have at least one judge in Chicago who believes the 14th Amendment is now old hat, and can be interpreted to exclude birthright citizenship.

However, with Obama as President, I just don't think a lot of the new judges to be appointed will agree with that.

I thought the 14th was written in 1868, over slavery after the Civil War.

Since then it's been abused by the Courts, special interest groups and yes, Politicians as an excuse to allow illegal aliens born here to become citizens.

Maybe this sounds better:
The Fourteenth Amendment (Amendment XIV) to the United States Constitution was one of the amendments enacted after the Civil War. This amendment was originally intended to provide more rights to African Americans, but, over time, it has been interpreted to grant a number of rights to people living in the United States.

Build the fence everywhere but Texas. As long as they keep their secessionist America hating Governor in office, they shouldn't get a dime of federal spending. They're on their own.

PG, the 14th Amendment is abundently clear. Even you should be able to understand it:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. "

No wiggle room there. The children of illegal immigrants within the borders of.United States, are clearly also subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, therefore they are United States Citizens.

I'm sure the strict constructionalists on the right would never ever argue that this sentence means anything beyond it's clear wording.

Lou, you are right.
Hundreds of thousands were not killed or maimed in the Civil War for nothing.

They earned the iron certitude with which the words of the 14th Amendment were written.

Can't , in other words, do a Rosannadannadanna on it: "everything is fine now, slavery is illegal, so no more 14th Amendment...."

Of course most of the slacker Gen Y in US today don't even know what the 14th Amendment is, or indeed what "amendment" means.

They are too busy playing Grand Theft Auto to care.

* * * * *
Posted by: Lou | April 16, 2009 6:48 PM
.
You are absolutely right, Lou. There are even two U.S. Supreme Court cases - United States v. Wong Kim Ark and Plyler v. Doe - which explicitly support your position on the issue. There are only three exceptions to the rule of citizenship by birth, and they don’t apply to the vast majority of children of foreign born parents. The only people excluded from the constitutional presumption of citizenship by birth are: (1) children of diplomats in the service of a foreign government; (2) the children of persons who are hostile occupants of United States territory in time of invasion and war; and (3) Indian children who are subject to tribal government, live on tribal lands and are not subject to taxation (and those are rare). Everyone else born here is presumably a natural born citizen.
.
If someone doesn’t like it, then they had better petition Congress to begin the process to amend the 14th Amendment - because an ordinary act of Congress can’t trump the Constitution. Even an amendment to the Constitution and immigration laws would only work prospectively - meaning that everyone who is a natural born citizen by operation of the 14th Amendment would remain a natural born citizen even in the event of such an amendment.

"illegal aliens born here"
Posted by: PG

If you're born here, PG, you're obviously not an illegal alien. Even Lou Dobbs knows that.

Man, I mention WHY I thought the 14th was created and you'all get bent out of shape. I made a simple point out of a complex situation. But you tell me WHY was the 14th created? Then lets take it from there.

PG, the 14th amendment was created to clarify issues of citizenship and to ensure that all Americans were treated equally by the laws regardless of race, creed or national origin. If they had meant the Amendment to be limited to making former slaves citizens, they would have written that way.

What part of that don't you get?

Lou, you left out a couple of parts.
The 14th was created for African American's after the Civil War, because before that they were slaves, right and weren't recognized.
And I'm pretty sure way back then the framers wouldn't have expected pregnant woman leaving their natural born Country, or illegal aliens getting pregnant, to have children to become American Citizens.

PG -show me in the text of the amendment where it is any way limited to African Americans.

As to you're other supposition, show me some thing to support that. The 1860's were a time of a great deal of immigration. The writers of the amendment, even "way back then" were surely aware that it would, as written, apply to the children of non-naturalized immigrants. If that was not their intent, they would have made that clear in the wording of the amendment.

The 14th Amendment is far more general, and far more important than you give it credit for. As John W so correctly pointed out, this has all been affirmed by the Courts.

* * * * *
Posted by: Lou | April 17, 2009 4:24 PM
.
Correct again. The road between strict construction and make-it-up-as-you-go construction is textualism. That is the view that words disclose the meaning of a law because legislators are presumed to understand the natural import of English and to employ it in an ordinary fashion. Consulting history is only proper when necessary to resolve an ambiguity in language when the words are subject to two or more reasonable interpretations. Textualism is the mainstream method of interpreting laws and constitutional provisions.
.
From a textualist viewpoint, the 14th Amendment admits of no exceptions based on race, color, natural origin or any other distinction. “All persons” are made citizens if they are born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. (As mentioned, the only time one is not “subject to the jurisdiction” is if they are diplomats, invading soldiers or non-taxed Indians.) Similarly, “all citizens” (which is a subset of all persons) are guaranteed protection against State infringement of their privileges and immunities of citizens. The language of the due process and equal protection clauses is even broader, denying the States the power to treat “any person” contrary to their terms. “All” and “any” are terms of inclusion without regard to the categories of people they describe. If the framers of the provision intended to draw distinctions or include some limitation, it was incumbent upon them to make the language express that distinction or limitation. Laws cannot be made to mean something their words do not express. (Legislators are also presumed to know the rules of construction and to write laws with them in mind.) Thus, even though the 14th Amendment was written with African-Americans in mind, its language cannot be reasonably construed to be limited to them. In fact, limiting the 14th Amendment to African-Americans would negate all the inclusive language; and that is unnatural.

http://www.constitution.org/col/intent_14th.htm#028

I understand what it says. I do give it credit. All I said was I believed the 14 to be about African American's in a very complex time.

I think you will find the words (if you do a search from the link) black or negro and they pop up.
Yes the courts have backed up the 14th, but in this link it does talk about negro instead of African American. I guess I was trying to be more general and up to date using African American.

Actually I did a google search of : 14 amendment then picked a link.

I'm no historian and I'm not trying to be, I just thought the 14 (when debated) was about African American/negro's in a time after the Civil War. Do I at least get some credit for that.

PS: I'm not trying to stirrup anything. Just a thought about an Amendment on why I thought it was created.

* * * * *
“I'm no historian and I'm not trying to be, I just thought the 14 (when debated) was about African American/negro's in a time after the Civil War. Do I at least get some credit for that.”
.
Posted by: PG | April 17, 2009 7:25 PM
.
Yes, you do get credit for it. The plight of African-Americans in the wake of the Civil war was, in fact, the motivation behind the Fourteenth Amendment. Congress had attempted to address this issue in civil rights legislation in 1866, over the veto of Andrew Johnson. Johnson thought it was unconstitutional, and it probably was. So Congress approved the 14th Amendment, and began the ratification process, in order to give them the constitutional power to enact civil rights laws like that. However, the motivation for the legislation and the reach of legislation are often two different things. One may well presume that Congress also wanted to make sure they didn’t run into the same problems with regard to people of other races, colors or nationalities. I also think Congress wanted to get a large chunk of power over the states, all at once. They were, after all, in the middle of the Reconstruction when the 14th Amendment was ratified.
.
And, no, I don't think you're stupid. Nor did I mean to suggest it.

John W., I didn't even think about "stupid". Tho I imagine lots who respond here will differ.

* * * * *
Posted by: PG | April 18, 2009 12:23 PM
.
You were too apologetic and self depricating, as if to say, "I don't have a lot of smarts about this stuff." So I felt a little reassurance was in order. Don't read anything esle into what I wrote. As far as others are concerned, let them differ. You shouldn't care what they think.

John W., I'm fine, actually I don't have a lot of smarts about this stuff, but I'm happy to ask questions, read answers and learn, then making up my own mind. What you wrote was also fine. I like "differ". Actually respectful "differ".

Cheers