On repealing the 14th Amendment

[alarimer]

I was having a conversation with my boss on illegal immigration. He contends that it would a good idea to change the requirement for being a US citizens from simply being born here to requiring that your parents (one or both) are citizens for you to automatically be a citizen because of the whole "anchor baby" thing. The original intent of the 14th Amendment was to ensure that former slaves and their children were citizens. Now changing this would require amending the Constitution, a process that may take years; in the meantime, illegal immigration would continue. So I think there are better ways of dealing with the problem, starting with drying up the jobs.

I also have reservations about changing the Constitution unless it is absolutely necessary. Plus there are a number of issues this would raise. First, would both parents have to be citizens in order for the child to be a citizen? I would hope not. I would think one would be enough. Also it does create two groups of citizens: those who were citizens the day before the law went into effect because they were born here and those who were born after it went into effect, who would only be citizens if their parents were. And they there is the problem of proving it. The whole system would change. Now a birth certificate is needed to get a passport. If the law is changed would you have to show some other kind of citizenship papers to get a passport or vote.

Basically I don't think it is a good idea at all. There must be other ways of dealing with the problem of illegal immigration.

[Sherman A1]

1. I don't see how changing the Constitution fixes the problem

of "illegal" immigration. People come here for economic reasons, take away the incentive to come here and the problem will mostly disappear in my opinion. It as so much else is about the money....

[bowens43]

2. The Constitution is fine the way it is.

Your boss is a bigot.

[alarimer]

5. No he isnt

He really thinks it is important to dry up the jobs by fining the hell out of companies that knowingly hire illegal immigrants- take away their assets and send the owners to jail.
To be honest, I am not sure how many other countries have automatic citizenship by birth. Are we an anomly or is it the norm? I thought it was pretty typical of most countries.

[Sherman A1]

16. Your Boss Has it RIGHT!

Dry up the jobs.....

[Nikki Stone 1]

3. Illegal immigration will continue as long as corporate-controlled governmt

believes that the price of labor needs to be lowered in the US.

I was listening to a "Marketplace" show on NPR earlier this week and the British corporations had lobbied the govt to import lots of Eastern European workers to "put a check on the cost of labor"--ie, lower everyone's wages. The news story indicated that there were now enough immigrants and the govt was being lobbied to stop the flow. Seriously.

Illegal immigrants are not protected and can be paid below minimum wage. This depresses the wages of all Americans. Not the fault of the immigrants--they're just trying to make it and I don't blame them at all. It's the corporations use of these desperate people and their stranglehold on the government which it gets to do their dirty work that kills me.

[Sherman A1]

4. Agreed and Well Said.

We should not demonize those seeking a better life. We need to seriously enforce our laws and the corporate bosses need to spend some serious time at a fun filled Federal Facility on the island of Cuba, working on their tans, or alternately clearing leftover minefields with a stick.

[alarimer]

6. I agree also

Repealing the 14th Amendment has been suggested by some very unsavory groups of people, people I don't want to be associated with. And I don't agree with it at all.

And I do believe that the solution lies in enforcing current laws, rather than changing the Constitution.

[Nikki Stone 1]

11. What I am afraid of is that thanks to GATT & NAFTA, immigration is

no longer in our control but in the control of extra governmental panels mandated by some of these agreements. Someone posted a link to NAFTA's text which created a non-elected panel with power over economic decisions related to these agreements. Because immigration, especially illegal immigration, is a tool of wage depression (and really isn't about the people at all), I imagine this panel has the ability to enforce de facto "open borders" and prevent the US government from enforcing the laws that actually do exist.

Global theorists talk about the end of the nation-state which is really the equivalent of the end of sovreignty and representative government. The people can no longer protect themselves from the economic assaults committed on their countries by multinational corporations and extra-governmental panels. And people cannot prevent themselves or others from being used as economic pawns without true representation.

The saddest thing is that these policies will ultimately leave EVERYONE desperate as corporations try to pay as little as possible for backbreaking labor. We are becoming Pottersville. (If you remember your "It's a Wonderful Life".

[alarimer]

13. I think the "free trade" agreements are a major part

of the problem. They do not help the countries they are supposed to help. There has not been much improvement in living conditions in the countries that signed these agreements. They have helped global corporations a whole lot. They have not helped the US much either. First corporations moved their plants to Mexico. Now that the Chinese will work even cheaper, they have left Mexico. I swear, corporations will not be happy until they can pay NOTHING for labor.

I find that I am not terribly upset about illegal immigration. Sure, we need security at the borders. Sometimes criminals do make it across and there are problems with a system already burdened by extreme budget cuts having to deal with illegal immigrants (hospitals and the like) but I do not get terribly exercised over the whole issue. Human history has been all about migration. We have been on the move for hundreds of thousands of years. And I don't object to people wanting a better life for themselves.
I do object to people being exploited and I am concerned about the potential effect of low-wage workers on wages overall. I don't know what the answer is myself.

[Nikki Stone 1]

14. "corporations will not be happy until they can pay NOTHING for labor."

BINGO!

And you are absolutely right about the result of these trade agreements. It creates a corporate superstructure which castrates national and local governments and hands the power to a small group of major stockholders of corporations.

I agree with your assessment of migration, but I also understand people's frustration with having their wages depressed ("wage inflation checked" as NPR would say) by under minimum wage labor.

Notice that one of the first things that Bush signed after hurricane Katrina was a bill allowing sub minimum-wage labor. People are drowning and Bush makes sure that companies can pay dirt for wages. This reminds me of Paul Bremer , amid the chaos and car bombs and dying people in Iraq, making sure that "intellectual property rights" were protected in the Iraqi constitution. (From Greg Palast's "Armed Madhouse")

[Sherman A1]

15. I fully appreciate

that Nafta & Gatt are major issues here, the jobs would be shifted if the workforce couldn't be. At least those jobs that could be shifted such as manufacturing. There are many that could not such as the service sector as we know such as construction, building maintenance, roofing, lawn care, hotel workers, restaurants, transportation (it's hard to send your roof or lawn out to be serviced and then have it shipped back to you) and we need to keep what we can. There is also the boarder security issue, which could be monitored much easier if there was lower volume of traffic. Nafta & Gatt need to be addressed as does Wal Mart, but this is a much easier and quicker fix, if we could summon the political will to do so. That is the big IF.

[Nikki Stone 1]

18. So if I understood you correctly, your issue is border security

GATT and such agreements guarantee free movement of jobs and workers across national boundaries, which are perceived as non-existent. Even if Americans mustered the political will to fight for real border protection based on the issue of "security" (terrorism and other crime drifting in through pourous borders) the trade agreements and the panels they produce would prevent such border protection. That was my point. It really is out of our hands as voters. What the US government will do is political theater: they will send a small number of National Guard troops down to the border to quiet the population, like Junior recently did.


Now, as far as "keeping the jobs we can", this is an uphill battle. Ultimately the corporation will get the cheapest workers (or location) possible. But even jobs that cannot be moved (like supermarket cashier, for example) can be threatened by technology. Additionally, service workers can be forced to give up any union protections, health insurance, etc. because other jobs at their salary level have disappeared, been sent overseas or whatever. The worker has fewer options and the unions have less leverage, because those other job opportunities have disappeared. Even "keeping the jobs we can" often involves accepting a cut in salary or benefits to those jobs. Globalization affects everything, even those jobs that stay at home.

[Sherman A1]

19. No, I believe we need both

I just think that border security isn't the top issue of the two. Being a Union supermarket worker, I fully understand the advance of technology being a threat to my job and the factors in play. I have over the last 30+ years seen labor hours cut and cut and cut. Technology has been part of that, Improved methods have been part, fear of Wal Mart has been part, greedy CEO's have been a major part, etc, etc. I don't know the answers in how to fix it, but I watch it happening. I do believe the border would be easier to control if we had less folks coming across illegally, that would only be a given.

[KingFlorez]

7. Why do these people want to mess with the constitution?

The best way to stop illegal immigration is to stop voting for corporate enabling Republicans. Leave the constitution alone.

[havocmom]

8. Start tinkering with the 14th and those without land may end up

without citizenship. Maybe the GOP will decide only certain financial classes deserve to be citizens. Maybe they would like people to have to serve in the army - or be able to BUY their way out of service to become citizens.

Tinker with the 14th and a whole lotta DEM voters will turn up missing.

[treestar]

9. The anchor baby thing is bullshit

Even if you have your kid here, he/she can't apply for a green card for you until he/she is 21. And a green card is not "citizenship." You have to hold your green card five years and put up with a bunch of bullshit to be deemed worthy of being naturalized as a citizen.

Also, not having birthright citizenship would create zillions of new immigration and nationality issues. Maybe a lot of money for immigration and nationality lawyers, like me, but nothing good for the nation. One thing, it would create an indigenous class of noncitizens who are stateless and have no "rights" and give government bureaucrats experience with having that kind of power (no judicial review, etc.) We've already let that happen with the 1996 immigration laws. Why do we want petty bureaucrats to get used to unfettered power and learn to love it? We've been letting them have it for 10 years. And the result is bad enough.

It's not worth it. It is not THAT BAD that people want to come here and live. It is not the worst thing on earth, except to a xenophobe/racist. And if people are so afraid of terra as they pretend, what are they worried about this shit for? So there's a Mexican living here. Why not just let him register and be legal and be in peace? Racism, pure and simple.

[alarimer]

10. I did not know that about the green card

I also do not believe in separating families or deporting US citizens to other countries simply because their parents are illegal. I think those families need to stay until all the kids born here are 18.

I can also foresee a lot of problems with repealing the 14th Amendment. I am in way in favor of it. I was just wondering what the implications would be.

[treestar]

12. Small children can go home with their families

They are most likely citizens of that other country too.

But some of them would be stateless.

And I agree with you. Having people born on our soil who are not citizens is disastrous. Gives the government people it can treat as subhuman and with no rights (at least, according to their interpretation) and that is something we do not want them to get used to.

Again, any alleged problems caused by illegal aliens giving birth to US citizens pale compared to that.

[jerry611]

17. You don't need to change the constitution...

All you have to do is severely fine any employer that gives a job to an illegal alien. I gurantee you that once the jobs go away, most of the illegals will go back home. The ones that will remain are the ones that truely want to be here and will attempt to gain citizenship.