Lindsey Graham: Hatin' The Constitution. 14th StyleFollow

You're just saying that without numbers showing the number of immigrant deportation cases affected by anchor babies, there's no reason to do what Graham is suggesting. I suppose I could use a different word, but is that really what you're caught up on?



I didn't give you vague guesses. I provide precise monetary and relative costs related to the issue at hand. That they didn't answer the question you demandedwanted isn't my problem.



The dollar costs for caring for anchor babies would seem to support his argument, wouldn't it?



Yes. I think we all got that.



But you're not "demanding" anything, right?



I've provided data about the costs to provide services for the children themselves. I've also provided data about the relative value of having an "anchor baby" in the context of a request for stay of deportation. What more do you want? I just provided a paper written by a deportation lawyer showing that having a citizen child gets someone about halfway to what's needed to avoid deportation, and you just ignore it? It doesn't count somehow? Why not? Again, what would qualify as "proof" for you Joph?


If you want to argue that an illegal immigrant having a child in the US does not benefit their chances of staying here longer, then make that point. You don't want to hear "vague and anecdotal" evidence and arguments, but you refuse to provide any data yourself. You still continue to insist that you're right though. I don't get that. Especially after I have provided evidence in support of making the change to the 14th amendment.


How about you hold yourself to the same standard Joph? Let's do this the other way. What "harm" would occur if we changed the amendment to require that at least one parent must be a US citizen? Argue why we *shouldn't* make this change? Who does it hurt?

There is no other legislative avenue. The 14th amendment is pretty clear. You're born in the US and you're a citizen. Period.



The "cost" in this case represents increased taxation of the people, which is an intrusion of government on the people. So if we ask "how many amendments were enacted to prevent intrusion of government on the people?", the answer is "almost all of them".

The government doesn't pay that cost. The people do.



I've given you the data you asked for though Joph. I'm just asking for some reciprocation here. I have provided costs related to the care of the children themselves *and* I've related the degree to which the existence of anchor babies affects deportation hearings.


You've countered with what? Nothing?

Edited, Jul 29th 2010 7:24pm by gbaji

To saving money on welfare, food stamps, to the immigration issue? Really? Wow.


Hahahaha! You weren't serious when you wrote that, right? C'mon... you can be honest. You were smirking. We should amend the constitution for this because it has to do with taxes?? Really? REALLY?

Hell, I have a huge list of equally legitimate amendments to get added then. Of course, I know you weren't serious whether you admit to it or not. You're not really that stupid.


Not really, no. And while I know you're just wishing you could try and turn this around and get around from that fact, I'm just not that dumb to think that I need to take a counter-stance to a poorly supported argument just to point out that it's poorly supported.

To what? We have a legal loophole that causes infants to be US citizens, while both parents are not only not citizens, but are in the country illegally. That's the problem. There is no way to fix that without either changing our immigration law to just open the borders entirely (or at least make the parents of any child born in the US automatically citizens too), or changing the 14th amendment.

You're dancing around the issue now.



Why do we have restrictions on citizenship in the first place Joph? Your argument is moronic.



I was as serious as you were Joph. I'll answer my own question: We don't allow unlimited citizenship for largely economic reasons. The idea of changing an amendment having to do with citizenship on the grounds of cost is perfectly reasonable.



I gave you what is needed to prove the validity of the argument for changing the 14th amendment. What I didn't do was meet your pie-in-the-sky criteria. I can't provide data, because the government doesn't provide it. I provided the next best thing though.

You're asking a somewhat irrelevant question. The issue is whether or not illegal immigrants having a child in the US gives them an advantage in terms of being deported. The answer is yes. An expert on deportation hearings weights the value of having an anchor baby at roughly half the requirements needed to avoid deportation on hardship grounds. This precisely addresses the actual question. You just asked the wrong question.





You're setting up a false requirement though. I've presented ample data to support my position, but you refuse to acknowledge or accept it because it isn't in the precise format you wanted. Seems like you're just avoiding the issue at this point because you know you've lost.

Edited, Jul 29th 2010 8:03pm by gbaji

Really? Because before this was soooooo important because of taxes (which is absolutely a standard legislative issue as is welfare, food stamps, public aid, etc) and now the real issue is citizenship. You're kind of all over the map here.


Historically? Xenophobia and racism. Why, did you think there was some other more noble reason?


But you haven't. You've convinced yourself that you have and now it's all my fault for not accepting your answer but that's not really the same thing.

Edited, Jul 29th 2010 10:26pm by Jophiel

I'm rather indifferent, actually. I just thought I might as well spread the vitriol around fairly.

No, you said that data is impossible to compile because you theorize social workers lie about the status of their clients for some murky reason of their own.

I just think it'd be a good idea, before the expense and distraction of a Constitutional amendment wrangle, to see if the cost is greater than the benefit. I'm pretty sure there's enough information out there, maintained by different entities, to get a big-picture overview at least.

How many undocumented immigrants are using their kids' citizen-by-birth status to stay in the U.S.? INS would certainly have that statistic readily available. How many of them are working? How much do they pay into the system, on average? How much do they cost in services, on average?

"Nobody knows what the real cost is but something must be done anyway!11!!1!1" is just not my preferred stance on any issue.

But why should we let a little thing like "facts" influence our decisions? I'd much rather just take some dudes word for it, who thinks he knows better because he's in California, because everyone knows there is NO immigration problem anywhere else in the USA.

I think the United States should set an example and scrap the idea of citizenship altogether.

It would also be cheaper than enforcement, assuming you could solve the domestic security issues such a society would have. It wouldn't be easy being the only country with this model, but if others followed in the future it would make for a much better world.

If spelling were part of this test, very few would make it.