The primary for the California governor's race is this June

[PochoPatriot]

Originally Posted by DerailAmnesty.com

FYI: Tom Campbell has indicated his approval of the notion of granting residency to illegal aliens who arrived here as minors.

Yeah, and?

[DerailAmnesty.com]

Originally Posted by PochoPatriot

Yeah, and?

Yeah, and I'm not voting for someone who is going to address California's biggest problem in a half-assed fashion.

Getting rid of some of the illegals is not enough to fix much of what is wrong with California. Getting rid of all of the illegals in such a manner that they take tens of thousands of their American-born offspring with them when they leave, is. Just about anything other than what is described in my last sentence keeps us on the financially ruinous and culturally poisoned Highway to Hell on which we are currently driving, only at a slower rate of speed.

[PochoPatriot]

Originally Posted by DerailAmnesty.com

Yeah, and I'm not voting for someone who is going to address California's biggest problem in a half-assed fashion.

Getting rid of some of the illegals is not enough to fix much of what is wrong with California. Getting rid of all of the illegals in such a manner that they take tens of thousands of their American-born offspring with them when they leave, is. Just about anything other than what is described in my last sentence keeps us on the financially ruinous and culturally poisoned Highway to Hell on which we are currently driving, only at a slower rate of speed.

My response was a bit too flippant

Well, there is one tiny little problem...ex post facto. It's in that silly document called the Constitution. Justice Chase in Calder v Bull (3 US 386 [1798], defined the first aspect of ex post facto as:

Every law that makes an action done before the passing of the law, and which was innocent when done, criminal; and punishes such action.

I am all for changing the law to stop future illegal immigration. However, dealing with those that are already here is a bit more sticky.

[Ayatollahgondola]

Originally Posted by PochoPatriot

My response was a bit too flippant

Well, there is one tiny little problem...ex post facto. It's in that silly document called the Constitution. Justice Chase in Calder v Bull (3 US 386 [1798], defined the first aspect of ex post facto as:



I am all for changing the law to stop future illegal immigration. However, dealing with those that are already here is a bit more sticky.

I don't believe it would be ex-post facto to interpret the law. If it was a new law, that would be different.

[Rim05]

However, dealing with those that are already here is a bit more sticky.

Does not seem 'sticky' to me, it is just completing the job. Half a job is just that, half a job.

[DerailAmnesty.com]

Originally Posted by PochoPatriot

My response was a bit too flippant

Well, there is one tiny little problem...ex post facto. It's in that silly document called the Constitution. Justice Chase in Calder v Bull (3 US 386 [1798], defined the first aspect of ex post facto as:



I am all for changing the law to stop future illegal immigration. However, dealing with those that are already here is a bit more sticky.

I'm missing the ex post facto distinction you're making (???) You lost me, dude.

I want illegal aliens to be deported. Whether they came here voluntarily or not is irrelevant as to current immigration laws. They're supposed to be removed, whether they arrived as adults or minors.

As a byproduct of the parents being removed (not legal action), I realize that many who are removed will take their children with them to preserve family unity or out of economic necessity. I consider that a good thing. Anchor babies graduate from high school in low numbers and are more likely to have run ins with the criminal justice system. As many as the families will carry back home is all good, from my perspective.

[PochoPatriot]

Originally Posted by DerailAmnesty.com

I'm missing the ex post facto distinction you're making (???) You lost me, dude.

I want illegal aliens to be deported. Whether they came here voluntarily or not is irrelevant as to current immigration laws. They're supposed to be removed, whether they arrived as adults or minors.

As a byproduct of the parents being removed (not legal action), I realize that many who are removed will take their children with them to preserve family unity or out of economic necessity. I consider that a good thing. Anchor babies graduate from high school in low numbers and are more likely to have run ins with the criminal justice system. As many as the families will carry back home is all good, from my perspective.

OK, I think we are having miscommunication. The term "anchor baby" refers to children born in this country to illegal alien parents. Current case law has been that these children ARE citizens of the United States by "jus soli" (literally "law of ground) or birthright citizenship. This was established in US vs Wong Kim Ark (169 US 649 [1898]). Whether or not we like this law is irrelevant since this is law, and while it can and should be change to affect future anchor babies, it cannot be made retroactive.

Now a minor who was brought to this country illegally by parents entering this country illegally is an entirely different animal. I happen to know a young man who is in this predicament. It is a messy situation, but I have made it known to this young man must return to Mexico and come back legally now that he is of age. Most of those who advocate for him disagree with me. However, because of other issues that I will not enumerate here, I believe it behooves this young man to return to a country he has no knowledge of in order to make his status in this country legal.

To me the real problem isn't the children (anchor babies or illegals). The real problem is the government and the education system that is run by leftist and Socialists. These children are being taught that whitey is the cause of all their problems. Ironically, they are being taught this by whites, go figure.

Anyway, my concern is that the Constitution be upheld regardless of our personal convictions. Sometimes I think that in our righteous anger over this illegal invasion we are suffering we say things in anger or exasperation that we may not mean. Not to mention we say things that may not meet Constitutional muster.

[Rim05]

These children are being taught that whitey is the cause of all their problems. Ironically, they are being taught this by whites, go figure.

Yep, Pocho. That statement is true in a lot of cases but not all. LA school board has been taken over by hispanics and so has LA city government. Could it be the mixing of religion and politics? The Catholic Church is very much into politics and religion.

[Twoller]

Originally Posted by PochoPatriot

OK, I think we are having miscommunication. The term "anchor baby" refers to children born in this country to illegal alien parents. Current case law has been that these children ARE citizens of the United States by "jus soli" (literally "law of ground) or birthright citizenship. This was established in US vs Wong Kim Ark (169 US 649 [1898]). Whether or not we like this law is irrelevant since this is law, and while it can and should be change to affect future anchor babies, it cannot be made retroactive

...

"Whether or not we like this law is irrelevant since this is law, and while it can and should be change to affect future anchor babies, it cannot be made retroactive."

Why not? Why can't we make it retroactive? Do you think we would be better off if we could make it retroactive?

Originally Posted by PochoPatriot

....

....

To me the real problem isn't the children (anchor babies or illegals). The real problem is the government and the education system that is run by leftist and Socialists. These children are being taught that whitey is the cause of all their problems. Ironically, they are being taught this by whites, go figure.

....

Do you think that the children of illegal immigrants should be given any public education at all? You don't see that as being the real problem?

Originally Posted by PochoPatriot

....

Anyway, my concern is that the Constitution be upheld regardless of our personal convictions. Sometimes I think that in our righteous anger over this illegal invasion we are suffering we say things in anger or exasperation that we may not mean. Not to mention we say things that may not meet Constitutional muster.

But the constitution does not speak for itself and, rather obviously, our immigration and the process by which we mint citizens has been vastly corrupted. It doesn't make much sense to try to confront the issue within the confines of what is true constitutionally when illegal immigration is operating outside of what is constitutionally true. What we say should not be limited by the constitution.

The constitution is a fluid document. It was not carved in stone by God, it was written by human beings and we agree to it as a matter of citizenship and no other reason. We could change it to make it more explicit as to the issue of citizenship and who or who should not qualify as US citizens.

[PochoPatriot]

Originally Posted by Twoller

"Whether or not we like this law is irrelevant since this is law, and while it can and should be change to affect future anchor babies, it cannot be made retroactive."

Why not? Why can't we make it retroactive?

It would be, in my opinion as a layman, unconstitutional. If someone, such as, SZ, can demonstrate to me from case law why this would not be the case, then I would be willing to change my view.

Originally Posted by Twoller

Do you think we would be better off if we could make it retroactive?

If you are so willing to do this to illegals, then I would presume that you would have no issue with the government doing the same to you, correct?

Originally Posted by Twoller

Do you think that the children of illegal immigrants should be given any public education at all?

Based on the law as it presently stands, yes, they should.

Originally Posted by Twoller

You don't see that as being the real problem?

The real problem is a government that does not enforce its sovereign borders.

Originally Posted by Twoller

But the constitution does not speak for itself and, rather obviously, our immigration and the process by which we mint citizens has been vastly corrupted. It doesn't make much sense to try to confront the issue within the confines of what is true constitutionally when illegal immigration is operating outside of what is constitutionally true. What we say should not be limited by the constitution.

I am not sure what you mean by this.

Originally Posted by Twoller

The constitution is a fluid document.

So you are a liberal, then? Only liberals make this sort of statement.

Originally Posted by Twoller

It was not carved in stone by God, it was written by human beings and we agree to it as a matter of citizenship and no other reason. We could change it to make it more explicit as to the issue of citizenship and who or who should not qualify as US citizens.

Yes, we could, and should, according to the manner in which the Constitution prescribes.