samovar
Ene 9, 2007, 1:17 AM
Reportar Abuso
|
Rudy Canoza wrote:
> [re-edited to solve some line break problems]
>
> Set up a program that legalizes it.
One does not jump to legalize crimes regardless of their ubiquity. Why
not just rescind all speed limits and traffic control devices too?
> 1. Repeal birthright citizenship. It never was the intent
> of any law or amendment.
Are you balmy?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthright_citizenship_in_the_United_States_of_America
Throughout the history of the United States, the fundamental legal
principle governing citizenship has been that birth within the
territorial limits of the United States confers United States
citizenship.[1]
Birthright citizenship has its roots in English common law. Calvin’s
Case, 77 Eng. Rep. 377 (1608), was particularly important as it
established that under English common law “a person's status was vested
at birth, and based upon place of birth--a person born within the king's
dominion owed allegiance to the sovereign, and in turn, was entitled to
the king's protection."[2] This same principle was adopted by the newly
formed United States, as stated by Supreme Court Justice Noah Haynes
Swayne: "All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural-
born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United
States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such
is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this
country…since as before the Revolution." United States v. Rhodes, 27
Fed. Cas. 785 (1866).
The modern world is divided up into nations, and sovereign territories
like Puerto Rico, with each nation, at least nominally, exercising
control over its own territory and the people who reside within that
territory. Among modern nations, citizenship at birth is conveyed in one
of two ways; either though Jus soli (the right of the soil or the land)
meaning that one’s nationality is determined by the place of one's
birth; or through jus sanguinis (the right of blood) where nationality
is determined by the nationality of one's descent (parents). Birthright
citizenship is the term used for Jus soli as it is applied under US law.
Fourteenth Amendment
Opponents of birthright citizenship explicitly reject jus soli, or that
one’s nationality is determined by the place of one's birth. They insist
on a strict jus sanguinis, "right of blood", process for obtaining the
rights of citizenship at birth. While both philosophies have long
histories in European civilization, the United States Constitution has
included implicit acceptance of jus soli from the beginning. (e.g. "No
person except a natural-born citizen, or a Citizen of the United States,
at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to
the Office of President;" U.S. Const. art. I, § 5, cl. 5)
The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution states that:
"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."
[edit] Federal law
Current (as of 2006) United States Federal law states that "a person
born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is a
United States citizen from birth. (8 U.S.C. § 1401}
> 2. Make a realistic estimate of the total number of people
> who would come to the US from Mexico and Central America
> under a guest worker program that allowed stays of up to
> 10 years. Add 25% to that, and that's the quota. By making
> it generous, you eliminate the sort of bottleneck that creates
> the pressure to jump the border illegally.
Nope, 25% is an absurdly high fudge factor, if we need a revised Bracero
program let it be set under REAL measures, not some nitwit's
Barcalounger boasting.
> 3. The federal government has to tax citizens in states with
> few or no guest workers in order to offset the fiscal
> burden of those states where they're concentrated.
> The unfair fiscal burden of immigrant-heavy states is THE ONLY
> authentic problem from illegal immigration, and it is the
> responsibility of the federal government to redress it.
Incorrect, the government is not chartered to distribute funds to
endorse illegal immigration, that's insanity.
> 4. Entrants must present proof of citizenship in Mexico or
> a Central American country...or Canada. No one from
> South America or any other part of the world is eligible
> (but illegal immigration from other parts of the world
> is negligible anyway.)
Another lie, illegal immigration from Russia and a host of other far
away nations is also funneling through Mexico at this time, you are a
moronic fool.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_immigration_to_the_United_States
According to a Pew Hispanic Center report, Mexicans make up 57 percent
of the undocumented immigrants. Another 24 percent are from other Latin
American countries. Approximately 9 percent are from Asia, 6 percent
from Europe and Canada, with the remaining 4 percent from the rest of
the world [7].
> 5. At the end of their 10-year stay, they must return to their
> native countries for one year; then they're eligible
> to return for another 10 years.
Says who?
You?
Shut your idiotic piehole, Hendrie!
> 6. If they wish to immigrate permanently, they must return to
> their native countries and apply through the normal process.
> Assuming good behavior during their guest worker stays,
> their past residence in the US under the guest worker
> program will count favorably for them in their permanent
> immigration application.
Finally one ray of sanity - here you make a reasonable condition for
citizenship.
> 7. While resident in the US, they are entitled to every
> Constitutional protection afforded to citizens, especially
> due process. Upon conviction of a misdemeanor, their
> visit is ended and they must return to their native country
> for a year. Upon conviction of a felony, they are deported and
> become permanently ineligible for readmission.
Oh...just a year is it?
Why?
As to the felony aspect, that already is law.
http://justice.uaa.alaska.edu/forum/20/1spring2003/c_immigcrim.html
What Categories of Immigrants Can Be Deported for Criminal Convictions?
Any person who is not a United States citizen, including lawful
permanent residents, can be deported because of a criminal conviction.
Lawful permanent residents are immigrants/non-citizens who have been
granted permission by the United States government to live and work in
the United States for an indefinite period of time. A person must become
a lawful permanent resident before becoming a United States citizen.
Length of residency in the United States and the existence of close
relatives who are U.S. citizens may eventually prevent a non-citizen’s
deportation, but it does not prevent the Department of Homeland Security
from initiating efforts to permanently remove the individual from the
United States.
The Immigration and Nationality Act recognizes three categories of
crimes that can place a non-citizen at risk of deportation or prevent a
non-citizen from ever becoming a lawful permanent resident.
Aggravated felonies are the most serious crimes and are
specifically defined by statute in the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Because of the sentence imposed by the state criminal court, some common
misdemeanor crimes can be considered aggravated felonies for immigration
purposes. These crimes include theft and crimes of violence. For both of
these crimes a non-citizen can be placed in deportation proceedings and
deported from the United States, if the person is sentenced to more than
one-year imprisonment, including any suspended time. A “crime of
violence” is a term vaguely defined by the United States Code and could
include convictions for assault in the fourth degree and felony driving
under the influence.
Crimes of moral turpitude are the second category of crimes that
can impact a non-citizen’s ability to remain in the United States.
Federal circuit court decisions and the Board of Immigration Appeals
define these crimes. Generally, a crime of moral turpitude is defined as
a crime that encompasses a base or vile act. Although the case law
interpreting the term is not entirely uniform, the following types of
crimes have been held to involve moral turpitude:
crimes (felonies or misdemeanors) in which either an intent to defraud
or an intent to steal is an element;
crimes (felonies or misdemeanors) in which there is an element of
intentional or reckless infliction of harm to persons or property;
felonies, and some misdemeanors, in which malice is an element;
sex offenses, in which some “lewd” intent is an element.
Thus, murder, rape, voluntary manslaughter, robbery, burglary, theft,
arson, aggravated forms of assault, forgery, prostitution and
shoplifting have all been consistently held to involve moral turpitude.
A third category of crimes specifically listed in the Immigration
and Nationality Act may either trigger deportation or prevent a
non-citizen from attaining lawful permanent resident status. Crimes
included in this category include violations of any law relating to a
controlled substance, domestic violence convictions, judicial
determinations of protective order violations and convictions under any
law of purchasing, selling, using or possessing a firearm or destructive
device.
Impact of Crimes on Non-citizens
Automatic removal from the United States is not the only
immigration consequence to a criminal conviction. For example, if
deported for an aggravated felony conviction, a non-citizen may be
permanently barred from returning to the United States, regardless of
the length of residency or the fact that the non-citizen has U.S.
citizen family members, including a spouse and children. In addition,
all non-citizens must prove that they are persons of good moral
character when they are applying for asylum, lawful permanent residency
or United States citizenship. Crimes such as driving under the influence
will be considered a negative discretionary factor that can impact a
non-citizen’s ability to prove good moral character and thus attain
lawful permanent residency or become a naturalized citizen.
> This will work.
From what pro-illegal immigration website did you cobble that together
Rudy?
Clearly you are a mental midget ill-prepared to rationally parse this issue.
|
