No matter what else we may disagree on, I do not want a political qualificationon (sic) whether or not a native born American can be a citizen or not.

If you are born here, you are a citizen here. Sove (sic) the illegal immigation some other way: But not by adding a political qualification as to whether or not I, a native born America “deserve” citizehip.

Steve,

Your magnanimity is misguided, naive, and ultimately, dangerous. If you are going to object to someone’s else’s proposed solution to an obvious problem, don’t you think it should be incumbent upon you to offer a substantive proposal of your own? Surely you can’t seriously think that any woman who makes it across the border only to download her kid (at taxpayer expense, please note!) should be rewarded with automatic citizenship for her kid and herself.

Re “… if anyone is counting, this makes four constitutional amendments Huckabee claims to be supporting:
1. the Fair Tax requires a constitutional amendment to eliminate the Sixteenth Amendment;
2. a Human Life amendment;
3. an amendment to define marriage;
and now,
4. an amendment to end birthright citizenship.

Now, isn’t it time that Huckabee explain how he plans to organize an effort to get two thirds of both Houses of Congress, which might include a whole bunch of Democrats, to achieve any of this?”

Perhaps he could add a fifth amendment that a President, should he be truly inspired by God, could bypass the Congress and the States and just enact the Amendment on his own?

If they had a role in the hiring decision, agreed.

What you’re saying is that the government lets an illegal alien into the country and goes to less than no trouble to track them down. On the other hand you think a private citizen should be given the responsibility to enforce the law.

If that’s the case then why not the union. It would be just as easy for them to check ID’s as it would be for the employer.

They have no more legitimate responsibility to do so then the employer but since we’re assigning the governnment’s duties to private parties, why not?

So, if they make it across the border, they (and you) are home free? Free employment forever? You can employ as many illegals as you can get?

In fact that’s pretty much the case unless you happen to fall in one of the rare immigration raids or commit a felony.

Speaking of immigration raids the Swift Meat Packing company was in the clear because they had records showing that they had checked the illegals fake ID’s, somewhat confirming my point.

Can you document that it is easier to obtain documents, such as a passport, that are as good as the “originals”?

Nice bit of idiocy. What they forge are drivers licenses and social security cards. I’ve asked cops in town and they say that’s the case but I don’t know it for sure. I would say that’s probably the case though.

All thouse bureaucrats who demand that illegals be given so much for free.

Mike Huckabee for one. It appears that most of the state governments are giving welfare away to illegals and probably the federal government as well.

Enforce laws against hiring undocumented workers with criminal (jail time) penalties for the hiring manager, the HR manager and the CEO of any company found to have employed such a worker.

That’s really stupid because the government makes it illegal to discriminate against illegals with fake ID’s. I guess you don’t know what you’re talking about.

However I would support jailing government officials who look the other way, or pay money or benefits of any kind to illegal aliens. Furthermore they have a higher standard of duty than a private citizen and should be jailed if they are aware of an illegal and do nothing about it.

you think if there isn’t any effort to stop them from coming over the border in the first place they would ever enforce the deportation of the Illegal alien baby machines and/or Jackpot babies?

Good point. The first thing is to make it more difficult to get here. However no matter what you’re going to have people slip in (perhaps overstaying their Visa’s).

Way to miss the critical fact. As you point out it’s illegal to discriminate against people because of national origin.

But examining someone’s ID can be construed as discrimination.

The system is broken because, from the moment the employers begin the paperwork process, the law places them between a rock and a hard place. That is while one provision punishes them with heavy fines if they fail to sufficiently inspect the documents, another provision makes thtem liable for discrimination if they too vigoursly inspect the documents.”

“The employer may not refuse to “honor documents tendered by the employee that on their face reasonably appears to be genuine….that section of law also prohibits employer retaliation…against an employee….such as dismissing the employee, even if he suspects him to be and illegal alien, and such retaliation…is considered discrimination per se under the law.

While we’re at it if an illegal alien is found on a union site the union steward and union leadership up to CEO should be put in jail if you want to jail the employer.

No Constitutional Amendment is necessary to stop the “anchor baby” problem. It’s just a change in the interpretation of what “under the jurisdiction of the United States” means. If we consider that invaders aren’t under the jurisdiction of the United States(and they aren’t), no more anchor babies. The children of invaders will simply be little invaders.

1. the Fair Tax requires a constitutional amendment to eliminate the Sixteenth Amendment;
2. a Human Life amendment;
3. an amendment to define marriage;
and now,
4. an amendment to end birthright citizenship.

I leave out the first one since no one seems to believe that a fair tax strategy will work. But, the IRS needs overhauling. Ideas??

Then the question is, Which of the other 3 are you against? Human Life, Marriage or Anchor Baby

Does it have a chance? Probably not. But neither did the equal rights amendment. But it got the desired effect.

I actually think the Anchor Baby amendment has a shot. That really is worthy of an amendment try.

I believe if Mike came out in favor of Oxygen you guys would be against it.

How dumb can you be and still breath? Wait, without oxygen you won’t.

I wonder why businesses think it’s such a horrible thing to verify the legal status of a potential employee.

Uncompensated expense, which is unnecessary when the border enforcement people do the jobs they’re paid to do.

*off topic*

Philadelphia Steve – you forgot the slashes in your HTML codes.

I went ahead and fixed your one comment up.

I hate it when JPE is on the same side as me.

Re: “Why should businessmen be expected to do the job the law enforcement personnel aren’t doing?”

They are not. Law enforcement should enforce laws against businesses who are employing illegal aliens. It is up to the business managers to comply with the law: Just as they do for sales tax, zoning and working condition laws.

The fact that our federal law enforcement officers have failed to enforce the law in the past is not an excuse for not enforcing it in the future.

Maybe I am seeing this differently then others but, it seems to me, that if we would just enforce the already established and clearly stated immigration laws, we wouldn’t have the vast amounts of “anchor babies” citizenships to worry about.
As for Huckabee’s sudden attitude change … I see it merely as a campaign/marketing strategy

I would not put it past the activist Republican dominated Supreme Court to overturn the 14th Amendment, a previous Supreme Court ruling that up holds the 14th Amendment, and to disregard the long tradition of English Common Law in support of the 14th Amendment.

BDTR,

Are you knowingly deranged??? “…overturn the 14th Amendment…?” No court has the authority to overturn a constitutional amendment, as the four “originalists” currently on the Supreme court would be the very first to acknowledge.

Very slowly, now. Keep your hands in plain sight…drop the Dixie cup… and back away from the Kool-aid pitcher!

the poster was positing that the supreme Court might “re-interpret” the 14th Amendment so as to palcate the radicals (it would not be the first time, after all).

Exactly, a Supreme Court decision can have the exact effect as amending the constitution. As already discussed amending the Constitution is extremely hard. It’s a pity that the El Supremo Justices don’t take their responsibility of protecting it seriously.

Only if you consider that invaders are somehow “under the jurisdiction of the United States”; they’re not, by definition.

I disagree. They are here in the country subject to arrest under our laws. Just because the scum in our government refuse to do their duty doesn’t change that.

At that point probably the best thing would to permanently bar the mother from ever coming here legally and give the mother the option of taking the kid home (where he also is a citizen as I understand) OR put him up for confidential adoption.
If the former the kid can come back when he’s of age.

Absolutely brilliant! Only problem is… you think if there isn’t any effort to stop them from coming over the border in the first place they would ever enforce the deportation of the Illegal alien baby machines and/or Jackpot babies?

I know that some people love to hate illegal immigrant (as opposed to just wanting them out of the country).

But this proposal to “qualify” a native born American citizan is, in my opinion, flat out wrong.

No matter what else we may disagree on, I do not want a political qualificationon whether or not a native born American can be a citizen or not.

I know that other countries do not establish the right that those born on its soil are citizens, but America is not “other countries” (no matter what the tortureres in our midst want).

If you are born here, you are a citizen here. Sove the illegal immigation some other way: But not by adding a political qualification as to whether or not I, a native born America “deserve” citizehip.

Re: “Yes I can. I did a post on this (although it shows Rob as the writer after he converted platforms. ”

The following is the entire text from your link

Title VII, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Equal Pay Act (the EEO statutes) prohibit discrimination against employees who work in the United States for covered employers, regardless of citizenship(60) or work authorization. While federal law prohibits employers from employing individuals lacking work authorization, employers who nonetheless employ undocumented workers are prohibited from discriminating against those workers.(61)

The Commission has taken the position that foreign nationals are covered by the EEO statutes when they apply for U.S.-based employment from outside the United States.(62) If the employment is outside the United States, however, individuals who are not U.S. citizens are not protected by the U.S. EEO statutes.

I read the explanation, and it is entirely about discrimination based on National Origin .

Nowhere does it say that you, and employer, must hire someone who is in the US illegally.

What you must do is apply your hiring rules uniformly across your employee base. If you require, for good business reasons, that a new employee show a valid passport, then you must apply that rule to all employees, regardless of national origin.

It also makes clear that, once you have hired someone, you cannot discriminate against him or her in other areas. The passage that you cited as somehow requiring that you hire an illegal (the one I copied above) actually made an entirely different point: That point was that you cannot justify discrimination against a person BECAUSE they are in the US illegally. That is, for examply, should you hire a woman to work in your company, and pay her half the wages to do the same job as a man, you cannot justify that salary discrimination based on the fact that she is in the US illegally and he is a US citizen. However, whould you discover, subsequent to hiring, that her documents were falsified, you should immediately inform the INS for her to be picked up.

Being in the US illegally is, therfore, not a justification for an employer to conduct OTHER forms of discrimination against that person.

Just be consistent in how you apply your business policies (a good management idea anyway, regardless of the law: go read some Peter Drucker books if you want some insights there). And apply your rules as to what an employment applicant must show to prove his/her right to work in the US to ALL job allicants, regardless of how they appear or what their accent is.

Like the people who run the country (the corporations) are going to just let you shut down their access to cheap labor.

Unlike the govt, corps have to give you something in return for your money, so you are wrong on that one.
If cheap labor were really a source of wealth, Africa and Mexico would be fabulously wealthy. They aren’t. Get a clue, leftie.

Re: “If you are going to object to someone’s else’s proposed solution to an obvious problem, don’t you think it should be incumbent upon you to offer a substantive proposal of your own? ”

Enforce laws against hiring undocumented workers with criminal (jail time) penalties for the hiring manager, the HR manager and the CEO of any company found to have employed such a worker.

Just money fines will not be enough as those who hared the cheap labor will have already banked their gains and the fines will only come out of the stockholders’ pockets.

And add about 1,000 enforcement agents to the Immigration Service to enforce those laws.

The reason those coming (or overstaying) to the US is jobs. That won’t stop if their children are or are not citizens (economic refugees, which these people are, come for immediate income reasons, not, as tyhe far right tries to say, to establish some sort of “beach head” in the US).

Re: “That’s really stupid because the government makes it illegal to discriminate against illegals with fake ID’s. I guess you don’t know what you’re talking about. ”

Can you document where a federal law specifically says you cannot discriminate against an ILLEGAL alien?

Re: “But examining someone’s ID can be construed as discrimination. ”

Only if the employer does it for SOME people and not OTHERS.

Can you document where a federal law specifically says you cannot discriminate against an ILLEGAL alien?

Yes I can. I did a post on this (although it shows Rob as the writer after he converted platforms.

The bottom line is that if an illegal has “reasonable looking” ID an employer is forced to accept it. From what I understand it’s cheaper and quicker to get fake documents than real ones.

There are a couple links in the post to official websites. In the past when I’ve referred to the EEOC rules people with the same views as you have ignored it and kept spewing that Big Business is at fault.

So I answered you. How about my plan of jailing Governor’s and bureaucrats that give free goodies to illegals? If your opinion is to jail CEO’s why would that be unfair?

I’m glad to find this discussion.

I wonder why businesses think it’s such a horrible thing to verify the legal status of a potential employee. Most of them run extensive legal and credit backgrounds before employment anyway. Using E-verify doesn’t sound that hard.

Also, the 14th amendment has been misinterpreted regarding anchor babies. It was written for the slaves who were freed not for someone coming here illegally.

Regarding Huckabee’s flip-flop, have you seen this video where he says illegals will have to go home for a matter of days then come back? That’s what I call amnesty for breaking our laws:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jKeWIrlzLw#GU5U2spHI_4

STOP IT!

PS,

What you propose is little more than an elaborate, self-serving bandaid. As a small business owner myself, I am well aware that anything more than a cursory inspection of an employee’s proferred credentials can result in a lawsuit or an EEOC complaint. I can afford neither The government, which you would have move against me for hiring Senor Juan Valdez, can compel all sorts of documentary information from him. I can not.

Besides, if you can’t get the City of San Fransisco, or New Haven, to enforce federal immigration law, why should the business community be held responsible?

You love it.

All but this latest “amendment” have already been tried. The pro-life amendment went down in defeat. The gay marriage amendment went down in defeat. The fair tax amendment is a joke.

This guy does nothing but grandstand. I guess if you like hearing idealistic nonsense, you could vote for Huckabee. I happen to think Ron Paul is a much better choice of a completely unrealistic idealist.