This whole BIG thing about voter suppression.

Did you read at all....? I said "Even worse, some people come here posing as grad student". This isn't about illegal immigrants. This is about this nation's immigration policy as a whole. It's too weak especially on the student visa front so that it allows "spies" to get in. Certainly, you'll only hear that only if they get caught. So what about those who don't get caught?

That's my point Angel. Your arguments are confused because you are lumping together arguments about three different (although related) things.

1. The 14th Amendment and birthright citizenship (which is not immigration because the people who are given birthright citizenship were born here and are not immigrants by any sense of the word).

2. Legal immigrants.

3. Illegal immigrants.

I was trying to answer your arguments against the 14th amendment because that is one area where I think you are clearly wrong. Birthright citizenship is important for core American values (you don't judge someone by who their parents are). Birthright citizenship is also good for us as a country and an economy since everyone is equal under the law and can be educated, can get a job, and can become a productive part of our society like anyone else.

Are you really arguing against legal immigration?

I am arguing against the negative consequences of The 14th Amendment which is to provide incentives for illegal immigrants to come here and have a baby just for the green card.

I am arguing against providing welfare excessively for illegal immigrants because it shrinks the pie for the needy people here domestically

Thus I am arguing against the loose immigration policy of this nation as a whole. Is there any distinction between legal or illegal immigrants if the illegals could eventually be legalized?

You have argued against a single "negative consequence" of the 14th Amendment. I have explained several benefits of the 14th Amendment. These include Equality (a core American value), the benefit we get from productive members of society and our lack of a permanent underclass.

Do you have any evidence that there is a significant cost in providing welfare for "illegal" immigrants? I think you are just making this up.

You are perhaps blind to facts because you might not be the one who's bearing the burden. First of all, you did NOT explained any benefit of the 14th amendment to the nation as a whole. What you provided are the benefits of the 14th Amendment for those who wish to share the American Dream. Indeed it's just one negative consequence, but this one consequence is sufficient to eventually bankrupt the country. I've already provided you with an example that if you need inviting people to share your rice, you'll eventually run out of it. Yes, one negative consequence, but to what extent? If something has huge benefits but it's certain to cause cancer, will you do it? Let's review what your wrote:



Yes, they can certainly do all that, but let's say if the 14th Amendment is revised to require at least 1 parent to be a citizen, does that prevent an entrepreneur to be come one? If they have bright ideas, they can contribute to the society regardless of citizenship. If they are hard working, they'll be rewarded ultimately. What you said shows only the free incentive we are giving to this group of individuals called "immigrants", but you proved nothing about how this group of people would do for the nation. It's all just "they could be great", whereas "they COULD also be leeches". However, if they have to earn their citizenship, the story would be different and leeches would probably think twice about trying to take advantage of everyone else. Now let's review your other quote:



They certainly did and those who works hard and are not a leech of the society would earn a path to citizenship. This has nothing to do with the 14th Amendment. Immigrants can still come to build whatever they want to build -- with or without the 14th Amendment. It does not mean if they aren't born citizens they'll never get it -- have laws written so they could qualify later in life, to earn it. The 14th Amendment guarantees the rights and privileges of people indiscriminately, regardless whether they contribute to the pie or they just take without consideration of others.


Of course it does. By illegal immigrants, I think your idea of them are very different from mine. The REAL illegal immigrants are those who are hiding among us, with sham marriages, cheated and lied on their applications, fake political asylum...etc. On paper they are "legal" but in reality they are NOT. They know that even if they are caught, as soon as they have a baby here, regardless how they lied or cheated, by law they can apply for a waiver. You don't need the media to tell you in what way these people could cost us, just do your math. In fact, Welfare of any kind costs the American middle class, just google Obamacare and you'll see. Then you provide welfare to illegals and then further encourage them to bring their "extended" families. The pie keep getting smaller and smaller until there's nothing left. Welfare is good, but excessive welfare encourages lazy behavior especially when you provide it to those who thinks America has endless wealth. We are in debt to our eyeballs, last time I checked. Have you ever been to a third world country? Try going their and talk to the locals once and many will tell you they think Gold grows on trees in America. Duh.

Lastly, let me side track for a bit and tell you something you should think about: in Chinese culture we have a saying, "when you sitting on your couch and speak, your back doesn't hurt". It's a metaphor meaning that as long as you yourself are in comfort, you don't care about who you are hurting. You never wanna be the "bad guy" who says we need to take away something from a group of people because you wanna look like a saint. But in reality you are not, you just want to rob another group to satisfy your idealism. Perhaps you are a saint, but then how many times have you donated to charity last year, helped a needy family with your service, or sent gifts to those who helped you and your family? Or did you take another person's kindness for granted and totally forgot about it? The problem I have with most liberal progressives is that they ALWAYS, ALWAYS say beautiful things as if the world can be this Utopia where everyone is equal as long as we rob the rich and feed the poor. Yet, they themselves only speak, but no action, or probably NEVER donated a penny to charity in their whole life or volunteered a single day. We have a word for that: Hypocrites. Well, not all of them are like this. I know a few who actually participated and dedicated their lives for their idealism and I respect that. Unfortunately perfect equality only exist in literature and your brain; ask any Chinese what happened in the 60's and 70's and you'll realize that, hopefully.

The 14th Amendment has been around for 150 years. During that time we have had waves of immigration. During some of that time we had open borders in the US. During some of that time we had explicitly racist immigration laws. During none of that time have the borders been closed more than they are now.

The country has never been bankrupted during all of that time.

You are right that the 14th amendment doesn't discriminate based on the contribution made by people to society. But neither does repealing the 14th amendment. There are lots of White Americans who don't contribute much to society. In general, it seems to me that immigrants (both legal and illegal) are far less lazy than White Americans (they certainly take much more difficult jobs).

Why not? After repealing it, new laws replacing it require decedents of immigrants to pass a screening, that they must at least have a job earning 125% above poverty line and three years of tax returns, the same requirement when I was filing for my wife's immigration. If they are making 125% above poverty line and paying taxes, that's good contribution on my books. Plus it'll discourage leechers to come here because they can't apply for a waiver anymore after their babies are born -- no more loopholes. In fact the 14th Amendment is indirectly discriminating against people like me because those who take advantage of it could get citizenship or legal status as a freebie but I must make 125% above the poverty line to file for my wife and go through bunch of legal requirements.
http://www.immihelp.com/affidavit-of-support/i-864-income-requirements.html




Partially true, but that's for another debate. I am against excessive welfare of any kind and that one of the reasons.

You are going to screen babies? (I am assuming you didn't really mean to say "decedents" because if you were going to screen dead babies it would be really sad.).

Babies grow up to be adults don't they? Or babies / children can become naturalized / legalized when their parents apply for green card / naturalization. The process is exactly the same as how my father was naturalized but I didn't follow-in. I chose to do it myself and the children could do the same, to either follow-in with their parents or wait to do it when they are 18. Same income and other legal requirement for the parent as the rest of us, but they won't be able to apply for green card just because they have a kid born here as the sole reason.

At what point to you screen them?

We want the babies that are going to become American citizens to have a good childhood. We want these babies to be brought up with American values. We certainly want them to be educated so they can be productive as adults. Ideally they can get college degrees and create things or start businesses.

If a child doesn't know if she is going to be able to stay or not... but we still give her an education and raise her as an Americans... isn't that both unproductive and cruel?

And if screening people is such a good idea for the country, then why don't we just screen everyone whether their parents are citizens or not?

When someone hits some age (let's say 20 years old) we would have a board to look over their character, their intelligence, their physical abilities and their work ethic. The people who pass certain criteria would be allowed to stay. The others would be kicked out of the country (although they could always reapply later).

Do you think this would be a good thing for the economy or for the country as a whole?

Let's not forget what I said earlier, if one of the parents is a citizen, they are automatically granted citizenship -- so no problem here. If one parent is permanent resident (green card), then they go through the same legal process as the rest of us, that is, apply via petition for alien relative form i-130 which has a list of very fulfillable requirements.

If neither their parents are eligible, which is most likely not going to happen anymore because these ineligible parents (who are likely leechers) are unlikely to choose to come here in the first place knowing they have no leverage. Then lastly if this does happen, then the child could still stay here and apply for green card when they grow up, through HB1 or other channel. It isn't the end of the world; gives them an incentive to work hard. Or, even better, give them temporary residency status when they are born, like what the federal government gave my wife when she got here. After they are older they need to petition to remove this temporary residency condition, just like the federal government is requiring me to apply for removal of temporary condition after 2 years of marriage to make sure our marriage isn't sham.


Why wouldn't they know, and what's unproductive? If they study and work there's certainly a way for them to stay -- gives them something to work towards, which is more productive than giving out freebies. Cruel? Go to China's remote village and adopt a whole bunch of children living & dying in poverty. There are many people in the world needs saving; Maddie will save them all.

Why, as my last post asked... wouldn't we be better off if we screen everyone whether or not their parents are citizens?

Let's just screen everyone.

Why would you be better off? Those who are already naturalized have already gone through the process of filing their applications and have their income and taxes verified -- what's the point of having them do it again? Now you are just being a troll because you have nothing better to say.

I am always a troll. I am questioning your argument to see where there are any holes in it. That is what we trolls do.

Good thing that we finally agreed on something.

The amusing contradiction in your argument is the way that it contradicts with your own background (given that you told us you are an immigrant from China). You seem to be very upset with liberals.

It was liberals that fought for, and won, your right, as a Chinese man, to be in the US. Do you know who Ted Kennedy was?

If you like being here, you owe him a debt of gratitude.

That's the difference between us Maddie. I do not vote for policies that benefits, supposedly, "my kind". You said many times you are American, but it appears your heart rests more with your own ideals. Liberals are pushing this nation into Socialism and what good will come out of it? If doctors makes the same $$ as the guy that mops the toilet room, who would ever want to spend the time and effort to get his/ her doctoral degree?

I certainly appreciates those who fought for ending racism, protecting the rights and equality of those who deserves it, but they must separate idealism and reality. You need to get your facts straight. Read up on Chinese Student Protection Act of 1992.

If you say we owe favor to anyone, we owe it to Nancy Pelosi, a liberal and Slade Gorton, a republican. So being a conservative doesn't equal to be "white supremacist" and liberals alone aren't going to change the vote. It's liberals and conservatives working together that will achieve a better future, to find some achievable middle ground. However, nowadays debates are so divisive that we don't even sound like a nation anymore. I never spoke to Nancy, but my father has and he says Nancy is a sensible person, who will listen to what you have to say, although she will disagree. Totally not like the young progressives nowadays that will use profanity and violence towards anyone who disagree with them but yet could not put together a coherent counter-argument. Am I making this up? Well, go to UC Berkeley and try to pretend to say you love Donald Trump. You won't come out alive.

Before you respond, review the top post again. It says YOUNG liberals. Based on experience I find people who has worked a few years are more sensible and mature to talk to. Young people are more likely to be in the category of "having no idea what they are fighting for". They set their mind on something and indulge in it, like someone who's on narcotics (maybe they are really on it). Hence the topic -- they shouldn't vote.

Angel, my mainly liberal politics (I disagree with mainstream liberals on a couple of thing) are based on what I think is best for the country, and the ideals that I feel represent the best of the country. Liberty and equality are two of these ideals.

Creating an economy that is fair for working people is another ideal. I have no interest in making doctors earn the same as janitors. In fact I agree with you on this. I do believe that janitors should be able to make a living wage, and that teachers and nurses should make a lot more than they currently make. I am an economic moderate, I want the government to step in when the free market is clearly not working, and to butt out where it is working.

And, to answer your charge of voting for policies that benefit "my kind". That's bullshit. I am a professional engineer. I pay more taxes then most Americans. I am not quite in the 1%, but if I were voting my own pocketbook, I would likely vote for the Republicans who (for some strange reason) want to lower my taxes even though I don't need it. I would rather they lower the taxes for janitors and teachers... and better yet, provide better services.

The question is what is best for the country. Immigrants have always been best for the country, we have always needed them. The 14th Amendment has been great for the country by providing an entitled work force with equal rights as citizens instead of an underclass.

Ironically the Chinese Student Protection act you refer to in your post was an Amnesty. Somehow that amuses me. Of course I supported it 100%, but I generally support amnesty bills for immigrants.

By your kind, I mean you are making decisions based on your background, which you've given and example of your grand parents perhaps had immigrated here illegally. It has nothing to do with your profession...etc, but it's good (but not quite understandable) that you to vote to raise your own taxes.

Bottom line is moderation is the key. This nation has taken liberty too far to the point that it's getting into absurdity. Also Living wage is highly subjective. Perhaps you are an engineer so you failed to really understand what some of those so called "poor people" are doing. My mother works for Costco, she doesn't make much, but a livable wage. Some of her co-workers are part-timers who are on food stamps, and yet they take somewhat lavish vacations twice to three times a year, use the stamps for the most expensive food, and refuse to take another job because they may lose the food stamp privilege. A janitor is a janitor today because of the choices he / she made, so that's on them and they should live with the consequences of their choices. That means no lavish vacations, probably have to take 2 jobs and perhaps have to buy the cheapest food they can get. The states / federal government has already provided a lot of welfare for these people, such as section 8, food stamps, Medicaid. If they want a better living, get their act together and work harder or get a degree.

Free market is always the most optimum. You are an engineer, so I suppose it's hard for you to understand economics because unlike physics, economics isn't deterministic. Human behavioral is something you just can't get around, unlike a computer where your program will always do what it intends to do. When you force a group of people to sacrifice their profits and gains, ultimately, they'll try to find ways to get around it by either firing people in favor of automation, or raise the price of the goods they are selling, ultimately impacting the economy as a whole. People who makes more money don't feel those increases, but the lower-income families and unskilled workers are hurt the most.

Look up the "Free rider problem". Economists have long tried to solve this problem, but so far a complete failure for the same reason why communism failed. You just can't force people to not abuse what's free, which results in larger than expected deficits and the need to further raise taxes. I have had many discussions about this with my professor and we both agree that the only way to truly get around this problem is to have an altruistic dictatorship who will ensure to necessity of all the nation's constituents. However, that again, is a dream. Absolute power, corrupts absolutely.