Bill would end birthright citizenship.

I like this part of the Wong Kim Ark case the best

 

Good for Mexico, not the U.S.

Too little pay and benefits.

They will when there are no illegals and wages come up for those jobs.

This is a joke, right?

Everything you say leads to that conclusion.

 

California is paying out more in entitlements and welfare to legals and illegals than any other State. Illegal immigration is killing California. If there weren't any illegals, Americans would fill those jobs since they need to be done. Wages would have to come up, and yes, we would pay more for produce. I have no problem with that.

Dinesh is just a pain in the butt to the progressive movement. They will discredit him at every turn. Media Matters is a leftist joke.

You hold tight to that racism card. It's the only excuse you have. Don't worry, Obama has your back.

 

Translation: I PROVED that Dinesh is a right wing joke...you just deny discussing that fact. Racism in America is a matter of current fact and history....you can deny it all you want, but the majority of people are catching on.....which is one of the reasons they elected Obama twice against the status quo mentality you seem to be part of. Carry on.

 

If US citizens refuse to compete for jobs currently held by illegals then people need to stop whining about the illegals. You don't arbitrarily increase 'pay and benefits' just to satisfy the hiring of Americans? Besides, 99% of them would last until lunch time the first day then disappear to mommy.

There will never be a time when we don't have illegals or unskilled immigrant labor, and when there is more supply than demand, the wages will remain low.

No joke at all?? I stand 100% by my comment.

I'm a realist and have no time for politics and BS...when you find 5-7 million white-bread Americans who will perform the same jobs, work as hard, and be reliable, for whatever the market wages might be, of the illegals, then and only then will I support their exclusion. This is not support for or against illegal immigration...it is reality...

 

Illegals are not the majority of workers in any trade, US Citizens/legal workers are the majority, in every field, including AG. Only 3 - 5% of the total illegals work in AG, the other 95% + work in the blue collar industries. The reality is that white-bread Americans do do the jobs that illegals do.

 

Never said or implied that illegals are the 'majority of workers in any trade'?

IMO, the reality of the job situation is Americans refuse to do certain jobs and this void is filled by 'others'. Then you want to arbitrarily change the conditions by increasing wages/benefits as if this alone will attract Americans to do the work they currently refuse to do. And in doing so you have zero consideration for the expenses and viability of the business as well as overall inflation?

You will never find white-bread Americans at the local labor halls begging to do farm work and other manual labor...never!

 

You are implying. Americans refuse to do certain jobs and this void is filled by 'others'., Again, their are white/black/brown Americans doing all the same jobs that illegals do. As I said, the majority of AG workers are citizens/legal workers, of all colors.

Those illegals wouldn't be illegal if the farmers would bring them in on H2A visas the way they are supposed to. Farmers could also mechanize besides paying hire wages, but mechanization will decrease the amount of workers needed further. The increase in pay at the field stage even by $10 + per hour (some field workers make over $20 per hour already) only effects the purchase price by mere pennies at the end, per UC Davis study.

You won't find anybody at the local labor halls begging to do field work. Most white-bread Americans use temp agencies.

 

They don't have to repeal the whole thing, just the birth right citizenship part. And they don't even have to repeal it, they can modify it so it doesn't apply to illegals only.

 

No they can't. The only way to do this is to pass a new amendment.

 

Logic dictates...if...Americans wanted the jobs currently held by 7-10 million illegals then why aren't they competing for these jobs?

A huge amount of farm labor is 'day labor' who are not direct or permanent employees...they are transient. It is not possible or practical to acquire day laborers and check out their work status. Much of this work is contracted through others who hire the workers and again it is difficult to know the status of every worker that is brought in to do work.

Mechanization is an option for some situations but not all situations.

In my area the labor contractors are paid $16 to $25/hour and they are paying the workers $12 to $20/hour...only supervisors or highly specialized workers will earn more than $18/$20/hour.

A $10/hour increase in labor DOES NOT equate to pennies in the end product...labor is a major cost to AG producers...

 

True. But the new amendment can simply modify P1 of the 14th. No need to repeal it.

 

This may be semantics at this point but I view a new amendment modifying a previous one as a repeal.

Certain posters in this thread keep insisting a simple policy change would do it but that is very demonstrably incorrect.

 

If by "policy change" you mean bill/law you are correct. A simple majority approved act of Congress cannot overcome the Constitution.

 

Logic dictates? So you keep limiting the specific job to now simply being field workers. You've continuously moved the goal posts. Americans DO do those jobs, not every field worker is an illegal immigrant.

Field work is but a small amount of farm labor, it is also for a short period(s) 3 - 12 weeks per year. The rest is you repeating what has already been stated.

correct

OK

Ag field labor harvest costs are miniscule on the end product, a large increase in wages per hour ($10+) for the field worker amounts to mere pennies for the end product. Take it up with UC Davis. http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebat...sts-and-benefits-of-a-raise-for-field-workers

Did you get that? A 40% increase in labor wages would result in $0.04 increase for the end cost, while benefiting the worker.

Here is another article explaining the labor shortage and that mechanization and increased wages is pretty much inevitable.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...farm-workers-immigration-reform-may-not-help/

 

Congress defines citizenship which includes the "under the jurisdiction of" clause.

That being said a new amendment would be the best way to finally settle the issue.

 

Not only that but according to Justice Gray in WKA the parents must be domiciled here for the child to receive citizenship at birth.

 

50% of farm workers are unauthorized. (USDA)

Wages, salaries, and contract labor expenses represent roughly 17 percent of total variable farm costs and as much as 40 percent of costs in labor-intensive crops such as fruit, vegetables, and nursery products. (USDA) You actually believe increasing wages won't have any appreciable impact on consumer prices?

I never said Americans don't do those jobs?? I said if 7-10 million illegals hold jobs which Americans want then what is keeping Americans from taking the jobs?

 

You still repeat what is already known.

Like I said, take it up with UC Davis, since I gave you the link to the AG economist for UC Davis and his article that states your claim to be pure fallacy. A 40% increase in wages results in a 3.6% increase to the end product, this is basic economics through the chain, from beginning to end.

That question has already been answered - low wages and short work windows. In the future mechanization and higher wages, it is inevitable, less workers needed.

 

The problem with this logic is that the provisions of the 14th Amendment related to natural born citizenship established by Jus Soli (i.e. the Right of Soil) is an inalienable (natural) right of the person. The US Constitution should always be used to protect the inalienable (natural) rights of the person and never used to violate those rights. We need only refer to the following lines from the Declaration of Independence that established the foundation for government to understand this fact.

I'm often amazed to find Americans that are opposed to the very political ideology established by the Declaration of Independence that our nation was founded upon. The purpose of our government is to protect the inalienable rights of all people under it's juridiction and that includes both citizens and non-citizen under the jurisdiction of government in the United States.

 

The world has changed. There are new threats to the US. Unless we adapt to new threats, the nation will not survive.
In order to be "American", there must be at least some preservation of the values and culture that made this nation so desirable to the rest of the world.
Otherwise, this society will decay and become just another 3rd world hell hole. Then where will people go?
In addition, the world was less populous at the time. Today the American culture is in danger of annihilation from abuse of such provisions.
Again, the world is a different place. Traditional Americans no more want to lose their culture than those coming here want to preserve and spread theirs.

I find it equally amazing that Democrats often want to cling to certain aspects of the Constitution when it supports their agenda, and discard those that do not.
or example the 2nd Amendment. Routinely attacked by the left.

 

It's the only way to change the current meaning.

- - - Updated - - -

Refuted here........ http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=407716&p=1065006608#post1065006608

 

The "traditional American" is the immigrant as, with the exception of the Native Americans, we are all immigrants to America. There is one political ideology that unites us all as expressed in the Declaration of Independence.

For almost 200 years we were unified under a simple national motto of "E Pluribus Unum" (Latin - "Out of many, one") until the "religious right" corrupted our national motto in the 1950's. We, the "traditional Americans" immigrated here from nations around the world, became unified as one under the political ideology that all men are created equal with certain Rights and that our government's role was to protect those rights for everyone, both citizens and non-citizens, subjected to it's jurisdiction.

It is our responsibility as either direct immigrants or decendents of immigrants to uphold the political ideology upon which America was founded and to also welcome other immigrants and demonstrate by our actions what that political ideology is so that they will also adopt it.

I would call a person that opposes this by one political party while embracing it for their own political party a hypocrite. We should equally oppose this regardless of who it is that embraces certain aspects of the US Constitution that supports their political agenda while discarding those that do not.

While unsure of exactly what is being referred to I find that many of the so-called 2nd Amendment arguments by the "right" are illogical.

For example the "right" correctly points out that "assault weapon bans" are based upon appearance and not functionality. An AR-15 and a Remington semi-automatic hunting rifle are functionally identical. Appearance alone is an invalid criteria for any law and is also an invalid criteria when it comes to whether a person's 2nd Amendment rights are violated. If I can own a functionally identical firearm then my 2nd Amendment rights are not being violated. Of course the "assault weapons bans" are also stupid and unnecessary because they're based upon appearance and not functionality which is a logical reason to oppose them but it's not a 2nd Amendment issue. It's a stupid law issue.

 

You have yet to show anything that refutes the portion of WKA that I quoted, in fact, there is nothing you can show that refutes a Supreme Court Justice. Do you even know what the word Domiciled means?

 

Specifically refuted in the citation in this post...... http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=407716&p=1065006608#post1065006608