[w4HPpbSW]

Johnwk:

If you continue to repost the same links over and over, I will regard it as spam and close this thread.

[incimisiche]

Johnwk:

If you continue to repost the same links over and over, I will regard it as spam and close this thread.

I didn't remember posting the "cover up" link before. Sorry!


JWK

[MeeveStesia]

Here's one for you, John WK:

--So Mr. Dobbs was flat-out wrong.
Of course, he has never acknowledged on the air that his program presented false information twice. Instead, he lambasted the officials from the law center for saying he had. [/url]

Scjademfrau,

I was about to post something to the same effect after researching that figure last night. Dobbs must step up and simply say the information was wrong, and he is sorry.


I'm sorry for reposting the same inaccurate information.

Regards,

JWK

[replicaypu]

If you think for one moment that immigrants from Mexico are not infecting our nation with contagious diseases, including TB, check out the following report from the Centers for Disease Control and PreventionPreventing and Controlling Tuberculosis Along the U.S.-Mexico Border

TB disease among foreign-born persons living in the United States is increasing. In 1999, 43% (7,553) of the 17,531 TB cases reported in the United States were among foreign-born persons, compared with 24% (6,262) of the 25,701 cases reported in 1990. In 1999, Mexico was the country of origin for 23% (1,753) of all foreign-born persons with TB. Of TB cases among Mexican-born persons, three fourths were reported from the four U.S. states bordering Mexico: California, 820 cases; Texas, 364 cases; Arizona, 67 cases; and New Mexico, 17 cases (3). In 1999, TB cases among Mexican-born persons represented approximately 25% of all reported TB in the four border states. Incidence of TB was higher for the majority of border counties than the national TB rate. TB is brought into the United States from Mexico and Central America in three ways: a) persons with active TB disease move northward across the border; b) persons with latent TB infection experience active disease after arrival in the United States; or c) U.S. residents touring Mexico, including immigrants, acquire TB disease after returning to the United States (4--7). After a person with TB enters the United States, further transmission might occur, which contributes to TB morbidity in the United States directly from source patients and indirectly from their contacts. Those who have invaded our borders and immigrated to our country illegally have avoided screening for TB which is part of the legal immigration process. The question is, how many Americans have been, or will be infected by the 10 - 20 million who have invaded our borders from Mexico, many of whom are certain to be carrying TB and other contagious diseases such as hepatitis?
JWK

It’s time to organize an anti-amnesty march on Washington!

[EnvellFen]

RNC fires phone solicitors

May 31, 2007
The Republican National Committee, hit by a grass-roots donors' rebellion over President Bush's immigration policy, has fired all 65 of its telephone solicitors, Ralph Z. Hallow will report Friday in The Washington Times……….The RNC spokeswoman denied that the committee has seen any drop-off in contributions.

"Any assertion that overall donations have gone down is patently false," Miss Schmitt said. "We continue to out raise our Democrat counterpart by a substantive amount (nearly double)."
Of course overall donations have not gone down Miss Schmitt….the international corporate giants who would benefit from Bush’s amnesty plan have stepped up their donations with the hope to see amnesty passed. Thank you for confirming what we already suspected…the RNC has sold out to the one world crowd which believes in open borders, NAFTA and global governance!

Make no mistake, the agenda of these Globalists, is no conspiracy, no “secret handshakes”, no deals signed in blood; no decoding rings issued by the Council on Foreign Relations, or faceless illuminatis. As a matter of fact, they publicly state what their interests are, which includes the NAFTA as mentioned in their Global Governance Issue Brief And, just for the record, HERE IS A LIST of members connected to the Clinton Administration, which does not even take into account the members connected to father Bush’s Administration!

It is not surprising to learn that the ring leaders of this crowd represent the profit making interests of international corporate giants [which this amnesty bill would benefit] who have no allegiance to America or any nation and want free reign to go about their business even if their business is detrimental to the best interests, health, safety or general welfare of the people of a particular country___ they are determined to have their way, regardless of the consequences which they may inflict upon others. They are an offshoot of the monopolies and trusts of the late 1800’s and early 1900’s, only now they have believe they have found a way to create the law used to plunder the people of nations.

Good riddance to the traitorous sellout RNC!

JWK


It’s time to organize an anti-amnesty march on Washington![/color]

[Tzqowwyt]

.

It is alleged by supporters of amnesty that the children of illegal aliens are citizens of the united States by virtue of the 14th Amendment. This fiction is then used to justify allowing illegal aliens to stay here so as to not separate families. But the truth is, those who make up such fiction would be hard pressed to come up with one SC ruling establishing the legislative intent of the 14th Amendment was intended to apply to people who invade our borders who may then give birth, and then extend citizenship to those born on America soil under such circumstances.

The case the myth makers generally refer to is United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), but, there is no wording in the case stating that the 14th Amendment is intended to grant citizenship to children of illegal aliens who are born on American soil by mothers who have invaded our borders and ignored our immigration laws!

So, let us put to rest the myth generated that the SC in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) asserts that the children in question become U.S. citizens upon birth.

Although Wong Kim deals with a citizenship question, it does not deal with the circumstances involved with illegal aliens! I will say the Court in Wong Kim does make reference to another court decision which pinpoints the legislative intent of the Fourteenth Amendment, with regard to citizenship, and it has nothing to do with illegal aliens or their children being granted citizenship!:

…and in an opinion delivered by Justice Van Syckel, with the concurrence of Chief Justice Beasley, said: 'The object of the fourteenth amendment, as is well known, was to confer upon the colored race the right of citizenship. It, however, gave to the colored people no right superior to that granted to the white race. The ancestors of all the colored people then in the United States were of foreign birth, and could not have been naturalized, or in any way have become entitled to the right of citizenship. The colored people were no more subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, by reason of their birth here, than were the white children born in this country of parents who were not citizens. The same rule must be applied to both races; and, unless the general rule that, when the parents are domiciled here, birth establishes the right to citizenship, is accepted, the fourteenth amendment has failed to accomplish its purpose, and the colored people are not citizens. The fourteenth amendment, by the language, 'all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' was intended [169 U.S. 649, 693] to bring all races, without distinction of color, within the rule which prior to that time pertained to the white race.' Benny v. O'Brien (1895) 58 N. J. Law, 36, 39, 40, 32 Atl. 696. (my emphasis) So the very purpose of the 14th Amendment is to prohibit law based upon race, color or previous condition of slavery___ PERIOD.

It is also pointed out in Wong Kim that:

By the constitution of the United States, congress was empowered 'to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.' In the exercise of this power, congress, by successive acts, beginning with the act entitled 'An act to establish an uniform rule of naturalization,' passed at the second session of the first congress under the constitution, has made provision for the admission to citizenship of three principal classes of persons: First. Aliens, having resided for a certain time 'within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States,' and naturalized individually by proceedings in a court of record. Second. Children of persons so naturalized, 'dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization.' Third. Foreign- born children of American citizens, coming within the definitions prescribed by congress. By the above documentation, and prior to the adoption of the 14th Amendment which is conceded in Benny v. O'Brien, “was intended [169 U.S. 649, 693] to bring all races, without distinction of color, within the rule” it would seem pretty clear children of illegal aliens, who may have been born on American soil after their mother invaded our borders and ignored our immigration “rules” [naturalized individually by proceedings in a court of record] would not be considered to be citizens.

It should also be pointed out the Court in Wong Kim was very cognizant that

The real object of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution, in qualifying the words 'all persons born in the United States' by the addition 'and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the national government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases,- children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation, and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign state,- both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law, from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country. (my emphasis) And so, the assertion that children of illegal aliens born on American soil are citizens of the united States by virtue of the 14th Amendment is nothing more than a myth, unsupported by the SCOTUS in United States v. Wong Kim Ark.


Why are they, the creators of such a myth, so eager to defend those who have invaded our borders, have ignored our laws and are infecting our population with contagious diseases such as TB which would have been detected had they followed our laws?

Regards,

JWK

[Brainpole]

^
It doesn't matter what johnwk says about the status of aliens born on US soil.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark is the legal precedent that determines the status of the children of aliens born in the US. Any other opinions are just that, opinions, until a challenge gets to the Supreme Court and the ruling is overturned.

Jonhwk may not like this, but that's the way it is. If an alien is deported and there is no recourse but to take his children with him, we will be deporting US citizens.

Sowell is an intelligent man. He must understand this dilemma, so he left it out of his argument.

[avaincmolla]

^
It doesn't matter what johnwk says about the status of aliens born on US soil.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark is the legal precedent that determines the status of the children of aliens born in the US.

And what does the Court state? Eh?

[StanWatts]

And what does the Court state? Eh?

This

[erelvenewmeva]

http://michaelmedved.townhall.com/bl...c-79722f1ef05d

Friday, May 25, 2007

Which Poll is Right on Immigration?

Posted by: Michael Medved at 10:29 PM

Two recent headlines gave starkly divergent summaries of the state of public opinion on comprehensive immigration reform.

The New York Times (May 25th) reported: “IMMIGRATION BILL PROVISIONS GAIN WIDE SUPPORT IN POLL.”

Meanwhile, two days earlier Rasmussen Reports summarized its own poll with the headline: “JUST 26% FAVOR SENATE IMMIGRATION PLAN.”

The substance of the reporting seemed similarly contradictory. Describing a CBS News/NY Times survey of 1,125 adults (conducted May 18-23), the Times declared: “Taking a pragmatic view on a divisive issue, a large majority of Americans want to change the immigration laws to allow illegal immigrants to gain legal status and to create a new guest worker program to meet future labor demands, the poll found.”

On the other hand, the Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey conducted at virtually the same time period (May 21-22) discovered that “initial public reaction to the immigration proposal being debated in the Senate is decidedly negative…. Just 26% of American voters favor passage of the legislation. Forty-eight percent are opposed while 26% are not sure.”

The New York Times/CBS poll reported, however, that “point by point, large majorities expressed support for measures in the legislation that has been under debate since Monday in the Senate.” For instance, on the crucial question, “Should illegal immigrants get a renewable visa if they pay a fine, have a clean record and pass a background check?” more than two thirds (67% agreed), while only 27% registered opposition. Even among self described Republicans, 66% supported the concept of “earned legalization.”

How could two polls, both from reputable public opinion operations, produce such dramatically different results? Did either CBS News/NY Times or Rasmussen deliberately distort their results to produce the outcomes they desired?

That explanation appears highly unlikely, given the inevitable and devastating damage to any polling organization caught in such manipulation. Pollsters (like everyone else) maintain their own biases, but if they allow their ideology to color their work they quickly lose credibility.

In truth, it’s perfectly plausible that both polls gave an accurate indication of public response to the questions they asked. The crucial point here is that the questions posed to the public were every bit as different as the results they produced.

The New York Times poll asked for public opinion on specific points of policy. It approached respondents with questions like “What should happen to illegal immigrants who have been in the US for at least two years?” (62% said “Should be allowed to apply for legal status,” 33% said “should be deported), or “Would you favor or oppose a guest worker program?” (68% favor, only 30% oppose).

The Rasmussen Reports survey, on the other hand, asked about the Senate bill in the abstract, without spelling out its provisions. “In our question measuring support for the Senate bill,” they explained, “Rasmussen Reports did not describe the details of the proposed legislation. We asked survey respondents how closely they have followed news stories about ‘an immigration reform agreement reached by the Bush Administration and a bi-partisan group of Senators.”

In other words, the Rasmussen respondents registered their dislike of the very idea of the Senate bill without any understanding whatever of the specifics of the proposed reforms. For instance, the same group that showed overwhelming opposition to the “immigration reform agreement” showed even more overwhelming support for its most controversial provisions.

Asked, “Would you support an immigration compromise including a very long path to citizenship, provided that the proposal required the aliens to pay fines and learn English, and that the compromise would truly reduce the number of illegal aliens entering the country?” an amazing 65% of the Rasmussen survey said yes.

Each of the details mentioned in that question counts as part of the current Senate proposal, where the earliest an illegal alien could qualify for citizenship would be thirteen years after the bill’s passage, and they would have to pay at least $6,500 in fines and show English proficiency before qualifying even for a green card, let alone citizenship. Moreover, none of the changes in status for today’s undocumented aliens would be possible without the bill’s “triggering” mechanism, with certification that the number of entering illegals had, indeed, already been reduced (a process involving building at least half of the border fence, deploying many more border patrol agents, establishing a new system of workplace enforcement and reliable ID, and more – a process estimated to take at least eighteen months from the bill’s enactment).

In other words, the Rasmussen results actually re-enforce, rather than contradict, the New York Times survey. Like the New York Times/CBS respondents, the Rasmussen survey indicates massive support for a path to earned legalization with strict and demanding conditions.

When people know nothing about immigration reform beyond the hysterical (and increasingly dishonest) denunciations of “amnesty” on talk radio and on Lou Dobbs, they naturally dislike it. If they take the time to consider the actual components of the proposed legislation, however, they support those provisions by overwhelming margins of more than two-to-one.

This means that the challenge to those of us who seriously desire immigration reform involves cutting through the ranting and the lies and the noisy sloganeering and trying to explain, as substantively and honestly as possible, what comprehensive reform actually involves.

In the process, it’s inevitable that hysterics and demagogues will denounce anyone who urges meaningful change as a traitor or sell-out or dupe--- a denunciation that never comes with an explanation of why the opponents of reform want so desperately to preserve the status quo of the current broken system, with all its obscene costs, hypocrisy, and security threats to our country.

Providing honest information and argument respects the judgment and patriotism of the American people. Befouling the public discourse with pronouncements of doom and conspiracy theories, instinctive negativity and simplistic slogans, insults the intelligence of the populace and threatens the nation’s future.