Lars Larson pounds on Gordon Smith over hiring of illegal immigrants
Conservative radio talker Lars Larson isn't very happy with Senator Gordon Smith. While he sympathizes with Smith's complaints about Willamette Week being a "liberal tabloid", he wants Smith to directly answer the allegations contained in the story.
Have a listen. It's a gem.
Key items:
- Smith says his company won't use E-Verify because it's not a "biometric" scan -- meaning photo, fingerprint, and "iris scan". Smith then goes further and argues that the federal government ought to have a database that includes photos, fingerprints, and iris scans for every American. (Seriously. Page the ACLU.)
- Smith may have accidentally admitted that he really does run the company. Despite numerous protestations that he's "not allowed to run this company", he says "the instructions I have given to [the professional managers]" are to comply with the law. Oops -- he's not allowed, under federal law, to manage the company.
- Larson challenged Smith to immediately resolve the questions about his hiring practices - by simply running all the SSN's of his employees through the E-Verify program, right now. (Smith dodged the question; changing the subject.)
- Larson noted that if the local police department is able to quickly verify the immigration status of Smith's employees (when they're arrested), then it should be equally easy for Smith Frozen Foods to quickly verify their immigration status. Lars is right. This just isn't that complicated.
|
September 12, 2008 |
Kari Chisholm | Comments (63 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: Eugenian | Sep 12, 2008 3:36:24 AM
"Lars is right."
Did you throw up in your mouth a little bit when you wrote that?
Posted by: Unrepentant Liberal | Sep 12, 2008 5:16:14 AM
This ruins Lar's record of being wrong all the time. It was a good run though.
Posted by: Dan Petegorsky | Sep 12, 2008 8:43:21 AM
You've really lost your bearings here, Kari. When your glee at seeing Smith in the hot seat leads you to lionize Lars Larson and as much as begs for ICE raids or for employers and local police to act as immigration agents, it's time for a gut check.
I'm not saying that we all don't indulge in some political Schadenfreude now and then - but you're playing with people's lives here. As it happens, Smith is actually correct in questioning the accuracy of the E-Verify system. This has been documented widely, from news stories to reports by the National Immigration Law Center.
This reminds me of a lot of what happened in the Larry Craig case. Yeah, it can be gratifying to see one's political opponents humbled. But a lot of the responses to Craig's demise degenerated into outright homophobia, and it’s extremely doubtful that the net result will be a Democratic Senator in his place in any event.
So go ahead and make hay of hypocrisy between Smith's positions on immigration and his company role. But don't do it in such a way that you're aiding and abetting the nativist wing nuts.
Note to you wing nuts: I say nativist here advisedly; just this morning NOR ran a story underscoring that the main national groups who've been claiming that they're only against "illegal" immigration are now doffing their hoods and running spots attacking immigration itself, using arguments they think will appeal to liberals (“Ads Warn That Immigration Must Be Reduced”).
Posted by: LOL | Sep 12, 2008 8:51:12 AM
Smith says his company won't use E-Verify because it's not a "biometric" scan -- meaning photo, fingerprint, and "iris scan". Smith then goes further and argues that the federal government ought to have a database that includes photos, fingerprints, and iris scans for every American. (Seriously. Page the ACLU.)
Seems it wasn't too long ago that when some of us civil libertarians were slamming Kulo and the Democratic leadership including Merkley in the Oregon legislature for not standing up to Real ID (which is where Smith go this), Kari, good Rovian-style operative that he is, was not sympathetic.
Unlike what real Democrats have done in other states, the "compromise" our supposedly Democratic leadership reached with our supposedly Democratic governor with the silent acquiescence of the DPO and support of the Republicans, was hardly a defense of privacy and civil rights: New Real ID Regulations: It's Still a Real Nightmare. They required everyone to produce all but the "iris scan" for now to renew their drivers licenses and that info goes into a database available to the feds.
I wonder if the silent readership out there has realized that much of what they see argued in Blue Oregon consistently, or the kind of politicians they support, aren't really what real Democrats are about, even though Kari the rest claim to be Dmeocrats? As one bit of evidence, here's the ACLU scorecard for the 2007-2008 session starters, note Merkley only scored 60%, Kate Brown 55%, Shrader 50%, and Westlund 40%, just to name four self-serving politicians who don't really care what it means to be a Democrat if that gets in the way of their own political ambitions.
In fact, if you look at the HB-2827 column, the Real-ID act, you'll see Merkley voted YES for the Real ID act which passed in the House under his leadership and then died in committee. Merkley, Shrader and Westlund voted YES for SB-1080, which was the compromise that in effect required the information I cited to be provided to the state and the feds. Brown voted for SB-424, which "legalized discrimination against medical marijuana cardholders in employment", and SB-34, which created "a state Pharmacy Database on lawful prescription drugs", along with other attacks on our civil liberties.
Posted by: Tom Civiletti | Sep 12, 2008 9:06:45 AM
One need not agree with Larson's opinion on how to deal with illegal immigration in order to applaud his calling out of Gordon Smith for allegedly hiring many undocumented workers.
I'll withhold further comment until Jack Roberts attempts to exonerate Smith by blaming the economy.
Posted by: Bill | Sep 12, 2008 9:19:15 AM
I am far right Republican. Smith has abandoned our party. In Beaverton, Hispanic gangs are tagging nice houses, crime is way up, saw women robbed at knifepoint at NewSeasons Market on a Saturday at 9AM outside store, luckily two guys tackled the kids.
We hear gunshots at night, car across the street broken into, and our house Tagged.
Most of this linked to Mexican mafia, per police, per the tag of X3 gang.
We need SMITH OUT OF OFFICE NOW. I have had it.
Posted by: Kevin | Sep 12, 2008 9:21:38 AM
Smith then goes further and argues that the federal government ought to have a database that includes photos, fingerprints, and iris scans for every American.
Yes, there is the civil liberties angle. But just think about the cost and the bureacracy that Smith is advocating.
So much for the "smaller government" meme...
Of course, this is consistent with his GOPer-in-Dem-clothing tactic...
Posted by: genop | Sep 12, 2008 9:25:45 AM
This issue will not bring down Smith, except losing Lars and all the anti-immigration extremists. I wish the Country would wake up and realise the solution to the problem lies with the employer. All employers should be given immunity provided they report accurately all employees who cannot establish their citizenship. INS/ICE should issue temporary (5yr) work visas for all those employees allowing them to remain as long as they are employed. During that time, they would be required to apply for and attain permanent status. This would greatly reduce the number of undocumented immigrants. It would also limit the impact on industry by not displacing an often large portion of work force.
Posted by: LOL | Sep 12, 2008 9:26:37 AM
One need not agree with Larson's opinion on how to deal with illegal immigration in order to applaud his calling out of Gordon Smith for allegedly hiring many undocumented workers.
That depends, Tom, on whether you actually silently agree with the kind of people who make "undocumented" immigration an issue at all and things like Real ID, which in fact was just another tactic by a certain segment of Democrats like those cited and Republicans to make "undocumented" immigration a political issue.
Posted by: ColumbiaDuck | Sep 12, 2008 9:33:47 AM
"Smith then goes further and argues that the federal government ought to have a database that includes photos, fingerprints, and iris scans for every American."
Yes, there is the civil liberties angle. But just think about the cost and the bureacracy that Smith is advocating.
Not to mention that such a system couldn't possibly be implemented for years and years, and would be riddled with errors for years after that. Great stalling tactic by Smith. Until there is a perfect system, he does .... nothing at all.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Sep 12, 2008 9:37:05 AM
You've really lost your bearings here, Kari. When your glee at seeing Smith in the hot seat leads you to lionize Lars Larson and as much as begs for ICE raids or for employers and local police to act as immigration agents, it's time for a gut check.
No, I really haven't. First, I'm hardly lionizing Lars Larson. Second, I'm not begging for ICE raids. I'm begging for Gordon Smith to come clean; to do the bare minimum (much less the "extra mile".)
Here's the point: I think it's perfectly reasonable for people of good will to have disagreements about policy - maybe the law is too strict, maybe the law is too lenient. That's an interesting conversation to have (and one we've had here at BlueOregon many times.)
But the law is the law. When a U.S. Senator's company is so blithely flouting it, well, that's going to be an issue in a re-election campaign.
I think it's a perfectly reasonable position to argue that the law is flawed -- but that doesn't mean that it's OK to break it.
Posted by: negev79 | Sep 12, 2008 9:44:57 AM
Smith is the one who went on the radio and said no, no, my company doesn't hire undocumented workers. Turns out they probably did. What's next - he's going to say "ok, we did, but I didn't know about it"? And is anyone really going to say that the only way Smith could have known about the status of his workers was by using everify? Is there no other way? I don't like everify, but that doesn't mean I'll let Smith off the hook for this.
Posted by: Tom Civiletti | Sep 12, 2008 9:49:14 AM
I concur with Kari, particularly his use of "flouting" to describe Smith's actions.
Posted by: mp97303 | Sep 12, 2008 12:35:42 PM
This issue will not bring down Smith, except losing Lars and all the anti-immigration extremists.
Hey, I thought I banned the words "anti-immigration" when talking about this topic. 2 minutes in the penalty box for you.
Seriously now, E-verify may not be perfect, but I used it for 18 months without a single problem. I ran close to 100 employees through it and got immediate verification to work on all of them. Curiously though, once I started using the system and made that fact known to potential applicants, the number of people who chose NOT to take an application went up dramatically.
By the way, I thought you Libs would be cheering Smith for hiring illegals. Isn't he just helping them get a better life?
Posted by: ryan | Sep 12, 2008 1:05:41 PM
No, mp97303, most of us "Libs" prefer a living wage. In fact, it's the "free-market" conservatives who have the most to gain from illegal employment. Most liberals I know are both concerned about illegal employment, and don't particularly blame immigrants for trying. That's not the same as being in favor of hiring them. It's the people who hire them to save a few bucks who are the problem. Without work, it's harder to stay here. Thanks for doing your part.
Posted by: Buzzm1 | Sep 12, 2008 1:15:25 PM
Senator Smith's entire office staff
John_Easton@Smith.senate.gov; Rob_Epplin@Smith.senate.gov; Catherine_Finley@Smith.senate.gov; Kara_Getz@Smith.senate.gov; Lindsay_Gilbride@Smith.senate.gov; Matt_Hill@Smith.senate.gov; Sue_Keenom@Smith.senate.gov; Esther_Kennedy@GSmith.Senate.Gov; Dan_Knezevic@Smith.senate.gov; Chris_Ornelas@Smith.senate.gov; Andrew_Peek@Smith.senate.gov; Lori_Prater@Smith.senate.gov; Jeffrey_Renner@GSmith.Senate.Gov; Gary_Schmidt@GSmith.Senate.Gov; Beth_Stewart@gSmith.senate.gov; Jacob_Triolo@GSmith.Senate.Gov; Kerry_Tymchuk@GSmith.Senate.Gov; Jason_Vaillancourt@GSmith.Senate.Gov; Valerie_West@Smith.senate.gov
Tell Senator Smith to accept the E-Verify Challemge
Posted by: Buzzm1 | Sep 12, 2008 1:23:28 PM
Debunking the “E-Verify Error Rate”
http://www.dhs.gov/journal/leadership/2008/05/debunking-e-verify-error-rate.html
Debunking the “E-Verify Capacity Problem”
http://www.dhs.gov/journal/leadership/2008/05/debunking-e-verify-capacity-problem.html
Debunking Three More E-Verify Myths
http://www.dhs.gov/journal/leadership/labels/E-Verify.html
Posted by: Buzzm1 | Sep 12, 2008 1:28:42 PM
By The Numbers
85,000 employers enrolled in e-Verify
6.03 million employees checked using e-Verify
DHS Touts Workforce Verification
by Mickey McCarter
Wednesday, 10 September 2008
ICE, USCIS showcase voluntary employee checks
The US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has been improving its employment verification application, which already instantly clears most employees checked against it, by focusing on specific populations who have been experiencing problems with mismatched names and social security numbers in the system, DHS officials said in a press conference Tuesday.
For example, audits of the E-Verify system demonstrate improved rates after DHS addressed problems verifying naturalized US citizens, reported Gerri Ratliff, a deputy associate director at US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).
According to an analysis by research firm Westat, automatic verification of an individual's work authorization status occurs 94.2 percent of the time with E-Verify. Of the remainder, 0.5 percent of those with an initial mismatch resolve it successfully, leaving 5.3 percent as unauthorized workers.
"By the way, 90 percent of mismatches are folks who choose not to contest their mismatch. So really, the system works," Ratliff declared.
http://hstoday.us/content/view/5102/128/
Posted by: Kurt Chapman | Sep 12, 2008 1:35:54 PM
Hmmm - an error rate of 5.8%. So what you're saying is almost 350,000 checks come back with wrong information from a population checked of a litle over 6MM.
Not acceptable.
Posted by: mp97303 | Sep 12, 2008 1:48:27 PM
Kurt
So that I can respond to your comment, where did you get the 5.8% error rate number from?
Thanks
Posted by: Tom Civiletti | Sep 12, 2008 1:55:06 PM
Kurt Chapman,
No, there is not a 5.8% error rate.
0.5% of workers who are documented are not confirmed by the system. But they can work while updating their records to receive confirmation.
5% of workers are not documented and not confirmed. These are good results.
So, at most, the error is 1/2%, and that is not fatal error. there is recourse to those not verified.
Look here:
Under E-Verify, almost everyone who is authorized to work in the United States is immediately verified by the system. Only about 0.5 percent of those queried who are ultimately confirmed as legal workers receive what is called a "tentative non-confirmation" and need to correct their records.
An employee who receives a tentative non-confirmation has a right to contest it and update his or her information while he or she continues working. E-Verify does not require these workers to be immediately fired.
Of course, many non-confirmations relate to employees who are not legally authorized to work in our country – estimated to be around 5 percent of all workers sent through the system. But those who employ illegal workers have no grounds to complain when the system uncovers that illegality.
Posted by: Jeff Alworth | Sep 12, 2008 2:08:39 PM
It's worth noting that Smith chose to do this interview with Lars--not Jeff Mapes or OPB or KGW. Why? Probably because he expected gentler treatment. Don't doubt that we'd run an interview with the real press if one was available. One of the ways Smith has managed his reputation is to hide out, literally and figuratively.
Posted by: Dan Petegorsky | Sep 12, 2008 2:12:51 PM
Wow. 85,000 employers are enrolled -- out of some, what, 6 million companies that make up our economy? That's less than 2%.
Piecemeal enforcement is not a solution to the immigration and employment crisis; as Doris Meissner put it, "If you want law enforcement, you have to have laws that are enforceable."
Posted by: Tom Civiletti | Sep 12, 2008 2:23:16 PM
"If you want law enforcement, you have to have laws that are enforceable."
Ah, but lobbyists for moneyed interests hold sway in D.C., and moneyed interests want unenforceable laws. So, that's what we get.
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Sep 12, 2008 2:26:25 PM
Wow. 85,000 employers are enrolled -- out of some, what, 6 million companies that make up our economy? That's less than 2%.
I've heard this over and over -- including from Smith, who says 1% of employers use it.
The only employers that should be enrolled in that system are ones that are at risk for hiring illegal immigrants.
My company, for example, hires rarely and hires college graduates when we do. It wouldn't make sense to get enrolled in the system, get trained on it, etc. We're not at risk. (Though we'd be in just as much trouble if we failed.)
The point is that Gordon Smith says that they "go the extra mile" and "do everything we can"... but they don't.
Posted by: ryan | Sep 12, 2008 2:55:47 PM
Sorry, Dan. As long as business owns Washington, the average American will be unrepresented.
And, as Kari points out, do you want to raise taxes to pay for processing all those other businesses? Why not a targeted approach that balances cost and effectiveness?
Posted by: mp97303 | Sep 12, 2008 4:25:23 PM
Wow. 85,000 employers are enrolled -- out of some, what, 6 million companies that make up our economy? That's less than 2%.
18,500+ of those are Arizona companies, the first state to made it mandatory to use the system for new hires. But understand this, a business in NOT REQUIRED to enroll in the system. They only have to if they are going to hire a new employee. To suggest that only 2% of business are enrolled is not a valid criticism of the system.
Posted by: Dan Petegorsky | Sep 12, 2008 4:28:01 PM
Jeez, Ryan - if you stuck to that refrain then we could all just pack it in and given up on any meaningful change.
The larger point is that enforcement without reform is a complete dead end. A comprehensive approach is still the way to go, as reiterated recently by America's Voice.
One the state level, I'd refer again to the just released report by Progressive States Network, The Anti-Immigrant Movement That Failed.
Posted by: mp97303 | Sep 12, 2008 4:30:47 PM
Kari said: My company, for example, hires rarely and hires college graduates when we do. It wouldn't make sense to get enrolled in the system, get trained on it, etc. We're not at risk. (Though we'd be in just as much trouble if we failed.)
I think you are make a huge assumption that a college graduate is a legal resident. In Arizona, there are plenty of college student who were brought across the border illegally and don't have legal status today.
As far as enrolling/training on the e-verify system, it took me about 10 minutes to register and about 20-25 minutes to do the online tutorial. Trust me, if you can run this site, you can do e-verify.
Posted by: Buzzm1 | Sep 12, 2008 6:41:06 PM
THERE WILL BE NO AMNESTY!!!
OUR ACCEPTABLE IMMIGRATION REFORM
#1. Secure the Border!!!
#2. Mandate E-Verify for ALL Employees!!!
#3. Mandate E-Verify for ANY Benefit!!!
#4. Stop the Underground Economy!!!
#5. End Birthright Citizenship for Illegals!!!
......and make it retroactive!!!
#6. End Chain Migration!!!
#7. Make English our Official Language!!!
#8. Cut Off Federal Funds to Sanctuary Cities!!
NOTHING MORE!!! NOTHING LESS!!!
Posted by: Buzzm1 | Sep 12, 2008 6:46:48 PM
Southwest Border Patrol Sector Apprehensions
Fiscal Year-------------2005---------2006---------2007-------2008 (ends 9/30)
San Diego------------126,879-----142,104---- 152,460--- 149,418
El Centro--------------55,725-------61,465----- 55,883----- 38,012
Yuma-----------------138,492-----118,549----- 37,992------ 7,966 *
Tucson --------------439,053-----392,074---- 378,239--- 299,635
El Paso---------------122,624-----122,256----- 75,464----- 28,716
Marfa ------------------10,532--------7,520------- 5,536------ 5,113
Del Rio -----------------68,547------42,636----- 22,920----- 19,612
Laredo -----------------75,268------74,840----- 56,714------41,160
Rio Grande Valley --134,136----110,528------ 73,430----- 70,656
Apprehensions----1,189,108--1,071,972-----858,638----660,288(08/31)
END THE JOB MAGNET!!!
MANDATE E-VERIFY!!!
Posted by: Buzzm1 | Sep 12, 2008 6:56:01 PM
--------SOUTHWEST BORDER PATROL APPREHENSIONS--------
---2000-----2001-----2002----2003-----2004------2005------2006-----2007----2008
1,643,679-1,235,718-929,809-905,065-1,139,282-1,189,108-1,071,972-858,638-660,288
Over 11 million illegals apprehended, at our Southwest Border, in just the last ten years.
and to think that, less than 1, out of 4, are apprehended.
It makes one wonder, just how many illegals are really in our United States????????
Posted by: marv | Sep 12, 2008 8:18:19 PM
If Utility Companies like PGE collect as part of their rate structure amounts for State taxes and then distribute
these funds to stock holders why should anyone assume that
employers with undocumented workers are in compliance. If
memory serves me the Oregon legislature passed a bill and
it became law that requires utilities to submit taxes if
they are collected. How is that working out?
A thorough audit of Smith's company may be needed to make
the discovery of how many workers are having taxes with-
held and how fully compliant the company is with the law.
Posted by: Dan Petegorsky | Sep 12, 2008 8:21:38 PM
Kari - you might need to get out the pooper scooper on this thread....
Posted by: ryan | Sep 12, 2008 8:23:02 PM
Agreed, Dan, but I guess what I'm saying is that we need people in power who'll actually do something. The current system is not likely to reform unless we can get the right people in.
Posted by: Rulial | Sep 13, 2008 3:26:30 PM
Buzzam writes:
#5. End Birthright Citizenship for Illegals!!!Why would you want to punish people who have lived here their entire life--and possibly make them stateless--just because their parents broke the law?
......and make it retroactive!!!
Posted by: mp97303 | Sep 13, 2008 3:42:08 PM
I have to agree with that banning birthright citizenship retroactively is going too far. That being said, what is your position on ending birthright citizenship. You know, only the US, Canada and Mexico grant it (of the largest countries). All others require at least one parent to be a citizen.
Your thought would be greatly appreciated. Thanx
Posted by: Dave Lister | Sep 13, 2008 9:21:13 PM
The real answer to illegal immigration is to fix Mexico. Wasn't free trade supposed to create all kinds of good jobs there? Most of these folks would rather be at home but there are simply no economic opportunities for them.
Posted by: Rulial | Sep 14, 2008 12:08:20 AM
My position is that the status quo policy on birthright citizenship should be maintained. Someone who has lived their entire life in the U.S. should not face the prospect of having to move somewhere else, where they might not speak the language, be accustomed to the culture, or even be a legal citizen. On that last point, it is heartless to place people in the position of possibly being stateless. I don't care if we are one of the few nations that has a reasonable and humane policy.
As far as I'm concerned, if you were born it the U.S., you are as American as anyone else, no matter who your parents are. That's been a principle of our society for over a century.
Posted by: Buzzm1 | Sep 14, 2008 11:57:07 AM
Birthright citizenship - we need to remove the magnet that draws pregnant foreigners to cross our border illegally to birth an anchor baby on our soil. Stop conveying citizenship for such births. Just recently an illegal, in labor, was carried by Mexican border guards, so she could give birth on our side. Enough already.
#5. End Birthright Citizenship for Illegals!!!
......and make it retroactive!!!
Posted by: mp97303 | Sep 14, 2008 12:54:34 PM
As far as I'm concerned, if you were born it the U.S., you are as American as anyone else, no matter who your parents are. That's been a principle of our society for over a century.
There are many scholarly type who would debate that point. I just don't see why someone who sneaks across the border to deliver their baby should be rewarded. In Yuma(AZ), Wal-mart babies are a common occurrence. That's just plain wrong.
Posted by: genop | Sep 14, 2008 3:16:38 PM
If you were born here, you are legally a US citizen. That is the law. We cannot seem to follow the law as it stands due to the numbers of undocumented immigrants. Now the anti-immigrant crowd advocates revoking legitimate citizenship. Great solution. Try the employer immunity suggestion and document all those immigrants who help fuel business, and focus enforcement on the unproductive undocumented immigrants who should be deported.
Posted by: Chuck Butcher | Sep 14, 2008 4:37:47 PM
The basic problem is that we reward illegal behavior in this issue. Employers are damn near assured they won't be checked and if so won't face serious consequences, meanwhile they reap the rewards. Labor intensive agriculture finds between 10-15% of the cost of the product is labor, shelf price. But there is always the excuse - if I don't I can't get workers or I can't compete.
Leveling the playing field between legal activity and illegal is the solution and it involves real serious and real likely consequences for illegal activity. It also isn't rocket science, though the profiteers would have you believe so.
In closing, I have no idea why Flack Roberts is accorded respect here when he engages in that behavior. I'd argue ideology all day and be good humored about it, but shilling and flackery drives me to intolerance. This is not about opinion, this is about the mangling of facts.
Posted by: Dan Petegorsky | Sep 14, 2008 5:02:55 PM
I have no idea why Flack Roberts is accorded respect here
Look - Jack Roberts is entitled to his support of Gordon Smith, and obviously knows this is hostile territory on that front. But it's no less true that the actual positions he's advocating on immigration are far more progressive than most of what's been posted here - and I at least find it beyond belief that the hatemongers talking about dropping birthright citizenship from the Constitution and "anchor babies" are getting a hearing.
It simply won't be possible to fashion a constructive solution on immigration without folks like Jack Roberts - and while you might disrespect his role vis-a-vis the Senate campaign, at least recognize an ally on this issue when you seen one, ok?
Posted by: LT | Sep 14, 2008 7:38:37 PM
As I recall, Roberts was once Labor Comm. If so, shouldn't he be taken seriously here?
Or do you folks think problems are only solved when one party alone discusses an issue?
8 weeks from now, the election will be over, and this problem will still exist.
Dan P. is right
"It simply won't be possible to fashion a constructive solution on immigration without folks like Jack Roberts - and while you might disrespect his role vis-a-vis the Senate campaign, at least recognize an ally on this issue when you seen one, ok?"
Posted by: mp97303 | Sep 14, 2008 9:34:45 PM
and I at least find it beyond belief that the hatemongers talking about dropping birthright citizenship from the Constitution
Now there is the right way to engage in intelligent debate about a very difficult topic. Name calling. And to think y'all had changed........
Posted by: mp97303 | Sep 14, 2008 9:38:34 PM
In the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), the Supreme Court ruled that a person who
* is born in the United States
* of parents who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of a foreign power
* whose parents have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States
* whose parents are there carrying on business and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity of the foreign power to which they are subject
becomes, at the time of his birth, a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the 14th amendment of the Constitution. Children born to foreign diplomats or, hypothetically, to hostile enemy forces or born on U.S. territory while it is under the control of a foreign power, are not considered subject to U.S. jurisdiction and therefore are not citizens at birth. The distinction between "legal" and "illegal" immigrants was not clear at the time of the decision of Wong Kim Ark.[8]
The Supreme Court has never explicitly ruled on whether children born in the United States to illegal immigrant parents are entitled to birthright citizenship via the 14th Amendment,[9] although it has generally been assumed that they are
Note: The presence of any individual above does not imply an endorsement by BlueOregon. The selection of faces shown is done by Facebook. Visit BlueOregon on Facebook.
Post a comment
Posted by: Kari Chisholm | Sep 12, 2008 2:02:04 AM
Full disclosure: My firm built Jeff Merkley's website, but I speak only for myself.