Texas denies birth certificate

[StLucieBengal]

http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2015/08/27/mexico-warns-texas-not-to-refuse-its-babies-usbirth-certificates/#

I love that they are denying them.   This is a perfect solution for all these lawbreakers. And birthing tourists.  

Have no problem implementing this nationwide until we get this under control.

And Mexico needs to just be quiet.

[BmorePat87]

Constitution be damned.

[StLucieBengal]

Was never meant to handle birthing tourism.

It's a legitimate problem. We are letting the wrong people in .... The unqualified, unskilled ....

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(08-29-2015, 10:46 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Was never meant to handle birthing tourism.  

It's a legitimate problem.   We are letting the wrong people in .... The unqualified, unskilled ....

What qualifications and skills do you have?

[BmorePat87]

(08-29-2015, 10:46 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Was never meant to handle birthing tourism.  

It's a legitimate problem.   We are letting the wrong people in .... The unqualified, unskilled ....

This isn't an issue of birthing tourism, that describes a whole separate thing. Until we have a 28th amendment changing this, Texas is violating the Constitution. 

[BmorePat87]

(08-29-2015, 10:55 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: What qualifications and skills do you have?

He can fish and mow the grass...

[Donnyho]

(08-29-2015, 10:42 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Constitution be damned.

(08-29-2015, 10:46 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Was never meant to handle birthing tourism.  

but the 2nd Amendment was tots meant to handle machine guns.....right?

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(08-29-2015, 10:46 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Was never meant to handle birthing tourism.  

It's a legitimate problem.   We are letting the wrong people in .... The unqualified, unskilled ....

20 bucks says you wouldn't last a full shift in the kitchen on a Friday or Saturday night where I work.

[*Nately120*]

(08-29-2015, 10:46 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: We are letting the wrong people in .... The unqualified, unskilled ....

Do you want dirt-cheap labor, or not?

Also, if you really want to see how "skilled and qualified" you are, apply for a work permit in Canada. I tried this a few years and despite having a masters degree and a goodly amount of experience they said "You aren't fluent in French, minus 10 points...don't call us, we'll call you." Ouch.

[jakefromstatefarm]

(08-29-2015, 10:42 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Constitution be damned.

Funny how the constitution goes from a living, breathing document that can and should be altered because times are different to a set in stone, concrete, can never be altered or modified document depending on what the discussion is about. 

[GMDino]

(08-29-2015, 04:57 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: Funny how the constitution goes from a living, breathing document that can and should be altered because times are different to a set in stone, concrete, can never be altered or modified document depending on what the discussion is about. 

Actually more than a couple folks on here said if they want to try and pass an amendment to change the 14th then more power to them.

And everything else is up to the courts at this point.

But its Texas...I wish they would just secede already.

[jakefromstatefarm]

(08-29-2015, 05:05 PM)GMDino Wrote: Actually more than a couple folks on here said if they want to try and pass an amendment to change the 14th then more power to them.

And everything else is up to the courts at this point.

But its Texas...I wish they would just secede already.

I've actually read statements from constitutional scholars that believe that the 14th amendment doesn't guarantee citizenship to people that are born here.  I've read the opposite as well. 

Things like this that have a gray area allow for the justices to interpret it however they personally see it, which I'm not a very big fan of.  I'd prefer that all laws and amendments be presented in clear and concise language that takes away the ability for a justice to interject personal viewpoints and biases into their rulings.  

[BmorePat87]

(08-29-2015, 04:57 PM)jakefromstatefarm Wrote: Funny how the constitution goes from a living, breathing document that can and should be altered because times are different to a set in stone, concrete, can never be altered or modified document depending on what the discussion is about. 

Usually we talk of it being a living document in that it grows to start protecting more individuals (like expanding the 14th amendment to protect gay marriage) not being more restrictive as time goes on.

Despite the recent cases of gun violence, I for one do not think the 2nd Amendment should be interpreted to restrict gun rights.

[jakefromstatefarm]

(08-29-2015, 06:28 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Usually we talk of it being a living document in that it grows to start protecting more individuals (like expanding the 14th amendment to protect gay marriage) not being more restrictive as time goes on.

Despite the recent cases of gun violence, I for one do not think the 2nd Amendment should be interpreted to restrict gun rights.

I personally don't see the SSM ruling as an expansion of the 14th amendment, I think it's simply applying the 14th amendment as it was written. 

As for the 2nd amendment, I find it hilarious that people make claims about what they meant.  Find me a single quote from any of the founding fathers that suggests that the government should restrict private gun ownership, and I'll be happy to listen. 

Not calling you specifically or anything.  Just throwing it out there for conversation purposes.

[CKwi88]

(08-29-2015, 06:28 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Usually we talk of it being a living document in that it grows to start protecting more individuals (like expanding the 14th amendment to protect gay marriage) not being more restrictive as time goes on.

Despite the recent cases of gun violence, I for one do not think the 2nd Amendment should be interpreted to restrict gun rights.

It's both the beauty and horror of our constitution. The language is so vague that the document as a whole is undoubtedly open to all sorts of interpretations, and it's difficult to say which interpretations are the "correct" ones. 

Either the founding fathers wanted it to be a living document (my view, as few issues are simply black and white, no matter how people wish they were,) or they were just like "ahhh, **** it, this will ruffle some feathers over the next couple hundred years..." and are trolling us to this day. 

[Benton]

(08-29-2015, 10:46 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Was never meant to handle birthing tourism.  

It's a legitimate problem.   We are letting the wrong people in .... The unqualified, unskilled ....

You're a citizen because you fell out of uterus in the right zip code.

Same as me.

Same as everyone else currently a natural citizen.

I'm all for immigration reform, but terms like "birthing tourism" are contrived to sway people towards one side or against another. Stop, it's silly and distracts from the actual problem.

[StLucieBengal]

(08-29-2015, 12:04 PM)Donnyho Wrote: but the 2nd Amendment was tots meant to handle machine guns.....right?

Do you know what a machine gun is? Or are you just assuming like all anti gun people.

[StLucieBengal]

(08-29-2015, 02:12 PM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: 20 bucks says you wouldn't last a full shift in the kitchen on a Friday or Saturday night where I work.

I have worked in a kitchen. It's hard work, but I would do just fine . Ita not my career choice but inwould survive just fine

[StLucieBengal]

(08-29-2015, 11:21 PM)Benton Wrote: You're a citizen because you fell out of uterus in the right zip code.

Same as me.

Same as everyone else currently a natural citizen.

I'm all for immigration reform, but terms like "birthing tourism" are contrived to sway people towards one side or against another. Stop, it's silly and distracts from the actual problem.

Generations in this country is way different than Pablo sneaking across the border to have a kid so they can secure benefits.

[StLucieBengal]

(08-29-2015, 10:46 PM)CKwi88 Wrote: It's both the beauty and horror of our constitution. The language is so vague that the document as a whole is undoubtedly open to all sorts of interpretations, and it's difficult to say which interpretations are the "correct" ones. 

Either the founding fathers wanted it to be a living document (my view, as few issues are simply black and white, no matter how people wish they were,) or they were just like "ahhh, **** it, this will ruffle some feathers over the next couple hundred years..." and are trolling us to this day. 

Founding fathers never intended for the government to take care of the people financially.

If you came here you were on your own to make a life. If that was the same as today then I would be ok with the birthing tourism today because they would just starve themselves back to where they came.