Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Linda Chavez: Immigration restrictionists are stuck on the 14th Amendment
Washington Examiner ^ | 01/07/11 | Linda Chavez

Posted on 01/07/2011 10:19:59 AM PST by moonshinner_09

Americans abhor extremism. It is the reason our democracy has lasted for more than 200 years and why we have rejected both socialism and right-wing radicalism. American political parties have generally hewed to the center, unlike their European counterparts, so that even major political shifts moved the country only from center right (as in the Reagan and Bush administrations) to center left (as in the current administration). It is a lesson that both parties should take to heart, but one that poses special problems for the Republicans as one group of extremists attempts to hijack the GOP on a single issue: illegal immigration.

On the same day as newly elected members of Congress were being sworn to support and defend the Constitution, a group of Republican state legislators were announcing plans to violate both the spirit and the letter of the 14th Amendment. In the name of fighting illegal immigration, some GOP state legislators have announced they will introduce bills in a dozen or more states to deny citizenship to children born in the United States to parents who are not citizens or legal residents.

In doing so, they make a mockery of the rule of law, which they claim to defend.

In the aftermath of the Civil War, Congress passed the 14th Amendment to grant citizenship to freed slaves, and in doing so established, once and for all, the concept of birthright American citizenship.

The language is unambiguous: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

The legislators who want to restrict citizenship to those children born to citizens or legal permanent resident aliens point to the "subject to the jurisdiction" phrase as exempting illegal immigrants.

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...


TOPICS: Government; Politics
KEYWORDS: 14thamendment; aliens; citizenship; immigration
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-57 next last
How can legislators who claim to hold dear the Constitution so flagrantly disregard the rule of law?

How can Congressmen like Luis V. Gutierrez who claim to hold dear the Constitution so flagrantly disregard the rule of law?

1 posted on 01/07/2011 10:20:04 AM PST by moonshinner_09
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: moonshinner_09

Obama is a liberal progressive commie Marxist who’s ideology is black liberation theology.. How the Hell is that center-left?


2 posted on 01/07/2011 10:26:26 AM PST by divine_moment_of_facts (Give me Liberty.. or I'll get up and get it for myself!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: moonshinner_09
subject to the jurisdiction thereof

That's the little clause that totally destroys Chavez's argument. If your parents are foreign nationals, and ESPECIALLY if your parents are foreign nationals who are here illegally, then neither they nor you are "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." That only happens by being born to parents who are US citizens, either by being native born, or by naturalisation.

3 posted on 01/07/2011 10:26:52 AM PST by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus (When evolution is outlawed, only outlaws will believe in abject nonsense.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: moonshinner_09

I’m disappointed that Linda Chavez turned out to be just another ethnic tribalist.


4 posted on 01/07/2011 10:29:01 AM PST by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
If you can establish that Linda's parents weren't citizens and not here legally, then Linda's own citizenship is in question.

No doubt this effort should be putting some fear into the guts of the 30 million anchor babies ~

5 posted on 01/07/2011 10:30:36 AM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: moonshinner_09
Chavez masquerades as a "conservative", but is nothing more than a Mexican supremacist bigot.

She wants to import a vast underclass of Mestizo slaves who will worship her the way her Spaniard overclass forces them to do in Mexico. With their voting power she and her corrupt compadres will create a new caudillo ruling power in America, and seize control of the vast wealth created by the white Anglo Saxon Protestants, a people that the robber thug societies created by the Spanish could never compete with...until now, when the weakling offspring of the real Americans let the rubric of "civil rights" cow them into surrendering to the dark criminal forces of Latin America.

Chavez is just a cheap hustler, a Spanish ReConquistador, looking to avenge the humiliating "loss" of North America to the detestable gringos.

6 posted on 01/07/2011 10:31:22 AM PST by Regulator (Watch Out! Americans are on the March! America Forever, Mexico Never!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: divine_moment_of_facts

I endorse this post 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000%!

LLS


7 posted on 01/07/2011 10:31:51 AM PST by LibLieSlayer (WOLVERINES!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: moonshinner_09

Linda Chavez is one of those pretend conservatives or something?

BTW, what does she mean when she says the country rejected “right-wing radicalism”?? When did this country ever have that?


8 posted on 01/07/2011 10:33:42 AM PST by GeronL (How DARE you have an opinion!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Regulator
Chavez is just a cheap hustler, a Spanish ReConquistador, looking to avenge the humiliating "loss" of North America to the detestable gringos.

I totally agree with your accurate analysis of this unwise Latina.

9 posted on 01/07/2011 10:34:41 AM PST by re_nortex (DP...that's what I like about Texas...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: moonshinner_09
I am not sure if she still is or not, but at one time Linda Chavez was on the board of directors of ABM Industries, inc, one of the country's largest contract janitorial firms so she has personally profited from cheap, illegal labor.

Like most RINOs, Chavez is soft on social issues: immigration and abortion.

10 posted on 01/07/2011 10:41:17 AM PST by bwc2221
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: moonshinner_09
Americans abhor extremism

What we abhor are liars, ethnic POS pretending to be something else, promoters of the destruction of our culture & Marxism. So Chavez if by 'extremism' you mean that then yes we abhor extremism.

11 posted on 01/07/2011 10:41:52 AM PST by Altura Ct.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: skeeter

I think her analysis on the 14th amendment will prevail although I do not think there is a precedent case involving anchor babies. Unfortunately, I think that we are stuck with birthright citizenship although I concur with states that will enact laws that will cause a legal challenge.

Her rants about FAIR and opponents of amnesty and enforcement of immigration laws are smear tactics. There are many legitimate reasons to oppose amnesty and favor enforcement of immigration laws.


12 posted on 01/07/2011 10:42:01 AM PST by businessprofessor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: moonshinner_09
Americans abhor extremism.

Bullcrap. America was founded by extremists. There's no need to read a single word after this sentence.

13 posted on 01/07/2011 10:44:30 AM PST by Lurker (The avalanche has begun. The pebbles no longer have a vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: businessprofessor
I hope you are wrong - we will never solve the problem of illegal immigration without first removing the incentives.

As long as there is a welfare state we MUST not allow the perversion of the 14th amnd to continue.

14 posted on 01/07/2011 10:45:07 AM PST by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Regulator

You nailed it.


15 posted on 01/07/2011 10:47:24 AM PST by Godebert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: moonshinner_09

Rubbish.


16 posted on 01/07/2011 10:47:53 AM PST by ReneeLynn (Socialism is SO yesterday. Fascism, it*s the new black. Mmm Mmm Mmm.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus
That's the little clause that totally destroys Chavez's argument. If your parents are foreign nationals, and ESPECIALLY if your parents are foreign nationals who are here illegally, then neither they nor you are "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." That only happens by being born to parents who are US citizens, either by being native born, or by naturalisation.

Illegal aliens are subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S.-- that's why we can prosecute them for illegal entry or for crimes they commit here. The phrase was put into the 14th Amendment to exclude children of foreign diplomats, who have diplomatic immunity from U.S. laws.

17 posted on 01/07/2011 10:53:00 AM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian
Illegal aliens are subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S.-- that's why we can prosecute them for illegal entry or for crimes they commit here. The phrase was put into the 14th Amendment to exclude children of foreign diplomats, who have diplomatic immunity from U.S. laws.

Nope, you're misunderstanding the difference in force of "jurisdiction" between the two examples.

18 posted on 01/07/2011 11:08:38 AM PST by Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus (When evolution is outlawed, only outlaws will believe in abject nonsense.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

You believe that do you? Then you have never read the opinion of the people who constructed the clause and placed it into the Fourteenth Amendment.

We can prosecute tourists who commit crimes here. Does that mean they give up their foreign citizenship when they step on US soil? I don’t think so.

I would agree that the intended meaning now has been misconstrued and has become what you believe it is. But the original intent was exact opposite.

A foreign national is under the jurisdiction of their own country. Black slaves had no jurisdiction other than the country they were enslaved in. The Fourteenth Amendment was created for them since they were under no other country’s jurisdiction. No tourist or illegal can say that. Or else those multiple foreign (Mexican) consulates that have opened on our soil issuing their own IDs (metricula consular) would have no ability to operate here. They are allowed to exist because illegals are under the jurisdiction of Mexico. Therefore, the Fourteenth Amendment does not apply to them.


19 posted on 01/07/2011 11:13:33 AM PST by Waryone (RINOs, Elites, and Socialists - on the endangered list, soon to become extinct.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: bwc2221

Why does anyone call this woman a RINO? She is a flat out open borders loving left wing Democrat, and I have been stuck with her as my Concress Critter ever since the last redistricting!


20 posted on 01/07/2011 11:17:32 AM PST by navyblue (<u>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: navyblue

Could there be some confusion here? I did not realize Linda Chavez ran for and won a congressional seat. I knew she ran for the Senate once and lost, but for congress? This is news to me!


21 posted on 01/07/2011 11:22:28 AM PST by Waryone (RINOs, Elites, and Socialists - on the endangered list, soon to become extinct.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: skeeter

She’s been that way for years. I used to like her also, but the illegal maid she had pretty much let us know where she stood.


22 posted on 01/07/2011 11:24:10 AM PST by packrat35 (America is rapidly becoming a police state that East Germany could be proud of!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: skeeter

Yes, it is disappointing. Illegal immigration is okay as long as it’s your particular ethnic group climbing the wall.


23 posted on 01/07/2011 11:27:35 AM PST by SC_Pete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: moonshinner_09
In the name of fighting illegal immigration, some GOP state legislators have announced they will introduce bills in a dozen or more states to deny citizenship to children born in the United States to parents who are not citizens or legal residents.

Their parents are illegal aliens and if the kids are citizens, let them stay, deport the parents.

If the kids are too young to pick fruit or lettuce, turn them into soylent green.

At that age, they be like veal.

24 posted on 01/07/2011 12:20:05 PM PST by USS Alaska (Nuke the terrorist savages, in honor of Standing Wolf.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian
The way it was written indians were not granted US citizenship at birth, even though they were born here.

How does that square with your theory?

25 posted on 01/07/2011 1:10:34 PM PST by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: skeeter
The way it was written indians were not granted US citizenship at birth, even though they were born here. How does that square with your theory?

First, there is nothing about Indians in "the way it was written." The way it was interpreted by SCOTUS was that Indians born on tribal land of tribes that were still politically independent of the U.S. (there were still tribes that hadn't been subjugated in the 1870s) were not citizens, but Indians born not on tribal land were citizens even if both parents were Indians.

26 posted on 01/07/2011 1:53:03 PM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Waryone
You believe that do you? Then you have never read the opinion of the people who constructed the clause and placed it into the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark quoted from those debates, and came to the opposite conclusion than you.

We can prosecute tourists who commit crimes here. Does that mean they give up their foreign citizenship when they step on US soil? I don’t think so.

I never said foreign tourists became U.S. citizens; but, when they are here, they are "subject to the jurisdiction" of the U.S. That's why Wong Kim Ark, although the child of two aliens here temporarily, was held by SCOTUS to be a citizen.

I would agree that the intended meaning now has been misconstrued and has become what you believe it is. But the original intent was exact opposite.

Again, Wong Kim Ark is a lot closer in time to the 14th Amendment, and it interpreted the clause the way I do. But more importantly, what SCOTUS decided is what the law is now.

A foreign national is under the jurisdiction of their own country. Black slaves had no jurisdiction other than the country they were enslaved in. The Fourteenth Amendment was created for them since they were under no other country’s jurisdiction.

The issue of children of aliens was specifically discussed during the debates over the 14th Amendment. The primary focus was on ex-slaves, but the scope of the language adopted was much broader.

27 posted on 01/07/2011 1:59:45 PM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: moonshinner_09
They do what you say precisely because they expect the legalization of these illegals (criminals, in fact) so that they can register to vote and vote Democrat accordingly. This is the ONLY reason.

They do not care that these uneducated, unregulated, diseased and potential anchor/parent insurgents are bankrupting this country. A large majority of them perform work for the greedy amongst us at a seemingly fair price. Seemingly -- odd word....most of us don't connect this to their true cost.

Emergency room visits for major injuries (AND formerly extinct diseases and maladies once eradicated in this country) or disasterous accidents while roofing or framing a house. Most of us don't connect the Spanish surname in a newspaper article about robbery, rape, murder, child molestation, etc with this 'fair price'.

Okay, they aren't all perverts - a lot of them are just plain breeders - breeders of anchor baby citizens. They clog our schools (who pays for that?) forcing us to teach in their damned language (which, they got coincidentally, from their Spanish Conquerors). They WILL NOT ASSIMILATE - EVER! In my estimation, they are worse than the Borg. Bleeding hearts see them "yearning to be free." I see them as invaders that will steal the lives of my grand daughters. NEVER EFFING EVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

28 posted on 01/07/2011 2:17:36 PM PST by Gaffer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian
The way it was interpreted by SCOTUS was that Indians born on tribal land of tribes that were still politically independent of the U.S. (there were still tribes that hadn't been subjugated in the 1870s) were not citizens, but Indians born not on tribal land were citizens even if both parents were Indians.

Interesting. Pls let me know where I can find out more about this case. To which one does it refer?

29 posted on 01/07/2011 2:44:36 PM PST by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

From what I recall, Wong Kim was not about illegals and the Supreme Court has not specifically identified the 14th amendment as applying to illegals. I find your use of the term “aliens,” as being interchangeable with illegals, somewhat disingenuous. I do however look forward to the Supreme Court finally handling this as it applies to illegals and I think the work of the states is going to cause them to have to examine this situation closely.

Unlike you, I believe they will look at what the creators of the amendment really intended by studying the very words of those who created the amendment. Some of the justices may decide to rule that the Constitution is fluid and can mean what it has been corrupted to mean today, but some justices will finally let everyone know exactly what the the creators intended word for word.

It will be obvious that those who want to keep this system will do so at the corruption of our Constitution and this non applying Wong Kim garbage will no longer be a factor or an argument. It’s not a valid argument now to any illegal alien question.


30 posted on 01/07/2011 3:02:23 PM PST by Waryone (RINOs, Elites, and Socialists - on the endangered list, soon to become extinct.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: 1_Inch_Group; 2sheep; 2Trievers; 3AngelaD; 3pools; 3rdcanyon; 4Freedom; 4ourprogeny; 7.62 x 51mm; ..

Ping!


31 posted on 01/07/2011 3:14:25 PM PST by HiJinx (Where did 2010 go?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: skeeter
Pls let me know where I can find out more about this case. To which one does it refer?

I'm doing this from memory. I don't recall the name of the Indian case, but I believe it's cited in Wong Kim Ark.

32 posted on 01/07/2011 3:17:18 PM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Waryone; Lurking Libertarian

Wong Kim Arc was born here to parents that were here legally. The case didn’t have anything to do with the 14th ammendment. It was an appeal based on their having left the country not affecting the child’s citizenship.


33 posted on 01/07/2011 3:26:32 PM PST by editor-surveyor (Obamacare is America's kristallnacht !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Waryone

Check the 39th district, California. I just got mail from her a couple of weeks ago. Cerritos, Buena Park, La Mirada, that area. Unless I’ve been sleeeping lately, she is the MC for this district.


34 posted on 01/07/2011 3:26:43 PM PST by navyblue (<u>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: navyblue

Okay, I hang my head in shame here. Got the names mixed up. I have Linda Sanchez, not Linda Chavez. I apologize for the confusion. Gotta lay off that coffee. It’s messing up my brain.


35 posted on 01/07/2011 3:29:28 PM PST by navyblue (<u>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: moonshinner_09
Chavez also opposes ending welfare for illegals as she opposed prop 187. Chavez is an old union girl, who moved slightly to the right. A Hispanic Neoconservative. All else follows. Her only value is when she remembers to support Americanizing immigrants.
36 posted on 01/07/2011 3:33:54 PM PST by rmlew (You want change? Vote for the most conservative electable in your state or district.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Waryone
From what I recall, Wong Kim was not about illegals and the Supreme Court has not specifically identified the 14th amendment as applying to illegals. I find your use of the term “aliens,” as being interchangeable with illegals, somewhat disingenuous. I do however look forward to the Supreme Court finally handling this as it applies to illegals and I think the work of the states is going to cause them to have to examine this situation closely.

Wong Kim Ark dealt with legal aliens, because there were no illegal aliens at the time-- the first immigration laws came later. But every lower court case since then has interpreted Wong to mean that children of illegals are citizens. And the Supreme Court in a footnote to Plyler v. Doe (1982) at least strongly suggested that the Wong Kim Ark rule applied equally to children of illegal aliens.

37 posted on 01/07/2011 3:35:40 PM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
Wong Kim Arc was born here to parents that were here legally.

True.

The case didn’t have anything to do with the 14th ammendment.

False.

The case was all about the 14th Amendment. The Supreme Court said: "The question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution,...."

38 posted on 01/07/2011 3:39:30 PM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: navyblue

That’s OK, you don’t have to hang your head. Sometimes it’s hard to tell the dems from the RINOs, even when they don’t have similar names.


39 posted on 01/07/2011 3:42:44 PM PST by Waryone (RINOs, Elites, and Socialists - on the endangered list, soon to become extinct.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

That case also clearly spells out the working definition of ‘subject to the jurisdiction of’, and that definition doesn’t in any way support your interpretation of the 14th.


40 posted on 01/07/2011 3:52:49 PM PST by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

At least you are bringing a little more candor to the table now. There has not been a case decided by the Supreme Court pertaining to illegal aliens. Even you admit Wong Kim dealt with legal aliens only.

We’re talking about illegals, which the states will handle while the Supreme Court takes its time.


41 posted on 01/07/2011 3:54:23 PM PST by Waryone (RINOs, Elites, and Socialists - on the endangered list, soon to become extinct.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Waryone
There is no SCOTUS case on illegals, with the possible exception of Plyler, but there is an unbroken string of cases from federal district courts and Courts of Appeals holding that children of illegals are citizens. If any state passes a law to the contrary, my prediction is that the federal courts will strike it down in a second and that SCOTUS will not review the case.
42 posted on 01/07/2011 4:12:21 PM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

The lower courts can do as they will, but the states still issue the birth certificates. The Supreme Court may end up having to take on either the Fourteenth Amendment or the Tenth Amendment case, maybe even both.

I am very happy to see the states finally step up and press this issue. As I said before, once the Supreme Court does its investigating, the truth about illegals and the origination of Fourteenth Amendment will become clear. No more deceptions of Wong Kim and the original intent will be heard from sea to shining sea.


43 posted on 01/07/2011 4:37:16 PM PST by Waryone (RINOs, Elites, and Socialists - on the endangered list, soon to become extinct.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: skeeter
That case also clearly spells out the working definition of ‘subject to the jurisdiction of’, and that definition doesn’t in any way support your interpretation of the 14th.

Oh, really? The Court said,"Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States."

44 posted on 01/07/2011 4:42:43 PM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Waryone
The lower courts can do as they will, but the states still issue the birth certificates. The Supreme Court may end up having to take on either the Fourteenth Amendment or the Tenth Amendment case, maybe even both.

The states issue birth certificates, but who is a citizen of the U.S. is a purely federal question. There is no Tenth Amendment issue here. The lower federal courts will rule, and that will be it.

I am very happy to see the states finally step up and press this issue. As I said before, once the Supreme Court does its investigating, the truth about illegals and the origination of Fourteenth Amendment will become clear. No more deceptions of Wong Kim and the original intent will be heard from sea to shining sea.

If it ever does get to SCOTUS, which I strongly doubt because there will be no split in the lower courts, I expect a 9-0 ruling that Wong Kim Ark appplies to children of illegals.

45 posted on 01/07/2011 4:46:51 PM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

If you believed that, you would not be so fearful of the Supreme Court taking the case. You would relish the thought as much as I do. There are strict constructionists on the bench right now and I’m sure they will go right to the original source and let all know what they find.

To be honest, I don’t know how the full court would rule, but I do know that the truth would come out and all those who ignore the intent of the founders of the Fourteenth Amendment will have to hear the truth.


46 posted on 01/07/2011 4:58:33 PM PST by Waryone (RINOs, Elites, and Socialists - on the endangered list, soon to become extinct.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

Really. The entire definition, in context.


47 posted on 01/07/2011 4:59:10 PM PST by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

There may be four votes on scotus to uphold Wong Kim Ark, IE that feudal English Law applies and therefore as childen of illegal trespassers the children do not have citizenship...

The four nutcases and the one liberal, Kennedy, will certainly reject it and embrace some new rigamarole that will give citizenship.


48 posted on 01/07/2011 5:08:51 PM PST by mrsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

There may be four votes on scotus to uphold Wong Kim Ark, IE that feudal English Law applies and therefore as childen of illegal trespassers the children do not have citizenship...

The four nutcases and the one liberal, Kennedy, will embrace some new rigamarole that will give it to them.


49 posted on 01/07/2011 5:17:31 PM PST by mrsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: skeeter
The majority decision in Wong is every bit as convoluted, in it's own right, as the Miller decision regarding the Second Amendment.

Here:

Here :

And Here :

50 posted on 01/07/2011 8:06:49 PM PST by Cyropaedia ("Virtue cannot separate itself from reality without becoming a principal of evil...".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-57 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson