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 ...
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!
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.
Yes, it is disappointing. Illegal immigration is okay as long as it’s your particular ethnic group climbing the wall.
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.
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.
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.
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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Interesting. Pls let me know where I can find out more about this case. To which one does it refer?
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.
Ping!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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,...."
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.
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.
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.