Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Alien Birthright Citizenship: A Fable That Lives Through Ignorance
Immigration News Daily ^ | December 17, 2005 | P.A. Madison

Posted on 12/17/2005 11:39:40 AM PST by Founding Father

Alien Birthright Citizenship: A Fable That Lives Through Ignorance

Ever since the subject of Congress taking up Birthright Citizenship have we seen the power of ignorance at work through the MSM. It is difficult to find any editorial or wire story that correctly gives the reader an honest and accurate historical account of the Fourteenth Amendment in regards to children born to foreign parents within the United States. Most often the media presents a fabled and inaccurate account of just what the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment means.

Recent story lines go something like this: "Currently the Constitution says that a person born in this country is an American citizen. That's it. No caveats." The problem with these sort of statements other than being plainly false is that it reinforces a falsehood that has become viewed as a almost certain fact through such false assertions over time.

This is like insisting the sun rotates around the earth while ignoring the body of evidence to the contrary.

During the reconstruction period following the civil war the view on citizenship was that only children born to American parents owing allegiance to no other foreign power could be declared an American Citizen upon birth on U.S. soil. This is exactly the language of the civil rights bill of 1866: "All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States."

The author of the Fourteenth Amendment, Rep. John A Bingham (OH), responded to the above declaration as follows: "I find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen."

Already before we get to the Fourteenth Amendment Citizenship Clause we have the entire Congress declaring only children born to parents who owe no foreign allegiance shall be citizens. We also have the author of the Fourteenth Amendment declaring this is law of the land. It just gets worst for advocates who want to either believe or, revise history, to support their fable that the Fourteenth Amendment somehow magically makes anyone born in the United States regardless of the allegiance of their parents a natural born citizen.

Sen. Jacob Howard, who wrote the Fourteenth's Citizenship Clause believed the same thing as Bingham as evidenced by his introduction of the clause to the US Senate as follows:

[T]his amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.

Advocates for birthright citizenship for aliens either through ignorance, or deception, attempt to pretend "subject to the jurisdiction" means only one thing: location at time of birth. It does not, and never had such a meaning during the time period in question. The record of law is full of references to jurisdiction that had nothing to do with physical location. Take for example title XXX of 1875, sec 2165 where is states:

[Any] alien who was residing within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States...

Simply being on US soil (limits) does not automatically put you under US jurisdiction like some pro alien advocates would like to believe. Under the common myth of the meaning -- simply being within the limits of a State automatically places an alien under US jurisdiction for Fourteenth Amendment purposes. It does not as Bingham and Howard plainly makes clear as well as laws regarding the subject at the time also make clear.

So than, what exactly did subject to the jurisdiction mean? Sen. Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, framer of the Thirteenth Amendment told us in clear language what the phrase means under the Fourteenth:

[T]he provision is, that 'all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.' That means 'subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.' What do we mean by 'complete jurisdiction thereof?' Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.

Sen. Jacob M. Howard, responded to Trumbull's construction by saying:

[I] concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Trumbull], in holding that the word "jurisdiction," as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.

Myths can be difficult to dispose of, and birthright citizenship to aliens is no exception. Pro immigration advocates will refer to the Supreme Court ruling U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark as a desperate attempt to keep the fable alive. The problem with relying on Wong Kim Ark is that it draws zero support from the Fourteenth Amendment. In fact, the ruling had nothing to with the Fourteenth Amendment at all, but everything to do with English Common Law, something the Fourteenth's Citizenship Clause had no connection because it was a virtue of "national law."

There is other significant problems with the Wong Kim Ark ruling other than having no basis in Fourteenth Amendment text, intent and history that will never hold up under review -- and that is how will any court with a straight face attempt to reconcile the Civil Rights bill of 1870. Remember that civil rights bill declared those children born to parents subject to a foreign power cannot be declared United States citizens.

You cannot simply revise he Fourteenth's Citizenship Clause to mean yes, it really was the intent of the Congress to grant citizenship to alien children born on US soil when the same Congress enacted law afterwards that did just the reverse. Try and explain why Congress would pass a Constitutional Amendment that grants citizenship to ANYONE born in the US and then turn around and pass a law that would deny automatic citizenship to aliens? Because you cannot, only leads us back to the to the exact construction of the clause for which it was intended and written to mean.

The Wong Kim Ark ruling is so badly flawed and irrelevant probably lead to the US Supreme Court in 1982 to say they "had never confirmed birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens."

By far the most relevant Supreme Court ruling on the subject to date, and indeed, fully supported by the Fourteenth Amendment itself came in Elk v. Wilkins 112 U.S. 94 (1884), where the court held that the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction "requires "direct and immediate allegiance" to the United States, not just physical presence.

If pro immigration groups or individuals want to continue in believing the Fourteenth Amendment grants citizenship to anyone born in the country regardless of their allegiance, fine -- but to continue to insist the Fourteenth Amendment supports their fable is both feeble and a disrespect to American history.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; Government; Mexico; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 14thamendment; anchorbabies; birthright; citizenship; fourteenthamendment; immigration; mexico
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-93 next last
It's time for federal judges to follow the law or be impeached,convicted and removed.
1 posted on 12/17/2005 11:39:42 AM PST by Founding Father
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Founding Father

Okay. I had this discussion with someone the other day, and they insisted so vehemently that ANYONE born on US territory becomes a citizen, that I kind of had to shrug my shoulders and mumble that I really didn't think that was true.

So, the definitive correct question and answer is:

QUESTION: "Is any human being born on US territory to parents who are not US Citizens automatically a US Citizen?"

ANSWER: "NO"


2 posted on 12/17/2005 11:54:10 AM PST by rlmorel ("Innocence seldom utters outraged shrieks. Guilt does." Whittaker Chambers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Founding Father
Re: "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."

One could say Iraq is "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US and therefore all children born there are US Citizens...

But I won't...

3 posted on 12/17/2005 12:05:33 PM PST by Bender2 (Even dirty old robots need love!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Founding Father
Read how Ted "fixed" things for us in 1965

here

4 posted on 12/17/2005 12:07:29 PM PST by TheOracleAtLilac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Founding Father
Been here, done this.

The law in this instance is being enforced as written. The intent of the authors is irrelevant if they weren't capable of putting it into unambiguous written English.

5 posted on 12/17/2005 12:28:44 PM PST by Hoplite
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hoplite

Yes, I posted that article too.


6 posted on 12/17/2005 12:49:20 PM PST by Founding Father (The War Against Western Civilization Has Begun)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Founding Father

IMO, the "intent" of the author of the 14th Amendment should be be trumped by the actual language used, which reads as follows: "Secion 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the juisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." Regardless of the author's presumed intent, the language is pretty straight forward. I for one think it's a dangerous practice to make arguments based on the framers' "intent" that contradicts the actual language clearly used (although I don't have a problem with this test as a measns of clarifying a substantial ambiguity, as is unfortunately the case of the second Amendment).


7 posted on 12/17/2005 12:58:33 PM PST by Mad_Tom_Rackham (De gustibus non est disputandum.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk

ping


8 posted on 12/17/2005 1:30:35 PM PST by Do not dub me shapka broham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Do not dub me shapka broham
My basic 14th Amendment concern until it ismfavorably resolved is to see to it that the American Holocaust (45-50 million surgically sliced, diced and hamburgerized innocent babies and counting) be, ummm, terminated. Once that is resolved, feel free to get back to me on the relatively unimportant border mania concerns.

I realize that we are shaping up for a campaign in which the Republican Party to which I belong with some enthusiasm will make the long term strategic blunder of alienating Latin American ancestry voters in order to take advantage of the Demonrats' institutional incapacity to join in border mania. The GOP may win another two years of conrol of Congress by doing so. More likely, it will be difficult to retain Congress because of the mushrooming Congressional scandals which have nothing to do with philosophy: Doolittle, Ney, DeLay (unfarly prosecuted), Frist, et al.

My Congressman votes pro-life and is in agreement with y'all on the immigration although somewhat less enthusiastic than thee. I will vote for him and always against Durbin and Obama.

The privately expressed opinions of those obscure fellows like Jacobs and Bingham, who ae said by an anti-immigration website to have been the framers of the 14th Amendment only come into play where there is ambiguity. There is none. Don't be too disappointed when SCOTUS rules accordingly and finds that those born here are subject to US jurisdiction and citizens.

This is not an invitation to further argument but simply a respnse to the pinged article.

9 posted on 12/17/2005 2:12:05 PM PST by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline of the Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk
How is this issue "unimportant?"

I don't think even the most reflexive, intractable OBL would describe the problem of illegal immigration as unimportant, or insignificant, which is probably why so much ink and airtime has been devoted to this subject by the mainstream media, albeit in a conscious effort to minimize the costs of illegal immigration to this country.

10 posted on 12/17/2005 2:17:30 PM PST by Do not dub me shapka broham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Founding Father
This entire idea that, now, for this purpose, the Constitution does not mean what it says in plain, unambiguous English words is absolutely preposterous. The facile analysis above is so erroneous in practically every line that it is unworthy of wasting the bandwidth discussing how foolish it is. Many of on FR may wish it were not so, but it says what it says and not something some may wish it had said. Of course, it can be changed by a proper amendment, but no amount of fallacous or wishful attempts to interpret plain language will change it.

The real and underlying problem is not one of constitutional interpretation, it's the non-enforcement of the border control to the south, and that isn't going to be cured by an attempted end-run around the manifestly clear language of the Constitution.

11 posted on 12/17/2005 2:23:07 PM PST by middie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Founding Father
Could you prove that you are a citizen according to what you say is the law? I doubt it. Remember that if birth in the U.S. doesn't make you a citizen then it doesn't make your descendants citizens either, no matter how many generations are involved.

Remember that civil rights bill declared those children born to parents subject to a foreign power cannot be declared United States citizens.

No, it didn't.

Simply being on US soil (limits) does not automatically put you under US jurisdiction like some pro alien advocates would like to believe.

Actually, it does, with minor exceptions. If a foreigner commits a crime here he is subject to trial and punishment under the laws of the U.S. or of the state where the crime was committed; that's just what "subject to the jurisdiction" means.

During the reconstruction period following the civil war the view on citizenship was that only children born to American parents owing allegiance to no other foreign power could be declared an American Citizen upon birth on U.S. soil.

Then who is a citizen of the U.S. is determined by the laws of every nation except the U.S..

12 posted on 12/17/2005 2:23:57 PM PST by Christopher Lincoln
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Do not dub me shapka broham

Aside from the 14th Amendment issue all FRepers should be aware of the good bill that has passed the House (sponsored by Rep. Sensenbrenner) designed to curb illegal immigration. The bad news is that the usual coterie of liberal jerks in the Senate is already planning to gut the bill of its most effective provisions. We just saw what the Senate did by filibustering the Patriot Act extension. Please contact your senators if they are among the minority who are endangering our national welfare and security. It's time to take ACTION now and remind them that even if they have six year terms at our expense -- we will NOT forget! Incidentally, it would be nice to contact those who are voting correctly to give them support. One sad note - we're seeing a continuing abuse of the unconstitutional filibuster - can we imagine what's going to happen to Alito? (!!)


13 posted on 12/17/2005 2:41:05 PM PST by T.L.Sink (stopew)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: T.L.Sink
I can imagine it, which is why I was so vociferous in opposing the disastrous Miers nomination.

A good three months down the drain.

Trust me, President Bush's political capital isn't going to be any greater in the middle of January than it is now.

14 posted on 12/17/2005 2:51:03 PM PST by Do not dub me shapka broham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Founding Father

GOP officials, Rep. Nathan Deal, Rep. Tom Tancredo and John C. Eastman should reread the Citizenship Clause.

The phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," is enclosed within a PAIR OF COMMAS, with the first comma placed before the coordinating conjunction "and."

A comma-plus-coordinating-conjunction is regarded as a "single punctuation mark"; an element enclosed within a PAIR OF COMMAS is "non-restrictive," meaning the phrase is "non-essential" and does not modify or qualify the element preceding it.

Is this another case of being "hanged by a pair of commas" Lynn Truss popularized?

Grammatically, the Clause consists of a compound subject with the main subject "persons" modified by "all" omitted rather than stated in the second element of the ciompound.

Thus, the Clause is intended to be read as:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and [all persons] subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and [citizens] of the State wherein they reside."

The Clause thus confers a SECOND, still unrecognized, category of citizens of the United States--"All persons subject to the jurisdiction thereof."

Senator James Doolittle mentions this category during the debate (at p. 2897, 1st col., Congressional Globe, 39th Congress, 1st Session, May 30, 1866) with the phrase "all persons subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" printed in quotation marks:

"But, sir, the Senator has drawn me off from the immediate question before the Senate. The immediate question is whether the language he [Senator Jacob Howard, the author] uses, 'all persons subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,' includes these Indians..."

Senator Doolittle was fearful of the consequences and implications of the "very language" Senator Howard (the author) employed -- "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" -- as distinguished from the words "subject to" used two months earlier by the same 39th Congress in a similar provision in the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which read:

"All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States."

Note that NO comma is placed before the conjunction "and," which makes the phrase "and not subject to any foreign power" "restrictive," a modifier or qualifier of the preceding phrase, "All persons born in the United States."

Note also that, by this SECOND category, the territorial extent of the Fourteenth is consistent with the extent in the companion Thirteenth.

Thus, under the Thirteenth, it is abolition of slavery [1] "within the United States", or [2] "any place subject to their jurisdiction"; while, under the Fourteenth, it is citizenship to {1] "All persons born in the United States" and [2] "[all persons] subject to the jurisdiction thereof."

Based on the remarks by Judiciary Committee Chairman Senator Lyman Trumbull and Senator Howard (the author) during the debate, this SECOND category conveys the meaning:

"All persons owing allegiance within the extent or territory over which the constitutional power of the United States extends"--or birth within the realm and within the allegiance.

At that time in 1866, this SECOND CATEGORY embraced "persons" NOT "in the United States" but "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" within the following places:

--the 12 ceded territories pending statehood
--the 11 Confederate States awaiting readmission to the Union and representation in Congress
--the District of Columbia.

The words "or naturalized," by the way, were inserted on June 8, 1866 (Id. at p. 3040), a full week after Senator Howard's original draft of the Clause was debated and approved on May 30, 1866.

Senator Howard's original draft conferred "natural law" Birthright Citizenship to (1) "All persons born in the United States"; and (2) "[All persons] "subject to the jurisdiction thereof."

But, and this is important, ONLY those "owing allegiance to the United States."


15 posted on 12/17/2005 3:11:51 PM PST by domingoarong
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Do not dub me shapka broham

I think you're right about Bush's political capital. This is why Congress is our only hope. Bush doesn't face any reelection but they do. If conservatives mobilize and let their representatives (especially those treacherous imbeciles in the Senate "club") know that we're going to oppose them we can have an impact. To cite an example, the RINO Chuck Hagel is up for re-election in '06 and also has serious presidential aspirations. The conservatives in Nebraska should be mobilizing now and innundating him with messages that they won't forget his perfidy in being one of four Republicans who supported the Patriot Act filibuster; and that he has done his best to compromise Bush's prosecution of the Iraq war. In so many ways he's become a darling of the liberal media because they periodically give him his needed infusion of "15 minutes" of fame by letting him broadcast his criticisms of the administration. Have you ever noticed that the liberal media hate conservative Republicans but absolutely adore (so long as they're useful idiots) the "mavericks" and turncoats in the party?


16 posted on 12/17/2005 3:23:59 PM PST by T.L.Sink (stopew)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: T.L.Sink; Stellar Dendrite; flashbunny; LibertarianInExile
Hagel needs to go, ASAP!

The sooner he loses the better off we'll be.

And for anyone who thinks that voting for a (nominal) Republican is always preferable to voting for a Democrat-even if he agrees with our philosophy-just remember that the other Senator from that state is Ben Nelson (D-Neb).

17 posted on 12/17/2005 3:27:35 PM PST by Do not dub me shapka broham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Bender2
"One could say Iraq is "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US and therefore all children born there are US Citizens..."

LOL shhhh... dont' give anyone ideas. I'm not a closed border kinda guy, but I dont even want to go there.
18 posted on 12/17/2005 4:19:48 PM PST by ndt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: rlmorel

The 14th Amendment is only as good as the US Supreme Court has ruled it to be. So the answer to someone saying it's a fact is to remind them it's subject to Supreme Court rulings. The 2d Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights, and courts have no problem changing that to conform to their political beliefs, and the 14th is no different. The 1st Amendment is currently under attack as the ACLU and others try to remove religion from the public arena. Abortion was never intended to be a privacy right guaranteed by the constitution.


19 posted on 12/17/2005 4:25:06 PM PST by Morgan in Denver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Mad_Tom_Rackham

It's routine for courts to use intent for deciding decisions. Not just the Supreme Court, all courts and other municipal bodies. We used intent of the legislature in Denver to stop group homes from epanding in our neighborhood. Intent is being used as well for our states conceled carry laws and other laws that are germaine to every day living.


20 posted on 12/17/2005 4:30:23 PM PST by Morgan in Denver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Do not dub me shapka broham

Right on! And this pressure should start at the very top with Bush. Regettably he supported two RINOs in primaries. The first was Specter of PA who defeated Pat Toomey, a true conservative. Now he's apparently supporting Chafee in Rhode Island (who makes Kerry look like a conservative) against another conservative. Maybe we can't vote for these conservatives if we don't live there BUT we can let the president and the Republican National Committee know when they send those familiar letters to us asking for money. By the way, is Bush happy now that he helped RINO Specter get re-elected - the senator who now wants to investigate him on the NSA "spy" issue? And who joins forces with those who want leftists on the Supreme Court? This is only one of many instances that illustrate why conservatives need to ardently strive for a root and branch reform (from top down!) of the Republican party in order to return it to the party of Reagan: less taxation, less spending, less intrusive big government, and a strong national defense. We did it before and - if grassroots conservatives become motivated and and activated - we can do it again! By the way, we here in FLA have our own Nelson (Bill). Last time we got rid of "goofy Graham" and re-elected Jeb Bush. Now Bill is in our cross-hairs.


21 posted on 12/17/2005 4:55:41 PM PST by T.L.Sink (stopew)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: T.L.Sink
Just make sure that he's not replaced by another faux-conservative, a la Martinez.
22 posted on 12/17/2005 4:57:30 PM PST by Do not dub me shapka broham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Do not dub me shapka broham

I'm sort of surprised to hear you say that. Maybe I'm missing something but so far as I know Mel has supported Bush on every major vote. I've often been to his website and it seems to me he's been right on all the big votes. There's only been one (and I think greatly hyped) small matter where he used senatorial prerogative to hold up a Bush appointee. But he soon withdrew it. Also, he's only been in office 11 months. But don't worry -- we'll hold his feet to the fire is he shows any signs of Hagelitis, a very serious party disease, often compounded with Specteroteria, always terminal.


23 posted on 12/17/2005 5:21:58 PM PST by T.L.Sink (stopew)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: T.L.Sink

That makes 10 Republican Senators who have spoken out -- dare I say, taken "leadership positions" -- against the Bush Administration in less than a month. It's a list that covers topics such as whether to close the Guantanamo Bay detention center, protecting U.S. consumers from the administration's drug industry pals, and preventing Bush lackey Bill Frist (R-TN) from being able to employ the "nuclear option," upending the Senate's rules on filibusters.

The list of 10, if you are scoring at home, is now:

-- John McCain of Arizona
-- Mel Martinez of Florida
-- Charles Grassley of Iowa
-- Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine
-- Mike DeWine of Ohio
-- Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island
-- Lindsey Graham of South Carolina
-- John Warner of Virginia


24 posted on 12/17/2005 5:26:49 PM PST by Do not dub me shapka broham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: T.L.Sink

http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/06/20/135029.php


25 posted on 12/17/2005 5:27:06 PM PST by Do not dub me shapka broham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Do not dub me shapka broham

Thanks for the info but I'm somewhat confused because it presents a range of issues and Im not sure that I'd support or oppose all of them myself. For example, we shouldn't assume that all Bush proposals are conservative. I'd be the first to oppose him on immigration. But I do know that Martinez has been right on the Partiot Act, taxes, and judicial reform, all very significant issues. Then, too, no senator is going to be 100% on every one of our personal preferences. Thus far, he's got a good rating with the conservative evaluators. But only time will tell about the next five years. So far, I'm satisfied.


26 posted on 12/17/2005 6:07:50 PM PST by T.L.Sink (stopew)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: T.L.Sink
Meh.

McCollum would have made a much better Senator.

He ran as a conservative, and now that he's in office he has reverted back to form.

When he was county executive of OC he was a moderate Republican.

I don't see how that's changed.

27 posted on 12/17/2005 8:26:32 PM PST by Do not dub me shapka broham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Do not dub me shapka broham

I'm not sure I remember him - are you talking about the former Republican congressman who used to be in the House? You also say "county executive of OC" - there are 67 counties in FLA and I don't know what "OC" abbreviates. RSVP if you can.


28 posted on 12/17/2005 8:42:33 PM PST by T.L.Sink (stopew)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: T.L.Sink
Orange County.

McCollum was a congressman from the same area; an Orlando-based district, I believe.

29 posted on 12/17/2005 8:46:38 PM PST by Do not dub me shapka broham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Mad_Tom_Rackham
I for one think it's a dangerous practice to make arguments based on the framers' "intent" that contradicts the actual language clearly used...

The language conforms to what subject to the jurisdiction meant, and most likely still means in law. The language conforms to the intent and cutom for the time period. There is no argument to what it means....it is only made a argument with dumbasses who refuse to respect the law of the land. The 1884 Supreme Court got it right just as the 1982 Supreme Court did. Must mean the language means exactly what it says.

The law is so clear to birthright that in 1906 that naturalzation law had to be updated to make children born to parents of aliens a citizen if the father died before becoming a citizen. Aliens who had children in the US remained aliens till the father become a citizen regardless if they were born on US soil. Its not uncommon for the State legislatures to include a count a alien children born for the proceeding year, never calling them American children, but alien children.

30 posted on 12/17/2005 8:55:57 PM PST by AZRepublican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Do not dub me shapka broham

Yes, if we're talking about him he was pretty good. He's been on some national TV programs but I havn't seen him for some time - if I recall he had a navy background. I'm ashamed to admit it but I'm represented as a Palm Beach County resident by one of the very WORST of the whole bunch of 535 - Bob Wexler. Do you recall that there were only three of the whole sorry crew that voted for the Republican test vote on Iraq withdraw - and even Murtha went into hiding? Well Wexler was one of the infamous three!


31 posted on 12/17/2005 9:05:30 PM PST by T.L.Sink (stopew)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Founding Father
From P.A.'s screed:

The problem with relying on Wong Kim Ark is that it draws zero support from the Fourteenth Amendment. In fact, the ruling had nothing to with the Fourteenth Amendment at all, but everything to do with English Common Law, something the Fourteenth's Citizenship Clause had no connection because it was a virtue of "national law."

From the actual decision:

The Constitution of the United States, as originally adopted, uses the words "citizen of the United States," and "natural-born citizen of the United States." by the original Constitution, every representative in Congress is required to have been "seven years a citizen of the United States," and every Senator to have been "nine years a citizen of the United States;" and "no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President." The Fourteenth Article of Amendment, besides declaring that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and to the State wherein they reside," also declares that "no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." And the Fifteenth Article of Amendment declares that "the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States, or by any State, on account of race, color or previous condition of servitude."

The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except in so far as this is done by the affirmative declaration that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." In this, as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162; Ex parte Wilson, 114 U.S. 417, 422; Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 624, 625; Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465. The language of the Constitution, as has been well said, could not be understood without reference to the common law. 1 Ken Com. 336; Bradley, J., in Moore v. United States, 91 U.S. 270, 274.


32 posted on 12/17/2005 9:07:44 PM PST by Mojave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: T.L.Sink
Yes, unfortunately I do.

He was one of the primary imbeciles on the House Judiciary Committee during the Clinton impeachment saga, if I recall correctly.

33 posted on 12/17/2005 9:19:21 PM PST by Do not dub me shapka broham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Do not dub me shapka broham

Yes, he's on the Judiciary Committee so he probably had some role in the Bubba fiasco. Before residing here I've lived in St. Augustine, Miami, and Key West. I've never encountered the sort of Democrats that I have here in Palm Beach County. Wexler is not a native Floridian but a transplant from Queens, N.Y. and I've found that many of his supporters are of similar mold. Most of the northerners who come down here come to escape the high taxes, urban crime and blight, and the ravages of winter. If they aren't Republican before many are soon after. Just to cite one example - we have, unlike many other states, no state income tax. You can't lose your home and property for debt incurred - of course that has its downside and brought us some refugees such as O.J. On the whole the state is efficiently governed (I have to say that or my wife will kill me - she works for State of Florida) and most of the people want honest and responsive government. They are also concerned about the environment but not in ways that are in opposition to business growth and sensible development. I've probably gone on for too long but another time I'll give you a sociological profile of the typical Wexler constituent.


34 posted on 12/17/2005 9:48:58 PM PST by T.L.Sink (stopew)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: T.L.Sink
Personally, I think former New Yorkers should be forced to have an entry visa before they (potentially) ruin states like Florida, New Hampshire, Vermont, Colorado, etc...

The other congresswoman from that county-I forget her name-is originally from Long Island.

She's another dingbat.

35 posted on 12/17/2005 10:20:48 PM PST by Do not dub me shapka broham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Do not dub me shapka broham

I completely agree and such legal aliens should be granted temporary work permits that require them to return to their foreign states after five years. You may be thinking of Debbie Wasserman Schultz who is just slightly to the right of Friedrich Engels. However, I now realize why many transplanted New Yorkers want to give illegals drivers licenses -- because the illiterate and totally inexperienced illegals drive better than them. The good news is that to some extent the Wexler-Schultz cabal is a dying breed and that the overwhelming number of Floridians won't let them recreate another N.Y. down here. That's precisely what even most northerners come to escape. All the demographic and electoral signs are pretty good -- COME ON DOWN!! BUT DON'T BRING ALL YOUR BLIGHT AND LIBERALISM WITH YOU!!


36 posted on 12/17/2005 10:40:23 PM PST by T.L.Sink (stopew)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: T.L.Sink
Maybe sometime in the future.

My family has stayed in this city for the better part of four generations.

Don't ask me why.

37 posted on 12/17/2005 10:51:53 PM PST by Do not dub me shapka broham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Do not dub me shapka broham

I just perused your "about" section and I must say your choice of worthy females is excellent. I also clicked on the "contact" spot and it seems you are (or were) from Brooklyn. I did all this because in your reply you referred to "this city" and I wanted to see if the city was mentioned. Relative to your family being there for four generations, I think there's something to be said for having roots and being permanent residents in one place. It wasn't too long ago that this was a very positive tradition in America. But that was before we became a mobile society and for a multitude of reasons ranging from corporate transfers, retirement dreams, and the proverbial quest for greener pastures, became a relatively rootless culture. This has been augmented by the age of instant communication, economic wherewithal, and the ease of travel. Of course, there's always a downside to being too rootless and too transient. When I was a kid it wasn't unusual if a person had one or perhaps two jobs his entire working life. Now if you're in a job for five years and aren't looking for something else for some reason people think you're nuts or without ability or ambition. Perhaps as Wordsworth said "the world is too much with us". But the only thing for sure is that we can't change it and have to make the best of what we have. If you don't mind the inquiry do you live in NYC?


38 posted on 12/17/2005 11:35:36 PM PST by T.L.Sink (stopew)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: T.L.Sink

http://www.dykerheights.com/


39 posted on 12/17/2005 11:38:07 PM PST by Do not dub me shapka broham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Do not dub me shapka broham

Thanks so much for the info. I checked out Dyker Heights on the map. I've been to NYC several times - once with a college classmate - and one of the most memorable experiences I've ever had (no it wasn't the Empire State building or the million other tourist attractions!) and one which I'll never forget was crossing the Verazanno Narrows bridge from Staten Island to Brooklyn. I was - and still am - overpowered by that awesome experience. To me that suspension bridge is a miracle. We were told that cars were not even permitted on the upper tier on very windy days. The actual drive over it was utterly breathtaking and inspiring. But being on the bridge wasn't the ultimate source of awe - no,it was when we went around that "circle" in the Belt Parkway and beheld the bridge in all its splendid majesty and grandeur from a distance. It's an engineering marvel and such things impress me more than most sights. That must seem to be very mundane to you who grew up so close to it and to whom it was so familiar. But it to me it will always be one of the unforgettable events of my life. I've had the good fortune to visit many of our states and even went to Europe once -- but that bridge will always be at the top of my list. I realize to you this may seem somewhat absurd -- but that's how it is!


40 posted on 12/18/2005 12:26:11 AM PST by T.L.Sink (stopew)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Founding Father

Time to revoke citizenship from a lot of people who have received it on a fraudulent basis for the past 50 years...


41 posted on 12/18/2005 12:35:12 AM PST by television is just wrong (Our sympathies are misguided with illegal aliens...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: T.L.Sink
Well said.

Yeah, the Verrazano is an impressive structure.

I actually wanted to to take a few pictures of it-it's a brief bus trip from where I live-last year when I snapped some photos of the decorative Christmas displays around my neighborhood.

I'll try to find the thread.

42 posted on 12/18/2005 8:47:31 AM PST by Do not dub me shapka broham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Do not dub me shapka broham; ninenot; sittnick
Shapka Broham: I am sorry that you are obsessed by the effort to exclude these Latino folks from our country but that is your problem and not mine. People like you may well succeed in having a Berlin Wall built on our southern border to exclude Hispanics. You would probably prefer that Vincente Fox build a wall to keep Mexicans in which would be more analogous to the soviet Berlin Wall. He won't.

The flood of immigration from the south is like flood waters. Bottle it up at one point and it will break through at others. Build a border-wide barrier (at what ridiculous expense???) and the immigrants will burrow under it or climb over it. Emasculate the United States by placing our entire military on our southern border and (never minding the international effects of being unable to wage wars with our nation's and our civilization's ACTUAL ENEMIES as necessary and demoralizing the troops by turning them onto the task of attacking men, women and children who simply want to live better lives).

Though you obviously fail to recognize the facts, simply banging your rattle on the wall screaming: What part of illegal does that Elk not understand? will not solve your perceived problem. Like a heroin needle, it may temporarily relieve your pain as bad habits tend to do but the immigration will continue and the political lines will be drawn so that Hispanics will regard Republicans and conservatives as my Irish ancestors viewed them a century ago. By the time that the Hispanics recover from the organized anti-Hispanic effort of the border manics, we will all be equally enslaved by our own government.

You have no practical or legal plan to accomplish your goals. The personal correspondence of long-dead legislators written a decade after the passage of the 14th Amendment will avail you nothing in constitutional interpretation when there is NO AMBIGUITY in the constitutional language.

You don't want to hear that and so you will refuse to hear it. You will respond with another flurry or blizzard of insults and refuse to engage on the issues. You certainly have no obligation to engage in rational debate. You can believe as you please. You can rage as you please. You can primal scream as you please but the law is still the law at least on this matter of the immigration.

I don't have to engage in irrational debates. I do not have to pretend that you are advancing concepts that are even debatable.

For whatever it may be worth, you and your allies will probably win temporary political victories this year in the GOP not because you are right but because the situation of retaining a GOP House and Senate is becoming perilous for reasons having nothing whatsoever to do with the extreme pain of the border obsessives over not getting their way on demand as yet. Some of us are open to practical argument but have seen none. I have often asked for a practical road map to get from where we are to where you would like us to be, consistent with law. It is telling that, for the most part, the only response is invective.

If you guys win, America faces an absolutely socialist (or worse) future because you will have added the Hispanic vote to the African American vote and the feminazi vote and the AFL-CIO vote (nowadays) and the envirowhacko vote and the anti-God vote and the Dr. Kevorkian-lover vote and the just bone ignorant vote as solid blocks against American freedoms. Kiss your guns goodbye. Kiss your paycheck goodbye. Kiss your home goodbye. Kiss a LOT MORE OF YOUR JOBS goodbye. Look forward to "gay marriage" America, childbirth (limited to liberals only) by license only in America; mandatory public skeweled municipal brainwashing centers America; "Hillary deciding whether you ideologically qualify for health care" America, etc.

Needless to say, you will disagree with the preceding paragraph but you are wrong. No sense suggesting that you resist the incessant compulsion to "feel good" by telling them Mexicans what fer in the ugliest traditions of xenophobia. You don't like to recognize or realize that life is not as you wish it to be and that you cannot control that. You do not want to admit political impotence to change reality as you want it changed.

It is a big IF as to whether the border mania strategy will postpone Demonratic control of Congress for a couple of weakened years, but Americans are smart enough to figure it out over the ensuing two years. So are Mexicans. When the Latinos are firmly welded at the hip to the Demonrats and America is lost, I hope you will be honest enough to admit that you were tragically wrong as we share the Gulag that resulted from applied ignorance on this issue impersonating American conservatism.

Finally, the MSM has spent that much time and ink on the border issues to divide conservatives who believe in freedom from those who believe in social calcification and status quo. It works. AND, I described the immigration loopiness as unimportant COMPARED to the American Holocaust which has slaughtered nearly 50 million innocent unborn babies under the rubric of SCOTUS and Roe vs. Wade. Border mania is quite important since it will fatally shatter the conservative movement that was. Border mania is NOT as important as is the evil that sliced, diced and hamburgerized millions of innocent babies.

If our movement must be splintered and destroyed, let it be for a noble cause such as protection of innocent human life and not for such embarassing behavior as cultural xenophobia. In twenty years, my movement will be alive (if underground) and yours (to the extent that it depends on border mania) will not.

Consider yourself dubbed.

43 posted on 12/18/2005 10:29:55 AM PST by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline of the Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Do not dub me shapka broham

I do agree that Nebraska ought to relieve America of the likes of Hagel ASAP. Nebraska owes a lot more to America than Hagel. Hope I don't destroy your reputation by agreeing with you on something.


44 posted on 12/18/2005 10:39:09 AM PST by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline of the Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk
You've got to be kidding me!?

Vincente Fox wants to dissolve the border entirely.

What makes you think that worthless, corrupt, unctuous POS would do anything that help this country?

It doesn't really matter in any case, since he's a lame duck.

Don't worry though, since I'm sure those 45 million+ Mexicans that you're so eager to come here will get their wish once Manuel Obrador Lopez is sworn in.

45 posted on 12/18/2005 10:39:38 AM PST by Do not dub me shapka broham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Do not dub me shapka broham; ninenot; sittnick
Shapka Broham: I think that I posted that Mexican President Vincente Fox would not accommodate your desire for a Berlin Wall along our southern border to keep his people in Mexico, that any wall would be built by us to keep them out. Perhaps we can call it the Great Wall of California, New Mexico, Arizona and Texas. It could be a tourist attraction. We could have dramatic readings by Mexicans posing as Mexican presidents on the Mexican side, calling out: "Mr./Ms. (fill in the name of whoever is president--- Bush or Hillary or whomever [certainly not Tancredo]), TEAR DOWN THIS WALL!" Well, Reagan was probably no border obsessive so, who cares about the obvious implications? By darn, gun down the mamacitas: full speed ahead!!!!!!

Your reading comprehension rivals your constitutional insight.

Whatever you may think of Vincente Fox, neither he nor his party gunned down Catholic priests for the crime of saying Mass. Fox's ancestors attended those Masses.

Who is Manuel Obrador Lopez???? Would he be the candidate of the PRI known as the Institutional Revolutionary Party (the communist drug thugs) who have run Mexico since the 1920s except for Fox's tenure????? The ones who martyred Fr. Miguel Pro, SJ, by firing squad (simply for saying Mass) in 1927? And many Cristeros until FDR put a stop to their campaign of murdering Catholics in 1939, when the Knights of Columbus offered that alternative or their delivery of the Catholic vote to the GOP in 1940 on the Third Term issue when the PRI threatened to execute Fr. Pro's brother who was also a priest?????

If you were Mxican and Lopez were the PRI candidate and he was elected would you move your family to El Norte or would you say: No, we would not want to break US laws just to become Americans and have an income and not be rousted from our beds at 3 AM. If you would stay and make your family stay, then your priorities would be disordered.

You continue not to engage on the issues, of course, in additon to misreading what I posted.

If Fox is as bad as you say, maybe we should give him citizenship, move the Mexicans to Taxachusetts and run him against Ted the Driver or Lurch.

Of course, Fox helps us by sending us socially conservative Mexicans. You weren't expecting the Junior League or the Mayflower Society to put an end to abortion, were you?

46 posted on 12/18/2005 1:02:02 PM PST by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline of the Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Club)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk
Your reading comprehension rivals your constitutional insight.

This coming from the genius that believes the 14th Amendment was ratified in order for Mexican nationals to exploit generous 20th century social welfare programs.

Enlighten me, Joseph Story.

If Fox is as bad as you say, maybe we should give him citizenship, move the Mexicans to Taxachusetts and run him against Ted the Driver or Lurch.

No, we should invite President Bush-who's already a lame duck-to be the next nominee of your favorite political party.

He couldn't do any worse than Fox's chosen successor, and has probably done more for Mexicans than laughable crony Santiago Creel.

It would be a perfect fit.

BTW, I don't really give a rat's ass who governs that dysfunctional, third world nation.

The petty, internecine divisions between the PRD, PAN, PRI, Convergencia, PT, PVE and every other pathetic political party in that country couldn't concern me less.

The only important thing-from my perspective-is that they are unanimous about one aspect of foreign policy, i.e. sucking their neighbor to the North bone dry.

47 posted on 12/18/2005 1:13:49 PM PST by Do not dub me shapka broham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Do not dub me shapka broham; BlackElk
Chief Justice Joseph Storey has an "e" before the "y."

The 14th Amendment didn't countenance FDR/LBJ/GWB's great welfare programs. I would get rid of the federal versions of the program (for EVERYone), before trying to repeal the 14th Amendment.
48 posted on 12/18/2005 2:39:10 PM PST by sittnick (There is no salvation in politics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: sittnick
This is the most meritless-and considering the intellectual bankruptcy of your position, that's saying saying quite a bit-of all the intellectually-bereft arguments promulgated by the open borders lobby on behalf of its utterly ridiculous stance.

First of all, I'm not in favor of repealing the 14th Amendment, or even altering it, but rather adhering to the original intent of the amendment, which you would have realized if you had bothered to read this thread or my comments to it.

It doesn't matter what your opinions of public education, or Medicare, or Pell grants happen to be.

The fact is that these programs currently exist, and that there is no reading of the "equal protection" clause-no matter how haphazard-that leads itself to condoning the extension of these programs to non-citizens.

49 posted on 12/18/2005 5:07:52 PM PST by Do not dub me shapka broham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Do not dub me shapka broham; BlackElk
First of all, I am not a member of the open borders lobby. Elk can vouch for that. I believe in LEGAL immigration, and enforcement of laws against illegal immigrants. That does not mean I favor a wall along the border. In likewise I am not a big fan of the federal war on drugs, but I am also not a propononent of legalization. I do not favor fathers shirking court imposed financial responsibility for their children, but I also am against some of the legislation that treats anyone who wants a driver's license or a job like a suspected dead beat dad.

Just saying my position is intellectually bankrupt is unimpressive, especially when you made it clear that you did not know what my position was. I had not stated it.

From a practical standpoint, your approach (combined with a recent SCOTUS decision regarding providing your name to the police with no probable cause) is moving us towards a country where you have to prove that you are here legally, rather than it being assumed unless proved otherwise. I am not in a free country if I have to carry papers around that can be demanded at any time. It makes my position little different than a freed negro slave in the 1850's. Moreover, if citizenship can be restricted to one group (those born to illegal aliens on U.S. soil), little stops more exceptions being carved out in order to broaden the category of people who are not worthy of citizenship. Eventually it might come down to effectively political positions, or not being sensitive to the right special interest groups. It sure didn't take long for Kelo to give the green light to bull-doze residences in favor of yacht clubs.

The framers of the 14th Amendment (acting less than 20 years after the peak of the Know-Nothing Party, the orghanization closest to your position at that time)didn't countenance much in the way of illegal immigration control. In a sense, illegal immigration is what wrested Texas away from Mexico in the first place! (Phony vows taken by U.S. immigrants into the Texas territory.)
50 posted on 12/18/2005 6:00:00 PM PST by sittnick (There is no salvation in politics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-93 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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