Posted on 01/26/2008 9:07:56 AM PST by MotleyGirl70
No
Why?
Don’t they know more than you?
Plyler Decision:
That the Texas law which withheld funds from local school districts for educating children not legally admitted into the United States and the authorization of these districts to deny these children enrollment, violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.
I never stated that I agree with any SCOTUS decision. However, I do accept their decisions and understand that Plyler is not likely to be overturned.
It’s a crime that thee is zero talk about this in Washington DC. I realize the obstacles to getting rid of alleged anchor baby interpretations of the 14th. But no one in DC ever expresses any distress over all the anchor babies being churned out. Rich Koreans and Asians come here 9 months pregnant to give birth so the kid has US dual citizenship to fall back on
Totally disgusted here at gutless wonders in Washington DC.
Bttt!
In Plyer v. Doe the SCOTUS ruled that illegal aliens are protected by the Constitution. ..... trumandogz
Plyler v. Doe did not specifically adddress the issue of anchor babies and stated that ALL children who are illegal in a particular State were under the jurisdiction of that particular State. The issue revolved over whether or not children who were not responsible for the illegal activities of their parents should be directly punished by witholding education.
However, you believe that illegal aliens are not “subject to the jurisdictions thereof” then you must also accept that illegal aliens cannot be prosecuted for crimes committed while on U.S. soil. ...... trumandogz
That is a rather concrete interpretation as even Hermann Goering, as he awaited trial at Nuremberg, guarded by U.S. Army M.P.'s was being prosecuted by the U.S. Government for crimes committed on foreign soil.
Elk v. Wilkins defined "jurisdiction thereof" in the context of the Fourteenth Amendment as follows:
“The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.”
Plyler v. Doe never directly addressed the issue of citizenship solely by the virtue of birth on U.S. soil.
Elk v. Wilkins did.
The bottom line is that it took the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 to make Indians born on U.S. soil citizens solely by virtue of birth on U.S. soil.
The true bottom line is that these babies are issued a birth certificate with a U.S. origin. They, and most others, believe that makes them a U.S. citizen. And, that will be the eventual downfall of the U.S. because soon they will be able to vote.
You cannot change the past but you can change the future.
Why would voting rights for Natural Born Citizens lead to the downfall of the United States?
because their parents got them here illegally, and intentionally in most cases, to use our government systems to provide for them without ever having to earn it or pay for it one day in their life previously, and in some cases, live off that government largess for the rest of their lives.
First, they are not Natural Born Citizens. Second, when they get to voting age they will vote in any candidate that promises reperations for madre and padre along with all sorts of freebies in reward for their "struggle".
But the Indians were here legally.
So that is not the same.
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.