Posted on 04/29/2010 1:49:52 PM PDT by SoonerStorm09
OKLAHOMA CITY — In an interview with Oklahoma news website Red Dirt Report at the first Oklahoma City Tax Day Tea Party on April 15, 2009, State Rep. Mike Christian (R-Oklahoma City) noted the large turnout at the State Capitol and commented that he is a big advocate of supporting the 10th Amendment to the US Constitution.
Christian then noted something else: the growing problem of illegal immigration.
“I’m fed up with illegal immigration,” he said at the time.
Representing a district in south Oklahoma City, where a lot of immigrants – some of whom are illegal – live, Christian is well aware of the problem and the effect it is having on his district and in the state.
And for Christian it is a personal issue. A few months before that interview with Red Dirt Report, Christian and his wife were both injured in a hit-and-run accident involving someone he believed to be an illegal alien. Christian said he is still recovering from his injuries, which affected a disc in his back and will require future surgery. His wife has fully recovered.
(Excerpt) Read more at oklahoma.watchdog.org ...
Hmmmm, could cause a lot of problems.
GOOD!
No “certification of live birth” either
The Constitution DOES NOT say “Anyone born in the USA is a citizen”
it says” “Anyone born in the usa, AND UDER THE LAWS AN JURSIDICTIONS OF, is a citizen”
The founders must have been asked the meaning of that clause- I think some one here visiting (or especially illegally) is NOT “under the laws and jurisdicotns of”
Heh heh, Arizona’s got nothing on us.
Keep the prayers going as it seems to be working. Maybe there is hope for this great nation yet.
That is about all I see in the daytime out and around at lunch 2,3, or 4 young illegal mom’s pushing their ‘anchor baby’ carriages off to the local establishments, i.e., the local charity organizations that hand out free food and then off to the grocery stores to pick up what they can’t get for free. Meanwhile, Dad’s off working a day labor job after having hung out at the local stop’n’go for a couple of hours...Of course when he gets hurt or baby gets sick it’s off to the emergency room......the total (social, financial, sovereign, spiritual, etc.) cost of this is killing this country.
Unfortunately, we've got that little thing known as the 14th Amendment, which says (in part)...
"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.
Notice it says all persons. That's about as exclusionary as you can get. Of course, US v. Wong Kim Ark held...
"The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent 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. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative."
And, people will argue that Ark didn't address illegals. Of course, we have Plyler v. Doe, which was entirely about illegals, and that majority opinion found...
"no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment ‘jurisdiction’ can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful
So, as you can plainly see, the law is quite settled in this regard. The only way to fix this, is a constitutional amendment, at least partially repealing the 14th. The chances of securing a new Amendment on this issue, are probably close to zero.
Notice it says all persons. That's about as inclusive as you can get.
He’s gonna have to take a different tack than this. It ain’t gonna work. It’s a “fact” that if a kid is born somewhere, then they get the paperwork regarding that. That’s all that is going on. It’s paperwork that says where they were born... nothing more and nothing less.
Now, what you do with the kid who was born there — well... that’s another matter. If you want to deport them along with their family — then sure... do that... but you can’t say that they weren’t born there... LOL ...
I wonder if you would explain what the practical difference between these two statements is:
1)”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.”
2”All persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
Do these two statements mean the same thing, in spite of statement number one having the clause, “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” and statement number two not having it? In other words, is the subject and jurisdiction clause meaningless?
Quite to the contrary, it's very meaningful. People who would not be "subject to the jurisdiction" thereof would be foreign diplomats and soldiers of an enemy army, or so was opined in Ark.
And, of course their children, as well.
I agree with ODH’s analysis, and I do not understand him to be AGREEING with the Ark decision. I certainly don’t, although I grant that the 14th Amendment is atrociously worded on this question.
Still, I do support, quixotically, efforts to amend the Constitution to end “citizenship by birth alone.” As nearly all nations do, we should accord newborns the same status held by their birth mothers at the time of birth.
I have a friend who had a baby in Europe and was not afforded citizenship. In fact, the baby had no country until the mom went to the embassy to obtain citizenship and a passport for the baby. She had to list every time she was in or out of the US and where she was as well has her husband covering the span of their ENTIRE LIVES.
Two of the primary authors of the 14th Amendment said that their intent was to EXCLUDE illegals, aliens, ambassadors, etc...
“Subject to the jurisdiction” is a term that has been around for longer than Europe new of the North American continent! If has ALWAYS meant “allegiance to!” During the dark ages, if a knight plundered another kingdom and raped the queen of his conquered kingdom, his child was automatically “subject to the jurisdiction” of the KNIGHT’s King - because his allegiance followed the father!
Just like Obama! He has allegiance to England - because Kenya was under the jurisdiction of England when he was born; therefore, he is subject to the jurisdiction of England as well as America!
Just because progressive judges have ruled that it means the new meanings ONLY, doesn’t change the original intent!
Europe new of = Europe knew of
Why? Its a law that’s long due for the discard heap.
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.