[IronJack]

To strictly construe the letter of the 14th Amendment, children of illegals are citizens. They meet two of the requisite criteria:

1). They are born in the United States;

2). They are subject to its jurisdiction.

If we interrogate the INTENT of the Amendment, the conclusion is far less certain.

However, doing so takes us out of the realm of strict construction and leads us down the path of relativism, the so-called “living Constitution” where we’re allowed to impute motives to men who have been dead for 150 years.

It’s an ideological dilemma whose simplest — but ultimately unworkable — solution is to clarify the Amendment.

[ExTxMarine]

“However, doing so takes us out of the realm of strict construction and leads us down the path of relativism, the so-called ‘living Constitution’ where we’re allowed to impute motives to men who have been dead for 150 years.”

We are not “imputing” the motives of men who have been dead for 150 years. We are reading their writings and the arguments which were made when this was introduced. They specifically mentioned citizens who had allegiance to other countries and other entities like Navajo Indians. We can agree that Navajo Indians were born in the US territories and states; however, they specifically mentioned that these children would NOT be American citizens!

The problem is that the liberals have used the “living Constitution” argument to change the original intent of this Amendment. We simply want to change it BACK!

And this IS “settled law.” But, I am not talking about the Wong Kim Ark supreme court ruling. Wong Kim Ark was dealing with LEGAL, NON-citizen immigrants. I am talking about the 1884, Elk v. Wilkins ruling which stated that the phrase “subject to its jurisdiction” was interpreted to exclude “children of ministers, consuls, and citizens of foreign states born within the United States.” If the Wong Kim Ark ruling was bedrock, then why was the Citizens Act of 1924, necessary? That act gave citizenship to American Indians!

[Liz]

Pre-eminent Arizona Sen Russell Pearce, author of the state's immensely successful immigration bill, now wants to End Citizenship by Birthright.

GOV BREWER ---- the new symbol of American can-do.

Supermodel and gov Jan Brewer.

Rally for Arizona! (Tea Party Rally for Arizona going nationwide)
Wake Up 1776 ^ | 22 May 2010 | John Smithers
FR Posted on Saturday, May 22, 2010 by FloridaBattleGround
Contact libertyandprosperity1776@gmail.com for details.

Starts June 8th in Orlando and ends in Phoenix on June 12th. Need maximum participation because Arizona needs our help. They are getting hammered in the media.

Please make some signs for the rally that read:

JAN BREWER FOR DEPT OF HOMELAND SECURITY SECY.

RUSSELL PEARCE FOR SECY OF STATE.

[omegadawn]

Your posting shows exactly what the paroblem is :

The correct wording for the 14 th is Born in the U.S
AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF

Liberals like to use the wording:
THEY ARE SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION.

These two sentences have opposite meaning. In the correct meaning of the 14 th. “SUBJECT” refers to a citizen having allegiance.
Any child born in America with allegiance to America is a citizen. Children of illegals have no allegiance to the U.S.

We were deporting children of illegals until the 1980’s when the INS decided it was too expensive to deport them. At no time was it offically stated that they are Constitutionaly citizens of the U.S. This has only been a unoffical policy by the INS( now ICE)

[Mr Rogers]

“2). They are subject to its jurisdiction.”

Really? They pay taxes? The father has to register for the draft?

I didn’t know that...