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

Skip to comments.

State lawmakers preparing citizenship legislation (no citizenship to children of illegals)
Associated Press ^ | 10-20-10 | PAUL DAVENPORT and AMANDA LEE MYERS

Posted on 10/19/2010 12:30:31 PM PDT by Justaham

Lawmakers in at least 14 states are collaborating on proposed legislation to deny U.S. citizenship to children of illegal immigrants, according to lawmakers, including the sponsor of Arizona's 2010 law targeting illegal immigration.

"We're taking a leadership role on things that need to be fixed in America. We can't get Congress to do it," Republican state Sen. Russell Pearce, of Mesa, said Tuesday. "It's a national work group so that we have model legislation that we know will be successful, that meets the constitutional criteria."

The efforts by the state legislators come amid calls to change the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment, which grants automatic citizenship to U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants. Supporters cite costs to taxpayers for services provided to illegal immigrants and their children.

Pennsylvania state Rep. Daryl Metcalfe, the founder of a national group of legislators critical of illegal immigration, said the 14th Amendment "greatly incentives foreign invaders to violate our border and our laws." He had a news conference Tuesday in Harrisburg, Pa., on the multistate endeavor.

The effort could run afoul of the language in the 14th Amendment and lead to a court battle over the constitutionality of the law. But Metcalfe said providing birthright citizenship to children of illegal immigrants is an "ongoing distortion and twisting" of the amendment.

Metcalfe's office said lawmakers in at least 12 other states besides Arizona and Pennsylvania said they were making their own announcements about working on the citizenship legislation. Those other states: Alabama, Delaware, Idaho, Indiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Texas and Utah. Legislators from a total of 41 states are involved in a Metcalfe-founded group concerned with immigration issues.

(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Front Page News; US: Alabama; US: Arizona; US: Delaware; US: Idaho; US: Indiana; US: Michigan; US: Mississippi; US: Missouri; US: Nebraska; US: New Hampshire; US: Oklahoma; US: Pennsylvania; US: Texas; US: Utah
KEYWORDS: 10thamendment; 14thamendment; alabama; aliens; america; anchorbabies; arizona; children; citizenship; congress; constitutional; delaware; foreigninvaders; idaho; illegalimmigrants; illegalimmigration; indiana; lawmakers; legislation; legislators; michigan; mississippi; montana; nebraska; newhampshire; oklahoma; pennsylvania; republican; states; statesrights; texas; uscitizenship; usconstitution; utah
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-54 next last

1 posted on 10/19/2010 12:30:34 PM PDT by Justaham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Justaham

‘Bout time


2 posted on 10/19/2010 12:31:49 PM PDT by wolfcreek (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lsd7DGqVSIc)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Justaham

What are they talking about? US Citizenship comes from the US. The most they could try to do is deny issuing ‘proof’ of birth.


3 posted on 10/19/2010 12:33:53 PM PDT by sickoflibs ("It's not the taxes, the redistribution is the federal spending=tax delayed")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Justaham
Lawmakers in at least 14 states are collaborating on proposed legislation

I'll believe it when it's been passed into law for the entire nation.

4 posted on 10/19/2010 12:34:39 PM PDT by bgill (K Parliament- how could a young man born in Kenya who is not even a native American become the POTUS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Justaham

Take not that California is never involved in things like this. The state legislature doesn’t have the cajones to get involved.


5 posted on 10/19/2010 12:35:37 PM PDT by RC2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wolfcreek
By vastly over-reaching how far this nation is willing to go the Leftwingtards may well have triggered a Constitutional Majority willing to dispose of all their shibboliths for once and for all.

No birthright citizenship for aliens. No federal involvement in insurance, medical care, education, marriage, etc. Vast restrictions on appellate jurisdiction of federal court system. Term limits for federal judges based on confirmation elections (which would be a lot of fun wouldn't it, bwahahahaha).

That's just off the top of my head. No doubt others have their favorites.

6 posted on 10/19/2010 12:36:08 PM PDT by muawiyah ("GIT OUT THE WAY" The Republicans are coming)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Justaham

...which will be promptly overruled by Judge (fill in the blank) of the (fill in the blank) Circuit Court.


7 posted on 10/19/2010 12:36:27 PM PDT by ScottinVA (The West needs to act NOW to aggressively treat its metastasizing islaminoma!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Justaham

Why does there need to be a constitutional amendment?

Section 5 of the 14th Amendment:

Section. 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

By the way, has anybody looked at Section 3?

Section. 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

It seems to me that most liberals in Congress should have been disqualified for office by their treasonous activities.

The Congressional Hispanic Caucus, for example.


8 posted on 10/19/2010 12:39:42 PM PDT by radpolis (Liberals: You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Justaham

Suppose someone was born in the U.S. and lived here his whole life. Do you really want to deport him because his parents are illegal? Punishing children for the sins of their parents makes me uncomfortable. I don’t think there should be automatic citizenship for someone born in the U.S. to illegals, but I do think there ought to be a path to citizenship for people who were born here, obey the law, and are not a drain on society.


9 posted on 10/19/2010 12:39:58 PM PDT by reaganaut1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Justaham
U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment, which grants automatic citizenship to U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants.

Actually, it doesn't. It has been misinterpreted for decades.

10 posted on 10/19/2010 12:40:26 PM PDT by IYAS9YAS (Liberalism can be summed up thusly: someone craps their pants and we all have to wear diapers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs
Rules For Naturalization comes from the US.

Read the Constitution throughly and very carefully by keeping in mind that setting a rule for something does not make the federal government necessarily the author of individual citizenship.

11 posted on 10/19/2010 12:45:44 PM PDT by muawiyah ("GIT OUT THE WAY" The Republicans are coming)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ScottinVA
...which will be promptly overruled by Judge (fill in the blank) of the (fill in the blank) Circuit Court.

You forgot at the end ". . . who was appointed by Clinton/Carter/Obama"

12 posted on 10/19/2010 12:45:46 PM PDT by oldbill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs
What are they talking about? US Citizenship comes from the US. The most they could try to do is deny issuing ‘proof’ of birth.

It's my guess that they are working on US law, not state law. The article is not clear.

13 posted on 10/19/2010 12:46:24 PM PDT by SeeSac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1
Suppose someone was born in the U.S. and lived here his whole life. Do you really want to deport him because his parents are illegal? Punishing children for the sins of their parents makes me uncomfortable. I don’t think there should be automatic citizenship for someone born in the U.S. to illegals, but I do think there ought to be a path to citizenship for people who were born here, obey the law, and are not a drain on society.

So the illegals cross the boarder and have their kids under your 'legislation'. Do you keep the kids in the US as a drain on our society and kick the parents out or what?

14 posted on 10/19/2010 12:50:37 PM PDT by SeeSac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: wolfcreek
‘Bout time

Dittos.

Frankly, the fantasy that the Constitution somehow makes citizens out of transient criminal offspring needs to be dispelled by whatever means necessary.


Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.

15 posted on 10/19/2010 12:50:56 PM PDT by The Comedian (Don't run. You'll just die tired.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

We can’t support these people anymore. This isn’t about someone like that, but that there are children being used as anchors for the rest of a family of practically twenty. The problem is that the child isn’t the drain, but the key to fat checks and benefits.


16 posted on 10/19/2010 12:51:08 PM PDT by Niuhuru (The Internet is the digital AIDS; adapting and successfully destroying the MSM host.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1
"Suppose someone was born in the U.S. and lived here his whole life. Do you really want to deport him because his parents are illegal?"

That is not under discussion here. Focus on the issue - Should that child be considered a US citizen?

Many foreign children are born here and live here legally many years, but are not automatically citizens, for example, children of diplomats, entertainers (William Shatner, Michael Fox, Richard Burton), athletes (the entire NHL), etc.

17 posted on 10/19/2010 12:52:44 PM PDT by oldbill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: The Comedian
Undoubtedly one of the worst interpretations. Leave it to the Left...
18 posted on 10/19/2010 12:56:35 PM PDT by wolfcreek (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lsd7DGqVSIc)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1
Suppose someone was born in the U.S. and lived here his whole life. Do you really want to deport him because his parents are illegal? Punishing children for the sins of their parents makes me uncomfortable.

And suppose that just before he is born, his parent rob a bank for millions of dollars. He grows up in wealth and style. Should he be "punished" by the loss of his lavish lifestyle when when his parents are finally caught and the money is recovered?

The problem is that the parents can't be deported because it would separate the family and he must be provided with government benefits because he is a citizen. Fix those problems and I have no problem with making him a citizen at 18 or 21.

19 posted on 10/19/2010 12:58:55 PM PDT by Onelifetogive (I tweet, too...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: All

“We can’t get Congress to do it,” “

Waiting for Congress was a huge mistake. We were stupid to let them run things to such an extent for us without realizing taht they would of course abuse it.


20 posted on 10/19/2010 1:00:09 PM PDT by Niuhuru (The Internet is the digital AIDS; adapting and successfully destroying the MSM host.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Onelifetogive

His family is also exploiting him. He’s being used to get checks and benefits that should go to him alone. but they are mooching off of him, including his extended family that decides to go along for the ride.


21 posted on 10/19/2010 1:01:16 PM PDT by Niuhuru (The Internet is the digital AIDS; adapting and successfully destroying the MSM host.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Justaham

“WHAT IS A PATRIOT?”

PATRIOTS are not “Revolutionaries” trying to overthrow the government of the United States.

PATRIOTS are “Counter-Revolutionaries” trying to prevent the government of the United States from overthrowing the Constitution of the United States. - Unknown Author

What brings the PATRIOTS out of the woodwork?

When the constitutional process, the system of checks and balances set up by the Founders, has not just been thrown out of kilter, it has been thrown out the window. These socialist maneuvers are what attracts PATRIOTS to the streets of America.


22 posted on 10/19/2010 1:05:18 PM PDT by B4Ranch (Conflict is inevitable; Combat is an option. Train for the fight.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; Arthur Wildfire! March; Berosus; bigheadfred; Convert from ECUSA; Delacon; dervish; ...

Thanks Justaham.


23 posted on 10/19/2010 1:05:23 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (The 2nd Amendment follows right behind the 1st because some people are hard of hearing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IYAS9YAS
"Actually, it doesn't. It has been misinterpreted for decades."

Actually, it does. Those claiming misinterpretation are misinterpreting it.

24 posted on 10/19/2010 1:08:44 PM PDT by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv

Yes! The more states we can get to enact this common-sense legislation, the more we can cut the slithery legs out from under the creeping fascism that has gone so far in this country.

Just say NO to a commie takeover of America.


25 posted on 10/19/2010 1:09:51 PM PDT by TheOldLady (Pablo is very wily.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

>>are not a drain on society.<<

Please explain your definition of this “not a drain on society.”


26 posted on 10/19/2010 1:11:00 PM PDT by B4Ranch (Conflict is inevitable; Combat is an option. Train for the fight.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: mlo

I think it is akin to those who interprit the yellow fringe on american flags and being an issue inside a courtroom. it is meaningless. Born in the USA and you are a citizen.

History and the reason for that amendment support that plain meaning.


27 posted on 10/19/2010 1:12:48 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

Once they turn 18 and are adults in their own right, they can go back “home” and come in the FRONT door like all the other LEGAL immigrants.


28 posted on 10/19/2010 1:13:35 PM PDT by Locomotive Breath
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv

Thanks Civ; BFL.


29 posted on 10/19/2010 1:19:37 PM PDT by ForGod'sSake (You have just two choices: SUBMIT or RESIST with everything you've got!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Justaham

This will be a repeat of the AZ anti-illegals law. States should simply pass these laws and completely ignore the feds, including their lawsuits. Don’t even respond or file answers to them. Really, when you think about it, what can they do about it without starting a civil war?


30 posted on 10/19/2010 1:25:25 PM PDT by chilltherats (First, kill all the lawyers (now that they ARE the tyrants).......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mlo
The original intent of the 14th was not to confer citizenship on just anyone who happened to be born here. http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=11

Middle column, bottom third of the column. "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."

31 posted on 10/19/2010 1:42:24 PM PDT by IYAS9YAS (Liberalism can be summed up thusly: someone craps their pants and we all have to wear diapers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: wolfcreek; 1_Inch_Group; 2sheep; 2Trievers; 3AngelaD; 3pools; 3rdcanyon; 4Freedom; 4ourprogeny; ...

Ping!


32 posted on 10/19/2010 1:47:22 PM PDT by HiJinx (I can see November from my front porch - and Mexico from the back.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: IYAS9YAS
"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."

The sentence is imprecise. It's the written record of what someone said, and sometimes people speak loosely. If you read "aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors...." as the expansion of "foreigners", then that is correct. If you read each element "foreigners", "aliens", "who belong to the families..." as separate and definitive, then it's not correct.

Fortunately, we don't have to rely on this sentence. It is not law. It's a speech. The actual meaning of "under the jurisdiction" is settled law and it has a known meaning. It does not exclude children of aliens, legal or otherwise.

"Under the jurisdiction" covers anyone who is not a foreign diplomat or invading soldier. In other words, anyone who is subject to the "jurisdiction" of our laws, as diplomats and soldiers are not. Illegal aliens and their children, are.

33 posted on 10/19/2010 1:53:17 PM PDT by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

“Suppose someone was born in the U.S. and lived here his whole life. Do you really want to deport him because his parents are illegal?”

Absolutely yes!!!


34 posted on 10/19/2010 1:55:37 PM PDT by dalereed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: mlo
A single comma does not change the meaning there. This person was clearly meaning to disclude certain folks. Read the third column. While it may be a speech, and there may be established law, the clear intent here was to not recognize these folks as citizens of the United States. Yes, they may be subject to our laws, and protected by them, but they were in no way to be considered citizens.

Established law also states that babies may be murdered in the womb.

35 posted on 10/19/2010 1:57:42 PM PDT by IYAS9YAS (Liberalism can be summed up thusly: someone craps their pants and we all have to wear diapers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Niuhuru

Well, at least some of the State are trying to fight back against Congress and their own State representatives that are suppose to represent their own State(s).


36 posted on 10/19/2010 1:57:47 PM PDT by Razzz42
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: chilltherats
States should simply pass these laws and completely ignore the feds, including their lawsuits. Don’t even respond or file answers to them. Really, when you think about it, what can they do about it without starting a civil war?

They could (GASP!) no longer send them federal benefits.

37 posted on 10/19/2010 2:08:00 PM PDT by alexandria ("If this be treason, make the most of it!" Patrick Henry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: mlo
Come on MLO and Longtermmemmory, you have both been here long enough to have read the arguments and know that the fourteenth does not grant citizenship to the children of illegals.

The writers of the fourteenth in private correspondence and interviews explicitly state that it applies only to the children of those who where once held as slaves in this nation. I doubt that there are any left that meet those requirements.

Any child born of illegal parent or parents is also an illegal. If by hook or crook he or she stays through high school, maybe even college, tuff. they along with their parents should be deported.

Upon arrival in the country of origin of the parents, the child can report to the US embassy and barring a criminal record be put at the top of the list for entry to the US. Their having been here illegally will not be held against them but will be against their parents. They will then have to satisfy the same requirements as any other immigrant to become a citizen.

Their parents can not come here to visit. Nor can green cards be issued to relatives.

Any one saying that the fourteenth grants citizenship to any one born here is shilling for the progressives.

38 posted on 10/19/2010 2:13:57 PM PDT by W. W. SMITH (Islam is an instrument of enslavement)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: mlo

Illegal aliens and their children, are.

They are not. MLO you are wrong!


39 posted on 10/19/2010 2:18:32 PM PDT by W. W. SMITH (Islam is an instrument of enslavement)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

They already HAVE citizenship — of whatever country their parents are citizens.

Offering them some sort of short-cut to US citizenship because their parents are criminals makes no sense. You say the kids have done nothing wrong, but they are FAR from ideal candidates for citizenship. They were, after all, raised by criminals in a household that did not value American laws. Every child learns its sense of right and wrong from its parents, and these children are necessarily deficient in that sense.

They should be rounded up and sent home along with their parents. Their parents should be barred from ever applying for a return to the US because they are KNOWN CRIMINALS. Their kids should not be held liable for their parents crimes, but all that means is that they can wait in line with their fellow countrymen, and given no special preference just because their parents were criminals barred from ever visiting the US again. In fact, they should be denied any way to visit the US that is not tied to an intent to become a legal citizen — no student visas or tourist visas, only a work visa where the employer has posted a million dollar bond — because their upbringing in the US would make it to easy for them to overstay a visa and disappear into the population.


40 posted on 10/19/2010 2:19:12 PM PDT by Kellis91789 (Democrat: Someone who supports killing children, but protests executing convicted murderers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

The parents committed crimes by coming here illegally. I sincerely doubt they care about their children other than to use them as a reason NOT to be deported.

We put people in prison all the time — should we agonize over that just because they have children?

The fact is, felons don’t give a damn about their kids otherwise they would not commit crimes and be sent to prison. The same goes for illegal aliens, only in their case the whole family gets deported, as there is no cruelty in keeping families together, now is there?

I don’t buy their cries, “But we did it for our children”. Bull poop!


41 posted on 10/19/2010 2:32:04 PM PDT by SatinDoll (NO FOREIGN NATIONALS AS OUR PRESIDENT!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: reaganaut1

Right now the law is written so that custody follows the parents, not the child.

When the illegal parents are deported, the minor child, REGARDLESS OF CITIZENSHIP, goes with the parents.

The US citizens is free to return upon reaching 18. HOWEVER any children born of that citizen are only citizens of the usa IF the parent US citizen has spent ten years in the USA.

uscis.gov


42 posted on 10/19/2010 2:41:56 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: W. W. SMITH

http://www.uscis.gov

born in the US means US citizen.

That said, the law need to be changed. Constitution or mere law. The original reason for the 14th automatically granting citizenship is no longer present. It is also from an era where STATES controlled immigration.


43 posted on 10/19/2010 2:44:41 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Justaham
The efforts by the state legislators come amid calls to change the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment, which grants automatic citizenship to U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants

At first glance I would say this is a smokescreen and a fake, meant to accomplish the opposite of the entitled purpose. Grandstanding. Bullshiite.

In point of fact, the 14th Amendment DOES NOT in any way, shape, or form grant citizenship to the children of those in the country illegally. In point of fact, neither does it offer citizenship to the children of visitors here legally.

We are dealing with a generous custom, which must now be ended; nothing more. It can be ended tonight by nothing more than an executive order.

What the 14 state legislatures ought to be doing is insisting that Presidential candidates be "Natural Born Citizens," as required in the COTUS. Once and for all, that is what needs to be defined, with the original intent of the Founders clearly in mind.

By denying the present POTUS a p[lace on state ballots, which is clearly within their power, this definition can be settled by the SCOTUS. Has to be done, even if the lesbo-commies now seated toss the case for Obama.

44 posted on 10/19/2010 4:53:23 PM PDT by Kenny Bunk (Revive The Poll Tax and Literacy Requirement for voter registration.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SatinDoll

Amen, and well said. If we ever actually did it, of course there would be reams of sob stories in the media. “Poor, poor Juan or Maria...born in the US...it’s the only home they’ve ever known...now they are cruelly denied citizenship, wrenched from the only home they’ve ever known, deported by this hateful, racist country,” blah, blah, blah.

But it MUST be done. We must be strong. We must stand firm. We must do it.


45 posted on 10/19/2010 7:38:04 PM PDT by Nea Wood (Silly liberal . . . paychecks are for workers!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: alexandria

And the states can quit sending money to the feds. If the entire IRS wants to descend on these taxpayers, I guess the taxpayers will be waiting for them.


46 posted on 10/19/2010 8:54:19 PM PDT by chilltherats (First, kill all the lawyers (now that they ARE the tyrants).......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Springman; sergeantdave; cyclotic; netmilsmom; RatsDawg; PGalt; FreedomHammer; queenkathy; ...

If you would like to be added or dropped from the Michigan ping list, please freepmail me.


47 posted on 10/19/2010 9:33:49 PM PDT by grellis (I am Jill's overwhelming sense of disgust.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nea Wood

We must follow the law. If we don’t, this nation will fly apart from anarchy.

For me, the most visible cases of lawlessness is the proliferation of illegal aliens throughout the land.


48 posted on 10/19/2010 11:32:26 PM PDT by SatinDoll (NO FOREIGN NATIONALS AS OUR PRESIDENT!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Justaham

I’m pretty torn on this issue. On the one hand, if our government did it’s job, then this action would not be an issue. In addition, I am willing to admit that our Founders were much more wise than I can even imagine, so I am very hesitent to changing the USSC.

On the other hand, the gov is neglecting to do their duty.


49 posted on 10/20/2010 9:16:31 AM PDT by CSM (Keeper of the "Dave Ramsey Fan" ping list. FReepmail me if you want your beeber stuned.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mlo

“The actual meaning of “under the jurisdiction” is settled law and it has a known meaning.”

I appreciate your postings and was hoping to see a couple of FReepers debate the issue. I do need the learnin.

That said, your phrase above is meaningless to me. We could also state thet “seperation of church and state” and “legal abortion” are also settled law as interpretations of the USSC. I’d prefer to default to the original intent.


50 posted on 10/20/2010 9:26:33 AM PDT by CSM (Keeper of the "Dave Ramsey Fan" ping list. FReepmail me if you want your beeber stuned.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-54 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