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

Skip to comments.

GOP majority in House will push to end 'birthright citizenship'
Sacramento Bee ^ | 11/18/10 | Rob Hotakainen

Posted on 11/18/2010 8:20:29 AM PST by SmithL

WASHINGTON – As one of its first acts, the new Congress will consider denying citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants who are born in the United States.

Those children, who are now automatically granted citizenship at birth, will be one of the first targets of the Republican-led House when it convenes in January.

GOP Rep. Steve King of Iowa, the incoming chairman of the subcommittee that oversees immigration, is expected to push a bill that would deny "birthright citizenship" to such children.

The measure, assailed by critics as unconstitutional, is an indication of how the new majority intends to flex its muscles on the volatile issue of illegal immigration.

The idea has a growing list of supporters, including Republican Reps. Tom McClintock of Elk Grove and Dan Lungren of Gold River, but it has aroused intense opposition, as well.

"I don't like it," said Chad Silva, statewide policy analyst for the Latino Coalition for a Healthy California. . . .

(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...


TOPICS: Front Page News; Government; Politics/Elections; US: California; US: Iowa
KEYWORDS: aliens; anchor; anchorbabies; babies; birthright; california; entitlements; illegalaliens; iowa; mcclintock
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-112 next last

1 posted on 11/18/2010 8:20:32 AM PST by SmithL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl
The idea has a growing list of supporters, including Republican Reps. Tom McClintock of Elk Grove
FYI
2 posted on 11/18/2010 8:22:49 AM PST by SmithL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

“As one of its first acts, the new Congress will consider denying citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants who are born in the United States.”

Good.


3 posted on 11/18/2010 8:23:13 AM PST by Grunthor (Touch my junk and Ill knock you the f**k out)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
“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.”

-- Senator Jacob Howard, co-author of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, 1866.

4 posted on 11/18/2010 8:24:12 AM PST by pgyanke (Republicans get in trouble when not living up to their principles. Democrats... when they do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
""I don't like it," said Chad Silva, statewide policy analyst for the Latino Coalition for a Healthy California. . . ."

Latino Coalition for a Healthy California? If that's not an oxymoron, I don't know what is.

5 posted on 11/18/2010 8:24:49 AM PST by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

...no more anchor babies!!


6 posted on 11/18/2010 8:25:42 AM PST by STONEWALLS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

I hope that they pass the legislation pursuant to Section 5 of the 14th Amendment, which empowers Congress to enact legislation to enforce the other sections of the 14th Amendment, including Section 1’s declaration that all persons born in the United States “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” are citizens of the U.S.


7 posted on 11/18/2010 8:26:47 AM PST by AuH2ORepublican (If a politician won't protect innocent babies, what makes you think that he'll protect your rights?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

Remind Americans that it is not retroactive, which is unconstitutional, and this will go more smoothly.


8 posted on 11/18/2010 8:27:09 AM PST by TheThinker (Communists: taking over the world one kooky doomsday scenario at a time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

Too many squishy RINOs, I am glad they are trying but it will NEVER pass.


9 posted on 11/18/2010 8:27:33 AM PST by fuzzybutt (Democrat Lawyers are the root of all evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

AMEN!


10 posted on 11/18/2010 8:28:03 AM PST by defal33
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pgyanke
Senator Jacob Howard, co-author of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, 1866

Well then he should have worded the amendment that way, shouldn't he?

11 posted on 11/18/2010 8:30:10 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: pgyanke
With all due respect to Senator Howard, if that is what he wanted it to mean, he should have included "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." into the text of the amendment.

Since it is not part of the text, we have some "wise latina" trying to ascertain the meaning of the amendment, and she will not look at "original intent".

12 posted on 11/18/2010 8:31:11 AM PST by kosciusko51
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
"...assailed by critics as unconstitutional..."
So enforcing the Amendment as it was written and intended is "unconstitutional"?!
Needs some editing...
"..assailed by critics the naive as unconstitutional..."
13 posted on 11/18/2010 8:31:11 AM PST by astyanax (Liberalism: Logic's retarded cousin.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
Maybe the GOP has finally learned a lesson after watching California this past election, and have given up Rove's "natural republicans" strategy.

They'd better have - they're dead political meat if they haven't.

14 posted on 11/18/2010 8:33:02 AM PST by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

“Healthy”, as in plague, leprosy, tuberculosis, dengue fever, malaria, parasites, and other exotica heretofore either unseen or eradicated in America.


15 posted on 11/18/2010 8:34:43 AM PST by mrsmel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand

How about we just end instant welfare sign-up for anyone with an illegal head of household? That way, the parasites will stop coming and stop popping out these anchor children. And while we’re at it, stop the instant Medicaid and Medicare sign up also. I’ve NEVER figured out how our social service agencies get the OK to allow them to sign up for benefits. I mean — there are LEGIONS of do-gooder social service types who constantly roll out the red carpet for these people to sign up for every program imaginable. I’ve seen it w/ my own eyes working in a health clinic as a student nurse.

The only reason many of these people make it here is due to the welfare bennies, the plentiful jobs, and the ability to live 20 to a household. Stop the jobs, bennies, and living arrangements and we stop the influx. Plus a mighty high fence.

They come for the freebies, and that’s it. They don’t give a hoot about this country in any way shape or form. As soon as they’ve looted it long enough, they run back home or send their earnings back home.

It’s all about the money — not anything closely related to a yearning to be an American. Stop the money flow, NOW.


16 posted on 11/18/2010 8:35:46 AM PST by LibsRJerks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

Finally!


17 posted on 11/18/2010 8:38:31 AM PST by PATRIOT1876 (Language, Borders, Culture, Full employment for those here legally)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: skeeter

Yep, these “natural Republicans” have yet to vote their supposed “family values” over their entitlements. Anyone who clings to this notion after decades of watching the black majority vote for democrat gimmees over their supposed social conservatism just doesn’t want to know.


18 posted on 11/18/2010 8:39:33 AM PST by mrsmel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

Politically speaking, this is an excellent argument to take up..... in June.

Let’s prioritize folks, and unwind 0bamaCare, Stimulus, Tax Increases, etc. first. Things on which we have vast majorities of Americans behind us and ready to support.

Somewhat more controversial stuff (where we still have a majority, like building a fence), can wait a couple of months while we build credibility doing the most highly popular things.

I’m not arguing against the idea. I’m arguing the politics of priorities and how they will be received by the electorate.


19 posted on 11/18/2010 8:39:47 AM PST by Uncle Miltie (0bama thought he'd find "common ground" on 0bamaCare because of ROMNEYCARE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
About time. The designers of the 14th specifically said it was not to apply to people in the country illegally. That was “interpreted” later.
20 posted on 11/18/2010 8:40:35 AM PST by Hoffer Rand (There ARE two Americas: "God's children" and the tax payers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
About time. The designers of the 14th specifically said it was not to apply to people in the country illegally. That was “interpreted” later.
21 posted on 11/18/2010 8:40:46 AM PST by Hoffer Rand (There ARE two Americas: "God's children" and the tax payers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

Great...I’m really beginning to like these guy’s!!


22 posted on 11/18/2010 8:41:29 AM PST by ontap
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Well then he should have worded the amendment that way, shouldn't he?

He did... for those who can read. That's what "... and subject to the jurisdiction thereof..." means. Lawyers have bastardized the law to what it is now... just like the 2nd Amendment... but the words still mean what they were meant to mean.

23 posted on 11/18/2010 8:43:09 AM PST by pgyanke (Republicans get in trouble when not living up to their principles. Democrats... when they do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: kosciusko51

Maybe he thought that he was writing for an educated populace. At the time of the writing “... and subject to the jurisdiction thereof...” meant what you suggested. That’s why he said “of course” in his explanation... it was self-evident in the language. Then come the lawyers...


24 posted on 11/18/2010 8:46:37 AM PST by pgyanke (Republicans get in trouble when not living up to their principles. Democrats... when they do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: kosciusko51; pgyanke; Non-Sequitur

I could be mistaken, but I believe that illegal aliens are not “...subject to the jurisdiction thereof...” as that phrase is defined. If so, Senator Howard’s comments would be redundant.

Also, legislative history is relevant, though not conclusive evidence, in determining the intent of laws.


25 posted on 11/18/2010 8:47:20 AM PST by Yooper4Life (They all lie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Grunthor

This is the first act? I never heard this.


26 posted on 11/18/2010 8:47:31 AM PST by Hildy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur; kosciusko51
Well then he should have worded the amendment that way, shouldn't he?

Yeah right.

We all see how well the "Shall not be infringed" wording worked"

Of course you can argue that the word infringed is not defined in the Constitution just like Natural Born Citizen is not defined either.

27 posted on 11/18/2010 8:48:14 AM PST by Las Vegas Ron (Moderates manipulate, extremists use violence, but the goal is the same.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
Personally, I think it's the wrong way to go if done by itself. It will be blocked by the Senate and Obama and even if it passes it will end up in litigation for years to come. The first challenge would be in the 9th district which will say it is not constitutional and it will have to go all the way to the Supreme Court who will probably do everything it can to avoid touching the issue. In the meantime, nothing has changed.

The anchor baby issue comes up because right now the parents of US citizens can be petitioned for by their adult children. It is an immediate relative category which means no having to wait for a visa number (the category is not limited to a set number per year). To fix the problem now all you have to do is amend the Immigration and Nationality Act making a parent inadmissible (unable to get their greencard) if they are being petitioned by a US citizen by birth child and the parent was not legally in the US at the time of that child's birth.

No need to amend the Constitution and no basis for challenging the constitutionality of the law. It can be passed more easily and would be less likely to be tied up in legal challenges so can take effect immediately.

All in all, a much better way to handle the anchor baby issue now. The birthright challenge can still be brought separately.

28 posted on 11/18/2010 8:50:00 AM PST by Armando Guerra
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Yooper4Life
I could be mistaken, but I believe that illegal aliens are not “...subject to the jurisdiction thereof...” as that phrase is defined.

The jails in this country are filled with illegal aliens who found out that they were indeed 'subject to the jurisdiction' of our federal or state governments.

29 posted on 11/18/2010 8:55:56 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: pgyanke
... but the words still mean what they were meant to mean.

And what does that phrase mean to you?

30 posted on 11/18/2010 8:56:54 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Yooper4Life

I tried that argument once, and got the response to the effect of “If you think illegal aliens are not subject to US jurisdiction, look at the US inmate population”.


31 posted on 11/18/2010 8:58:05 AM PST by kosciusko51
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
Better to pass a law clarifying that no child born here by any foreigner is not nor ever has been a legal citizen. Anyone that has been here illegally or is here illegally are not US citizens and are not domociled here. It is also clear that those that wrote the 14th understood the difference between children born in the US to citizens and those born to non-citizens. They showed this by excluding Indians. Their original intent is clear. They wanted to include blacks as citizens while excluding Indians because Indians were considered citizens of their own nations.

In 1924 Congress granted citizen rights to Indians. Today, as they did in 1924 they can either clarify that illegals who have children on our soil have been or will be citizens or do the opposite.

While foreigners and illegals may have legal protection under our laws that should be all they have. And they certainly do not have any extra legal protection by their own declaration. For example, if they happen to be moslem and demand that sharia law be inserted with or before US law. Which brings up the question whether the followers of islam even born here are citizens since they have repudiated their citizenship by declaring that islam is first before the US Constitution.

At a minimum we need to stop this anchor baby garbage and do so ASAP.

32 posted on 11/18/2010 8:58:05 AM PST by isthisnickcool (Sharia? No thanks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
Every little bit helps, but we need to seal our borders.
33 posted on 11/18/2010 8:58:19 AM PST by Gabrial (The Whitehouse Nightmare will continue as long as the Nightmare is in the Whitehouse)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

I can’t say that I agree with this idea. We’re going to end up like France, with third generation kids who know nothing but America. They certainly wont leave to Mexico. Rioting anyone? A much better solution is an ACTUAL fix, namely, a fence.


34 posted on 11/18/2010 8:58:26 AM PST by Bastiat_Fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

About time. We are the only country that does this insanity.


35 posted on 11/18/2010 8:58:54 AM PST by tips up
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Armando Guerra

Anchor babies were lawyered in.
There is no need to “change the Constitution”.
Simply enforce the 14th Amendment as it was written and intended.


36 posted on 11/18/2010 9:01:03 AM PST by astyanax (Liberalism: Logic's retarded cousin.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

The words “...and subject to their jurisdiction...” takes care of everything. An illegal alien is not subject to United States jurisdiction.

Let’s try this little experiment: “All undocumented aliens in the United States are hereby ordered to report to the nearest community police station to be registered.”

What’s that? Nobody showed up? Well ain’t that a hole in the boat!

A resolution by Congress (not even a new law, per se) would be sufficient to settle this confusion. No Amendment required, either.


37 posted on 11/18/2010 9:01:15 AM PST by DNME (With the sound of distant drums ... something wicked this way comes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
Also should end Duel citizenship!
38 posted on 11/18/2010 9:01:24 AM PST by defal33
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

And it’s about damn time!!!

A prime technique for bringing down an existing social order is to OVERLOAD and OVERWHELM the governmental systems, creating economic and social chaos. What’s going on today straight out of Saul Alinsky’s “Handbook for Radicals.” Because we have NOT sent home 20 million illegals, WE NOW HAVE THE FORMER AND ARE CLOSING IN ON THE LATTER. BOTH parties have been applying those methods but Obama, who studied those methods under Bill Ayers while a so-called “community organizer,” is using ALL the tools in the radical toolkit. If it continues much longer, YOUR kids are doomed to life as serfs in a nation that will more resemble Nazi Germany or the old USSR than the America the Founders ATTEMPTED to leave us.

A member of the family is an OB/GYN who took her pre-med at HAAAAVVAAAAADDD! Needless to say, she emerged from that experience a LIBERAL. (She stopped catching babies and went into research when her malpractice premiums exceeded her annual earnings.)

Upon completing her medical training at yet another liberal university, she interned at a hospital near the border in “Kahlifonia.”

It was there that a mystical transformation took place: She began to connect the heavy deductions from the slave wage GROSS EARNINGS for which she busted her butt for as many as 72 virtually sleepless hours in a row with the taxis and jalopies regularly sliding to the curb in front of the ER.

Many of them contained pregnant illegals who won the race to deliver their babies HERE. She caught many of those “anchor babies” who, under the current — and COMPLETELY ERRONEOUS —interpretation of the 14th Amendment were IMMEDIATELY NEW AMERICANS. The mother – who, obviously, could not care for the child if she were back in her native land — could not be deported now even if the INS and the political bosses WANTED her deported . And as the mother of a new US citizen, the woman could remain here for about as long as she cared to – and that was usually for life.

(NOTE: For a short, Reader’s Digest version of the ORIGINAL intent of the 14th Amendment, go here: http://pocusa.info/NLArchive22_14thAmndt.html . For a more comprehensive explanation of the events surrounding the amendment, go here: http://www.14thamendment.us/index.html )

Most of those patients were welfare recipients and the deliveries were charity cases: The bill for the hospital’s – and HER services – were routinely spread over the bills of those who DO pay. And what the other users of those facilities don’t cover went back to the taxpayers.
And since my niece was now a taxpayer, they were costing HER.

And while she may not exactly be a libertarian, today she’s now a LOOONNNNG way from Haaaavaaaaaad.

And just so the bleeders who might see this don’t think me some sort of ethnocentric bigot, I submit this problem is MORE than just about illegals.

Before my oldest daughter was born at University Hospital in Cleveland in 1967, I sat in the main lobby as welfare mother-to-be after welfare mother-to-be shuffled through the door to the maternity ER for THEIR free deliveries.

Before WE could take OUR daughter home, I had to cough up over 3 grand. And that was a great deal of dough in 1967, especially for a guy just out of the USAF.

As I wrote the check, I remembered the magazine article I’d recently read by a hospital administrator from Massachusetts who admitted that all US hospitals practiced a form of medical Marxism, spreading the costs of care for indigents over the bills of those who DO pay for care. Given the move to socialism here, it probably will never be otherwise: Not counting Byzantine complexity and confusion, government produces – and has — NOTHING unless it first takes it from some PERSON. SOMEBODY ALWAYS PAYS.

The illegals have been using the emergency rooms of our hospitals for their health-care, almost always at no charge to them. That cost is either spread over other users or the taxpayers. We have seen a national epidemic of hospital closings due to their insolvency, much of it caused by the burden of trying to render care to PEOPLE WHO SHOULDN’T EVEN BE HERE, denying care to native-born citizens who normally pay their bills and their taxes.

Look, I have a big enough problem paying for the 3rd and 4th generation slackers and welfare bums who were BORN here.

It’s time we stopped paying for those who were not.


39 posted on 11/18/2010 9:02:27 AM PST by Dick Bachert (o)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LibsRJerks

“Look to Milton —Open borders and the welfare state”

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/221330/look-milton/robert-rector


40 posted on 11/18/2010 9:05:57 AM PST by WOBBLY BOB ( "I don't want the majority if we don't stand for something"- Jim Demint)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
And what does that phrase mean to you?

I hate smart-ass, lawyer-type talk. Word-twisting pisses me off.

"Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means."

-- Sen. Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, author of the Thirteenth Amendment, and the one who inserted the phrase.

41 posted on 11/18/2010 9:08:09 AM PST by pgyanke (Republicans get in trouble when not living up to their principles. Democrats... when they do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: DNME
An illegal alien is not subject to United States jurisdiction.

Nonsense. An illegal alien can be arrested, tried, convicted and sentenced by the United States.

A diplomat cannot.

Thus, an illegal alien is subject to our jurisdiction while a diplomat is not.

The writers of the 14th amendment did not envision the type of mobility that exists in this modern world.

The Constitution needs to be amended to stop anchor babies. I think it should be amended, and the way the Constitution reads, it is required.

42 posted on 11/18/2010 9:09:04 AM PST by Anitius Severinus Boethius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

Well, here we go. The new congress isn’t even seated yet and the dilution of the agenda begins.


43 posted on 11/18/2010 9:10:36 AM PST by Mr. Bird
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
The jails in this country are filled with illegal aliens who found out that they were indeed 'subject to the jurisdiction' of our federal or state governments.

Breaking our laws does not make foreigners into citizens... same is true for any other country on the planet... it simply makes you a guest in our facilities.

44 posted on 11/18/2010 9:11:09 AM PST by pgyanke (Republicans get in trouble when not living up to their principles. Democrats... when they do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: pgyanke

Bookmark


45 posted on 11/18/2010 9:12:59 AM PST by antisocial (Texas SCV - Deo Vindice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

Huge race component too this...too bad blacks probably won’t see that ending this helps them too


46 posted on 11/18/2010 9:13:15 AM PST by wardaddy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kosciusko51

The jails in this country are filled with illegal aliens who found out that they were indeed ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ of our federal or state governments.

AND

I tried that argument once, and got the response to the effect of “If you think illegal aliens are not subject to US jurisdiction, look at the US inmate population”.
*************

You are talking about a different set of facts: jurisdiction attained by the U.S./States as a result of illegal aliens committing crimes on on U.S. soil is not the same as conferring U.S. citizenship on babies born to illegal aliens on U.S. soil.

Again, I’d have to research it, but legal “jurisdiction” is not as clear cut a term as some may think.


47 posted on 11/18/2010 9:19:09 AM PST by Yooper4Life (They all lie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: pgyanke; Non-Sequitur

forgot to include you in my response:
*****

The jails in this country are filled with illegal aliens who found out that they were indeed ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ of our federal or state governments.

AND

I tried that argument once, and got the response to the effect of “If you think illegal aliens are not subject to US jurisdiction, look at the US inmate population”.
*************

You are talking about a different set of facts: jurisdiction attained by the U.S./States as a result of illegal aliens committing crimes on on U.S. soil is not the same as conferring U.S. citizenship on babies born to illegal aliens on U.S. soil.

Again, I’d have to research it, but legal “jurisdiction” is not as clear cut a term as some may think.


48 posted on 11/18/2010 9:21:02 AM PST by Yooper4Life (They all lie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Anitius Severinus Boethius
Nonsense. An illegal alien can be arrested, tried, convicted and sentenced by the United States.

A diplomat cannot.

Thus, an illegal alien is subject to our jurisdiction while a diplomat is not.

This is nonsense. When having a legal argument, rather than simply stating an opinion, people should do actual research on the law. Once again, being arrested and incarcerated does not make someone a citizen. If it did, our history would be one where millions of "immigrants" moved to the head of the immigration line by "virtue" of breaking our laws.

The lunacy of that proposition is self-evident.

49 posted on 11/18/2010 9:24:20 AM PST by pgyanke (Republicans get in trouble when not living up to their principles. Democrats... when they do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: pgyanke
"That's what "... and subject to the jurisdiction thereof..." means."

Only if you create some weird definition of "jurisdiction". Sorry, no.

It's very simple. If civil law applies to you, if you can get arrested for committing a crime, then you are "subject to the jurisdiction". That's what jurisdiction means. Illegal aliens are certainly subject to our laws when they are here.

The problem with the quote isn't so much that it is wrong or conflicts with the 14th, it's that people are misreading it. They are reading it as if it said:

"This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners OR aliens OR who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers..."

There are no "ORs" in it. It is an attribute list of single class of persons. Families of ambassadors are foreigners and aliens.

50 posted on 11/18/2010 9:26:56 AM PST by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-112 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