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 ...
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.
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.
Well, here we go. The new congress isn’t even seated yet and the dilution of the agenda begins.
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.
Bookmark
Huge race component too this...too bad blacks probably won’t see that ending this helps them too
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.
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.
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.
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.
Tough noogies, Chad.
Chad Silva has a background in organized labor and personal experience with the role of Latino’s in the healthcare industry. As a union shop steward for a bay area labor union he assisted in helping the union management reflect the rank and file membership by promoting the election of its first Latino president.
Latinos: The Dirty Energy Proposition is Not for Us
Posted by Chad M. Silva, JD — Latino Coalition for a Healthy California at Jun 29, 2010 10:35 AM
Texas oil companies are investing millions of dollars in the Dirty Energy Proposition to repeal portions of California’s health and safety codes, some of the most comprehensive in the nation. This is dangerous especially for California’s Latino communities, not only because they are disproportionately located near polluting facilities, but also because many Latinos lack access to health care.
You are confused. Nobody says being arrested makes you a citizen.
If you can be arrested then you are, by definition, subject to the jurisdiction of the law. The 14th says that if you are here and have a child then your child is a citizen.
I never said it made someone a citizen. Good grief. Learn to read.
The Constitution said that if you are born in the borders of the United States and are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, you are a citizen. Two criteria.
If you can be arrested and convicted and sentenced, you are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
Therefore, if you are born in the United States, and the United States can put you in jail, you are a citizen of the United States.
Both of those must be met.
A Diplomat’s child does not meet both of those requirements.
The child of an illegal alien who was born in the United States does.
That means we need to change the Constitution.
I’m all for it, but I doubt it’ll even get to the floor. There will be too many whining that it’s not fair or it’s not pc or it’s racial profiling or because they can’t keep their office without the illegal vote.
You mean like the one meant by the writers of the amendment? Nah, that would be crazy talk!
If civil law applies to you, if you can get arrested for committing a crime, then you are "subject to the jurisdiction".
Great. Remember that kid who was caned in Singapore... he (or at least his progeny) are citizens of Singapore since he was punished by them for his crime, right? All of those GIs and college students who found out how tough Mexican laws are when they got a little roudy in Tijuana are suddenly citizens of Mexico?
What you propose is your own opinion, not Constitutional nor International understandings of law.
You mean like the one meant by the writers of the amendment? Nah, that would be crazy talk!
If civil law applies to you, if you can get arrested for committing a crime, then you are "subject to the jurisdiction".
Great. Remember that kid who was caned in Singapore... he (or at least his progeny) are citizens of Singapore since he was punished by them for his crime, right? All of those GIs and college students who found out how tough Mexican laws are when they got a little roudy in Tijuana are suddenly citizens of Mexico?
What you propose is your own opinion, not Constitutional nor International understandings of law. This limited definition of "jurisdiction" is one formed while watching the Dukes of Hazzard.
I don't disagree with your interpretation of the 14th as written. However, the courts have disagreed. The question is then "who and "how" to enforce it? We can blog about it all day but that won't change it. In fact, Freepers have been stating "simply enforce it as written" as long as I can remember here but anchor babies are still being born daily. The Republicans can pass a bill saying "the 14th amendment means what it says" in the House but that won't change it either if the Senate and Obama won't go along with it. I don't see the addition of Sotomayor and Kagan being the tipping point to a change by the courts either. So what happens?
Bottom line, we've been arguing about what the courts should have done but have not accomplished any change in what they have done. Everybody wants to pull the anchor out. I say cut the anchor line in the meantime.
You have it right.
The concept “subject to the jurisdiction” was not limited solely to whether U.S. criminal laws applied. The record at the time, and subsequently, clearly indicates that language also meant “exclusive jurisdiction, and not subject to the jurisdiction of any other nation”.
If a Mexican illegally in the U.S. today visited the offices of a Mexican consulate and complained of torture or some other bizarre treatment by the U.S., you can safely bet the Mexican government would respond, if need be all the way to the U.N.
Once can ask, if Mexicans are not subject to the jurisdiction of Mexico, why does Mexico accept their return when they are removed from the U.S.?
All former black slaves are now dead and presumably so are their children. Thank you for your services, XIV Amendment. Job well done.
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.