Posted on 04/28/2010 1:40:34 PM PDT by Steelfish
“It takes a court decision to state that the 14th applied to the children of slaves, not aliens”
Just because slaves were the main issue does not mean it only applies to slaves. People have this confusion over original intent, thinking we ought only to understand the core motivation, no matter what the actual language says. In fact, if the 14th amendment framers had wished for only former slaves and their children to be citizens, and not anchor babies, it would have been exceedingly simple to use different language. But they didn’t, and the language they used applies to anchor babies as well.
There is nothing cruel about making someone go home, and nothing cruel about someone taking their kids with them when they go. What else would you do, leave them? Its silly even to say. Of course, if you’re going home, your kids go with you. Thats not cruel; cruel would be abandoning your kids. You wouldn’t do that and no one in their right mind would imagine you would.
Something also to consider (I don’t know the answer to this) is what were the requirements to become a citizen when the 14th Amendment was written?
Wouldn't the fact that they had permission to be in this country make them legal? If you are legal, then I see no reason why you would not get citizenship. We are talking about ILLEGALS.
Did they have anchor babies in the 1880’s?
“Is factually untrue. We do, in fact, ‘deport’ diplomats on occasion (though it may be called ‘repatriation’)”
When I say we don’t do to diplomats what we do to illegals, I don’t mean to imply that diplomats are immune to all laws. But they are immune to some, which puts them in a different class. To take the most famous example, diplomats may be free to ignore fines assessed for parking infractions, whereas illegals are assumed to be liable for such violations.
“members of invading armies have, in fact, been imprisoned, and later deported / repatriated”
Yes, but of course they must be made to surrender first. And even then, we don’t treat them like we do all other criminals (that is, we only grant them what rights we see fit).
“No, the modern liberal interpretation of the 14th amendment disagrees with him”
And the modern conservative one (or at least the majority one), too. Unless you wanna believe conservatives also have a “liberal interpretation.” Which is fine. Just so you know.
“It’s the phrase ‘and subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ meaning if a person is subject not to the jurisdiction of the the US but of another country, then they are not citizens.”
Um, who says illegals are “subject to the jurisdition” of another country when they are here? Why would they be? Because they’re citizens of another country? Well, so are dual citizens, and it’s perfectly fine to be a dual citizen according to the U.S. government. Actually, when you get down to it, it’s not that they’re fine with it, exactly. They just don’t care. They don’t recognize it. You’re a citizen whether or not you’re also a citizen of another country.
“Wouldn’t the fact that they had permission to be in this country make them legal?”
Yes, they were legal aliens. That case was not about anchor babies, persay. But if you read beyond the facts of the case to the underlying rationale of the decision, you’ll find that the juustices decided that there were only three exceptions to the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” clause:
1) Diplomats,
2) Members of a hostile occupying force, and
3) Native Americans.
I don’t believe any decision has ever held differently.
Try reading this:
No, it would simply require Congress to pass a law enforcing the 14th Amendment.
What is your reasoning for that interpretation?
“What is your reasoning for that interpretation?”
Well, illegals are subject to U.S. laws, for one. No one denies that, do they? Furthermore, they don’t fall into any of the categories traditionally associated with not being subject to U.S. jurisdiction, namely diplomats, members of hostile occupying forces, and Native Americans.
Just watch, the Progressives label him “racist”, and “against the little chilldrumnnn!”
“All of those people are subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. regardless of any qualifying statutes.”
No, they aren’t.
“The very immunity from certain laws that they enjoy exists due to U.S. jurisdiction does it not?”
No, it doesn’t.
“The very immunity from certain laws that they enjoy exists due to U.S. jurisdiction does it not?”
Just to clarify, the three categories I mentioned did not arrive by their qualified immunity through statutes or anything like that (though, certainly, there are statutes covering them). They are of another sort because of the underlying nature of their relationship to the U.S. government. Which relationships are in each case fundamentally different from the relationships that exist between the U.S. government and regular people who happen to reside somewhere under its authority, be they interlopers or legals.
First, diplomats have immunity because they are official envoys form other nations, and there is a whole long diplomatic tradition predating its existence to which the U.S. subscribes.
Second, invading armies and hostile forces just aren’t like everyday illegals, and I don’t think I have to explain why.
Third, Native Americans’ occupation of what is now U.S. territory long predates the existence of the U.S. Our government has always had a special relationship with them. Never, ever, was it assumed that they didn’t have their own form of sovereignty, even if we did decide their fate for them.
All acceded to by U.S. law.
“All acceded to by U.S. law.”
What’s your point? U.S. authorities acceeded to it, recognizing that such people are not under their jurisdiction, therefore they’re really under U.S. jurisdiction, in a roundabout way? I mean, if U.S. authorities had to decide they’re in their own category, they had to kinda be under U.S. jurisdiction for a split-second, at least, while it was being decided that they weren’t under our jurisdiction.
So I guess that means the children of invading armies and diplomats are citizens, after all. Because they were in the past designated as not being under U.S. citizenship by U.S. authority, which means they kinda, sorta, maybe, perhaps were under U.S. jurisdiction for a split-second.
FMCDH(BITS)
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.