Deport Children of Illegals: Hunter

NBCSanDiego ^ | April 28, 2010 | R. Stickney

[IYAS9YAS]

First of all, the 14th amendment says nothing about having to be subject to a state’s jurisdiction.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

Okay, so which state is not part of the United States?

[rob777]

"Then it is time for an Amendment to the 14th Amendment. I agree that we can’t strip citizenship from those already here, but we need to put a stop to the illegal entry."


Agreed. The 14th Amendment was written as a response to slavery but the language clearly grants citizenship to people born in the U.S. or under its jurisdiction. I do not like what has been done with this clause, but will not deny the plain language in which it was written. We cannot decry liberals who play fast and loose with the plain language of the constitution and then do the same thing when it suits our purposes. To be consistent, we should back an amendment to fix this mess.

[Dante3]

Hunter is right.

[John-Irish]

Amendments can be changed.

[TigersEye]

The 14th Amendment was written as a response to slavery but the language clearly grants citizenship to people born in the U.S. or under its jurisdiction.

Not "or" "and." You altered the wording which changes the meaning.

[TheThinker]

Whatever your thoughts on "original intent" maybe, they nevertheless must take into account decades of judicial precedent which state that the 14th covers the citizenship of those born on US soil, even to illegal residents. It would take a reversal at the Supreme Court level to change this. In other words, there ain't mierda we can do legislatively to end birthright citizenship for illegals.

There is one beacon of light on the issue of judicial precedent.

While Roberts conceded that "departures from precedent are inappropriate in the absence of a ‘special justification,'" he added that "At the same time, stare decisis is neither an ‘inexorable command'... nor ‘a mechanical formula of adherence to the latest decision' ... especially in constitutional cases," noting that "If it were, segregation would be legal, minimum wage laws would be unconstitutional, and the Government could wiretap ordinary criminal suspects without first obtaining warrants."

[TheThinker]

Unless you wanna believe conservatives also have a “liberal interpretation.

It's not rooted in originalism or strict constuctionism. Modern conservatives to a big extent adhere to an interpretation of the 14th amendment that is profoundly liberal.

It is both wrong in that the authors of this amendment meant specific things by the language they used, (what is the usefulness of having laws if they don't mean what they say they mean?) and wrong in allowing the usurpation of America's sovereignty in a way that has absolutely nothing to do with giving freed slaves citizenship.

[Amerigomag]

The 14th amendment disagrees with him.

The federal appellate courts, chiefly from the FDR court packing era, have interpreted the 14th to confer auto-citizenship on anchor babies. However, the only SCOTUS decision to touch indirectly upon the matter, post civil war, thought otherwise.

And yes, by the fruit of the poison vine, those who derived their citizenship through extra-constitution means, my be striped of those rights after an unfavorable SCOTUS ruling.

[Engineer_Soldier]

This man is close to getting my vote should he run again in 2012! I like a man that stands up for what is right. Does anybody have any examples of him selling his values out for political favor, to stump for a friend like McCain, or just being plain wrong on an issue?

[Engineer_Soldier]

You can’t make a change in the law retroactive (ex post facto law). (Article 1, Section 9 ss 3)”

I'm no lawyer, but wasn't the Lautenburg (spelling?) Gun Ban retroactive thereby causing many military men and police men to lose their whole careers?

[Engineer_Soldier]

It seems to me that every amendment post 1864 AD, no matter how well intended, seems in contrary to what our founding fathers envisioned. All of these amendments have eroded Federalism down to its extinction today.

[Tublecane]

“’First of all, the 14th amendment says nothing about having to be subject to a state’s jurisdiction.’

‘Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

Okay, so which state is not part of the United States?’”

I don’t think you comprehend what I was saying. No state is not a part of the United States, obviously. But there is federal territory that isn’t governed by any state. If one were to be born there, they would be under the jurisdiction of the U.S. government yet not under the jurisdiction of any state. Which is all I was getting at.

[Tublecane]

“It’s not rooted in originalism or strict constuctionism...It is both wrong in that the authors of this amendment meant specific things by the language they used”

I disagree. The words are pretty simple, and pretty obviously mean what precedent has come to believe they mean, notwithstanding the supposed intent. Yes, the intent was to grant citizenship to slave. But the way it’s written, it applies to “anchor babies,” whether or not that’s what they wanted.

By the way, when intent knocks up against language, language controls (according to what the language meant when the article was adopted, of course).

[Tublecane]

“And yes, by the fruit of the poison vine, those who derived their citizenship through extra-constitution means”

Anchor babies do not receive their citizenship through extra-constitutional means. You imply that because their parents reside here at the time of their birth illegally, their citizenship status is somehow poisoned. Only their illegal is a statutory matter, not a Constitutional matter. Also, the sins of the father are not visited upon their children.

Anchor babies arrive at citizenship by perfectly Constitutional means. They are citizens by right of the soil, regardless of how they came to be born on the soil, except of course if they weren’t under the jurisdiction of U.S. law at the time of birth. Which illegal aliens obviously are.

[Tublecane]

their illegal = their illegality

[Amerigomag]

their illegality is a statutory matter, not a Constitutional matter.

Bingo!

Had these post war statutes been reviewed by the SCOTUS the nature of the arguments would be greatly changed. Until and unless the SCOTUS finally addresses this collection of Federal District Court interpretations the fur will fly.