Posted on 08/17/2015 7:07:12 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
You missed the point entirely..again.......because you're focus seems to point to only one place....the legality of the issue....when in fact you can make many laws constitutionally but if they're not **enforced** and in fact ‘reinterpreted’ without opposition to that....then they're simply a line on paper. Obamas been going against the constitution since in office....so why wouldn't every illegal out there do likewise???
Just askin.
.....”The 14th amendment specifically gives Congress the right to clarify it and many attempts to do so as regards the nationality of the children of illegal aliens born in this country have all been defeated by the Democrats and liberal Republicans........Even Harry Reid tried it back in 1993. Bob Stump’s HR 90 from 1999 sat in the docket for years.”....
Well obviously they haven’t clarified that....and that does need to be done.....otherwise enforcement will be impossible as they will use that lack of clarity every time to keep their cases in the courts.....kids grow up...next!
What kind of gibberish is that? We have the law of birthright citizenship. It is being enforced millions of times a year. In order to exclude the children of illegal aliens, we must change the law. Simple as that.
As was posted.....”Thus, it indeed remains within the purview of Congress ‘to act to interpret’ the 14th Amendment in accordance with Article I of the Constitution”....
SCOTUS cannot declare an approved amendment to the Constitution, unconstitutional.
Yes, I read that. We’re good - truce!
That’s not gibberish...that’s what’s happened or we wouldn’t have the anchor babies here.........I think we’re agree in to some extent just not getting points across well it seems.
We have anchor babies because Congress wrote the laws making it so.
Ditto. At least we are compassionate and fight for our side - unlike the wimps in Congress. Maybe we’d be better Senators?
True........our guys need to take a look at some of the fights that break out abroad....then find the middle ground where you can duke it out with passion but leave fists in the pockets.
My gosh when they battle an issue there’s nothing they “feel” about what they’re fighting for...no passion at all ...because they don’t believe what they’re saying...they have no heart in it......just one thing...the next pay off ....$$$$$$$$$$$$$
This was discussed extensively by John Eastman and Ed Meese in their landmark Amicus Curiae brief In Re Hamdi.
Note the basic point:
The Text of the Citizenship Clause Requires Both Birth In United States Territory and Jurisdictional Allegiance to the United States In Order For One To Have a Constitutional Right to Citizenship
Read any of the hits on this search:Eastman Meese Hamdi and you will begin to understand the debate as it has been defined over the past decade.
There have been many attempts to rectify this situation in the Congress:Reduce Anchor Baby Citizenship
Note that Bob Stump's second attempt in 2001 was HR 190, I forgot the "1" earlier. But he was not alone, and even this year Dave Vitter tried to get it going.
When I have a little more time I will find the DoS policy manual where they go further then the statute and resort to De Facto situations and a cheap interpretation of the 14th to justify granting citizenship to the children of illegals.
For the moment, even their own basic policy manual doesn't allow for it:DoS Citizens at Birth.
Let me know your rebuttal to Eastman & Meese. Or show me where in the INA that birth to two foreign nationals who happen to be standing on U.S. soil suddenly makes their children nationals. The only leg they have to stand on is Wong Kim Ark and the misreference to English Common Law on the Sojourner, way back in 1898. And even that referred to parents legally present.
It is 7 FAM 1111 (d).
They just bounce through the ruling in Ark and blithely pronounce the children of illegals to be covered by their shallow analysis, probably written by Chelsea Clinton on kids day when Hillary brought her to work.
It was noted by Coulter back in 2010 that Justice Brennan did in fact make such a footnote about there being no difference between legal and illegal aliens in Plyler v. Doe for the purpose of establishing domicile of the parents, but interestingly, that is nowhere used to justify the conclusion in this State department document.
They just wrote it up. Got one of their guys to give his opinion. Hey! They're The Government! Who's gonna stop them, us?!
We're just the citizens. Lower then whale snot.
I’m glad you’re taking this one today. I don’t have the time.
Yeah, I know how you feel.
We been doing this what, a decade now?
Maybe we’re on the verge. Can only hope. I’d really like to go back to wasting my time worrying about whether I’m going to Capitola or Manresa beach...
What they say and what it actually says are always two different matters......and they continue to do this because it works....just tell [people a lie over and over and it will be accpeted as truth.....it’s from the father of lies.
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.