America no longer white, united, English-speaking

There is no archaeological or anthropological evidence that settlers of Mexico were American Indians and come from America. The evidence is plain from simple observation of the peoples that they came from South America.
From what you have said, and your obvious support for the illegal invasion of America by Mexicans, I judge your position to be self serving in an attempt to advance the theory that Mexicans are somehow related to and descended form original Americans, a piton in the rock of our national sovereignty.

Such willful ignorance leaves me speechless. Most Mexicans are a mixture of American Indian (ie. "original Americans", and Spanish (ie. Europeans). Another good chunk, about 30% are Indians)

How do you feel about La Raza and similar movements. Support their agenda, do you?

I think they are stupid, although I guess that depends on what you mean by "similar movements". The only race (raza) that I recognize is the human race. Everything else is arbitrary. I do not support illegal immigration, but I would be in favor of some sort of "guest worker" program like we had in the past.

Bah. Bugger off, mate.

Gosh I thought you were a Marine, now you're a Brit?

This is the 14th amendment. It was proposed before the war and contributed greatly to the hostilities

It was not proposed before the war. There was a proposed amendment just before the war, it was never ratified. It read:

No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.

The first drafts of what became the 14th amendment were not written until until Jan 12, 1866, well after the end of the war. It did not pass until June 13, 1866, and was not ratified until 1868. It was written in response to state and local governments in the South infringing upon the rights of the former slaves, most particularly their right to keep and bear arms. The banning of slavery was done by the 13th amendment, which was passed and ratified in 1865. Lee surrendered on April 9th, 1865.

History and fact checking are not your strong suite, are they?

You support this fraud, evidently.

I support the Constitution as written and ratified.

So, I would not say that your allegiance to America is not close to perfect. (Funny the USAF and DoD never questioned it when they granted me some pretty hefty security clearances) Service in the United States Air Force Reserve means nothing to me. Live with that.

I don't really give an ant's ass what it means to you, it means a lot to me, as does my oath of office to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. BTW, I did serve on active duty, as an officer, before becoming a reservist, and have been involved in suppling the US military with the best weapons and equipment I could devise ever since. (Except for the 18 months I spent in grad school)

Did you, and your parents, come to this country legally?

I was born here. My Dad was born in Montana, where his parents had gone to find work in the mines, and my mother was born in Nebraska. I don't know about my paternal grandfather, since he was adopted and since grandma left him after the third child in 3 years was born and I never knew him. He could have been an immigrant as could his birth parents, but it would have been in the 1880s or 1890s if that were the case. I know my maternal grandfather, also "adopted" but only by his stepfather, was born in the US, but not much more about him, although one or both of his parents may have had some Spanish ancestry, since they gave him the middle name of Carlos, but his adopted last name was Kimball, while his birth last name was probably Lamb. My maternal grandmother's family (Kunz) came from Germany in the 1860s and 1870s. Not sure when my paternal grandmother's family (Harrison) came from England, but I know her mother (a Lee) was born in the US as well, and I never heard any different about great-grandfather Harrison, but I know he owned several hundred acres of land in 1890s.

So I'd say your implication was way off base.

I came upon the posting to me in a brief check of my web affairs from overseas.

I see this is an old thread, but one still active. The essential point is that a people should try to preserve their character. That is a legitimate goal of any people. An immigration policy should reflect this. Any other policy is insane, driven by neurotic impulses, not rational analysis.

For a succinct statement on immigration, see Immigration & The American Future.

Three of my grandparents were immigrants from Eastern European lands. I am not against immigrants. That has nothing to do with the issue. To make it very clear, when my grandparents were accepted into this country, their duty shifted from one to the lands of their births, to America. My duty as an American is to preserve the character of America. That is so clear to anyone who is not driven by some sort of warped agenda, that it should not need further development. And the ethnic character of America, while influenced and in someways enriched by peoples from other lands, was basically defined by the Founding Fathers, whose values understood in depth, reflect the ethnic history of the Anglo Saxon, Celtic and Dutch peoples to a predominant extent, with a bit of Huguenot thrown in.

It is a noble character. Why would anyone want to assail it; why would anyone want to undermine it; why have some such a problem acknowledging it and the centuries of struggle that went into its definition?

William Flax

There is a very serious question, whether the "Fourteenth Amendment" was ever validly ratified. The Supreme Court has ducked the question, treating it as political not judicial, but it is hardly something sacrosanct.

But as I said, the implication is in the original Constitution, without the amendments, that a person born in the US is a US citizen. It's in the qualifications for President section of Article II.

Besides that, just because the 14th amendment has been misued, doesn't mean that it wasn't a good idea in the first place. It's really just an expansion on the original document's guarntee of a "republican form of government" to the states. (Art IV Section 4). At least section 1 of the amendment, which are what has been misued by the courts. They'd have found a way to do what they wanted to do, even absent the 14th amendment.

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.