Posted on 04/24/2005 8:38:00 AM PDT by Founding Father
? ? ? ? Huh?
A clear and cogent example, well done.
If that is so absolutely unerringly obviously true, then why did it take until 1924 for an act of Congress to make Native Americans citizens of the United States? As you state it, Native Americans would have been considered citizens by virtue of the fact that they were born "within the borders of the US, including any territory or possession" but they were not. If Congress can declare that Native Americans are or are not citizens, then Congress can declare illegal aliens to be citizens or not by dint of legislative fiat, just as they did for Native Americans can they not? If they cannot, what's the Constitutional difference under the 14th Amendment between a Native American non-citizen in 1918 born in Oklahoma prior to the enactment of the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 (who would not have been considered a citizen) and an illegal Mexican alien born in also born in Oklahoma in the same time period?
Thanks. Now here's a scenario for you. Tomorrow we discover some set of writings by one or more of our founders suggesting that the 2nd Amendment was actually intended to preserve a state's right to maintain a militia, not for individuals. Would it change anything? Could gun grabbers have the day? I don't think so.
The reality is that we have over 100 years of precedent holding that people born in America are Americans. And I, for one, am fine with that.
There is no such thing as "state's rights". Look it up in the Constitution, "states rights" is never mentioned in the document or in subsequent amendments. It's an oxymoron, like collective rights. The language of the constitution is that individuals have "Right's" and government entities have "Power's" and the Founding Fathers never used the terms interchangeably. That you lack the knowledge of this fact indicates to me that you may be a constitutional moron. Furthermore, the 2nd Amendment, as it is written, gives the "power" to form and regulate militias to the states, but maintains the right of the people to be armed.
And I, for one, am fine with that.
Why didn't you just state that and live with the responses instead of giving evidence of your ignorance by trying to support your opinion with your illogical reasoning?
I for one, do not belive that the 14th. Amendment, as it is written, confers citizenship by reason of birth within the borders upon a newborn conceived by two foreign nationals. And it was never intended to do so.
"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen..."
So WHEN are they going to elimiate the scharade of dual citizenship?
A man cannot serve two masters.
Look, Bub. I try being respectful to everyone here. Don't go pushing the "ignorance" thing unless you'd really really really like to get into a pissing contest that you'll never win.
You know the point I'm trying to make regarding the 2nd Amendment and "intent." If you don't want to deal with the issue, then just let it go. As it stands, you're just blowing smoke.
Yes, made obvious by the point on your head!
Bring it on!
Just to show you I'm not compeletely heartless, I'll give you this last opportunity to back away. To help you out, let's take a look at how you misrepresented what I said and then misrepresented the Constitution:
Me (paraphrasing): "What if we found written evidence that the 2nd Amendment was intended to preserve a state's right to maintain a militia?"
You (paraphrasing): "What?! What!? The Constitution says nothing about states' rights! Nothing, I tell you!"
Synopsys: Note how Mr. Elbucko substitutes the concept of "states' rights" for my phrase "a state's right." What a foolish thing to do! Moreover, Mr. Elbucko has apparently forgotten the 10th Amemdment, which speaks of powers delegated to the states, and implicitly supports the idea that the states do have "rights" (call them legitimate powers, if you like) under the Constitution.
See? And we haven't even gotten to the part where my analogy floats inches over your head!
Except of course,for this one;
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
If one parent is a citizen, the other is not, whether the child is born in the USA or not, the child CAN be a citizen.
I speak from experience.
Both my children were born in hospitals in the Philippines. I had to submit, "Reports of Birth Abroad" to get them recognized as citizens of the USA.
Had they been born in the USA, or on US soil (The Naval base hospital would have done the paperwork) they would have automatically been US citizens.
Quite the contrary. Your reaction of disbelief to the revelation that there is no such thing as "states' rights", or "a state's right" is common among those who have not intellectually explored the Constitution and the history and philosophy that it emanated from. Rights are not zero-sum, that is my right to life does not cause another to die, my right to liberty does not cause another to become a slave, or my happiness cause anothers despair. Such is the nature of "Rights".
Powers, however, are zero-sum. The federal power of a navy proscribed the states from having navies. The federal power of the mint denies the states the power to mint money. A state may claim the "right" to print its own currency, but that would be patently unconstitutional.
Mr. Elbucko has apparently forgotten the 10th Amendment, which speaks of powers delegated to the states, and implicitly supports the idea that the states do have "rights" (call them legitimate powers, if you like) under the Constitution.
"Supports the idea"? OK, "Oh Wise One", argue the bogus concept of "supports the idea" before the Supreme Court and see how far you get. The 1st Amendment uses the term "powers" and that is what it meant. The problems we have with society now is because so many voters like you do not understand the Constitution. No matter how much you wish the concept of "states rights" or "a state's rights, it does not exist in the Constitution. Only individuals have "Rights"!
Now, Oh Wise One, where in the Constitution does it confer upon a foreign national who has conceived with another foreign national the right to give birth to a US Citizen because the birth was within the borders of the US?
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
I hate to disillusion you, but where in the 10th. Amendment is the word "rights" actually used? Are you one of those that claim that "rights" are implied? If so, then why are the terms "rights" and "powers" used so precisely throughout the Constitution without being used interchangeably? Because the Founding Fathers were precise and used these terms in the contexts intended. The only "rights" that reside within the 10th Amendment are contained within the phrase; "or to the people", because only people have rights, governments do not. Had the Founding Fathers wanted to grant rights to the states - and I don't know by what authority the feds could do that - the 10th Amendment would have said so.
Correction, The 10th. Amendment.
You only need to read the first sentence of any post by Mr. Elbucko to realize how totally foolish he is. I never objected to his objection to "states' rights." I simply suggested that the 10th Amendment refers to powers of the states and that one might infer from it the concept of a state having "rights."
Mr. Elbucko, however, insists on playing semantical games because, apparently, one of his sharp former social studies teachers impressed on him the idea that only individuals have "rights." This is a great philosophical point, but one that has no relevance at all to the original discussion. And, in fact, the phrase "a state's right" is understood by most intellegent people to mean "a state's legitimate power."
Finally, we get to Dr. Elbucko's big beef--the 14th Amendment, which simple language has been properly interpreted as meaning that if you're born in the USA you have a right to US citizenship. It's an idea that most Americans believe to be just, given our nation's history and tradition as being a light of freedom for the world.
All I can say about Mr. Elproducto's complaint is that while we're all sorry about his being dumped by his Hispanic girlfriend last year, this is no reason for him to continue on this anti-"ferner" tyrade of his.
In Wong Kim Ark v. United States (1898), the Supreme Court held that the 14th Amendment conferred citizenship on anyone born here, except for children of foreign diplomats (who had diplomatic immunity, and thus were not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S.) and American Indians born in those parts of Indian country which were still sovereign and had not been subjected to U.S. law.
Not so clear. If he meant all foreigners and aliens, why did he have to add "families of ambassadors"? The Supreme Court in 1898 held that he meant "foreigners and aliens who belong to the families of ambassadors." This actually makes sense of the language of the 14th amendment-- families of diplomats have diplomatic immunity, and are thus not "subject to the jurisdiction" of U.S. law; families of illegal aliens are subject to U.S. law (which is why we can prosecute illegals for crimes they commit here, but we can't prosecute diplomats if they commit crimes).
Finally, we get to Dr. Elbucko's..
Mr. Elproducto's
Why don't you grow up and use the proper tense in your replies instead of this childish gibberish.
Finally, we get to Dr. Elbucko's big beef--the 14th Amendment, which simple language has been properly interpreted [?] as meaning that if you're born in the USA you have a right [?] to US citizenship. It's an idea that most Americans believe to be just, given our nation's history and tradition as being a light of freedom for the world.
No, you're wrong, as usual. Most Americans do not belive the 14th Amendment empowers those immigrants, who are ILLEGALLY within the borders of the United States, to birth their children there and confer citizenship upon the issue.
No other country in the world allows such a situation. The child is the nationality of the parents. If the parents have immigrated legally, citizenship is not an open issue until the child is 18. Or, in other words, go drop your kids in Mexico, claim that they are Mexican citizens that empowers you, the parents, with permanent visa to remain in Mexico and see how far you get. Enjoy the Mexican jail, Gringo!
The US State Department also gets involved with US citizens charged in other jurisdictions.
Mexico can causes problems (as do some others) because they don't like to release a prisoner to the US if said prisoner could get a death penalty. On the good side though, Bush and Fox have worked out a deal where Mexico returns (with judicial hearing but no trial) anyone requested by the US Marshal's office to the US and vice versa. (Clinton didn't even try to get criminals returned from Mexico.) There are (according the local Marshal's office) several hundred such in the Albuquerque jail awaiting trial in the US. The idea is not to allow criminals to treat the other country as King-X territory.
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.