Posted on 11/04/2005 5:54:41 AM PST by .cnI redruM
House Republicans are looking closely at ending birthright citizenship and building a barrier along the entire U.S.-Mexico border as they search for solutions to illegal immigration.
A task force of party leaders and members active on immigration has met since the summer to try to figure out where consensus exists, and several participants said those two ideas have floated to the top of the list of possibilities to be included either in an immigration-enforcement bill later this year or in a later comprehensive immigration overhaul.
"There is a general agreement about the fact that citizenship in this country should not be bestowed on people who are the children of folks who come into this country illegally," said Rep. Tom Tancredo, Colorado Republican, who is participating in the "unity dinners," the group of Republicans trying to find consensus on immigration.
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
As of now Upstate NY has been spared to a large degree but I don't expect it to last much longer.
I agree, Czar. Right now, though, I think the burner's are on and they're just beginning to feel some heat.....the flames need to be higher and closer to their collective you-know-whats, though.
"Now they really don't have a choice in the matter."
Marbury v. Madison, U.S. Supreme Court (1802)
Yes, they do.
The Supreme Court has the constitutional power to review acts of Congress for constitutionality. This is fundamental to the role of the Supreme Court's judicial power.
Not one judge on the current Supreme Court - not Thomas, not Scalia, nobody, is going to overrule Marbury v. Madison. And they most certainly will not permit the Congress to do it by a mere vote.
Pass that law purporting to deprive the judiciary of CONSTITUTIONAL review power, and you will have a unanimous ride through the judiciary, with every district judge, appellate court sitting en banc, and the Supremes voting 9-0 to strike it down.
And then we will have a good old fashioned constitutional crisis, which will be decided by the people.
And the people will decide for judicial review in a slam-dunk.
Maybe someday we'll have to have this test, but there are probably only a handful of loons in Congress today who would even consider it.
Yes, let's peruse the Federalist Papers about judicial review, shall we?
Hmmmm, where should we start?...
Well, since you brought this up and said that there's "absolutely no disagreement between the Founders", I'll let you go ahead.
I'll just be content to note that the Founders were sitting on the Supreme Court in 1802 that decided Marbury v. Madison.
Protect our borders and coastlines from all foreign invaders!
Support our Minutemen Patriots!
Be Ever Vigilant ~ Bump!
Fine. Don't give amnesty.
Close the border, and let the 20 million illegals this side of it continue to work and hide as best they can. Deport the ones you catch. The problem still takes care of itself in a generation.
Closing the border is a good idea to manage the situation.
Taking away citizenship by ending the 14th Amendment is a bad way.
Maybe not specifically, but in Plyler v. Doe they applied the 14th Amendment to illegals and their children.
Depends on your objective. If the objective is to win, then (redefining jurisdiction) may be good.
However, if your objective is to try and maintain a Constitutionally functioning government it is a VERY poor one IMHO.
I agree - it seems to me that the only reason redefining jurisdiction is even being discussed is because we know an amendment's not going to pass.
So we're using legalisms and technicalities to get around a provision of the Constitution. That's a Lib trick and unworthy of us.
I agree wholeheartedly. We must do this.
I'm only concerned that we protect the Constitution at the same time....
I agree with a previous poster on allowing citizenship for babies born to someone who is here legally. Big difference to what is happening right now. The way it is now actually entices them to come across the border in the first place. Quit rewarding lawbreakers with citizenship benefits.
If they are breaking our laws to be here and have a child while here, the lawbreaker and their child should both be considered ILLEGAL and returned to their country of origin.
As long as it's just ending anchor baby syndrome, I'm all for it. I hope they're not seriously considering making ALL births ineligable for citizenship!
Better yet, put this idea on the backburner and go with the other one, with some minor modification if I may: Erect a 20 foot barrier all along the border with motion sensitive guns.
Violates human rights? I don't care.
The example is apples and oranges since no congressional statutes were specifically part of the case denying anyone a public education.
Exactly which clause in the Constition grants the Supreme Court this power and jurisdiction to review acts of Congress for Constitionality in the first place? As I recall, the Supreme Court created this power for themselves out of whole cloth and that it is nowhere enumerated in the Constitution. On the otherhand, the power of Congress to limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is clearly written into the Constitution in black and white.
We would be getting into an interesting legal paradox if the Supreme Court overstepped their Constitutional Authority by unconstitutionally making a ruling in an area of law where Congress had constitutionally limited their jurisdiction.
People who are arguing that the Supreme Court has this power are advocating a system very similar to Iran's where an unelected group of Mullahs reign supreme and can over-rule anything done by the elected rerpresentatives of the people.
The courts did not interpret the 14th. Amendment "literally" until 1898, regarding a Chinese man born in the US of legal immigrant parents. Furthermore, the explosion of illegal immigration has been caused by the Immigration Reform Act of 1965. JFK & LBJ opened the flood gates for immigrants and the "anchor baby policy".
Couldn't disagree more.
"As it turns out "all persons" was merely "all American citizens," as evidenced by the man wrote the fourteenth's citizenship clause, Sen. Jacob Howard of Michigan:
This amendment which I have offered [citizenship clause to the fourteenth amendment] is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.[10]
http://idexer.com/articles/newt_14th.htm
"How about, real simple. In order to qualify for American citizenship when born, the MOTHER must be a legal resident at the time of birth.
Not in the US on a tourist visa. Not on an expired student visa. Not here illegally.
Mom's an American resident, baby's an American.
Simple. Effective. Yet in no way, discourages (legal) immigration.
In fact, is rewards legal immigration, and following the rules. Something we really, really need. "
Be Ever Vigilant!
Upstate New York is not what I would call a thriving economy. That's why it loses population as downstate gains population. Illegals go where the work is.
It doing fine enough, and there's lots of legal immigrants in the area which I don't consider a problem. The point is, we don't need illegals to get by. The toilets are getting cleaned, the beds made and the hamburgers served.
As far as the population loss... maybe that's because it gets cold up here. :)
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.