Posted on 05/30/2006 8:04:58 AM PDT by kellynla
Where are you coming up with this? Please cite one case where the USSC has ruled children born to illegals are automatic citizens. To my knowledge they haven't.
Here is what Jacob Howard of Michigan said during the ratification debate of the 14th Amendment:
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 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.
The best procedure for Congress to take is to write into law barring automatic citizenship for illegals based around the jurisdiction clause. When it's challenged the Supreme Court can decide it's legality once and for all.
"== First, take away the vast majority of their jobs, through strict enforcement of employer sanctions. Require checks of SSNs, and take them into custody whenever they are stopped in a traffic stop, etc. Raid the big employers, and send back the ones you catch, hundreds at a time.
Second, take away the benefits. No schools, welfare, medical care. The court decisions forcing us to provide these services, while well-meaning, were flat wrong and unsupported by the Constitution. =="
The program already exists, although it is voluntary at this time. Check out: Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) Program - http://www.uscis.gov/text/services/SAVE.htm .
This is a program to provide verification of employment eligibility documents, that is currently limited and voluntary. It checks and matches the SSN/ITIN, and verifies the valid issuance of other documents. It needs to be expanded and made mandatory, to keep employers from excusing themselves from compliance.
It does seem somewhat "big brotherish," but the information is already required by law, collected, and available - PLEASE CHECK THE LINK ABOVE.
Another thing. I am satisfied that the "12 million" and "twenty million" estimates of the total number of illegals are way to low. There is a neighborhood in Chicago that was recently black (Polish and Balkan before that) that contains only brown faces. To satisfy my curiosity I drove the streets. On those crowded streets the pedestrians were 90% male and of these males 80 - 90% were in their late teens or twenties. The area was about one and a half square miles. Maybe a half million people depending on how many women and children I wasn't seeing. Oh, yeah, no cops there either.
I think the locals thought I was a Federale, the INS. Talk about being stared at!
I am not saying that the situation cannot be fixed. I think we are headed for certain disaster if we do not act. Working from fond illusions will fail.
The Jacob Howard speech is only an historical curiosity. Just try an "original intent" argument in a federal court.
The issue of what is meant by "under the jurisdiction of" the US has not been decided by the US supreme court. A federal law in effect since, I think the '20s, says that anyone born here is automatically a citizen, so there has been no occasion to visit that part of the amendment. There are undoubtedly many cases stating that the law is valid and requires the children of illegals to be considered citizens. Once a citizen, that right cannot be taken away by a law.
A new law could, however, void the old law, and say that any children born to illegals in the future are NOT citizens. That law would be valid, once the 14th Amendment's clause is interpreted as to whether it applies to illegals. That would require interpretation of the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof". Jurisdiction is not just a term that applies to where you are located, but also who you are. Indians, foreign ambassadors and illegal aliens are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US, because they have not submitted to it. There is plenty of authority for the proposition that the drafters of that amendment would have understood that illegals were not considered "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US.
You seem to think that a suit by the ACLU that is immediately supported by the 9th Circuit is evidence that a law is unconstitutional. You have become a scared rabbit from 70 years of judicial tyranny. I, on the other hand, understand that a new law will be challenged, but the argument for the law is sound, and with 4 justices who will read the constitution according to the intent of those who passed the 14th Amendment, and a good chance of one more to replace a lib in the next 2 years, I will take my chances that the Supreme Court will ultimately decide that:
1. A law by Congress to deny citizenship to the children of illegal aliens prospectively is constitutional under the 14th Amendment. There have been such laws introduced in the Congress several times, and it could easily be made part of an immigration enforcement bill, if we had a President who would sign it; and
2. A law to deny federal benefits to illegal aliens would also be constitutional. The precedent for that goes all the way back to the 1980s, in a case that required schooling for illegals in Texas, and that was extremely thin in its reasoning. Later, following prop 187 in California, the 9th Circus extended that to other services, and the Dem administration of Gray Davis settled the case so that there would be no appeal to a higher court. Do you get that point--the Supremes have not yet decided that we have to give free medical to illegals. Arizona just voted to deny those benefits, and that will be litigated, and this time, it may get to the Supremes. I am confident that we have 4 votes right now, and who knows with Kennedy. But it will take 2 more years to get there, and will we have another conservative justice on the court by then? If so, it will be a cinch.
Marbury is settled law. Tax kooks go to jail. But illegals do not have to be given welfare and free schools under the Constitution that Judge Roberts and Scalia believe in.
So, the strategy to deal with all the illegals is there, and it has many fronts--capture, employer sanctions, new laws, judicial decisions, throwing out politicians. I have a feeling your task here is to be on the other side of that difficult fight.
Spout your incorrect info somewhere that people might think you knowledgable, but not here. Freepers have way too much expertise, and BS gets caught pretty quick.
Much of it is, but probably not most. Many employers have simply stopped worrying about it because they know there is no enforcement, and they get little co-operation from the Feds on the matter when they do try to determine legal status and report illegals. Even honest employers give up after a while. They just take an easily forged Social Security card, and treat it like any other employee. Nobody will ever care that 30 other people are using that number, and the employer has no way to know anyway.
The off the books employment is mainly in construction and farm labor, and they don't need to use two sets of books. They do it because there is currently there is an exemption in the law that allows businesss to pay workers without reporting and witholding for Social Security, and still deduct it as a business expense, as long as the person supposedly does not work more than a few days. That should be elimnated. If people need day labor they can do what many legit businesses do, call an employment agency such as Manpower or Laboready. Those agencies are then be responsible for establishing legal status and withholding taxes. If employers still hired illegals they under the table, the money paid would not be deductable, and they would risk losing all their assets and going to prison if caught. How many employers are going to do that? Not many.
You seem to have the mindset that nothing can be done, and you don't want to even consider reasonable, doable solutions.
As Rush says, they are the newist victim group. (Perfect marriage for the democratic party).
That's the last thing I want to do. :)
What is important is that the USSC has ruled Congress has complete jurisdiction over immigration matters and the 14th Amendment has left room for legislation dealing with what qualifications might be for automatic citizenship. At the very least since it has never been tested as far as illegals go now is the perfect time to do so.
You have to be real careful with this:
"There is a quiet rage building among average middle class folks on the illegal immigration issue, and if the Republican leadership doesn't take control of the problem very soon they will allow the more extremist wings of the anti-immigration debate to become the face of the Republican party on immigration. That would be a disaster for GOP hopes to grow their new found majority in the years to come."
This newfound majority is doomed to be a newfound minority if the party does not start doing and saying what the overwhelming majority of both the party and the country wants, an end to the invasion.
I really, truly believe that a big chunk of the republican Senate (and it goes without saying the democrat senate) are bought and paid for by a tiny minority of check writing cheap labor doners. These are the country club folk who can afford to go to the elbow rubbing fund raisers in DC and at home and are the folk the elected folk spend their time with. The elected folk and a lot of the elite commentator class on both sides are absolutely out of touch with the normal citizens who actually cast those votes the elected officials take for granted.
Now and again the chasm between those elites and the folk back home gets too wide to bridge. When that happens, the elites fall, and generally in big numbers.
"My 14th Amendment statement is accurate. A child born within the United States is a citizen by the 14th Amendment. If you try to weasel out of this you will be sued by a million Liberal lawyers. The case law is iron clad."
Actually, you mix apples with oranges here. The case law is clear. What is clear about ti is that it is all based on legislation, not the 14th. Congress enacted all the anchor baby law and what congress can enact, congress can change.
Here is a good write up on the issue:
http://idexer.com/citizenship.htm
or better
http://www.heritage.org/research/legalissues/1m18.cfm
"does not poison GOP relations with the growing Hispanic community for 2008 and beyond"
Right out of the gate this guy's analysis is wrong. You couldn't pander to the Hispanics enough to just gain as many Hispanic votes as would be required to replace white (and black) votes that will be lost if the invasion is not stopped and the lawbreakers sent home. Hispanic immigrants, legal and illegal, are disproportionately on the welfare dole more than U.S. citizens. Hispanics are a natural Dim constituency (though, admittedly, not in the same proportion as blacks).
If Republicans want to avoid an electoral disaster, they will get tough on the border and immigration and tell Hispanics that Hispanics have to obey the law like everyone else. The only votes Republicans will lose are those they would be destined to lose anyway.
Don't get me wrong. I think that deportation is necessary and therefore be done right now since it will be much harder later. If you want an historical analog to our current situation I suggest the Roman Empire.
The house could change it with a stroke of the pen.
Yoou seem to take both sides of this issue. On the one hand it can't be done, on the other you want it to be done. Make up your mind, or quit putting up straw men.
Congress may well let the Court decide what the law is, but they are not obligated to. The can tell the Court what the law is, and have on over a hundred occasions. It just usually suits them to let the Courts take the heat for what they wanted anyway, but didn't have the guts to take the position.
These types of articles have been posted lately from liberals trying to "analyze" the impact of illegal immigration to the GOP and offering "solutions" about what should be done. You can smoke out these articles based on the strawmen used by the author.
If they do that it would be even better but I think you're correct, if Congress should get around to legislating anything on this they'll most likely punt it.
The 'pathway to citizenship' should be to go to the back of the line for legal immigration.
THE QUISLING RIGHT
Tuesday, May 30, 2006
What is wrong with American conservatism? Hardly anything at all. From tax to immigration to judicial philosophy, conservatives are beginning to set the agenda of public debate. Whole stretches of popular culture are objectively conservative—talk radio and the blogosphere, for example.
While there is no dispute as to which tradition belong "The Incredibles" and "The Passion of the Christ," I would venture that "South Park" and "The Simpsons" are also conservative-cum-libertarian. They lampoon liberal elites and regularly slaughter the sacred cows of political correctness, diversity, multiculturalism, and radical environmentalism.
"There is now in this country a conservative movement—and I include libertarians in this movement—more passionate and agreed in substance on what needs to be done than I can recall. All that is wrong with [American] conservatism is that it lacks a conservative party. The problem with the [Republican Party] and its associated media is that its function has been less to advance conservative interests than to neutralize conservative opinion"—a function evinced by the Bush immigration betrayal.
The thesis above belongs, almost to the word, to my good friend, the illustrious Sean Gabb, Director of Communications at the Libertarian Alliance of Britain. The object of his calculated contempt, voiced in a speech given at The Royal Society of Arts, however, was the British Conservative Party. Considering that the Republican Party is every bit as corrupt, incompetent, tyrannical, and treacherous, I’ve substituted "American" for "British" and "Republican Party" for "Conservative Party."
As far as political representation goes, American conservatives and libertarians find themselves in the same pickle as their English cousins, who’ve been led into an ideological latrine by the Conservative Party and its enablers in media. But thanks to a deep-seated affinity for basic conservative principles, the base in both places is disinclined to linger in that malodorous spot for long.
When all is said and done, ordinary American conservatives worry about the growth in the size and power of government under Bush. They fret over mass immigration and the national identity and debt. Keeping what they earn and being able to secure life and property—with firearms—is still a priority. When plied with enough ale, conservatives will increasingly admit their jingoism is a function, not so much of their devotion to W’s Wilsonian wars, but of their patriotism, (unreciprocated) loyalty to the party they believed represented them, and a visceral loathing of the left.
Yes, left-liberals are a singularly charmless lot—in the US, Britain and everywhere else, for that matter. In Gabb’s assessment, the left’s "aim is to construct a new order in which—whatever its proposed merits—we shall have been stripped of our historic liberties and our national identity." It is faced, however, with a paradox. Although the left has a tentacular grip on societal institutions, "It must rule a nation that, so long as it remains a nation, is strongly conservative."
How has the Republican Party and its media lickspittles reconciled this paradox? Why, by reinventing themselves as the "Quisling Right."
"A Quisling Rightist is someone who calls himself a Conservative," observes Gabb. "When standing for office, he implies promises without making them. If pressed, he will make promises that he has no intention of keeping. If elected, he will make firm declarations of principle and argue over inessentials. His conservative politics are purely symbolic. Where essentials are concerned, he will do nothing to challenge the continued domination of the left. In return for this, he will be invited to the best parties, and allowed endless time in the media. ... He will be allowed income and status. He will earn this by systematically betraying those who trusted him to stand up for all that they held most dear this side of the grave."
The Republican Quislings have contributed greatly to the convergence of left and right. What we have now is a cartel, the traditional ideological differences between the political parties having been permanently blurred (both Democrats and Republicans, for instance, see merit in wars for democracy, limitless immigration, and a massive expansion in Medicare and other entitlements). If anything, antitrust laws ought to be deployed, not against business, but to bust this two-party monopoly, which subverts competition in government and rewards the colluding quislings with sinecures in perpetuity.
As the reign of the Bush backstabbers draws to an end, we find ourselves "with still fewer of our historic liberties and still less of our national identity." This being so, Gabb counsels against voting for the party that has broken all its promises so far. I agree; there is no reason for conservatives to vote for the Republican Party. "We in the conservative movement might as well vote for a party that says what we believe. That party will not win either, but at least our votes will be counted and recognized as a clear statement of opinion."
To press the point, Gabb adds a Parthian shot: "If I must be destroyed let me be speared in the front by someone who looks me in the eye and calls himself my enemy. Far better this than be garroted from behind by a supposed friend."
http://www.freemarketnews.com/
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.