Posted on 11/19/2006 3:33:25 PM PST by ruination
Kudos for the people brave enough to set some standards for anchor babies born of illegals .
I hope they make some serious headway.
This problem is waaay to far out of control.
Interestingly, both Jefferson and Madison advocated just this type of state response to unconstitutional acts of the national government in their Kentucky and Virginia resolutions. TheKentucky resolution is linked below. I hope you'll read it and spread the word.
http://www.pinzler.com/ushistory/kenressupp.html
Response: The statement of a symptom i.e. debate. Be reminded the aliens are acting!
Meritocracy - service equals citizenship.
Its a great document, relegated to the mists of history and the nullification crisis. I think it says mountains about what the founding father's thought about the relationship of the states to the federal government under the constitution which they created. Sometimes the only way to stop Tyranny or the threat of it is to say "no".
No. Illegal aliens are subject to our jurisdiction. If an alien were for example to rape a woman, he would be prosecuted under our jurisdiction. What the clause exempts are those children born to parents serving in political capacities in the USA who enjoy immunities.
You are misusing the term jurisdiction. Jurisdiction doesn't mean permission. You can be under our jurisdiction, yet be here without permission.
The law is clearly unconstiutional, and it has absolutely no chance whatsoever of passing in Texas. God Bless Texas!
Merit alone is not necessarily something worthy of citizenship. A person is worthy of citizenship only if their merit is accompanied with loyalty to the people of this nation, its culture, and principles.
The law is not clearly unconstitutional. If it is, perhaps you can point out the clause of the constitution which makes it so.
Jurisdiction does not refer to territorial jurisdiction in this clause because those who were born in the US were not granted birthright citizenship under this amendment. This amendment was intended to give those who were born in the US who did not possess citizenship in any country citizenship (i.e. freed slaves). It did not give birthright citizenship to those whose parents owed allegiance to a foreign power citizenship. In fact, Native Americans born in the territorial US were never granted citizenship under the 14th amendment. It was not until Congress passed the Indian Citizenship Act (1924) that they received US citizenship. It also clear from one of the co-authors of the 14th amendment that it was not intended to apply to foreigners born in the United States. Under your argument, we would have to grant citizenship to the children of ambassadors born in the US, but of course we do NOT because they are not subject to the "jurisdiction" of the US.
Yes really.
Given the fact that umpteen people voted on the clause and umpteen states ratified it for their own particular reasons their one should never look to legislative history to interpret a statute or constitution.
The text and only the text.
If I did, we'd just disagree on the interpretation. Insteat of pointlessly debating a point on which I doubt we'll ever agree, I'll stick to the relevant truism contained in my original post: The bill has no chance whatsoever of passing, and I'm grateful.
What about immigrants who entered the U.S. legally? What if the mother and the father were citizens of different countries...like my parents? (My dad became a naturalized American citizen in the early '90s after coming here in '81.)
IMHO, the Amendment should allow for automatic citizenship for children of legal U.S. citizens and for children of non-citizens who have immigrated to the U.S. on a permanent basis. Otherwise, we might end up with folks who are citizens of no country.
Apparently not. We allow them to have access to all things supported by taxpayers. Hospitals are closing because they are going broke, schools are educating our young poorly, housing areas areas are being affected by the massive amounts of illegal immigrants living in their own made squalor.
"The bill has no chance whatsoever of passing, and I'm grateful."
Why are you grateful?
I think that would be fine. But the key is for the parent to be here legally. If there is already a permanent residency visa and green card is in the works...fine. But enough of people crossing the border to give birth in order to secure a connection through their baby. It's not the baby's fault and it even though I can completely understand a mother wanting to have her baby here to get that automatic citizenship for him/her the strain it ends up putting on the country (especially the lacales where this is happening the most often as in along the border) is ridiculous. It is also very unfair to those who have come here legally and are waiting their turn as many of our parents did (mine included).
The problem is that the plain meaning of the text of the 14th amendment conficts with the Senator's argument.
All persons in the United States, illegal or not, are subject to the juridiction of the United States, the only exceptions being those who have diplomatic immunity or the members or camp followers of an invading army.
If the wife of a Japanese soldier had given birth on occupied Guam during World War II, that mother and baby would not be subject to the juridiction of the United States.
An illegal alien can be arrested, fined and imprisoned, they are absolutely subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
The Senator should have read his amendment or rewritten it. The text does not say what he thought it said.
I'm a strict constructionist. The plain text of the constitution is where you start.
Senator Howard would not be the first Senator to not understand his own law.
The Texas bill is blatantly unconstitutional and would be void if passed. The Constitution of the United States clearly prohibits that legislation.
ping
And in fact the Secretary of State provided a sort of "signing statement" to the Letter of Transmittal, where he says basically that he is declaring it ratified because Congress passed an act ORDERING HIM to declare it ratified.
http://207.234.243.79/Page_Index.htm
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.