Yet another view for your consideration:
http://federalistblog.us/2005/12/birthright_citizenship_fable.html
I believe this Amendment needs to be amended to say that "all persons borne to a citizen of the United States..." meaning that at least one of the parents MUST be a citizen in order for citizenship to be automatic for the baby.
This is a ruling that doesn't even pass the smell test. How can taxpayers be expected to pay for the education of ILLEGAL occupants of our Country? Unless the law is taken before a CONSTITUTION-respecting USSC, rather than an agenda-driven Liberal court seeking to legislate from the bench, NO Constitutional provisions are safe from re-interpretation by the Liberals.
This crap has been occuring over and over again, and with the remarks of Chuckie Shumer, regariding "no conservative appointements will be allowed", it's obvious this will not only continue, but will grow....
Instead of proposing a 700 mile fence, why doesn't one of our solons propose amending the Constitution to specifically say children of those here illegally do not get automatic citizenship or any rights associated with it?
Does citizenship mean anything anymore? Or is it just where you happen to drop your butt down?
Never happen!
Sorry, but just because liberals abuse the text of the Constitution to create rights that don't exist doesn't mean what conservatives can do the same. The text is clear -- if you're born here, you're a citizen. Anything else is sophistry.
About time!
A lot of our present environment began with the 14th Amendment and a lot of it is interpretation, not expressly stated. The birth thing is not the biggie although big enough to be noticeable.
since the US no longer has slavery....what good is this amendment??
oh yeah...it will help the lib/dems get more illegals to vote for them!!!!
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.
Response: The statement of a symptom i.e. debate. Be reminded the aliens are acting!
Meritocracy - service equals citizenship.
ping
Interesting that the Big Perfesser at Yew-T points to Plyler V. Doe as somehow deciding the issue of citizenship. Hadn't heard that joke yet.
Bunk. Perhaps Sr. Castillo wants it to be true in his own case (and certainly in the case of his homeys), but it isn't.
It's very, very clear beyond reasonable doubt that under current interpretation of the 14th Amendment, and simply U.S. law, that anybody born in the United States, except for a few exotic examples, becomes a citizen
Actually it isn't, and has never been adjudicated by any court. The closest case is Wong Kim Ark v. United States, last visited in 1898. And his parents were legal aliens at the time of his birth in San Francisco, two decades earlier than the case - in the 1870's. So it doesn't apply to those here illegally.
Mr. Levinson - who's homeys probably weren't here either before 1898 - is just babbling for effect, hoping people will buy his assertions. The left always operates that way: insist something is true long enough and pretty soon the gullible start buying it.
For y'all "strict constructionists" here who sorta lack a law degree, this argument is probably reasonably easy for most of you to get it: Amicus Brief in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld . Note the co-authorship of Mr. Reagan's Attorney General.
And for even further clarification if all those legal arguments are just too confusing, Mr. Eastman clears it up with this: Eastman Testimony Before the House .
Eastman's brief and testimony are not the opinions of one man but they are some of more plain arguments made recently. Anyone who wants to research this on the web will find that out for themselves. It is not the simplistic interpretation insisted on here by the Journalism major from Mexico or his lap dog leftist "Constitutional" law professor.
ping