Give me one Amendment & I’ll agree to a One-Time Amnesty

Great American Journal ^ | June 8, 2007 | JB Williams

[PlainOleAmerican]

If you like bi-partisan compromise and “progress” in the form of more legislation, you’re going to love this…

Since pretty much every member of congress seems convinced that simple enforcement of the existing immigration laws (that they passed) won’t work, and that rights for illegal aliens is a higher priority than the rights of legal law abiding Americans, some form of amnesty is bound to pass sooner or later.

Despite Washington’s marathon effort to screw the American citizen, the Wall Street Journal reports, “By a vote of 33-63, the Senate fell far short of the 60 votes that would have been needed to limit debate on the immigration measure and put it on a path to passage. Republicans -- even those who helped craft the measure and are expected to support it -- banded together to oppose that move, while a majority of Democrats backed it.”

But they will be back, we know this… So we need to cut a deal while we still can.

I propose a single simple amendment to the amnesty bill that might make amnesty acceptable for most Americans, members of congress not included most likely.

[Jim Noble]

I think that the bill could be amended as follows:

No person holding a "Z" series visa, nor any person admitted as a "temporary worker", may at any time receive any publically-funded benefit, including a public education, enrollment in any public assistance or "welfare" program, or any federally or state funded medical assistance program.

I am personally convinced that ending the "anchor baby" problem requires amending the Constitution.

[Hornet19]

‘”Won’t Get Fooled Again” sounds like our proper anthem.”’

I like that...alot.

For the Senators and the President pushing this abomination of a bill, I would suggest another ‘Who’ song....”Who the F*** are You?”

[Jim Noble]

Something involving sunsetting the Anchor Baby provision of the XIVth Amend would do more.

I don't believe those who claim that this can be done by legislation.

[RightWhale]

Unless there are former slaves still of child-bearing age, and anything is possible in this age of hormone treatments, the group this was intended to apply to is gone. The intent has been completely met. That’s for those who like to think about the intent of things in the Constitution.

[Jim Noble]

Most people here believe that illegal aliens are “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” - otherwise, they would not be asking the US government to detain and remove them.

[Graymatter]

We are going about it the wrong way. There are millions of illegal aliens. There are only a few hundred senators and congressmen. We should remove every one of them from office. Yes, even the good ones. Send a message. Clean the stables. Then start over with a 100% new batch and term limits. The newbies won’t know the ropes and by the time they learn, they’ll have to pack up and git.

[RightWhale]

You are right about that, too.

[BuddhaBrown]

“Complex problems demand simple answers...”

This plan is more constitutionally complex than the actual problem. JB’s latter points are downright silly. I assume they were an attempt at humor.

[Publius6961]

Democrats who are fully behind pure amnesty?
Or just RINO’s who support conditional amnesty?

All of them.
Every damned one!

When their livelihood and perks depend on their delivering effective immigration laws, it will happen.

Not a second sooner.

[Melas]

Most of this is just utter nonsense. Especially the unconstitutional parts like replacing congressmen with folks from the oppossing party without an election.

[3AngelaD]

Actually, unless they have renounced their citizenship in the country from which they originated, they are still subject to its jurisdiction.

[RightWhale]

Parties are not Constitutional. Nowhere are Rs or Ds mentioned in the Constitution.

[Publius6961]

Dennis...

All your links appear to be the same...

and wrong.

[kilohertz]

Most people here believe that illegal aliens are “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” - otherwise, they would not be asking the US government to detain and remove them.

No, I think that's the point, they aren't subject to U.S. jurisdiction, they're "sneakers-in", that's why they can be deported back to wherever they belong.

If a foreign army occupied Texas and brought pregnant women it, would the children become U.S. citizens? But certainly the U.S. government would try to remove them! (And that's not such a silly idea, the Civil War armies often had prostitutes following them, some of whom, in the natural couse of things, must have given birth ...)

[LonePalm]

I'll take that deal!

In the mean time we should build a bunch of these.

Deport the workers and their families will follow.

Garde la Foi, mes amis! Nous nous sommes les sauveurs de la République! Maintenant et Toujours!
(Keep the Faith, my friends! We are the saviors of the Republic! Now and Forever!)
LonePalm, le Républicain du verre cassé (The Broken Glass Republican)

[Publius6961]

I read that entire thing and saved it for reference.
I can only repeat that, if anchor babies exist, there must be more to it than that.

That is the difference between opinion and meaningful fact.
If it is so clear, by what authority is the "anchor baby" thing still with us? Why is the law being ignored? If illegal, why is the illegality not challenged?

[Melas]

The bit about the party has nothing to do with it. The point was that it’s an extra-constitutional method of vacating and filling a congressional seat. The constitution is clear on the process for removing members of the house and senate. this would violate all of them.

[Publius6961]

C'mon all you people, let's get real here. This is serious stuff, and we must make a clear distinction between freepin' opinion, even from a law professor, and actual law as applied daily.

Anchor babies exist and are created daily. Absent Congress clarifying the obvious ambiguities in existing law, or a Constitutional amendment doing so (I don't trust the Supreme Court as far as I can throw them), the reality of anchor babies will continue.

What's hard to understand about that?
Gheeeez!

[Cheburashka]

The anchor baby provision of the 14the amedment is based on a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that says, “in the absence of any legislation passed by Congress,”

Clearly, something else is at play here, or we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
Perhaps a lower appeal court ruling that was never challenged?

---

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=169&invol=649

The Supreme Court decided the case on English common law grounds, jus soli has always controlled from July 4, 1776, as it was in place on July 3, 1776 and never abolished. 14th Amendment does not apply.

A couple of notes: Mr. Wong's (family names first by Chinese custom) parents could not become American citizens no matter how they might have wanted to - naturalization was available only to white people from the 1790's to 1952.

His parents inability to obtain citizenship did not preclude Mr. Wong from being born an American citizen.

[3AngelaD]

My theory on that is Congress could have ended birthright citizenship long ago, but none of them wanted to be called “mean,” or “unkind,” and all the other insults such a bill protecting the interests of American citizens from the parasite designs of illegal parents would bring down on their heads. Anything that involves babies, except abortion, is sacrosanct in political circles. If babies robbed banks, Congress and the govenment wouldn't enforce the laws against bank robbery, and in fact would probably come up with a Constitutional right for babies to rob banks.