Posted on 09/29/2007 6:12:59 AM PDT by Josh Painter
When Fred Thompson said it might be time to review the practice of granting citizenship to every child born on American soil, he didn't acknowledge the seismic shift such an idea represents.
Citizenship by birth has been prescribed by the Constitution since 1868 -- and upheld for 109 years by the Supreme Court -- but the Republican presidential candidate made it sound anachronistic.
"I think that law was created at another time and place for valid reasons," the former U.S. senator from Tennessee said earlier this month. "It probably needs to be revisited."
Thompson's comments have angered Hispanic leaders -- many of them Republicans -- who say they are a crass attempt to court the GOP base.
With conservative voters demanding an end to illegal immigration, Republican candidates have been talking tough on that issue for months. In July, an adviser to former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney said the Romney campaign was researching the birthright-citizenship issue.
"It's not just ramping up the rhetoric," said Alex Villalobos, a Republican state senator from Miami. "It's pandering to extremists."
State Rep. David Rivera, R-Miami, while not criticizing any candidate directly, called the idea a "xenophobic" notion that could drive Hispanic voters from the GOP.
"At best, this would be seen as mean-spirited," he said. "At worst, it's seen as bigotry."
Thompson made the comments in Cape Coral as he barnstormed through Florida two weeks ago.
He was blasting so-called "chain migration" -- the legal immigration preference that enables naturalized or birthright citizens to bring their non-American family members here -- when he was asked about children born here to illegal immigrants.
Thompson said he was less concerned about them, but that the issue of automatic citizenship should be reviewed.
"It probably needs to be revisited," he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at orlandosentinel.com ...
The GOP voters I know are looking for a candidate that is NOT afraid to anger the hispanics. Go for it Fred.
“And why is it only Hispanic people who are mad? How about all the other ethnicities America takes in as immigrants. How come they aren’t mad? Who’s running this country anyway?”
BUMP
"constitutional lawyer James C. Ho, a former law clerk to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, said amendment authors "clearly meant" to include the children of foreigners. In fact, he said, opponents at the time warned it would do just that. Lawmakers "debated the wisdom of guaranteeing birthright citizenship," said Ho, "but no one disputed" its meaning.
Ho is absolutely correct.
Reading these Birthright Citizenship threads is almost as much fun as reading the Wal-Mart threads.
Heck, if people want a long shot, I'll give them one. Consider whom the amendment excludes. Among those excluded are the children of occupying armies.
Have the President by executive order, if he has the authority, or Congress by legislation, declare the presence of illegal immigrants a hostile, foreign occupation resulting from a sureptitious invasion. If you can declare someone who is not in this country to be an enemy combatant, surely you can do the same thing for someone who is inside the country.
At least, the idea is a little bit fresher than the usual back and forth . . . :-)
Thank you.
John
The racism seems to emanate from the hispanic population, not from the rest of us. The Republican hispanics quoted here sound more like La Raza to me.
Here we go (again)...
This is the actual text of their commentary on the actual meaning of "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" which the libs all wanna scream about but the SC commentary is what they never talk about.
It is in regards to the 14th amendment case which examined the issue of equal protection. Specifically, whether the State of Texas can legally withhold funds to schools to cover the extra costs of education illegal alien children born outside of the united states (illegals) and children of illegal aliens born in the united States, ie, anchor babies .
If one actually reads the entirety of the decision of the Supreme Court in Plyler v. Doe 457 U.S. 202 the question of "birthright NON-citizenship" ie, 14th Amendment is right there.
The line the AB's always want to quote is “...subject to the jurisdiction thereof" Plyler v. Doe 457 U.S. 202
Bad news for AB's, OBL's and America Haters, what they think is there just does not exist. It gets worse for them because what does exist indicates the exact opposite, AB's are NOT u.S. citizens.
Ok, let's just have a good look here...
The court addressed (and this is important) two classes of children in school. Namely, the children of illegal aliens that were born OUTSIDE of the u.S. and children of illegal aliens that were born INSIDE of the u.S.
" The court majority found that the Texas law was "directed against children, and impose[d] its discriminatory burden on the basis of a legal characteristic over which children can have little control" — namely, the fact of their having been brought illegally into the United States by their parents. "
Sorry, but the SC is saying nothing about the issue of are they or are they not u.S citizens. It refers to the Supreme Court of the United States striking down a State of Texas statute denying funding for education to children OF illegal aliens. It does NOT say they are citizens.
In fact, it does state the following...
" To be sure, like all persons who have entered the United States unlawfully, these children are subject to deportation. 8 U.S.C. 1251, 1252 (1976 ed. and Supp. IV). But there is no assurance that a child subject to deportation will ever be deported. An illegal entrant might be granted federal permission to continue to reside in this country, or even to become a citizen. See, e. g., 8 U.S.C. 1252, 1253(h), 1254 (1976 ed. and Supp. IV)."
Clearly, these foreign born children are NOT CITIZENS.
OK here is the text you will not see them speak of...
Then the issue of domestic born children is addressed.
" Children born in this country to illegal alien parents, including some of appellee’s siblings, (thus including them in the definition of and as “appellees”) are not excluded from the Texas schools. Nor does Texas discriminate against appellees because of their Mexican origin or citizenship."
This is NOT saying that Children born in this country to illegal alien parents are U.S. citizens! It is clearly saying that they are MEXICAN CITIZENS. And here is how it is saying it.
Plyler v. Doe 457 U.S. 202 refers ONLY to equal protection clause in the 14th amendment providing protection against denial of funds to schools for the education of illegal alien children. Nowhere in the SC ruling does it state that anchor babies are US citizens. It actually states otherwise.
Children born in this country to illegal alien parents, including some of appellees' >>> siblings,<<< (thus including them as “appellees”) are not excluded from the Texas schools. Nor does Texas discriminate against appellees because of their Mexican origin or citizenship.
In other words the appellee’s children born in this country (siblings) are also considered appellees in the case and the appellees of the case are described by the Court as Mexican citizens.
Very clear and very simple. And it has been there all along.
But the libs are really good a pushing a catch phrase and "subject to the jurisdiction" from the 14th amendment is it on this issue.
You have to actually read the commentary (that leaves out the libs) to realize that Supreme Court made no distinction in the case between children of illegal aliens that were born in mexico and children of illegal aliens that were born in the United States!!!
All the SC has to do to settle this ENTIRE dispute was simply state that according to the XYZ (14th) Amendment the children of illegal aliens born in the u.S. are citizens of the u.S., therefore this case brought by The State of Texas has no merit.
Well, guess what those Supreme Court Justices did NOT say?
I do not believe that the Supreme Court just "kinda forgot" to address that aspect of the issue in the light of the fact that they are specifically comparing illegal aliens right to protection under the 14th amendment to American Citizens right to protection under the 14th amendment. And what with what they DID say they clearly indicated that the children of illegal aliens that were born INSIDE of the u.S. are mexican citizens. Absolutely NOWHERE in the decision does it say that AB's are American Citizens.
“Just wait ‘till the anchor babies hit. They can vote. “
And they will vote for the “handout” party, not Republicans.
“So the plain language of the 14th Amendment means that Congress CAN, by legislation, define who is “subject to the jurisdiction,” which in turn could end the practice of granting automatic citizenship to anchor babies.”
This is a good article, as follows:
What ‘Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof’ Really Means.
http://federalistblog.us/2007/09/revisiting_subject_to_the_jurisdiction.html
Excerpt:
“So what was to be the premise behind America’s first and only constitutional birthright declaration in the year 1866? Simply all children born to parents owing no foreign allegiance were to be citizens of the United States.”
They used to be on tv quite a bit. I almost forgot about them.
Thompson angers state Hispanics
All of them, huh?
Snort.”
Thompson is correct.
Angering someone who has no legal status in this country doesn’t bother me one iota.
Fred will get my vote if he keeps after these topics.
At this point, illegal immigration is the elephant in the kitchen.
The Republican Hispanics are a real disappointment. At least the ones quoted in that article. They want the US to be overwhelmed with their own kind
I was just looking it up again when I saw your post. Thank you.
FRed would be wise to take the ball and run with it on this one. THIS could be the opening to the National dialog he wanted, and put millions of reasonable minded voters in his back pocket...for keeps.
I saw a thuggish not too bright looking Mexican on O’Reilly last week and he said Americans owe Hispanics the right to immigrate here because we messed up their countries via colonialism and NAFTA. That attitude is very prevalent
“The Republican Hispanics are a real disappointment. At least the ones quoted in that article. They want the US to be overwhelmed with their own kind”
So far they are getting their wish.
“I saw a thuggish not too bright looking Mexican on O’Reilly last week and he said Americans owe Hispanics the right to immigrate here because we messed up their countries via colonialism and NAFTA”
So by this guy’s logic, it is only FAIR that they recolonize
the USA with their own........These people will NEVER assimulate!
I saw it, too.
I wonder what has become of the Mexican heroína, Elvira Arellano?
I posted the following excerpt shortly after the Mexican consul walked her across the bridge and the Mexican congress rolled out the red carpet.
UNIFY AND FOCUS OUR MOVEMENT NOW !
-- Emma Lozano, presidente Pueblo sin Fronteras
-- Elvira Arellano, presidente La Familia Latina Unida"We have shown that we are not only for protecting the rights of the undocumented but we are struggling for Latinos to become a voice for justice for all of Latin America. We have supported self-determination and opposed assimilation into this nation’s individualistic, imperialistic values. We have taught that our people did not come here because of the American Dream but because of what the American nightmare did to our countries of origin. We have asserted that our demand to be here and to be fully enfranchised here is a right not a privilige and a destiny of our people to transform this nation."
Yep, that arrogant, insolent attitude is very prevalent.
We shouldn't have this phenomenon of guilt here. I hope. Guilt was imposed upon us and it's close to being over. We are not responsible for the decisions other civilizations make at all. We are not Mother Goose to other civilizations. We become friends and help other civilizations when needed and let them be as they are.
If I could do it over, I would go to the U. of Brazil. They teach things very strictly. That is the Southern civilization. Women with nice brown hair and nice dark eyes that can't shut up after drinking the strongest espresso in existance.
We're not talking about the equal protection clause. The clause of the 14th amendment that is relevant is the very first one:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
I don't know what "commentary" you're talking about, but the decision (which can be read here) repeatedly refers to the "undocumented status" of the children in question. The decision -- the only part of the opinions that provides binding precedent -- does not address the question of children born here to illegal immigrants. The decision does not address it because its not at issue. The court ruled that it was unconstitutional to deprive the children of illegal immigrants equal access to education, whether the children themselves are citizens or not.
Behind all the screaming bold type, you're citing a case that is not at all on point, claiming as precedent what it does not say on a question that wasn't at issue.
Amen.
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.