Posted on 11/30/2007 3:59:11 PM PST by calcowgirl
BLUFFTON, S.C. (AP) — Republican White House hopeful Rudy Giuliani said Friday he wouldn't try to change laws that make citizens of children born in the U.S. to illegal immigrants, noting that it's a matter determined by the Constitution.
"That's a very delicate balance that's been arrived at, and I wouldn't change that," Giuliani said in response to a question while campaigning at Sun City Hilton Head, a sprawling retirement community down the South Carolina coast from Charleston.
In Wednesday night's Republican debate, Giuliani and nomination rival Mitt Romney traded accusations of being soft on illegal immigration, and Giuliani took pains to deny that New York was a "sanctuary city" for illegal immigrants during his tenure as mayor.
While New York has never used the designation, it offers protections — allowing illegal immigrants to report crimes, send kids to school or seek medical treatment without fear of being reported — similar to those in cities that label themselves sanctuary cities.
Children born in the U.S. to illegal immigrants already are American citizens, and Giuliani said he would not try to change that.
(Excerpt) Read more at ap.google.com ...
And there are many who don't.
I'm not really interested in the opinions of either.
I'm interested in your opinion, and how you support it using your own arguments and your own research.
Bully for him.
As for me, I like to do my own reading and research on such topics and can say quite comfortably that I do not rely on talk show hosts to supply my opinions for me.
ML/NJ
Ah, so you're at least semi-serious now.
Then tell me: how exactly illegal aliens are not subject to US jurisdiction when there are thousands of illegal aliens currently in our justice system?
I’ve read enough that I’m convinced that the current interpretation of birthright citizenship is wrong. It was NOT intended to provide citizenship for those who basically through accident of birth or frank illegality of their parents with citizenship. The wording of the article itself, as well as argument and statements by those involved in the drafting and ratification make that clear.
Listen pinhead. The amendment was written 160 years ago. I have a 20 volume set on my shelf precisely to identify how word use has shifted over time. (It's called the Oxford English Dictionary.) In law there is something called "legislative history," which you seem to want to ignore. No one who was part of framing the fourteenth amendment and no one in their right mind would suggest that just because we put invaders in prison sometimes, we should grant their children automatic citizenship.
ML/NJ
Good stuff. thanks.
Google book search "The Heritage Guide to the Constitution," a book you can find online which is written by Edwin Meese III of the Heritage Foundation. Pay attention to pages 384 and 385, especially the last paragraph on page 384 continuing on to 385. Both pages contain plenty of information.
This is not new information, but it is the truth. There are some who refuse to believe it for their own reasons. But history is history and truth is truth whether you agree with it or not. Just as with other Constitutional amendments, some people have an interest in twisting the meaning and purpose of this amendment. But the originators left plenty of clear information as to what they did, why they did it and what they meant by doing it that way.
One hundred and forty years later some people may have their own idea as to what jurisdiction means so they think they can apply that definition to the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction." They are mistaken. Anyone with eyes can read the truth for themselves. It is unfortunate that so many have decided to take their own misguided word for it means.
So what's your verdict, Sleepy? Is the woman's kid a Citizen of the United States or not?
Mamacita just swam across the Rio Grande. The kid popped out. Think it was an accident she came over right about now?
According to you, he's as American as Jorge Washington.
Stop avoiding the question and answer it. You've shown no intellect at all - just parroting nonsense.
What's the answer, Sleepy?
Don't confuse territorial jurisdiction with political.
I gave you the links much earlier. This very question was answered by none other than Attorney General Ed Meese.
Obviously you're so lazy you couldn't be bothered to do the research. The research that all of us have done and you have not.
Interesting discussion. I’m reading the Declaration of Independence, and the words “Jurisdiction” and “Allegiance” are used as they would be today.
The Constitution uses the word “Jurisdiction”, as we mean it today, in Article III, section 2, Article IV, section 2 and 3. I guess that the founders failed to do proper research, and lacked comprehension skills.
These uses predate the 14th amendment. I doubt that the words mean the same today as they did in 1789, but changed just during the period of the 14th amendment.
It would be great if the anchor baby problem were solved, but I doubt it will be done with insults.
Good day.
The topic of the thread is birthright citizenship.
Just because someone is born a US citizen on US soil does not mean that their parents cannot be deported. Presumably "anchor baby" means the notion that an infant born on American soil makes his parents magically not subject to deportation because of their child's nationality. That is a separate legal issue, if that is what you mean by "anchor baby."
A simple "Yes, I am for amnesty" would've sufficed.
Allow me to enhance your vocabulary.
"Amnesty" means complete forgiveness: a recipient of amnesty is not punished for a crime and his crime does not go on his record.
The plan I outlined includes the payment of back taxes with penalties, as well as punishments for the crime committed including probation, fines and delayed naturalization eligibility, as well as a perpetual mark on the perpetrator's record and a permanent filing of his DNA and fingerprints in the criminal justice system.
The wording of the amendment itself only makes reference to persons born in the USA and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, as all persons born on US sovereign territory without a diplomatic passport (or without being the child of citizens of a country with which the US is at war) are.
It makes no special ethnic exceptions and imposes no visa requirements.
Those involved in the drafting seemed concerned that Chinese and Native Americans - two peoples whose presence in the USA was subject to specific treaties negotiated between the US State Department and their respective sovereigns - might fall under the definition.
However, the speakers at the time made clear that as long as the Emperor of China and the councils and chiefs of the Native American tribes and nations retained jurisdiction over their citizens with official, Senate-ratified US cooperation, even when those individuals were on US soil, then they could not qualify.
Illegal immigrants from the PRC, Mexico, Guatemala, etc. do not fall unde5r any such treaty where the US cedes jurisdiction on its own soil to foreign sovereigns.
There is a promising start. I can't wait for the sober, reasoned points that are sure to follow.
The amendment was written 160 years ago.
Really? I have a one volume set on my youngest child's shelf called Middle School Mathematics, and in it one learns that 1866 was 141 years ago.
I have a 20 volume set on my shelf precisely to identify how word use has shifted over time. (It's called the Oxford English Dictionary.)
My single volume microprint OED is much more economical with respect to currency and space.
It reveals no epoch-making change in the meaning of the word "jurisdiction" since 1868.
however, to make sure we used a more technically precise definition, I consulted not only my OED but my Black's Law dictionary, Black's informs us that "jurisdiction" is the "power and authority of a court to hear and determine a judicial proceeding and power to render particular judgment in question." And according to US law, non-citizens present on US soil are fully subject to the jurisdiction of US courts unless they hold diplomatic immunity.
In law there is something called "legislative history," which you seem to want to ignore.
There is both legislative and judicial history, of course. And Congress has not only moved to extend its jurisidiction over persons on US soil far more broadly in the years since the 14th's 1868 ratification (we were just discussing the Snyder Act earlier on the thread) but the Supreme Court has affirmed this broad interpretation, most recently in Plyler v. Doe.
No one who was part of framing the fourteenth amendment and no one in their right mind would suggest that just because we put invaders in prison sometimes, we should grant their children automatic citizenship.
You use the term "invader" emotionally, not analytically.
Children of citizens of countries who are in open hostilities with the US are excluded.
99.9999% of illegal aliens currently incarcerated in the US are not incarcerated as prisoners of war under the Geneva Convention, but under the jurisdiction of US or state law.
Then you haven't read the thread.
Is the woman's kid a Citizen of the United States or not?
Under the law he is a citizen. His mother, however, is not. She is subject to deportation and she can choose to bring her son back with her or sign him over to the care of the state of TX and terminate her parental rights.
Either way, there is no legal pretext for her to remain in the US.
Yeah. But I took the SATs before they were dumbed down, maybe for folks like you. My Math SAT score can be represented entirely by closed curves. How'd you do, Sherlock?
(They didn't have a test for proofreading, BTW.)
ML/NJ
There is no such thing as "political jurisdiction" as a legal term in our justice system.
US federal courts have territorial jurisdiction over any case arising on or any person on US soil, unless one party is a foreign sovereign (i.e. someone with diplomatic immunity).
Obviously you're so lazy you couldn't be bothered to do the research.
Had you done yours, you would be able to answer my arguments point by point.
Instead you offer insults and links to other sites.
I have addressed the small number of coherent assertions (so far you have offered no arguments) each time you have made one.
In my own words, using my own work each time.
I have offered you the common courtesy you have denied me.
Like I said, Sleepy, you're just too lazy to do the work.
Why should I do it for you?
So, in other words, you have no means of refutation other than invective and vanity.
But I'm sure old Oswald is delighted.
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.