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 ...
Something along the lines of "a well-regulated militia" maybe?
I read your links, and I've made my own arguments in my own words about my own position.
Again, if you have anything to offer besides cut-and-paste or linking to other people's work, feel free to make a coherent argument of your own.<,i>you're just too lazy to do the work
Says the man who thinks posting a link to someone else's work represents industry.
“Anchor baby” and “Amnesty” are terms you can twist so that you don’t sound like you are for what you are for. Your definitions are the same as Bush and Guiliani. But the rest of us understand that if someone who broke our laws to get here is allowed to stay here - that is amnesty. That is why the last 3 or 4 amnesty bills failed, even though the word “amnesty” was never in them and those that touted them were for ‘comprehensive immigration reform’. The American people understood the difference and knew they were being lied to.
So you need to quit lying to yourself and just accept that you are for amnesty and for anchor babies. (Which, BTW, means that the family gets welfare and food stamps and free medical, all at taxpayer’s expense - the term never had anything to do with deportation, but with free handouts. The term was used even when deportations were common.)
That's characteristic.
So here's the questions, Sleepy:
1) Is the kid a citizen, yes or no?
2) If federal courts have jurisdiction over everyone here except a couple hundred or so "foreign sovereigns", then why would the Congress in 1868 have gone to the trouble of adding the statement "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"? Hmmm? Do you really think they needed to reiterate the concept of diplomatic immunity in an Amendment to the Constitution?
You're a classic Leftist. You make an untenable conclusion and simply insist on it over and over again hoping that no one will expose what's obvious: you never answer the questions or logic which prove you wrong.
You've been given multiple answers to all your inane assertions, and you simply ignore them, and go back to parroting your original line.
Answer the questions, Sleepy. And read the brief.
I don’t think they made a mistake. If you read what I suggested you read, you’d see there is a difference in how that word was used in their day in a particular phrase — “subject to the jurisdiction.” They were this particular because they did not want the definition to be misunderstood. They were not setting up a redundant clause. They knew it could mean nothing else. So, to understand the passage, you need to understand the meaning of the phrase. They understood it. It is up to us to do the same.
I suggest you familiarize yourself with the meaning, origin, and history of the passage. A cursory understanding of a single word won’t help you comprehend what the phrase means.
I read the passages, again, in the U.S. Constitution, and the Declaration of Independence. They are crystal clear, and I could detect no penumbras or permutations. I guess I’m not SCOTUS material.
If you wish to argue from a spirit or intent of the law vs letter of the law, then I can agree with your position. Otherwise, words have meaning, and the meaning of jurisdiction and allegiance in the context used in the material I’ve already cited is clear.
But yet Rudy is doing his absolute best to muddle and restrict the Constitution when it comes to his 'gun grabbing' attempts to restrict gun ownership and redefine Second Amendment.
Rudy is shameless.
Too bad you have no idea what an idiom is. An idiom is more than the sum of its parts. You can take each word out and determine its meaning separately yet misunderstand the meaning of the idiom. It seems you have only a desire to understand a particular word and not the meaning in the setting it is used.
Go ahead hold on to your own interpretation and forget about the true meaning if you wish. I’m sure the meaning of that word in the Declaration and in other parts of the Constitution is clear. But then they did not use the term “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” now did they. Find that exact phrase of that idiom elsewhere in either of the two documents you mentioned then look at the meaning. If you can’t find the idiom, you won’t find the same meaning.
If you don’t understand something, do a little work. The meaning is clear, but not if you attempt to read your own interpretation into a phrase without understanding.
I’m not going to do this for you. The meaning, history, and background is available to everyone. This is your opportunity to learn something. I’d take it if I were you.
You should do a little work on your condescending attitude. It would be an opportunity for you to learn how to debate.
Go ahead and hold onto your interpretation, and forget about the clear meaning of words, and the additionally clear meaning of words in the context in which they are used.
SCOTUS reasons as you do, and comes up with all sorts of wonderful decisions based on word twisting, and claiming that yes means no, and no means yes.
For forty years after the Amendment was written SCOTUS did reason exactly as I’ve mentioned. This is not my interpretation. It is the history of the Amendment. You refuse to understand it to your detriment.
This is for anyone who would actually like to learn something:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/LegalIssues/lm18.cfm
These are the pages int the book by Edwin Meese I mentioned earlier pages 384 and 385:
You can debate yourself if you wish. I prefer to research and understand the truth.
If you are going to invent brand new definitions for words that have nothing to do with their actual meaning or etymology or historical use, be my guest.
But I'll stick to what words mean in English, not what they mean in CottonBallese.
Yes I did.
I cite myself verbatim from post 116:
Under the law he is a citizen.
If you are going to respond to my posts without reading them, you are merely wasting time - you aren't making any valid points.
I applaud your patience.
Funny how Julie Annie can find constitutional support for anchor babies, but not for the right to keep and bear arms
Shows the insanity of your position. His mother is a Mexican national whose only connection to the state of Texas and the States United is that she did criminally enter into them, purposes unknown. He inherits her nationality and the protection of that nation, not the United States or the State of Texas.
Which leads to question 2, Sleepy - why is the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction" in there?
If you really read the brief, you'd know. And notably you didn't answer that question.
Hey, Joisy, whadja think of the Anchor Brat, huh? Great guy, Real American, ain't he?
According to you he is!
But not to me and the vast majority of people on this forum and thread.
The absurdity of calling such mmm, persons "Americans" offends pretty much anyone with a brain who doesn't willfully disregard the parts of a law they don't understand or like.
Unlike you.
Just as you asked me in your previous post to answer a question I had already answered before, you are now asking me to discuss what the Fourteenth Amendment means by "jurisdiction."
I have already answered that in detail on this thread.
Well good, Sleepy, then you can cut and paste the response!
Since it's certainly nonsense purloined from some Leftist screed, I wouldn't waste my time trying to find it.
Ok. The “truth” is on your side and you are 100% correct. Meanwhile, illegals keep crossing our borders and foaling, sticking us with new unwanted citizens.
That is what is really unfortunate. So many people see this happening and think there is nothing they can do about it because they have been told for years that the Constitution says that anyone born here is automatically a citizen. So they give up the fight.
If more people knew the truth, they would be screaming for an end to this anchor baby, citizen birthright garbage. If the illegals knew there was no benefit to giving birth in this country perhaps they would stay home. At the very least all the benefits these automatic citizen children used to accumulate would be a thing of the past.
As more people recognize this fact, I am hopeful that some local govt. will recognize this as well, be it a city, county, or state and will finally challenge the federal govt. in court. The Lord willing we will be able to elect someone to the executive office who understands that we can change this situation without another amendment. The public school system has done such an effective job of brainwashing, it will be difficult to overcome what people believe because they have been taught that birthright citizenship is an actual fact for so long.
I apologize for any arrogance I’ve shown towards you. It is just that to me faulty education and unwillingness to examine the truth by examining original documents has become a big problem with people today. You were very cordial with me and I appreciate it.
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.