Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Giuliani: Kids of Illegal Immigrants OK
AP via google ^ | November 30, 2007 | JIM DAVENPORT

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 ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 14thamendment; aliens; anchorbabies; anchorbaby; elections; giuliani; immigrantlist; immigration
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-149 next last
To: ml/nj
What does that "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" mean?

Something along the lines of "a well-regulated militia" maybe?

121 posted on 12/02/2007 9:34:34 AM PST by Wolfie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Regulator
In other words, you didn't read the brief.

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.

122 posted on 12/02/2007 9:36:59 AM PST by wideawake (Why is it that so many self-proclaimed "Constitutionalists" know so little about the Constitution?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

“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.)


123 posted on 12/02/2007 9:51:44 AM PST by CottonBall
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
And of course, you didn't answer the question.

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.

124 posted on 12/02/2007 10:27:07 AM PST by Regulator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
By the way, Sleepy, just for a bit of relief from the Comedy that is you, here's some Anchor Brats hard at work in Nuestra Tierra! Arriba, Pinche Cabron!


125 posted on 12/02/2007 11:01:01 AM PST by Regulator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: Scotsman will be Free

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.


126 posted on 12/02/2007 11:40:08 AM PST by Waryone (Constantly amazed by society's downhill slide.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: Waryone

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.


127 posted on 12/02/2007 12:19:06 PM PST by Scotsman will be Free (11C - Indirect fire, infantry - High angle hell - We will bring you, FIRE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl
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.

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.

128 posted on 12/02/2007 12:22:09 PM PST by stockstrader (We need a conservative who will ENERGIZE the Party, not a liberal who will DEMORALIZE it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Scotsman will be Free

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.


129 posted on 12/02/2007 12:57:19 PM PST by Waryone (Constantly amazed by society's downhill slide.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: Waryone

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.


130 posted on 12/02/2007 1:07:27 PM PST by Scotsman will be Free (11C - Indirect fire, infantry - High angle hell - We will bring you, FIRE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: Scotsman will be Free

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:

http://books.google.com/books?id=-_8N3UeXeesC&pg=PA384&lpg=PA384&dq=senator+trumbull+%22subject+to+the+jurisdiction%22&source=web&ots=kX_x0C4KTS&sig=iv3RZT5_5qjrNxgcdPeKEtSFdQ0#PPA385,M1

You can debate yourself if you wish. I prefer to research and understand the truth.


131 posted on 12/02/2007 1:24:24 PM PST by Waryone (Constantly amazed by society's downhill slide.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: CottonBall
But the rest of us understand that if someone who broke our laws to get here is allowed to stay here - that is amnesty.

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.

132 posted on 12/03/2007 4:13:08 AM PST by wideawake (Why is it that so many self-proclaimed "Constitutionalists" know so little about the Constitution?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: Regulator
And of course, you didn't answer the question.

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.

133 posted on 12/03/2007 4:15:11 AM PST by wideawake (Why is it that so many self-proclaimed "Constitutionalists" know so little about the Constitution?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: Scotsman will be Free; Waryone; CottonBall
There seems to be a real propensity for some on this thread to redefine common words like "jurisdiction" and "amnesty" to fit an emotionalized ideology that doesn't square with dictionary definitions, legal definitions, historical usage or common sense.

I applaud your patience.

134 posted on 12/03/2007 4:18:13 AM PST by wideawake (Why is it that so many self-proclaimed "Constitutionalists" know so little about the Constitution?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl
Children born in the U.S. to illegal immigrants already are American citizens, and Giuliani said he would not try to change that.

Funny how Julie Annie can find constitutional support for anchor babies, but not for the right to keep and bear arms


135 posted on 12/03/2007 4:26:35 AM PST by from occupied ga (Your most dangerous enemy is your own government, Benito Guilinni a short man in search of a balcony)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
Under the law he is a citizen

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.

136 posted on 12/03/2007 6:28:01 AM PST by Regulator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: Regulator
More invective and grandstanding by you, and, for me, increased tedium.

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.

137 posted on 12/03/2007 8:55:42 AM PST by wideawake (Why is it that so many self-proclaimed "Constitutionalists" know so little about the Constitution?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
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.

138 posted on 12/03/2007 10:05:51 AM PST by Regulator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: Waryone

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.


139 posted on 12/03/2007 11:07:38 AM PST by Scotsman will be Free (11C - Indirect fire, infantry - High angle hell - We will bring you, FIRE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: Scotsman will be Free

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.


140 posted on 12/03/2007 1:51:52 PM PST by Waryone (Constantly amazed by society's downhill slide.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141-149 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson