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 ...
The Founders showed by example when they enacted naturalization laws in the states that they supported a very generous and liberal notion of citizenship and naturalization. Up until the first anti-Chinese legislation after the Civil War, if you managed to get yourself onto American soil you eere automatically a legal resident, you were an immediate candidate for naturalization and your children were citizens.
Hmmm, I recall reading one of his posts, attempting to compare Bush to Reagan of all people, within 24 hours of Reagan's death.
Someone told him Reagan's horse had more class than Bush and he did the big chicken.
Not in the slightest. The trivial observation that Congress is allowed to make modifications in the stated provisions for special cases does not extend to illegal aliens.
It's quite obvious: if illegal aliens and their children are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States or of the individual states, then they cannot be charged with any crimes they commit, they cannot be taxed, they do not even have to do so much as pay a parking ticket.
So Congress has a choice: to determine that illegal aliens are subject to the jurisdiction of US law enforcement or to absolve them from all legal responsibility and sanction save for deportation - which will require a lengthy process in itself since it will then be opened to all kinds of complicated new legal issues.
It's actually amusing to see the same people who rage that illegals get away with crimes (while simultaneously raging about the number of illegals in our prisons) suggesting that giving them a complete free pass is the solution to all our woes.
I refer you to post 43.
He is also obviously not the devil that hysterics here imagine him to be, either.
Well sure...Just what America needs, a leader standing down at the border rolling out the red carpet for tens of millions of illegal aliens from Lord knows where...During war time yet, while at the same time suggesting Americans are lazy, and this is all good for us.
Oh yeah...
If you can, please point out specifically where you think it applies to anyone born in the United States.
(2) Congress liked them that way for 35 years.
(3) All of a sudden it's all President Bush's fault, as if he can magically fix one of America's most complicated issues with a wave of the hand.
There is nothing American about the mentality that the President can and should have the absolute power to remake reality to satisfy the people who badmouth him.
LOL!
It's right there:
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.
"All persons born in the United States" means "all persons born in the United States."
A sad way of admitting that you're wrong, but I'll accept your concession of the argument more gracefully than you offered it.
Good Lord, you think anyone swallows this BS propaganda?
Apparently, in your mind, it was Fortress America under President Clinton and no Mexican had ever set foot on our soil until President Bush was sworn in.
People were claiming that there were 20 million illegal immigrants in the US in 2000.
Now apparently there weren't any.
that is why I’m not backing him. too liberal
Then you take care of them Julie. And, not with my money!
Your a damn liar.
You think anyone believes this guy was legitimately attempting to stop this massive violent invasion? Of course not. Your BS propaganda is pathetic. Even political morons and the easily led understand Bush has been aiding and abetting, and publicly encouraging this invasion.
Stop with your BS.
It is Bush's fault... And, it's not all of the sudden either.
Thank God for term limits... Not that that Bozo would have a chance anyway.
Just wishing it not true doesn’t make it not true, even if it was Rooty who said it. I think what wideawake said is true.
I agree with you that it will probably take a Constitutional amendment to do the job, but it is not as "slam dunk" a case as you make it out to be. There are some differences among the experts about how best to proceed.
I thought so. I have to tell you that the section that reads subject to the jurisdiction thereof was not in the original draft of this amendment. It was purposely added so that your interpretation could not be possible.
Needless to say, you need to study up on why it was added and exactly what it means. Then you can make a more informed interpretation.
The following might help a bit:
During the debates of the Fourteenth Amendment’s citizenship clause, both its primary framers, Sen. Jacob Howard and Sen. Lyman Trumbull listened to concerns of including such persons as Chinese, Mongolians, and Gypsies to citizenship. Additionally, Sen. Fessenden raised the question of persons born of parents from abroad temporarily in this country, and of course, the question of Indians. Chinese, if one remembers their history, where a major concern on the part of citizens on the pacific coast and occupied a great deal of the news of the time (mostly all negative).
Sen. Trumbull attempted to assure Senators that Indians were not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. Sen. Johnson argued that Sen. Trumbull was in error in regards to the Indian's not being under the jurisdiction of the United States. This must have raised concerns with Howard because he strongly made it known that he had no intention whatsoever to confer citizenship upon the Indians under his amendment, no matter if born within or outside of their tribal lands.
Sen. Trumbull and Sen. Howard then settled upon a construction for “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” with Trumbull declaring:
The provision is, that 'all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.' That means 'subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.' What do we mean by 'complete jurisdiction thereof?' Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.
Sen. Trumbull further added, “It cannot be said of any Indian who owes allegiance, partial allegiance if you please, to some other Government that he is 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.'” Sen. Jacob Howard agreed:
[I] concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Trumbull], in holding that the word "jurisdiction," as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.
The above statements by Howard and Trumbull give us a good idea of what “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” as employed under the Fourteenth Amendment means: Absence of owing any allegiance to any other foreign power, which in return allows the United States to exercise full and complete jurisdiction over the person.
I know it is so much easier to leave out those pesky parts you don't understand. But that phrase does change the entire meaning of the amendment.
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.