Posted on 08/11/2010 5:34:43 PM PDT by Biggirl
Well if you listen to the left, it’s because you would be a racist. This post gives the precise reason for amending the 14th amendment to the US Constitution and the left’s crazy, lunatic response. Once again raaaaaaaaacist. Lindsey Graham brought it up a week ago and this first clip explains why, given the problems the country has had in controlling illegal immigration, one of the things he would like to ensure is that there will not be another wave of illegals entering country. As Graham states, as long as there is an incentive to come into this country illegally, as in anchor babies, people will keep coming.
(Excerpt) Read more at radioviceonline.com ...
Yes, I admit it. I hate.
Liberals.
I hate them to pieces.
This amendment need to be categorized as it was cast. What was it intended for and why was it approved. Today, neither of those reasons apply. So, do we remove the amendment or leave it on the books.
Sometimes it is necessary to amend to Constitution, not often, but sometimes it is necessary. Today, we have an unscrupulous class of people taking advantage of this amendment and that is not right...nor a privilege.
There are times that the Constitution should be amendment and this may be one of those.
Not really sure just why non citizens births should be automatically granted citizenship...and doubt that those that wrote the Constitution would have thought different.
Control the borders and we’ll eliminate the majority of anchor babies born here.
Our liberals are the world's worst. And least imaginative.
If we don’t roll over and support birthright citizenship, amnesty and open borders, we’ll lose the hispanic vote.
If you actually read the 14th there is no Anchor Baby provision at all. It’s a fiction, a lefty one.
Plus, go back and read the floor debates during ratification.
No need for an amendment to the amendment.
But not enough to let them feel the love?
God too must be a hater.
Entrance into Heaven cant be gained based on actions by parents..
Heaven has very strict immigration policies.
And a gate.
The 14th Amendment grants to Congress the responsibility to determine what "under the jurisdiction thereof" really means.
Thus, Congress can undo what the Supreme Court hath wrought.
Exactly, the ignored answer.
The 14th Amendment was passed because Negro children who were born in this country to Negro parents were not considered citizens.
The slave states did not recognize these Negro children as citizens of their state, and as such they were not citizens of the United States.
That problem was corrected with the 14th Amendment.
If we stop allowing people to illegally cross our border, (we think they are cheap labor), we can solve this problem.
The 14th needs clarification but the border is still the problem.
Fixing the 14th amendment won’t mean much if they’re still having babies here.
And I said,
"If we stop allowing people to illegally cross our border, (we think they are cheap labor), we can solve this problem."
Do we disagree?
Oh yes, we agree.
But what they intended it for wasn't an authority they possessed.
The ability to make a regular rule for naturalization is noway connected to the ability to create citizenship.
Until the 14th, the line between State citizens and citizens of the United States were well known.
§ 1218. The inhabitants enjoy all their civil, religious, and political rights. They live substantially under the same laws, as at the time of the cession, such changes only having been made, as have been devised, and sought by themselves. They are not indeed citizens of any state, entitled to the privileges of such; but they are citizens of the United States. They have no immediate representatives in congress.
Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution
-----
The 14th attempted to blur the jurisdictional boundary between the states and the federal government.
And now the federal organ has become a parasite that is killing the very thing it was created to protect.
“But what they intended it for wasn’t an authority they possessed.”
Yes, it was.. they had the authority and used it accordingly.
After all, it was passed to allow those offspring of negro slaves to be citizens.
As to its applicability today, I would agree with you that it no longer applies and actually creates a major problem. The problem is that takes an amendment to the Constitution to change this - no minor thing...as I’m sure that you are aware.
I don’t want to amend the 14th amendment I want it repealed Lock, Stock, and Barrel.
Replace the 14th amendment with a simple 1 line statement:
“No Government in the United States shall in anyway discriminate on the account of race.”
I propose the Constitutional amendment :
{
Section 1:
The Fourteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
Section 2:
No Government in the United States shall in anyway discriminate on the account of race.
}
I don’t want to amend the constitution to clearly give congress the ability to control immigration I want this dirty amendment repealed and replaced, because this is by far not the worse of this amendments abuses.
Also among this amendments consequences is roe v. Wade. 40 million Americans murdered so far.
As well as the recent Federal Judge’s “Gay marriage” edict.
The 14th Amendment Needs to go!
Ping!
Below are a couple of paragraphs from the speech (bold is mine) - - I highly recommend reading the whole thing. He explains a lot.
"There is no Supreme Court decision squarely holding that children of illegal aliens are automatically citizens of the U.S. An 1898 decision, U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark , held by a vote of 5-4 that a child of legal resident aliens is entitled to birthright citizenship. The Wong Kim Ark decision, however, was based on the mistaken premise that the Fourteenth Amendment adopted the common law system of birthright citizenship. The majority opinion did not explain how subjects were miraculously transformed into citizens within the common law. Justice Gray, writing the majority decision, merely stipulated that “citizen” and “subject” were convertible terms—as if there were no difference between feudal monarchy and republicanism. Indeed, Chief Justice Fuller wrote a powerful dissent in the case arguing that the idea of birthright subjectship had been repealed by the American Revolution and the principles of the Declaration."
"The constitutional grounds for the majority opinion in Wong Kim Ark are tendentious and it could easily be overturned. This would, of course, require a proper understanding of the foundations of American citizenship, and whether the current Supreme Court is capable of such is open to conjecture. But in any case, to say that children of legal aliens are entitled to citizenship is one thing; after all, their parents are in the country with the permission of the U.S. It is entirely different with illegal aliens, who are here without permission. Thus repeal of the current policy of birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens would not require a constitutional 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.