The Constitution is fine.
It was the courts that changed the original intent of the Amendment.
A law is more than adequate to correct it.
Mr. Bush thought it was not a good bill.
Thanks George.
“The Constitution is fine.
It was the courts that changed the original intent of the Amendment.
A law is more than adequate to correct it.”
I thought it was Kennedy’s immigration act that started it. But I agree with you this needs to stopped before we become Norte Mexicano.
“In 1965, the late Senator Ted Kennedy pressed hard for the immigration legislation-it was the first bill he managed through to passage- that eliminated the so-called ‘national origin’ quotas that had been used to keep the flow of immigrants into the U.S. overwhelmingly European. Confronting critics of the bill who had the foresight to question whether it would result in torrential flows of peoples from impoverished lands that would strain America’s ability to assimilate them, Kennedy dismissed even the suggestion that the ethnic and cultural balance of the nation would be impacted and, in a portent of strategy employed by the proponents of mass immigration ever since, he accused the bill’s critics of bigotry.”
Agreed.
Citizenship for the new born of illegal entrants was intitally based on a throw-away comment that appeared in a dissent (cite not at my fingertips).
Even the ambassador of Ireland was subject to the jurisdiction until the U.S. decided to grant him immunity. Obviously, everyone not specifically granted immunity is said to be subject to the jurisdiction. The most sensible interpretation is that "subject to the jurisdiction" did not mean subject to the obvious, but was clearly intended to mean subject to the "sole" jurisdiction.
Folks should not believe for a moment that illegal entrants are subject to the sole jusridiction of the U.S. If so, how is it the native country of an illegal entrant accepts them back when we deport them?