Posted on 10/12/2003 6:33:57 AM PDT by tomball
Edited on 04/22/2004 11:50:05 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Let us see what unfortunate result emerges.
Bob Grant on the radio suggested landmines and sharpshooters.
And what do you think the kids will probably grow up to be? The boys will be gangbangers and the girls whores on welfare who along with their gangbanger boyfriends will pop out another generation of gangbangers and whores. They will also hate America and anyone who isn't Mexican, cheer the likes of Cruz Bustamante, but would never return to Mexico. Oh, no, they live so much better in America, even if on welfare, though they'd never admit it.
No, it will NOT "split" anything. If W is beaten in the Republican primary, then W will not be on the ballot in November as the Republican candidate -- whoever beat him will. There would be ONE Republican candidate versus whoever the Dem is
This title presents a totally false premise. From the article:
One local charity reports that demand for Christmas food baskets has tripled in the past two years
settling here has become easier
"We haven't done workplace enforcement for years," says Robert Logazino, head of the Border Patrol's Northern California sector office in Livermore. "We're in the process of being closed down here." Priorities have shifted in law enforcement.
"The houses violate the city code," says Gary Podesto, Stockton's mayor. "But if we chase them out, they will only go live by the river."
They know with certainty that they couldn't have afforded the treatment, which ran into the hundreds of thousands of dollars, and for which they paid nothing at San Joaquin General.
U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants have access to the country's social safety net. The Silverios get $650 a month in welfare on behalf of Flor and another $319 on behalf of Cristian.
The nonprofit Council for Spanish speakers, known as El Concilio, says the number of baskets with food distributed at Christmas jumped three-fold in the last two years, to about 1,500.
Medi-Cal, the state and federal health-insurance program, covers illegal immigrants only for emergency treatment, prenatal care and some cases of long-term care in nursing homes.
Moreover, when Medi-Cal won't pay, the burden often falls to local health-care systems. San Joaquin General, which faces a $9 million overall deficit this year, last year lost an average of more than $75 for each patient who visited its emergency room. The ER lost $3.7 million.
It isn’t enforcement of the border that is keeping the illegals here. It is the lack of enforcement of our immigration lawscoddling of the illegals and all the free handouts the illegals receive at taxpayer expense.
Not that I want to give any of our unhappy with their situation in life neighbors to the south, but...
Couldn't they for $1200 buy some new clothes and a plane ticket and fly into LA as touristas???
Come on, muchachos, let's start thinking outside the box, here.
You might stumble on to a way to improve your life at home.
I will never understand why these people don't seem to make any effort to improve the standard of living in their own country. Maybe we could encourage more illegals to stay home if we made them a part of some "hands-on" charity (you know - Jimmy Carter style).
Instead of paying these blood-suckers welfare, we make them a part of a team. The goal would be take on one small village at a time, send down a bunch of volunteers (including illegals) with the equipment needed to bring them into the 21st century. Call it foreign aid with a direct "hands-on" approach. The only stipulation would be that the illegals originally from each village, return and stay there, and that no one else from each improved village illegally crosses our border.
It's got to be cheaper than what these illegals are now costing our country in both money and loss of cultural standards and identity.
What if the "sitting President" sucks?
"The Fourteenth Amendment excludes the children of aliens. (The Slaughterhouse Cases (83 U.S. 36 (1873))
"The Fourteenth Amendment draws a distinction between the children of aliens and children of citizens. (Minor V. Happersett (88 U.S. 162 (1874))"
This is real important!!!
The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction" doesn't mean merely that they can be arrested for breaking our laws!!!
"The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" REQUIRES!!! "DIRECT AND IMMEDIATE ALLEGIANCE!!!" to the United States, NOT!!! just physical presence!!!!! (Elk V. Wilkins 112 U.S. 94 (1884))
"There is NO automatic birthright citizenship in a particular case. (Wong Kim Ark Case, 169 U.S. 649 (1898))"
This is real, real important!!!
"In essence, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" meant, at the time the amendment was written, A PERSON HAVING A RECIPROCAL RELATIONSHIP OF ALLEGIANCE AND PROTECTION WITH THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT!!!!! It was thus understood NOT!!! to apply to persons whose presence in this country is TRANSITORY OR ILLEGAL!!!"
"The Supreme Court has NEVER!!! confirmed birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens, temporary workers and tourists!!!" (Plyer V. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 211 n. 10 (1982))
NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, NEVER!!! confirmed birthright citizenship for the children of ILLEGAL ALIENS, TEMPORARY WORKERS and TOURISTS!!! NEVER!!!
I hope this helps. Please straighten out as many others as you can with this information. Your kids aren't going to hear this in school.
The Liberals have really sold us a bill of goods with their interpretation of the 14th. FAIR is taking it to the Supreme Court to get it set straight once and for all.
It's only an amendment that needs to be changed because it's being used for purposes it never was put there for. After the Great Society (the Great Socialist Welfare Society) immigration and borders needed tight control but the opposite happened. Some illegals might be hard workers ---- but we're just inviting in a welfare class that is full of criminals and low-lives like this article describes. This isn't a dad sitting home raising his kids, he's out partying with his drinking buddies, driving drunk and being very irresponsible ---- and he's only having kids out of the convenience of getting a big welfare check and using the citizenship of those kids for himself.
This guy in the article is an excellent example of why things aren't being improved in Mexico. He can't afford a single one of his kids ---- but that wouldn't stop him in Mexico --- and it certainly doesn't stop him here from producing them right and left. In Mexico those kids would be going hungry every night, here they get a big welfare check and food stamps. In Mexico, he'd be just as drunk but probably wouldn't have a car. Coming here doesn't make them responsible, it just makes them worse but now Americans get to pay for their problems.
It is clear by the early dates of the case law you cited that the original framers of the Fourteenth Amendment meant it to be so or else they would have spoken out against the rulings.
My mistake in interpretting the Fourteenth Amendment, however, was my own as I can't recall ever hearing a Liberal mentioning it in regards to this particular issue.
A while back, I once post a reply to FR suggesting that maybe the "jurisdiction thereof" clause could be used to exclude the children of illegals but I did not know for a fact that the interpretation of that particular clause had come up before in the courts.
The case law you cited explains why American Indians had to have special legislation to grant them citizenship in the 20th Century and how the U.S.-born white population of the South could be disenfranchised during Reconstruction. It was never clear to me why the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 would have been needed as the Fourteenth Amendment already addressed the issue of "persons born in the United States".
Since we now have a few cases of children of non-citizen Middle Easterns who were born in the U.S. in the 1970's, who were raised outside of the U.S., who grew up to be Islamist terrorists waging war on the U.S. and, when captured by U.S. military forces, have demanded their Constitutional and other legal rights as U.S. citizens, now might be a very good time to have this issue regarding the "jurisdiction thereof" clause of the Fourteenth Amendment brought up before the U.S. Supreme Court.
It's only an amendment that needs to be changed because it's being used for purposes it never was put there for.
Actually, as 4Freedom documented with case law in Post 55, we are both wrong. The Fourteenth Amendment does not have to be changed.
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.