Posted on 05/26/2009 5:27:42 AM PDT by Sinschild
Edited on 05/26/2009 5:30:31 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
U.S. Rep. Nathan Deal, a Republican candidate for governor of Georgia, has proposed changing the long-standing federal policy that automatically grants citizenship to any baby born on U.S. soil, a move opposed by immigrant rights advocates.
Supporters of Deal
(Excerpt) Read more at ajc.com ...
Turns out he was wrong. He should have worded his amendment more carefully.
ping
And they are wrong. The jails are full of criminals who were here illegally and who committed a crime, got caught, were convicted, and jailed. I've seen stories that upwards of 30% of all California inmates are illegals. It wouldn't surprise me if that figure was high, but there is no doubt that thousands of illegals are being held in California's corrections system. Other states are the same. The New York Times reported in 2007 that upwards of 5 percent of their prison population were illegals. In Texas it's about 11%. Illegal or not, subject to U.S. jurisdiction and doing time in U.S. prisons.
Is that too obvious for you?
I would submit that the U.S. Constitution DOES NOT support the idea that children born on U.S. soil are automatically U.S. Citizens. The 14th Amendment has been interpreted to mean so, but I disagree with the interpretation. IMO, judged literally, the 14th Amendment does no such thing.
And I have seen just as many walk away from these crimes because they were foreign nationals - is that too obvious for you?
Illegal aliens fall under catergory #3, particularly if they are from Mexico where they were taught that the southwestern United States was stolen from them.
Thank you, this is what I have been trying to explain to Non-Sequitur.
If you are from another country, then you are not subject to our jurisdiction - you are a subject of the country from which you came!
I agree with your take on it ExTxMarine. I’m not an attorney, but this is my take on the 14th Amendment, in particular the section you address.
Persons visiting in the United States, are not U.S. Subjects. They are the subjects of the nation where they are citizens.
Not all countries have such laws, nor should we assume that other nations will automatically revert to their parent’s birthright.
It’s interesting how selective you’re being. If you’re a conservative, then the laws of other countries shouldn’t affect our policies, now should it? Of course, in the case of punishing the infant for the wrongs of the parent in coming here illegally, you have no no problem with it.
I’m as red meat as the next conservative, but there’s no point in pretending this brand of perverse justice. You’re no different than a liberal.
We might as well fund abortions for illegals, using your logic and lack of compassion for a helpless infant’s circumstances.
Some documented examples would be nice. If thousands of illegals are locked up in U.S. prisons for crimes committed while here illegally then obviously they are subject to U.S. jurisdiction. Which would mean that all are.
If you come here and rob a bank then you can be arrested, tried, and jailed in this country. You most certainly are subject to our jurisdiction. How can you be subject to the jurisdiction of the country from which you came if you didn't rob a bank there?
“We might as well fund abortions for illegals, using your logic and lack of compassion for a helpless infant’s circumstances.”
I am sorry, but I don’t see how sending a subject of another country back to that country is the same as killing someone - maybe you can elaborate on that one.
These people are not leaving these other countries due to oppression or religious restraints, they are coming to take the bread and butter of our ancestors while being foreign nationals! Send them and their children HOME - to their country.
They are subjects of another country from a citizenship standpoint. But visiting here is not a license to disobey our laws. Any person, regardless of citizenship, who breaks the law in the U.S. can be arrested, tried, and jailed. Any American who breaks the laws in a foreign country can have the same fate. Subject to our jurisdiction means subject to our laws and the penalty for breaking them. Every person visiting, legally or illegally, falls into that category. With the exception of those under diplomatic immunity.
So basically your position is that only people who have drawn federal paychecks should be allowed to vote.
“Subject to our jurisdiction means subject to our laws and the penalty for breaking them.”
You are implying that this amendment is only referring to the jurisdiction of our laws! That is the same bad ruling that decided that this includes anchor babies! You completely ignore the second sentence that specifically says it does not mean foreigners! In other words those that are NOT subjects of the US.
Now, you will say that it clarifies only those that are afforded diplomatic immunity, but I say it does NOT - it says foreigners, aliens and then mentions those that have immunity!
Wow - I get the impression that you think you're being clever. You're not. Other countries have laws against murder; by your "logic" we shouldn't have laws against murder because other countries have such laws. We have to do what's best for us. What you are doing is what liberals do frequently - that is push a socialist agenda under the guise of it being "for the children." My point was that there is a perfectly acceptable solution as to what to do with the "bebe de anchola" and that is give them the citizenship of the mother. And how is giving an illegal immigrant's offspring the citizenship of the mother punishing the kid? Sending them both back where they came from seems OK to me.
lack of compassion for a helpless infant’s circumstances.
You must be one of the "compassionate conservatives" like Bush. And just where is your "compassion" for the taxpayers in this country who are being forced at gupoint to foot the bill for offspring of illegals. It would be different if we had a choice, but I don't remember anyone coming up to me and saying "Hey occupado, la puta y yo vamos a tener un bebé y usted va a pagar él. ¿Usted tiene un problema con eso?." I'm sure I would have remembered.
You just don't get it that using children as a human shield for your liberal tax and spend ideas just doesn't cut the mustard around here. You might have more luck on DU.
Here we go again. Not all countries have these form of laws.
Your approach leads to many denials of the realities of life. Mexicans aren’t the only foreigners coming here.
This would also apply to all kinds of other foreigners. China, North Korea, Iran, etc.? What do you think those countries do to people who flee? You think they’ll get to keep their child?
The moment you send back a family of a Commie country with their infant, you’ve effectively destroyed any hope of that infant’s future, and the family’s already reduced ability to protect their child. They might as well have aborted it, given the suffering that child may have to endure.
What if the Egyptians had that policy? Would you have Moses sent back because of his slave heritage? History has many examples of infant mercy by an opposing nation or culture. Why should we be less merciful?
“Justice” is partly about protecting the innocent. Apparently, you seem to have some definition I don’t comprehend. My conscience won’t allow me to simply accept the potential destruction of a child’s future with their parents.
My position would be better stated as ....
“Those who care enough to have made the choice to sacrifice their personal goals by serving either their nation, state or local community instead of pursuing a career or education, are the ones who should have a say in the what that government does or provides as services to it’s citizens”
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.