Posted on 04/28/2010 1:40:34 PM PDT by Steelfish
Deport Children of Illegals: Hunter By R. STICKNEY Apr 28, 2010
Representative Duncan Hunter wants to deport the U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants. Hunter, who spoke at a tea party gathering in Ramona Saturday, said he does not believe children born to illegal immigrant parents should get automatic U.S. citizenship.
In a video posted Saturday on YouTube, Hunter appears to be taking questions from the crowd when he is asked if he would support the deportation of children born to illegal immigrants.
I would have to, he said.
Its a complex issue and its
you can look and say, Youre a mean guy, thats a mean thing to do, thats not a humanitarian thing to do. We simply cannot afford what were doing right now, he said. "Californias going under.
(Excerpt) Read more at nbcsandiego.com ...
Section 1. 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.
Okay, so which state is not part of the United States?
Hunter is right.
Amendments can be changed.
Not "or" "and." You altered the wording which changes the meaning.
There is one beacon of light on the issue of judicial precedent.
While Roberts conceded that "departures from precedent are inappropriate in the absence of a special justification,'" he added that "At the same time, stare decisis is neither an inexorable command'... nor a mechanical formula of adherence to the latest decision' ... especially in constitutional cases," noting that "If it were, segregation would be legal, minimum wage laws would be unconstitutional, and the Government could wiretap ordinary criminal suspects without first obtaining warrants."
It's not rooted in originalism or strict constuctionism. Modern conservatives to a big extent adhere to an interpretation of the 14th amendment that is profoundly liberal.
It is both wrong in that the authors of this amendment meant specific things by the language they used, (what is the usefulness of having laws if they don't mean what they say they mean?) and wrong in allowing the usurpation of America's sovereignty in a way that has absolutely nothing to do with giving freed slaves citizenship.
The federal appellate courts, chiefly from the FDR court packing era, have interpreted the 14th to confer auto-citizenship on anchor babies. However, the only SCOTUS decision to touch indirectly upon the matter, post civil war, thought otherwise.
And yes, by the fruit of the poison vine, those who derived their citizenship through extra-constitution means, my be striped of those rights after an unfavorable SCOTUS ruling.
This man is close to getting my vote should he run again in 2012! I like a man that stands up for what is right. Does anybody have any examples of him selling his values out for political favor, to stump for a friend like McCain, or just being plain wrong on an issue?
I'm no lawyer, but wasn't the Lautenburg (spelling?) Gun Ban retroactive thereby causing many military men and police men to lose their whole careers?
It seems to me that every amendment post 1864 AD, no matter how well intended, seems in contrary to what our founding fathers envisioned. All of these amendments have eroded Federalism down to its extinction today.
“’First of all, the 14th amendment says nothing about having to be subject to a states jurisdiction.’
‘Section 1. 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.
Okay, so which state is not part of the United States?’”
I don’t think you comprehend what I was saying. No state is not a part of the United States, obviously. But there is federal territory that isn’t governed by any state. If one were to be born there, they would be under the jurisdiction of the U.S. government yet not under the jurisdiction of any state. Which is all I was getting at.
“It’s not rooted in originalism or strict constuctionism...It is both wrong in that the authors of this amendment meant specific things by the language they used”
I disagree. The words are pretty simple, and pretty obviously mean what precedent has come to believe they mean, notwithstanding the supposed intent. Yes, the intent was to grant citizenship to slave. But the way it’s written, it applies to “anchor babies,” whether or not that’s what they wanted.
By the way, when intent knocks up against language, language controls (according to what the language meant when the article was adopted, of course).
“And yes, by the fruit of the poison vine, those who derived their citizenship through extra-constitution means”
Anchor babies do not receive their citizenship through extra-constitutional means. You imply that because their parents reside here at the time of their birth illegally, their citizenship status is somehow poisoned. Only their illegal is a statutory matter, not a Constitutional matter. Also, the sins of the father are not visited upon their children.
Anchor babies arrive at citizenship by perfectly Constitutional means. They are citizens by right of the soil, regardless of how they came to be born on the soil, except of course if they weren’t under the jurisdiction of U.S. law at the time of birth. Which illegal aliens obviously are.
their illegal = their illegality
Bingo!
Had these post war statutes been reviewed by the SCOTUS the nature of the arguments would be greatly changed. Until and unless the SCOTUS finally addresses this collection of Federal District Court interpretations the fur will fly.
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.