Posted on 04/29/2010 7:25:38 PM PDT by Free ThinkerNY
SAN DIEGO (AP) -- Rep. Duncan Hunter said he would support deporting U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants, adding that "it takes more than walking across the border" to be an American citizen."
The San Diego-area Republican congressman spoke Saturday at a video recorded tea party rally in Ramona.
(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...
A definite misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment; enacted to legalize children of slaves, who had no citizenship.
This amendment was also never intended to allow anyone who was in the U.S. without permission who gave birth to make the child a U.S. citizen.
What the guy said was, "Do you believe that we should deport the natural born citizen children of illegal immigrants?"
Trick question. There's no such thing.
A Natural Born Citizen is defined as a child born on U.S. soil whose parents are both citizens. This is a qualification beyond just citizenship, and is the crux of the question for Obama.
A secondary point is whether children born on U.S. soil to illegal alien parents are even citizens: they violate the "and subject to the jurisdiction of" clause in the 14th.
So Hunter should have just laughed. The guy hit him with a strawman: he made the conclusion that just because someone is born on U.S. soil that they are "natural born". That's simply not true, on a number of levels.
>Can you answer me? It was yes or no.
No it wasn’t. Because the wall does NOT exist your question is relegated to the realms of “divide by zero.” It is undefined. Any answer given would be vacuously true.
Sounds good to me, if it means keeping the family together.
It's the humane thing to do. I like humane.
When the kids are adults, they can decide to come back, if they haven't commited any felonies in the meantime.
“no plausible distinction with respect to the 14th Amendment ‘jurisdiction’ can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful”
It was the court that is responsible for giving INS the excuse for the practice of granting citizenship to children born here to non-citizen parents regardless of their immigration status.
Okay folks, here’s the deal: Birthright citizenship is the law of the land, per 8 USC 1401 paragraph a. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/1401.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthright_citizenship_in_the_United_States_of_America
So like it or not, “anchor babies” are native-born US citizens, and will even be qualified to serve as President after they turn 35. Now, if we deport the parent(s) of a minor child, it is in the child’s best interest not to break up the family. They can come back when they turn 18.
Hmm. . . paragraph d seems to contradict the Birther’s claims. The President’s mom was born in Kansas and spent enough years in the US, so he is a citizen, since he was born after 12/24/1952.
If that's your choice, sure.
Personally, I'd prefer if they walked across the boder holding their parents' hands...
Next stupid question?
“no plausible distinction with respect to the 14th Amendment ‘jurisdiction’ can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful”
It was the court that is responsible for giving INS the excuse for the practice of granting citizenship to children born here to non-citizen parents regardless of their immigration status.
>It’s not that compliated, hawking is always wrong,...
WHAT are you talking about? That’s one heck of a non-sequitur.
Just because something is addressed in the Intellectual field does not mean that it is wrong. Blaise Pascal, a physicist/mathematician/theologian, addressed many issues on the intellectual level: Pascal’s Wager, for instance.
Pascal said “Knowledge of physical science will not console me for ignorance of morality in time of affliction, but knowledge of morality will always console me for ignorance of physical science.” But note that philosophy, theology, mathematics, and logic are all alike NOT physical sciences... in order to not have an ‘ignorance of morality’ we need to be able to apply logic to it, so that we can consistently test and discriminate what is right and what is wrong. For example, the bible makes no mention of sex-change operations, as such; so they must be moral and right, correct? NO! Because [just] as Jesus said when asked about divorce, “Male and Female He made them,” and used that to expound on so MUST any Christian who wishes to be Christ-like.
So, answer this: What fence/wall? If you can answer that question then I will have the required context to answer your question; yes, it can be metaphor or real. As I said previously I am interpreting it to be the “border fence” which was never finished; if I am wrong in that assumption the burden is [now] on you to clarify what you really meant.
What Hunter should have said is, "it takes more than being purged from a Mexican vagina onto American soil to be an American citizen.
There you go, Rep Hunter. No charge for that.
The jurisdiction means that the US can enforce its laws on them, not that they owe some type of allegience or all the other stupid crap people write. This clause only exempts the children of diplomats who are not under the jurisdiction of the US. When the diplomats wife travels from her embassy which is foreign soil, to the US hospital, pops the kid and then goes back to her foreign soil she is under diplomatic immunity to US law and not under our jurisdiction and therefor her children are not US citizens. Whereas the illegal alien mom has no such immunity. Although she has broken a law and is a criminal her child is still a US citizen. The child of a crack whore is also a US citizen.
If you don't like the law then try to change it.
And as far as "changing the law", it's only necessary to clarify the 14th: HR 190 by Bob Stump.
To put it bluntly, you're wrong.
>Weak.
How so?
Let me ask you a simple either-or question, demanding one of the two options: Do you have a problem with reading-comprihension, or do you just hate logic?
It’s of the same class as “Have you stopped beating your wife yet?” There is an underlying assumption that is being forced on the person answering... what would you think if you heard someone ask that to an unmarried man? [A man whose wife does not actually exist.]
Alas, they are wrong. It is not ANYONE. The clause excludes diplomats and is therefor not redundant. Its in the Wong Kim Ark case.
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.