Posted on 08/06/2010 5:32:26 PM PDT by Congressman Billybob
I find Krauthammer dead wrong on any item pertaining to Illegal Aliens. He is Open Borders/Pro-Illegal Alien Amnesty.
Your analysis was spot on Congressman BillyBob. Notice that the ones bringing up the 14th Amendment issue (notably Lindsey Graham) are the most pro-Amnesty in Congress. The 14th Amendment issue is just a ruse to fool the public...while Graham and other pro-Illegal/Anti-American politicians try to pass Illegal Alien Amnesty
14th Amendment jurisdiction is deep voodo. But ultimately, it is CORPORATE jurisdiction, NOT common law, natural human person jurisdiction. In fact, the Bill of Rights without connection to the 14th Amendment is completely different than the Bill of Rights with connection to the 14th Amendment.
The 14th Amendment replaces rights with privileges, and does not legally have to declare it has done so. So rights that have been turned into privileges may, under the same 14th Amendment that changed them, also still be called rights, and by their same name. But they aren't rights anymore - they are government-issued privileges called rights that may be restricted or terminated at any time by that government.
Oh, and the government is not required to define any of this, even if it is applying it in court, law, or administration.
The 14th Amendment gives Congress the ability to provide legislative clarification regarding the issue of persons “subject to the jurisdiction”, including how that applies to instances where a person not subject to the jurisdiction is treated when a criminal act is involved. I’m of the opinion that the 14th Amendment was written specifically to address the issue of citizenship, not to address who is “under the jurisdiction” in criminal cases. I also believe that your question has already been answered by the numerous cases of illegal aliens who have been adjudicated in American courts and then returned to their country of origin upon release from jail/prison. I posit that they were deemed not to be under the jurisdiction with respect to citizenship, but were with respect to violating some law.
Yeah, I’m getting virus warning on the site as well.
ML/NJ
Bump the BillyBob man.
Lets hope it has already been said. Otherwise, a socialist-controlled Congress could address the issue within the next few months pursuant to its agenda.
One can argue that if the aberration on which the significant "anchor-baby" policy is based simply appeared in a judicial footnote, then correcting the policy is the objective. If the open borders crowd seek a judicial review of the footnote, they should fail given the history of the 14th.
In any event, it does not seem necessary or warranted to rewrite the 14th.
Thank you for the link!
Well, Congressman Billybob, let me put you on the spot a little bit.
During Civil War Reconstruction, the Radical Republicans informed the southern states that they would NOT be allowed back into the Union unless they ratified the 14th Amendment.
How can a “state” that is NOT a state be allowed to vote on a constitutional amendment? And how can an amendment be considered “ratified” by a state that is not a state?
Just want to get your opinion on this conundrum....
2) I don't agree that differentiation is difficult. What is difficult is getting the votes for legislation which provides clarification of the issue.
3) Since the 14th Amendment provides the vehicle for legislative action, I'd posit that the courts would not be able to overturn said law if one were to be passed. Especially given that a law already exists that prohibits foreign diplomats from claiming U.S. citizenship for their child if born in the U.S. That provides the precedents needed.
” Who gets to say who are “subject to the jurisdiction”?
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
Rephrase the sentence. All persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside and are under the jurisdiction of the United States.
That does not change the meaning of the sentence and explains who says who is under the jurisdiction.
Ping!
John, we are oftentimes on opposite sides of the liberty debates, with me calling for less government in areas you and others want more (including Krauthammer) but on this you are spot on!
Great analysis plus every day we have eveidence that Mexico considers its wayward citizens here to still be under Mexican jurisdiction. Mexico does this by issuing matricula consular ID cards to Mexican illegal aliens at its US consulates. Legal Mexicans can get them too, then they have a convenient alternate ID to use in criminal situations.
Mexico has also interfered in numerous court cases on US soil that involved illegal alien Mexicans. A well known one was in Texas where it agitated publicly and hired lawyers for an illegal alien murderer in Texas. Trying to save this scumbag from the death penalty. Mexico failed, thank God!
Mexico makes great efforts to set up voting operations on US soil so it citizens can vote in Mexican elections. Of course being an illegal alien is not a factor. The legals and illegals both can vote
Mexico is claiming jurisdiction all the time. We don’t need to amend the Constitution. We just need the right laws passed and a judge to rule on it who is not traitorous
John / Billybob
John / Billybob
John / Billybob
Off topic, is Heath going to lose this time?
I think I saw a piece saying he is in trouble.
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.