Posted on 05/06/2002 4:21:05 PM PDT by DeaconBenjamin
Once an immigrant is legally admitted into the US, they can begin the process that will lead to citizenship, at that point, they have every right that you or I have, and every obligation.
Some privileges, such as voting, are reserved for citizens in good standing.
So, as long as they obey the laws, and pay their taxes, they can do whatever you and I can do.
Get it?
The controversy continues over the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" ever since it was twisted in the Wong Kim Ark case in 1898 to legitimize the citizenship by birth of Mr. Ark who was born to Chinese nationals in San Francisco (on Sacramento St., even). Note that the folks WERE in San Francisco legally at the time, and no issue is taken over the fact that they were subjects of the Emperor of China.
That it was twisted is readily evident by studying the original debates on it in Congress, where it was originally intended only to include slaves born in servitude and later emancipated. But read the decision itself first, we'll get to Senator Howard's statement later.
LINK: Wong Kim Ark Decision
To this day, the children of diplomats here on their assignments are not considered U.S. citizens, but rather nationals of their own country, as would be the rational conclusion for the nationality of any child of an illegal alien. In fact, it is this sole criteria that is required for Mexican nationality for children born in the United States to "Mexicans in the exterior" as their government puts it.
LINK: Mexican Nationality Act and Information (tab down after reading the dual nationality bit. The Nationality Act text is about a page below. Note that until this law was passed, becoming a citizen of another country was an "infraction" that resulted in loss of citizenship).
It would take only an act of Congress to change this, and Mr. Stump of Arizona has introduced such a bill, H.R. 190. It merely clarifies the statement "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in a necessary way to prevent activist judges from making up law by exploiting imprecision in the original text.
LINK: H.R. 190
The notion that somebody who tripped over the border one morning and prest-o change-o produces a little American because the jolt caused her to go into labor is ludicrous and anyone with a modicum of intelligence knows that (like, the Mexican government, which most certainly does not grant citizenship in such cases). But this continuing abuse of the Constitution is useful to many groups - Democrats looking for clients, Mexican hegemonists looking to build a voting block, Leftists seeking to deconstruct the polity, and of course, the illegals themselves - and a complete insult to one group: Americans.
The eminently readable and rational Allan Wall wrote an extensive and illuminating article about this for FrontPageMagazine, where he reiterates the statement of the Author of the 14th, Senator Jacob Howard:
The clear, original intent of the 14th Amendment was spelled out in 1866 by Senator Jacob Howard, co-author of its citizenship clause, who wrote "Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons." Clearly the original intent of the 14th Amendment was not to encourage foreigners to defy U.S. law at taxpayer expense. Sadly the amendment is now being employed to do just that.LINK: Anchor Babies Article
Mr. Gonzalez' well intentioned defense of the continuing abuse of the 14th is his understandable concern for the children of refugees from the land of the Tyrant Fidel Castro. My comment to him is, if fewer people from one OTHER country were abusing the amendment this way there MIGHT be more sympathy for Cubans, who at least have an argument other than bad economics at home for busting the border.
Bull. This is the United States of America. Government employees should NEVER communicate with anyone in any language but English EVER.
The new article is great ("Meddlers").
I had a very informative discussion on one of those little 'scab vans' that run up & down Park Avenue in West New York with a nice lady who's Mexican illegal. She came here on a legit visa and was pregnant at the time. She overstayed her visa, had the baby (presto, US citizen) and then brought over her hubby/bf via one of the illegal smugglers. She's since had 2 more kids. Hubby/bf works as a day laborer for cash as does this lady. When they get sick or need food stamps they have no problem using this countries services. In fact, she flat out told me that since I had a job and no kids it was my *duty* to provide for her kids. I have known this lady for a while but haven't had the opportunity to have an in depth conversation with her before. She wasn't nasty or confrontational about any of this but she is making sure that her kids have dual citizenship. How many other immigrant groups are insisting on the dual citizenship? Why is Fox insisting they retain their MX citizenship?
This is the problem. The illegals earn money under the table on which they pay no taxes. What they don't require to live on and supplement their welfare state benefits they send to their families in MX. Their kids are US citizens. (that part of the constitution should be changed IMHO, when the founding fathers wrote it this country was HARDLY an immigration mecca, we were a third world back country with little industry or wealth after the Revolutionary War) They make sure their kids are also MX citizens. Their 'loyalty' is toward Mexico. They are only here to get what we give them via the welfare state and for what sad $$$'s they earn doing crappy jobs. Don't misunderstand me, I feel sorry for them, but we as a country simply can't afford to feed house and clothe all of northern mexico along with all our citizens who are also poor. Another thing Luis, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I've never heard of a large Cubano presence in any of the Latin gangs. Am I misinformed? In short, whatever the Cubans have done right (and they've seemed to certainly hit the ground running as an immigrant group!) the other 'Hispanic' immigrant groups have not. Other posters may lump 'Hispanics' together but there are definitely differences between the Cubans and other Hispanic groups. The Dems use the others as voting constituencies to keep themselves in power. Sorry for long and rantish reply.
Not that it needs to be said, but welcome to friends. Especially me.
When I am around, and they speak spanish, I immediately say, "please speak English when I am present." What is strange, is that the best english-speaking (latin) enginer I have is a young woman, as fluent as I am in english. I think that she doesn't know better, but is learning quick. The older ones try very hard, but struggle more. I am very patient with them.
I have witnessed and have first hand knowledge of people at "lower levels" who have to put up with other workers who speak another language (at work) behind their back. It is not trivial. My ex is Cuban, and I learned to speak (rudimentary) spanish pretty well. I have listened to conversations where people speak another language and dennigrate another person right nex to them (previous job). If they did that here, I would take great pleasure in walking them out the door.
This is life in South Florida. It is real. Don't come here, unless you can deal with it, and want to make a bunch of money and leave.
This woman is for real, and speaks for thousands down here.
"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."
That's what it says. The problem is that we generally want to argue amendments according to our particular beliefs.
The second amendment means exactly what it says because as conservatives, we believe in our right to keep and bear arms, yet, we want to "interpret" the 14th.
The Libs do the exact opposite.
By the way, my ideals, and my beliefs were formed long before Elian Gonzalez reached our shores, and they are based on my understanding of the words of the Founders, not on some noble need to be a savior to little immigrant children.
Now, you may chose to parse words on the 14th, Lord knows that there is a whole lot of that parsing coming from the left on the second, but it says what it says.
Why don't you shag yourself down to Gitmo and start interrogating some of the terrorists there in English, come back when you've gotten some information.
We live in a world and interact with many foreign nations, we need to communicate in order to conduct the business of a nation.
It isn't globalism, it's good, solid business sense.
Others can do it just as well as we can.
From: The Embarrassing Second Amendment.
"A standard move of those legal analysts who wish to limit the Second Amendment's force is to focus on its "preamble" as setting out a restrictive purpose. Recall Laurence Tribe's assertion that the purpose was to allow the states to keep their militias and to protect them against the possibility that the new national government will use its power to establish a powerful standing army and eliminate the state militias. This purposive reading quickly disposes of any notion that there is an "individual" right to keep and bear arms. The right, if such it be, is only a states's right. The consequence of this reading is obvious: the national government has the power to regulate--to the point of prohibition--private ownership of guns, since that has, by stipulation, nothing to do with preserving state militias. This is, indeed, the position of the ACLU, which reads the Amendment as protection only the right of "maintaining an effective state militia...[T]he individual's right to keep a nd bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated [state] militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected."
I don't know about you, but I just want the amendments to mean what they say. I think that the consequences of anything other than a straight interpretation can be dangerous.
That's what she said.
This is what YOU said: "I was in Miami a few weeks ago. Umm, I'd say about 90% of the people I spoke with had a very thick accent. Sure, they spoke English, but they weren't understandable. So, she's not spreading garbage."
She claimed that you wouldn't find "one English speaking clerk", you found them.
They had accents, and you had difficulty understanding them, but then again, I had the very same problem in some parts of Louisiana and Mississippi.
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.