Re-interpreting the Constitution.

[techs]

http://www.reformer.com/Stories/0,1413,102~8860~3181385,00.html

Congress may change terms of citizenship
A proposal to change long-standing federal policy and deny citizenship to babies born to illegal immigrants on U.S. soil ran aground this month in Congress, but it is sure to resurface -- kindling bitter debate even if it fails to become law.
At issue is "birthright citizenship" -- provided for since the Constitution's 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868.
Section 1 of that amendment, drafted with freed slaves in mind, says: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."Some conservatives in Congress, as well as advocacy groups seeking to crack down on illegal immigration, say the amendment has been misapplied over the years, that it was never intended to grant citizenship automatically to babies of illegal immigrants. Thus they contend that federal legislation, rather than a difficult-to-achieve constitutional amendment, would be sufficient to end birthright citizenship.

First off something as plainly written as "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States" is not open for debate. It plainly says you're born here you are a US citizen.
How can Congress even be considering trying to change this without a Constitutional amendment? Are they of the belief that the new Bush Supreme Court appointees will approve these kind of changes? If so, what is the sense of having a Constitution when the Congress can just vote it doesn't mean what it says, it means whatever 51 percent of the current senators and reps say it means?

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: techs
First off something as plainly written as "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States" is not open for debate. It plainly says you're born here you are a US citizen.

You'd think that, but then a lot of conservatives wondered how a Constitution which clearly forbade racial discrimination could somehow be read to support affirmative action (race-based discrimination by public institutions). And don't forget how progressive justices stretched the Commerce Clause to kill off any notion that Congress was somehow limited to its enumerated powers. Judges of all political flavors have been guilty of 'interpreting' the law to fit a political agenda.

How can Congress even be considering trying to change this without a Constitutional amendment?

They're Congress; like young children, they'll get into all manner of mischief without proper adult supervision, and that's been missing for years.

If so, what is the sense of having a Constitution when the Congress can just vote it doesn't mean what it says, it means whatever 51 percent of the current senators and reps say it means?

Congress isn't the final interpreter of the Constitution; the Supreme Court is.

 

[GoPackGo]

The bolded statement is as straight-forward as it gets.

If you are born here you are a citizen.

 

[EagleKeeper]

No if/ands about it.

Pop out in the US, you are considered to be a citizen.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
No if/ands about it.

Pop out in the US, you are considered to be a citizen.

There's clearly an exception, right there in the text: "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof".

Although the only time that would apply seems to be foreign diplomat's children born here, since diplomats are generally not subject to U.S. jurisdiction. I suppose a legal argument could be made that illegals having children here are not within U.S. jurisdiction for citizenship purposes, but I wouldn't buy it.

 

[Hacp]

hmmm looks like the right to bear arms clause was meant only for colonial times? maybe we should ban weapons tooo.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
No if/ands about it.

Pop out in the US, you are considered to be a citizen.

There's clearly an exception, right there in the text: "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof".

Although the only time that would apply seems to be foreign diplomat's children born here, since diplomats are generally not subject to U.S. jurisdiction. I suppose a legal argument could be made that illegals having children here are not within U.S. jurisdiction for citizenship purposes, but I wouldn't buy it.

Really good point Mursilis.

 

[Genx87]

Given the bolded is the entire amendment( I havent checke), there isnt much wiggle room to work with on this one. I am sure the intent of the amendment wasnt to allow a mass of illegals flooding our border to get children US citizenship but that is how it is written.

If they want to change this, then they are going to have to amend the constitution and good luck doing that.

Now I think if they want to try and stop this, they should make a law booting the parents out of the country and making the children wards of the state and put into the foster care system or up for adoption by legal US citizens.

 

[her209]

link

While clearly establishing a national rule on national citizenship and settling a controversy of long standing with regard to the derivation of national citizenship, the Fourteenth Amendment did not obliterate the distinction between national and state citizenship, but rather preserved it. 6 The Court has accorded the first sentence of Sec. 1 a construction in accordance with the congressional intentions, holding that a child born in the United States of Chinese parents who themselves were ineligible to be naturalized is nevertheless a citizen of the United States entitled to all the rights and privileges of citizenship. 7 Congress' intent in including the qualifying phrase ''and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,'' was apparently to exclude from the reach of the language children born of diplomatic representatives of a foreign state and children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation, both recognized exceptions to the common-law rule of acquired citizenship by birth, 8 as well as children of members of Indian tribes subject to tribal laws. 9 The lower courts have generally held that the citizenship of the parents determines the citizenship of children born on vessels in United States territorial waters or on the high seas. 10

I wonder if that refers to the Chinese immigrants who illegally immigrated to the US.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
No if/ands about it.

Pop out in the US, you are considered to be a citizen.

There's clearly an exception, right there in the text: "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof".

Although the only time that would apply seems to be foreign diplomat's children born here, since diplomats are generally not subject to U.S. jurisdiction. I suppose a legal argument could be made that illegals having children here are not within U.S. jurisdiction for citizenship purposes, but I wouldn't buy it.

Really good point Mursilis.

Actually it's not a good point. It's a specious argument that illegal immigrants are not within US jurisdiction. If you doubt it, visit a US Immigration and Naturalization detention facility. Regardless, the link by her209 is quite illuminating.

An interesting legal argument would a child born to a foreign diplomat AND a US citizen.

This episode is just another example of how "activist" describes liberals and conservatives alike. They create and deny rights and responsibilities on the whims of their personal prejudices.

 

[CycloWizard]

This amendment has been bastardized for the last 40 years, twisted to allow things that were clearly never intended by its authors. This is obviated when the context of its passing are considered. Repealing it and adding something that means the same thing but worded properly would be a very good idea.

What do I mean? The statement you bolded allows abortion simply because fetuses are not physically born, though it's obvious that this is not what the statement intended. How do I know this? Because at the time of its passing, ALL 50 states had banned abortion. In the context of illegal immigrants, they are breaking the law just by being here. Why should we then reward them with citizenship for their children? To encourage illicit behavior?

This amendment was called the Civil Rights Amendment at its passing - not the Birthright Amendment. The inclusion of the word 'birth' was unfortunate at best, yielding the opportunity for misinterpretation.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
No if/ands about it.

Pop out in the US, you are considered to be a citizen.

There's clearly an exception, right there in the text: "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof".

Although the only time that would apply seems to be foreign diplomat's children born here, since diplomats are generally not subject to U.S. jurisdiction. I suppose a legal argument could be made that illegals having children here are not within U.S. jurisdiction for citizenship purposes, but I wouldn't buy it.

Really good point Mursilis.

Actually it's not a good point. It's a specious argument that illegal immigrants are not within US jurisdiction.

Which is why I added the bolded part. But I don't think techs was even talking about that at all.

 

[dmcanally]

Now I think if they want to try and stop this, they should make a law booting the parents out of the country and making the children wards of the state and put into the foster care system or up for adoption by legal US citizens.

Are you serious about this?

Do you realize you would have thousands of children with nowhere to go? Do you also realize we have a hard enough problem getting people to adopt orphans as it is?

Without a doubt one of the worst ideas I have ever heard. I love the constitution just as much as the next guy, but this is one thing I am completely in favor of amending. Citizenship should only be granted to babies born by citizens. I fail to see what is wrong with that, so if anyone can think of a situation whereas a foreigner who has no intention adapting to the ways of America (learning English, paying taxes, contributing to the economy) has any business needing citizenship for its baby, I am all ears.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: dmcanally
Citizenship should only be granted to babies born by citizens. I fail to see what is wrong with that, so if anyone can think of a situation whereas a foreigner who has no intention adapting to the ways of America (learning English, paying taxes, contributing to the economy) has any business needing citizenship for its baby, I am all ears.

And what about the folks who have not attained citizenship yet? You do realize that there are requirements, specifically the 5 years continuous residency requirement, that must be met before one can be naturalized.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
This amendment has been bastardized for the last 40 years, twisted to allow things that were clearly never intended by its authors. This is obviated when the context of its passing are considered. Repealing it and adding something that means the same thing but worded properly would be a very good idea.

What do I mean? The statement you bolded allows abortion simply because fetuses are not physically born, though it's obvious that this is not what the statement intended. How do I know this? Because at the time of its passing, ALL 50 states had banned abortion. In the context of illegal immigrants, they are breaking the law just by being here. Why should we then reward them with citizenship for their children? To encourage illicit behavior?

This amendment was called the Civil Rights Amendment at its passing - not the Birthright Amendment. The inclusion of the word 'birth' was unfortunate at best, yielding the opportunity for misinterpretation.

I think that you are wanting/wishing/advocating the change more for reasons of being able to abolish the right to abortion than out of concern for 'illegals' having children that are granted automatic citizenship and then giving the parents the right to stay in our country as well.

Correct me if I am wrong, but that is the impression your reply gives me.

 

[dmcanally]

Then they can fill out their paperwork after they have a baby. This country isn?t a damn free ride.

?Ill just go have a baby in America, the feed off the teat of the governemt and welfare for the rest of my life.?

If someone isn?t willing to go through the PROPER portals for citizenship then they don?t deserve it. I love this country too much to just let any scumbag in.

I?m sorry, but that?s just how I feel.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: dmcanally

Now I think if they want to try and stop this, they should make a law booting the parents out of the country and making the children wards of the state and put into the foster care system or up for adoption by legal US citizens.

Are you serious about this?

Do you realize you would have thousands of children with nowhere to go? Do you also realize we have a hard enough problem getting people to adopt orphans as it is?

Without a doubt one of the worst ideas I have ever heard. I love the constitution just as much as the next guy, but this is one thing I am completely in favor of amending. Citizenship should only be granted to babies born by citizens. I fail to see what is wrong with that, so if anyone can think of a situation whereas a foreigner who has no intention adapting to the ways of America (learning English, paying taxes, contributing to the economy) has any business needing citizenship for its baby, I am all ears.

Well the obvious answer is to amend it but like I said, good luck doing that. However maybe when mommy and daddy cant claim their child is a citizen and thus should be allowed to remain within country they may not bother making the trek. Maybe they will, but lose baby to the system.

Right now the obvious issue is the current system doesnt work. I think sending a strong msg that you are gone but your baby stays will keep most people out.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: dmcanally
Then they can fill out their paperwork after they have a baby. This country isn?t a damn free ride.

?Ill just go have a baby in America, the feed off the teat of the governemt and welfare for the rest of my life.?

If someone isn?t willing to go through the PROPER portals for citizenship then they don?t deserve it. I love this country too much to just let any scumbag in.

I?m sorry, but that?s just how I feel.

What a stupid, ignorant and bigoted thing to say. First off, maybe they are going through the proper channels? You don't just get citizenship handed to you when you get off the boat or plane or cross the border even if you do it legally. Secondly, most of those that are coming over are working thier arses off. They are probably doing 3-4 times the work that you or I do (at least physically). Third, you ASSume that the child is going to end up like you (or someone like you) and be a welfare brat. Who are you to predict the future of this child?

I know.....NO ONE but an ignorant jacka$$.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: dmcanally
Then they can fill out their paperwork after they have a baby. This country isn?t a damn free ride.

?Ill just go have a baby in America, the feed off the teat of the governemt and welfare for the rest of my life.?

Sounds like a problem with the welfare system than it is with the naturalization system, i.e., You have no problems with legal citizens/residents who "feed off the teat of the government" for the rest of their life?

 

[lyssword]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: dmcanally
Then they can fill out their paperwork after they have a baby. This country isn?t a damn free ride.

?Ill just go have a baby in America, the feed off the teat of the governemt and welfare for the rest of my life.?

If someone isn?t willing to go through the PROPER portals for citizenship then they don?t deserve it. I love this country too much to just let any scumbag in.

I?m sorry, but that?s just how I feel.

What a stupid, ignorant and bigoted thing to say. First off, maybe they are going through the proper channels? You don't just get citizenship handed to you when you get off the boat or plane or cross the border even if you do it legally. Secondly, most of those that are coming over are working thier arses off. They are probably doing 3-4 times the work that you or I do (at least physically). Third, you ASSume that the child is going to end up like you (or someone like you) and be a welfare brat. Who are you to predict the future of this child?

I know.....NO ONE but an ignorant jacka$$.

As an immigrant I think I can say that most immigrants don't suck off welfare's tit, but get jobs as soon as 3months after they came to U.S which can be difficult if you don't know the language. Also welfare is limited to 5 years in a lifetime (as far as I know). My single mom had to work really hard to provide shelter/food for us, sometimes 2 jobs at a time, and we would help deliver newspapers at 4 a.m. We live here now more than 7 yrs yet still not official citizens, takes a lot of paperwork/time to wait of course. My mom now finishing a degree in college to work as pta (something like a nurse), and I am also going to comm. college 2nd year. I am sure we will contribute to better the u.s of america, as have millions of immigrants done before, even with all the hardships facing them, like discrimination etc. Not sure if you realize this, but U.S became strong because some of the best people at what they do decided to take refuge here (a lot of famous people are not "english-born" americans). As far as baby being born here in states and then sent to foster home because their parents don't have citizenship is totally ridiculous, because it DOES take years to get citizenship.

 

[dmcanally]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Well the obvious answer is to amend it but like I said, good luck doing that. However maybe when mommy and daddy cant claim their child is a citizen and thus should be allowed to remain within country they may not bother making the trek. Maybe they will, but lose baby to the system.

Right now the obvious issue is the current system doesnt work. I think sending a strong msg that you are gone but your baby stays will keep most people out.

I see your point now, which in turn might be a very good deterrent.

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
What a stupid, ignorant and bigoted thing to say. First off, maybe they are going through the proper channels? You don't just get citizenship handed to you when you get off the boat or plane or cross the border even if you do it legally. Secondly, most of those that are coming over are working thier arses off. They are probably doing 3-4 times the work that you or I do (at least physically). Third, you ASSume that the child is going to end up like you (or someone like you) and be a welfare brat. Who are you to predict the future of this child?

I know.....NO ONE but an ignorant jacka$$.

Where did you get the idea that I am a welfare brat? Either way, how dare you. I work for and earn every penny I receive. I suckle no teat. When was the last time you applied for citizenship? While it might not be an instant process, it most certainly isn?t impossible. No matter what social class, no one is too poor to fill out paperwork.

I have to tell you, if it were up to me I would take the troops in Iraq and put up a 5 mile zone along the borders (both Canada and Mexico) ordering shoot to kill. That would stop illegal immigration pretty damn quick and more people would start to apply for that paperwork.

Originally posted by: her209
Sounds like a problem with the welfare system than it is with the naturalization system, i.e., You have no problems with legal citizens/residents who "feed off the teat of the government" for the rest of their life?

No no, I do. I most certainly have a problem with that, but its off topic.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: dmcanally
I have to tell you, if it were up to me I would take the troops in Iraq and put up a 5 mile zone along the borders (both Canada and Mexico) ordering shoot to kill. That would stop illegal immigration pretty damn quick and more people would start to apply for that paperwork.

Darn good thinking!

 

[dmcanally]

Originally posted by: techs
Originally posted by: dmcanally
I have to tell you, if it were up to me I would take the troops in Iraq and put up a 5 mile zone along the borders (both Canada and Mexico) ordering shoot to kill. That would stop illegal immigration pretty damn quick and more people would start to apply for that paperwork.

Darn good thinking!

I know you think I am some kind of radical conservative or something, but I have heard from people that own land along the Mexico border that can't go on certain parts of their land for fear of being killed. One Texas rancher saw Mexican soldiers sighting in on him and had to run for his life. Others live in fear of running into drug smugglers that are heavily armed and wouldn't think twice, blink, or sneeze at the thought of wasting them.

I don't think a lot of you realize that Laredo, Texas and the Mexico side of Laredo is like a war zone. Something in the realm of 600 or so people have been killed there in the last year.

 

[lyssword]

Sorry to sound like a smartass, but if it was me, and it was "like a warzone", I would consider moving to another state.. and you claim 600 ppl were killed, were they ranchers or who?

 

[dmcanally]

Originally posted by: lyssword
Sorry to sound like a smartass, but if it was me, and it was "like a warzone", I would consider moving to another state..

Sorry, but I don't give up something I love so easily. Texas is the best state in the Union by far. I have been this close ( |___| ) do dropping everything I have going right now to go work for the minute men project. If this were to have happen 100 years ago we would be at war with Mexico right now, not now its all about racism this and racism that. I?m sorry but I didn't know criminals were a race.