-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Re-interpreting the Constitution.
Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
CycloWizard
Lifer
No, that's not the impression my reply gives at all. It gives the impression that I want it changed for both reasons, as is clearly stated. Your implication is simply a manifestation of your idiocy rather than any shortcoming on my part. I wouldn't say this to most people, but I see further down that it's part and parcel of your mannerisms in the forum, so I have no problems returning the favor when appropriate.
To reiterate: it's simply ridiculous for us to give citizenship to the progeny of those who are here illegally. They're breaking the law by their very presence and we are rewarding them for it.
ok, the kid is born here, and is now a citizen... what happens to the child? we can't just let illegal immigrants kidnap a US Citizen, can we? so what happens... do we try to get the kid naturalized in their parents country? do we make the parents become legal citizens? how are we proving the child was born here? does the border patrol actually have to see the kid exiting mom's vagina? there should be a clear amendment made to state that the kid is not a US Citizen, unless mom and dad are going through the proper channels to become citizens themselves.
I don't see how they can pass a law to change the interpretation of that provision. Pointless grandstanding. More fire for the "out of control judiciary" crap.
Here I was thinking maybe someone was complaining about one of the real misinterpretations of the 14th amendment: incorportation, substantive due process, or the near-elimination of the privileges and immunities clause.
Here I was thinking maybe someone was complaining about one of the real misinterpretations of the 14th amendment: incorportation, substantive due process, or the near-elimination of the privileges and immunities clause.
BaliBabyDoc
Lifer
Fair enough.
That didn't work in the USSR, which expended tremendous amounts of energy to keep the borders shut.
Of course, manpower might not necessarily be the correct way of going about it. Frankly, I'd put up remote-controlled gun towers (50-cal) with infrared/night vision/50X+ optical zoom capabilities. Put up a computer that recognizes anything larger than a squirrel moving, and then pass on the alarm to a processing center (need 200-300 people at most methinks). If the border is ~2000 miles, then depending on the terrain, a tower every 2 miles should do the trick (on average). That's 1000 towers... I figure even at $250k/tower, that's a measly price to pay for closing the borders.
And I think this is a good idea for 2 reasons:
1) Illegal immigration is wrong and dangerous - if people want to work here in terrible conditions for little pay because they are desperate, and are ineligible for immigration, then create a special work visa specifically for these circumstances. Let them work, but keep track of them. Say, after 10 years of work, give them a chance to participate in a green card lottery.
People from Mexico shouldn't have an easier time getting into the U.S. than people from Eastern Europe, let's say - that's actually racism.
2) Open borders are dangerous. Crossing into the U.S. from Mexico or Canada is so easy, i wonder why we bother with airport security at all. Anything and anyone can be smuggled in at will.
RightIsWrong
Diamond Member
Let's see....you said:
You go on this side rant about how the amendment was used to advocate abortion in a thread about a constitutional amendment being changed without going through the proper procedures. Now, your little rant would have been tolerable, if it were factual. If you see avert your eyes to the bolded section above, you will see the err of your ways. First off, there were not even 50 states at that point in time there were only 36. Secondly, of the 28 that ratified the 14th amendment, only 23 had any sort of anti-abortion legislation on the books.
As for the reply of mine further down, I was also pointing out the hypocrisy and ignorance of the poster in the same manner that he had originally opined it. He was so quick to label all illegal immigrants at welfare teet suckers without so much as a second thought. Yet when I did the same to him, he takes great offense. It's called irony.
So, if you would like to actually address the OT without the duh-versions of this being a way to outlaw abortion, please feel free. But I am not going to give you a free pass to spout, at best inaccuracies and at worst, outright lies to try to present an agenda-driven argument.
umm... immigrants may not all be on welfare... but just like 90% of welfare recipients, they don't deserve to live here
don't get me wrong, some welfare recipients are good people with bad luck, I help out at soup kitchen's and the salvation army and at churches, some of them are really decent people. but the majority are content to let you and me pay for them to waste their lives.
don't get me wrong, some welfare recipients are good people with bad luck, I help out at soup kitchen's and the salvation army and at churches, some of them are really decent people. but the majority are content to let you and me pay for them to waste their lives.
Those are great and valid points, and I agree with you 100% about immigrants from any other nation shouldn't have a harder time getting here than people from Mexico or Canada. I?m not sure if it is true but in a conversation with someone I was told that people who immigrate from Asia must show a certain amount of financial responsibility, have a sponsor, and know a certain amount of English to be able to immigrate here. If true I wonder if people who legally immigrate from Mexico have to follow the same strict guidelines.
From CycloWizard-
"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? "
You're fundamentally incorrect on that. There weren't 50 states at the time of the ratification of the 14th amendment, and only some had banned abortion, many still following English common law wrt to the practice-
"I. Development and Status of the Law Prior to 1973 The law with respect to abortion in mid-19th century America followed existing common law of England in all but a few states. 4 Thus, no indictment would occur for aborting a fetus of a consenting female prior to "quickening." But, by the time of the Civil War, an influential anti-abortion movement began to affect legislation by inducing states to add to or revise their statutes in order to prohibit abortion at all stages of gestation. By 1910, every state had anti-abortion laws, except Kentucky whose courts judicially declared abortions to be illegal."
http://www.policyalmanac.org/culture/archive/crs_abortion_overview.shtml
The first anti abortion statute was passed ~1821, iirc... and was not universal in the United States until 1910.
All of which has little to do with the issue of persons born in the US being automatically granted citizenship. They get deported along with their parents on a regular basis. With the Bush Admin's crackdown on illegal immigrants from the mideast, they've even deported teenage citizens to their parents' country of origin...
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/04/07/0324217
So I'd encourage all of the wingnuts who've contributed to this thread to at least get the facts straight... then base your opinion on them, rather than on something else entirely.
The US is one of a few nations that allow citizenship on that basis alone, and has helped us to avoid some rather unseemly scenarios. I recently read an article about German Turks- people whose grandparents and great grandparents came to Germany in the 1920's. They're technically Turkish citizens, even though they don't speak turkish and many have never been there. Give the powers that be any grief, however, and they're just gone, deported to Turkey.... Makes for a very compliant workforce, that's for sure...
As for the rest of the ranting and raving against the constitution, and the literal "strict constructionist" reading of it, all I can say is call the Wahmbulance... even GWB can't stack the court in a way that would allow congress to directly contravene the Constitution...
"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? "
You're fundamentally incorrect on that. There weren't 50 states at the time of the ratification of the 14th amendment, and only some had banned abortion, many still following English common law wrt to the practice-
"I. Development and Status of the Law Prior to 1973 The law with respect to abortion in mid-19th century America followed existing common law of England in all but a few states. 4 Thus, no indictment would occur for aborting a fetus of a consenting female prior to "quickening." But, by the time of the Civil War, an influential anti-abortion movement began to affect legislation by inducing states to add to or revise their statutes in order to prohibit abortion at all stages of gestation. By 1910, every state had anti-abortion laws, except Kentucky whose courts judicially declared abortions to be illegal."
http://www.policyalmanac.org/culture/archive/crs_abortion_overview.shtml
The first anti abortion statute was passed ~1821, iirc... and was not universal in the United States until 1910.
All of which has little to do with the issue of persons born in the US being automatically granted citizenship. They get deported along with their parents on a regular basis. With the Bush Admin's crackdown on illegal immigrants from the mideast, they've even deported teenage citizens to their parents' country of origin...
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/04/07/0324217
So I'd encourage all of the wingnuts who've contributed to this thread to at least get the facts straight... then base your opinion on them, rather than on something else entirely.
The US is one of a few nations that allow citizenship on that basis alone, and has helped us to avoid some rather unseemly scenarios. I recently read an article about German Turks- people whose grandparents and great grandparents came to Germany in the 1920's. They're technically Turkish citizens, even though they don't speak turkish and many have never been there. Give the powers that be any grief, however, and they're just gone, deported to Turkey.... Makes for a very compliant workforce, that's for sure...
As for the rest of the ranting and raving against the constitution, and the literal "strict constructionist" reading of it, all I can say is call the Wahmbulance... even GWB can't stack the court in a way that would allow congress to directly contravene the Constitution...
Specop 007
Diamond Member
I'm glad to see this bothers you.
Its too bad you havent been giving the same concern to the blatant disregard we've had for the 2nd Amendment for the past 70 years.
Fine time to decide to give a damn. :|
CycloWizard
Lifer
Adding in a bit about abortion in no way negates what I said about the topic at hand. If you'd care to address it, feel free. However, you can't/won't, so why are you here?
From CycloWizard-
"To reiterate: it's simply ridiculous for us to give citizenship to the progeny of those who are here illegally. They're breaking the law by their very presence and we are rewarding them for it."
What "reward"? They're still subject to deportation, and their minor children along with them...
And the circumstances of birth are beyond the individual's control, anyway- why should we penalize the newborn to punish the parents?
We seem to have functioned rather well with the 14th amendment as is.... illegals don't come here so that their children will be citizens, they come here to work... make that part of the equation much more difficult, and the situation will solve itself. No work, no stay, it's as simple as that... Not likely with american business hooked on cheap illegal labor, and hiring more every day...
"To reiterate: it's simply ridiculous for us to give citizenship to the progeny of those who are here illegally. They're breaking the law by their very presence and we are rewarding them for it."
What "reward"? They're still subject to deportation, and their minor children along with them...
And the circumstances of birth are beyond the individual's control, anyway- why should we penalize the newborn to punish the parents?
We seem to have functioned rather well with the 14th amendment as is.... illegals don't come here so that their children will be citizens, they come here to work... make that part of the equation much more difficult, and the situation will solve itself. No work, no stay, it's as simple as that... Not likely with american business hooked on cheap illegal labor, and hiring more every day...
CycloWizard
Lifer
I'm not familiar with deportation law. Can you deport a US citizen? My gut tells me that no, you cannot.
Some of them DO come here just to have children. Sneak across the border and pop out that kid and bam, your kid is a citizen.
Also, it's easy for you to say that the amendment has worked well thus far, as its misinterpretation by the courts suits your political agenda to the T.
smack Down
Diamond Member
It would be easy to get around the 14th just declare any illegals to be enemy combatants and then they are no longer under US jurisdiction
From CycloWizard-
"I'm not familiar with deportation law. Can you deport a US citizen? My gut tells me that no, you cannot. "
I already linked to that phenomenon, above...
How do you "misinterpret" the very plain language of the part of the 14th amendment in question, anyway?
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."
Maybe you'd care to tell us what it really means...
"I'm not familiar with deportation law. Can you deport a US citizen? My gut tells me that no, you cannot. "
I already linked to that phenomenon, above...
How do you "misinterpret" the very plain language of the part of the 14th amendment in question, anyway?
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."
Maybe you'd care to tell us what it really means...
CycloWizard
Lifer
Oops, I apparently missed your previous post on page 2...
You're right, I should have said 'nearly all', and there were 37 states in 1868 when the amendment was added and 36 had laws restricting abortion. From Rehnquist's dissenting opinion in Roe v Wade:
So, 36/37 states had laws limiting abortion when the amendment was passed, not all. My point stands - it's pretty clear that the choice of wording that was used in the amendment was not intended to grant personhood (citizenship) at the point of physical delivery. Even if you would draw the line here, then I challenge you to demonstrate any logical distinction between a fetus 99% of the way down the birth canal and 100% down the birth canal, as this is the line in the sand drawn by the ver batim translation used by the USSC to strike down abortion bans.
I would question the constitutionality of this deportation, along with many other things Bush sees fit to do on a daily basis.
Addressed above. The moment of birth is in no way a logically tenable point for the granting of rights.
I'll step up to the plate with real-world experience.
In order to be a United States Citizen... you may be Naturalized according to the current laws of the United States. born within, or to qualified Citizen Parent/parents AND (meaning MUST) be subject to the Jurisdiction, meaning a State or territory, or a location designated as such by the Govt. of the united States (Embassy or military base are examples)
This means a native born Citizen that renounces citizenship and has a child in Canada does not have a U.S. citizen child for two reasons. one: The parent is not a citizen, and the child is not subject to jurisdiction of the united States
Nice attempted dodge, CycloWizard-
"The moment of birth is in no way a logically tenable point for the granting of rights."
Which has absolutely nothing to do with what the Constitution actually says, now does it? You can't reinterpret the Constitution by pretending it doesn't make sense, and therefore ignoring it... What happened to all the "strict constructionist" talk so favored on the Right, anyway? Or is the Constitution just a "goddamned piece of paper" when it fails to fit your agenda?
The whole bit wrt abortion is extremely disingenuous, as was Scalia in the quoted dissent. What sort of "limitations" were put on abortion by those states at the time of the 14th amendment? English common law, for the most part, which refers to the "quickening" of the fetus, which is very much the same as the law after Roe vs Wade...
"The moment of birth is in no way a logically tenable point for the granting of rights."
Which has absolutely nothing to do with what the Constitution actually says, now does it? You can't reinterpret the Constitution by pretending it doesn't make sense, and therefore ignoring it... What happened to all the "strict constructionist" talk so favored on the Right, anyway? Or is the Constitution just a "goddamned piece of paper" when it fails to fit your agenda?
The whole bit wrt abortion is extremely disingenuous, as was Scalia in the quoted dissent. What sort of "limitations" were put on abortion by those states at the time of the 14th amendment? English common law, for the most part, which refers to the "quickening" of the fetus, which is very much the same as the law after Roe vs Wade...
CycloWizard
Lifer
Why don't you address ME instead of "the Right"? Easier to attack the strawman with your sweeping generalizations? I don't know what strict constructionalism is, nor do I even care. I want someone who can interpret what is meant by the constitution rather than taking it word for word. After all, doesn't the Left abhor fundamentalism (the taking of a document in its literal translation only)? The amendment in question was intended to expand the scope of US citizenship, not restrict it. It was passed immediately after the Civil War. In that context, what do you think it really means? Or are you going to stick with your 'Nope, those are the words they selected. They must have done so specifically to remove the rights of a fetus' argument?
It was Rehnquist, not Scalia. And no, in fact many banned abortion outright owing to the difficulty of doctors who might be called upon to perform these procedures when they were, in fact, prohibited by the Hippocratic Oath that they had sworn. It was this contradiction that led to the banning of abortion in many states. I'm at home for Christmas break, so I don't have all my sources handy and can't recall the number off the top of my head, but I believe it's around half that banned abortion outright.
Regardless, the arguments you put forth don't address the meat of the issue. What SHOULD the law/constitution say on the issue? I love the constitution and believe it's an amazing document, but it's no more perfect than is the Bible or the Koran. You can't take a book/paper/anything and take it word for word without putting any thought into it and hope to get perfect guidance. To take this approach is foolhardy at best.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
