- Joined
- Nov 24, 2009
- Messages
- 2,443
- Reaction score
- 733
- Location
- San Francisco
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Excerpted from “GOP leader McConnell: Fourteenth Amendment is in need of review” By J. Taylor Rushing and Bob Cusack, The Hill, 08/02/10 06:56 PM ET
[SIZE="+2"]S[/SIZE]enate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) told The Hill on Monday that Congress “ought to take a look at” changing the 14th Amendment, which gives the children of illegal immigrants a right to U.S. citizenship.
McConnell’s statement signals growing support within the GOP for the controversial idea, which has also recently been touted by Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.). …
Section 1 of the 14th amendment was created to make citizens out of the freed slaves and their descendants. Section 1 of the 14th amendment does not apply to everyone born on US soil.Why else have the Indian citizenship act of 1924 and the nationality act of 1940 if section 1 of the 14th amendment applied to anyone born on US soil? The 14th amendment is simply misused by pro-illegals.Conservatives really aren't too interested in conserving the foundations of this nation, are they? No, not lately.
“They've either taken leave of their senses or their principles.” — Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid
Likely, both.
Section 1 of the 14th amendment was created to make citizens out of the freed slaves and their descendants. Section 1 of the 14th amendment does not apply to everyone born on US soil.Why else have the Indian citizenship act of 1924 and the nationality act of 1940 if section 1 of the 14th amendment applied to anyone born on US soil? The 14th amendment is simply misused by pro-illegals.
As for the anchor baby problem this can be eliminated simply by amending the Immigration and Nationality Act of 196 that allows for the chain migration of relatives other than spouse or minor children.This is what makes a anchor baby a anchor baby, not the 14th amendment. By eliminating the this provision you can end anchor babies.
Section 1 of the 14th amendment was created to make citizens out of the freed slaves and their descendants. Section 1 of the 14th amendment does not apply to everyone born on US soil.Why else have the Indian citizenship act of 1924 and the nationality act of 1940 if section 1 of the 14th amendment applied to anyone born on US soil? The 14th amendment is simply misused by pro-illegals.
As for the anchor baby problem this can be eliminated simply by amending the Immigration and Nationality Act of 196 that allows for the chain migration of relatives other than spouse or minor children.This is what makes a anchor baby a anchor baby, not the 14th amendment. By eliminating the this provision you can end anchor babies.
Exactly, and doing that will eliminate the tourist baby industry, which is huge. People from all around the world get tourist visas just so they can come to the US and have their babies here, thus making them citizens. It's a booming trade in some countries.
The 14th amendment was enacted almost a hundered years after the nation's founding, so birthright citizenship is hardly a "foundation of this nation." There was a time when such an amendment was needed, but now we're in a minority of mostly third-world countries that share in this.Conservatives really aren't too interested in conserving the foundations of this nation, are they? No, not lately.
The 14th amendment was enacted almost a hundered years after the nation's founding, so birthright citizenship is hardly a "foundation of this nation." There was a time when such an amendment was needed, but now we're in a minority of mostly third-world countries that share in this.
I have to agree with McConnell - it should be reviewed.
But if that's going to be your solution, it's going to fail.
To me, this is just another attempt by Republicans to pretend they're doing something when really, they're not doing a damn thing. It's all political hooey and nothing more.
Conservatives really aren't too interested in conserving the foundations of this nation, are they? No, not lately.
“They've either taken leave of their senses or their principles.” — Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid
Likely, both.
Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868. Note History
1. 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.
I don't know why people can't read a simple sentence and understand what is being said.
Here is the problem part.
Now people are taking "jurisdiction" to mean what a cop means when he says it's out of my jurisdiction.... or out of my city/county.
If that were so the above quoted sentence would read....
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and born in the United States, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
Rather redundant isn't it?
So what does “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” mean?
Fortunately, we have the highest possible authority on record to answer this question of how the term "jurisdiction" was to be interpreted and applied, the author of the citizenship clause, Sen. Jacob M. Howard (MI) to tell us exactly what it means and its intended scope as he introduced it to the United States Senate in 1866:
Mr. HOWARD: I now move to take up House joint resolution No. 127.
The motion was agreed to; and the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, resumed the consideration of the joint resolution (H.R. No. 127) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
The first amendment is to section one, declaring that all "persons born in the United States and Subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside. I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that 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. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.
Sen. Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, author of the Thirteenth Amendment, and the one who inserted the phrase:
[T]he provision is, that 'all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.' That means 'subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.' What do we mean by 'complete jurisdiction thereof?' Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.
Sen. W. Williams:
In one sense, all persons born within the geographical limits of the United States are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, but they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States in every sense. Take the child of an ambassador. In one sense, that child born in the United States is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, because if that child commits the crime of murder, or commits any other crime against the laws of the country, to a certain extent he is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, but not in every respect; and so with these Indians. All persons living within a judicial district may be said, in one sense, to be subject to the jurisdiction of the court in that district, but they are not in every sense subject to the jurisdiction of the court until they are brought, by proper process, within the reach of the power of the court. I understand the words here, 'subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,' to mean fully and completely subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
I don't know why people don't understand that an Amendment could change that.
Why would you want to change it?..... are you in favor of "anchor babies"?
I think I'd have to answer no, although cautiously, thinking of unintended consequences. ;-) As the 14th Amendment stands, anchor babies are citizens. No one disputes that. These hearings would open that interpretation up for RE-interpretation -- or to simply negate the 14th with another amendment.
Read my post #10..... read all of it..... read it slowly and think about what I wrote.
The 14th amendment in no way, shape, or form admits anchor babies.
Crunch, I understand what you're saying. But this is just derailing the intent of this thread. As of today in the United States of America anchor babies are citizens. Until the interpretation is changed by the Supreme Court of the United States or another Amendment is ratified they will continue to be citizens of the United States.
That's true... but if a person reads the amendment and the back ground to the amendment, they will realize the amendment doesn't need to be changed... it just needs to be interpreted correctly (plain English) and applied. Unfortunately we have some very uneducated people on this board and in Congress that don't understand anything but their own narrow ideas and desires.
Hopefully a hearing and investigation by the Congress would clear up the anchor baby problem..... assuming of course that they can read and understand plain English.
I think this is just an attempt to claim the Republicans aren't doing anything that's undermined by the fact that you are bitching about them trying to do something you just happen not to like.
Again, you applaud them for doing something that absolutely won't work and won't happen.
I haven't applauded anyone. What I have pointed out is that you are griping, saying they have no solutions, when you are sitting there bitching about one of their solutions.
And how successful was their push to alter the Constitution to ban gay marriage? Didn't happen. Not even close.
They just told their base that to make them happy.
This is just what they're doing again. Trust me, it's nothing but a calculated political move.
Your intellectual dishonesty is astounding!! Changing the Amendment IS the proper way to make a change. You just want illegals to continue to stream into the US so they can become Democrat voters. Just admit it why don't you?Conservatives really aren't too interested in conserving the foundations of this nation, are they? No, not lately.
“They've either taken leave of their senses or their principles.” — Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid
Likely, both.
Conservatives really aren't too interested in conserving the foundations of this nation, are they? No, not lately.
“They've either taken leave of their senses or their principles.” — Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid
Likely, both.
Attacking the foundational principle that all people born in the United States of America are full and equal citizens is about as anti-American as it gets in my opinion. I look around and I see a lot of anti-Americans.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?