14th Amendment, Let's Change It

[Renne]

Are you sure about this?

But aren't we the racists?

How can that be?

UK changed their laws in January 1983, the British citizenship act of 1981 came into effect disallowing children to be British solely through their birth.
It was changed to parents requiring to be legally settled (Indefinate Leave to Remain or Citizenship).

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

If the intent of the 14th Amendment is to define citizenship as to all born in the United States, why did the Congress assembled determine the need to pass into law The Citizens Act of 1924, codified in 8USCSß1401, which states in part;

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe.

Weren't they born here?

The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees citizenship to persons born in the U.S., but only if "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"; this latter clause excludes certain indigenous peoples. You know, like Eskimo, American Indians, etc.

You're going to keep flogging this dead horse huh?

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

So you think Congress loses it's constitutional authority to make rules for citizenship when an illegal crosses the border and drops a child eh? So, unbeknownst until now the 14th Amendment amends the Article 1 Section 8 naturalization Clause eh? Congress can only make rules for the granting of citizenship to those who enter the US legally right?

Drops a child? Really? Taking a cue from Lindsey Graham?

Is that what you called it when your wife gave birth to your children? She dropped a couple of kids?

I've only seen that term used to describe the birth of farm animals, which in itself tells quite a bit about your attitude. None of it favorable.

The 14th Amendment is quite clear, ALL persons born in the United States, and are subject to the juristiction thereof, are citizens. Congress can make any law it wants regarding naturalization of the parents, but until or unless the 14th is repealed the child is a citizen. He or she has broken no law by simply being born.

 

[bronzeage]

Suffer the children to come unto me.

Except the brown ones.

That is what Jesus said, right?

It's really simple. Anything which lowers the average age of workers in this country strengthens Social Security and Medicare. There will be no way to destroy those programs as long as they remain financially viable.

If socialism in this nation is to be turned back and ultimately vanquished, we must restrict young people from entering the labor market.

Drastic cuts to education should be next.

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Why would we need to change it?

 

[Sean]

Why would we need to change it?

Too many brown people.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Glad you brought that up.

In 1884 Elk v.Wilkins, the court found the phrase "subject to its jurisdiction," to mean the American Indian petitioner was not an American citizen because he had to be, "not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance."


So in essence UD, it would seem the status of the parents would affect the citizenship of the child.

Now you're talking about a case 40 years prior to the law you were trying to say proved your point. Not only that, but the decision of an "activist judge" as you would call him, legislating from the bench, interpreting the 14th Amendment and adding terms to it that simply were not there.

American Indians were a special case in that they were considered a "country within a country" for some time and therefore were not subject to the full jurisdiction of the US.. The law you so thoughtfully brought up cleared up that little snafu as far as their children were concerned.

You can keep trying to beat this horse, but it's never going to get up and go anywhere. As I said before, it's a political ploy by the Republicans who have no intention of actually following through on repealing the 14th amendment. After all, they had quite a long time to do so if that were their intent. They're playing you for the ignorant bigoted fool for all it's worth.

 

[bronzeage]

What do you call it when you drop anchor? That's why they're called anchor babies.

So, we keep the kids and deport the parents eh?

Seems like a dilemma.

No one wants to deny an American citizen the rights guaranteed by the Constitution. That would set a bad precedent.

We could deport the parents and create a system of Federally operated orphanages. The child gets 18 years of free room and board, followed by 12 years of mandatory military service.

 

[eyer]

What do you call it when you drop anchor? That's why they're called anchor babies.

So, we keep the kids and deport the parents eh?

Down here on the Texas border "they're" called football babies.

BTW: re: a poster I have on ignore using "Jesus" as backup to his inane ramblings: how's that work exactly when you don't believe in Jesus?

 

[bronzeage]

Down here on the Texas border "they're" called football babies.

BTW: re: a poster I have on ignore using "Jesus" as backup to his inane ramblings: how's that work exactly when you don't believe in Jesus?

You don't have to believe in Jesus to ask what would Jesus do?

 

[unregistered]

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

What do you call it when you drop anchor? That's why they're called anchor babies.

So, we keep the kids and deport the parents eh?

Yes, comparing the children to inanimate objects makes it easier to deny them their birthright.

That would be one option. Likely though the parents would take the child with them when they left the country as would be their right to do.

However, should the child decide to return to the United States at a later time they are still "natural born citizens" according to the 14th amendment by virtue of being born here.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Or we could just use our head and realize the Constitution isn't a suicide pact.

That's always the argument made by Conservatives when they want to ignore what the Constitution actually says in favor of what they want it to say.

Unless of course they approve of what it says about a particular subject. then it is immutable and infallible.

 

[unregistered]

 

[eyer]

If socialism in this nation is to be turned back and ultimately vanquished...

As you are already situating in your mind, the issues to be drastically confronted for the above to even begin to be addressed are so ingrained in the cultural fabric of the USSA today that there's no turning back socialism now...

...the socialist fire is so fierce that the only "solution" is to let itself burn to death.

Like all disasters, it will not be pleasant; it will not be "easy" to survive the socialist flames that reach out in every direction, but a day will come when the scorched earth that exists even beyond man's political attempts to vanquish it will sprout forth new and much greener growth than before...

In the cycle of life, death always comes before resurrection.

 

[unregistered]

 

[eyer]

You don't have to believe in Jesus to ask what would Jesus do?

If you don't believe in Jesus, why would you use His example (that you don't believe in) to back up your point?

Of course it doesn't make any logical sense...but that's the point, no?

 

[brw02]

After reading through a lot of hot air, I would l;ike to point out that there is a simple way to amend the Constitution. Get your petitions printed up and get to work. Or, alternatively, call for a Constitutional Convention. Personally, I think this is a tempest in a teapot. The problem remains: there are too many illegals who want to work here and too many Americans that are willing to employ them.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

The simple fact is that the children of illegal immigrants born in the United states did exactly the same thing You and I did to be citizens of the United States.

They were born here.

The status of their parents has zero bearing on their status as a "natural born citizen" of the United States. If you try to deny them their birthright then you open the door to denying citizenship to others born here based on arbitrary factors beyond their control.

Too many redheads? No more! Only children born with auburn hair are "naturally born".

Or hey, why not redefine "natural born" to only include those children born vaginally? C-section babies are no longer Citizens.

Ridiculous? Sure, but hyperbole often is.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Not at all. I've already posted the remarks of a Senator who helped draft the amendment which stated quite clearly what the intent was.

Byron asked why it's exact meaning wasn't included if that's what he meant. I can only surmise he and the rest of Congress never envisioned the fly shit picking out of pepper free for all that a wild ass unfettered judiciary and legal industry would lead to.

Kind of reminds of Hubert Humphrey totally exasperated on the floor of the Senate lamenting the SCOTUS and it's interpretation of "congressional intent" in the matter of affirmative action, "I ought to know what the intent was since I wrote it," or words to that effect.

As was pointed out, he should have made sure that it was spelled out that way in the actual amendment. What he "meant for it to say" means little to nothing in a legal sense.

This is why legislation is sometimes hundreds or thousands of pages long. Every nuance must be covered. You can't say "wait, I really meant it to say _______." after the fact.

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]