14th Amendment, Let's Change It

[mercury14]

Does it really sound logical that the intention of Congress in the wording of the 14th Amendment would reward criminal activity on our border with our most precious honor, the citizenship of our country?

So you're saying that we're rewarding babies who are committing criminal acts?

WTF???

 

[mercury14]

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?

"Drops a child"???

Americans have "the miraculous birth of their baby". But Mexicans "drop a child" like an animal.

Hey GB: never, EVER doubt that Vetteman is a massive bigot and racist.



Ever...

 

[eyer]

ever, you miss the point, as I would expect you to do. I didn't say that I believed in the legend just that the person of legend was interesting. The bible is legend. It's also a great pieces of propaganda designed by the Catholic Church.

No, Joe, I don't see where I miss any point. In fact, the points I made you are repeating here. But it's no biggie...

I understand you believe the bible is legend, even propaganda. And I do understand how that keeps you from receiving Christ as your Savior...

...but you also say the bible was designed by the Catholic Church...which bible do you speak of?

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

No, Joe, I don't see where I miss any point. In fact, the points I made you are repeating here. But it's no biggie...

I understand you believe the bible is legend, even propaganda. And I do understand how that keeps you from receiving Christ as your Savior...

...but you also say the bible was designed by the Catholic Church...which bible do you speak of?

I love it when people who don't believe in the Bible accuse other people of not believe in the Bible.

 

[JoeS1977]

No, Joe, I don't see where I miss any point. In fact, the points I made you are repeating here. But it's no biggie...

I understand you believe the bible is legend, even propaganda. And I do understand how that keeps you from receiving Christ as your Savior...

...but you also say the bible was designed by the Catholic Church...which bible do you speak of?

Every Christian bible in existence now, no matter which tradition that produces it, all goes back to the bible designed by the Catholic Church.

Christ is not my savior. I save myself. I'm an atheist. That doesn't mean that I don't find the words that people like Buddha, Christ, Mohammed produced as being interesting and worthy of thought.

 

[eyer]

Every Christian bible in existence now, no matter which tradition that produces it, all goes back to the bible designed by the Catholic Church.

Ok, Joe - but what has the "Catholic Church" have to do with the Good News, the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John in the bible?

Christ is not my savior. I save myself. I'm an atheist. That doesn't mean that I don't find the words that people like Buddha, Christ, Mohammed produced as being interesting and worthy of thought.

IMWO, it's not the "men" or "words" that appeals, it's the spirit of truth in their words.

BTW, Joe: you can't save yourself - you're going to die just like all the rest of us. So, the very best you can look forward to as an atheist is being worm food.

Now me, worm food is the very worst I can look forward to when I die like we all have to...

 

[bronzeage]

I imagine he might reply the same as he did in a similar instance when confronted with a government-related question: "Give unto Caesar..."

And your point is?

I'll remember that quote the next time a thread on taxation comes up.

How does this apply to revoking the citizenship of a person born in this country?

He might also say, "I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me."

 

[firespin]

How do y'all manage to get so much irrelevant rubbish in what's a pretty straightforward concept?

The 14th amendment citizenship language was a blunt instrument to address former slaves. It has a carveout for diplomats, etc., so it's clear the intent wasn't that EVERYbody born here is automatically a citizen. But that's how it's been interpreted.

So now we get this stupid situation where there are hundreds of thousands of newborn and up minor "citizens" whose parents can't be here legally, so we end up creating a humanitarian crisis. How can that be a good thing?

The stupid part that I haven't seen mentioned here (and there has been a LOT of stupid stuff, ranging from how amendments can be changed, to something about Jesus), is that the people who don't want the 14th amendment language changed aren't doing it because they think it's a great amendment per se...they think it's a great way to force a massive legal end-around on the existing immigration laws. To me, that's bankrupt thinking..."let's use innocent children to try to advance our political agenda." And that's coming from the folks that want to encourage anchor babies, not preclude them.

Barf.

 

[badbabysitter]

Ok, Joe - but what has the "Catholic Church" have to do with the Good News, the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John in the bible?



.

little bible lesson for ya.. the Catholic Church were the fellas that dictated what was going to be in the New Testament.... essentially, you're just reading versions of their Bible

 

[eyer]

I'll remember that quote the next time a thread on taxation comes up.

How does this apply to revoking the citizenship of a person born in this country?

He might also say, "I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me."

Well, before you quote that one alone re: taxation you'd better research (if you don't already know) to see what else he said on the issue...

...which basically underlines the point re: Jesus in this whole government mess you seem not able to get.

Understandable though, as some of the closet to Jesus couldn't understand, then wouldn't accept, his total disinterest - and actual biblical hatred - in anything of the government of men.

So when you suppose your political scenarios would inflict the defense of Jesus, I just don't see it that way.

You seem to imply that your example of political injustice, ie, a football baby's citizenship being revoked, is antiChrist, because it somehow disadvantages - morally - "the least of these".

Many of his brethren were hugely disappointed to realize that Jesus did not come with a political agenda, that he did not come to set right the unjust ways of physical man. All that is beyond hope...all that - as with all things of man - will die. There is none righteous, not even one.

Christ came to give eternal hope to a dying spiritual world...

...and this political debate of men, my friend, does not apply to salvation.

 

[bronzeage]

Well, before you quote that one alone re: taxation you'd better research (if you don't already know) to see what else he said on the issue...

...which basically underlines the point re: Jesus in this whole government mess you seem not able to get.

Understandable though, as some of the closet to Jesus couldn't understand, then wouldn't accept, his total disinterest - and actual biblical hatred - in anything of the government of men.

So when you suppose your political scenarios would inflict the defense of Jesus, I just don't see it that way.

You seem to imply that your example of political injustice, ie, a football baby's citizenship being revoked, is antiChrist, because it somehow disadvantages - morally - "the least of these".

Many of his brethren were hugely disappointed to realize that Jesus did not come with a political agenda, that he did not come to set right the unjust ways of physical man. All that is beyond hope...all that - as with all things of man - will die. There is none righteous, not even one.

Christ came to give eternal hope to a dying spiritual world...

...and this political debate of men, my friend, does not apply to salvation.

You brought up the quote on taxes.

If you do not believe Christian theology has any place in this debate, that is your choice. We could go on to the parable of the Good Samaritan, which was sparked by the question, "Who is my neighbor?", but what point would there be?

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

If the status of a child born in the United States is so clear under the 14th why did the status of a child born to a legal alien have to be adjudicated in this case?

U.S. v. WONG KIM ARK, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

169 U.S. 649

UNITED STATES
v.
WONG KIM ARK.
No. 132.

March 28, 1898

In that case the Court ruled that children of non-citizen Chinese immigrants possessed national citizenship by being born in United States.

The difference between "legal" and "illegal" immigrants was not clear at the time of the decision of Wong Kim Ark. Wong Kim Ark and subsequent cases did not explicitly decide whether such children are entitled to birthright citizenship via the amendment, but such birthright is generally assumed to be the case. In some cases, the Court has implicitly assumed, or suggested in dicta, that such children are entitled to birthright citizenship: these include Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982), and INS v. Rios-Pineda, 471 U.S. 444 (1985).
Citizenship clause

Interestingly, in INS v. Rios-Pineda the Supreme Court referred to a child born to deportable aliens as "a citizen of this country" as laid out in the 14th amendment.

 

[eyer]

You brought up the quote on taxes.

Yes, I brought up the quote, but it's context wasn't taxes, it was government ("Caesar"); you're responsible for the "taxation" inclusion.

If you do not believe Christian theology has any place in this debate, that is your choice.

I do not, because I believe the term you use, "Christian theology", is an oxymoron.

Jesus does belong in this debate, as is his place among all men. I believe I have at least feebly been attempting to include him all along.

We could go on to the parable of the Good Samaritan, which was sparked by the question, "Who is my neighbor?", but what point would there be?

The point would be the same, you're right. As it applies to this political discussion, it is no different than your previous example.

You do know, tho, bronzeage, the only thing concerning these football babies that Jesus did care about, right?

And that has nothing to do with citizenship in this world...

 

[bronzeage]

Yes, I brought up the quote, but it's context wasn't taxes, it was government ("Caesar"); you're responsible for the "taxation" inclusion.

I do not, because I believe the term you use, "Christian theology", is an oxymoron.

Jesus does belong in this debate, as is his place among all men. I believe I have at least feebly been attempting to include him all along.

The point would be the same, you're right. As it applies to this political discussion, it is no different than your previous example.

You do know, tho, bronzeage, the only thing concerning these football babies that Jesus did care about, right?

And that has nothing to do with citizenship in this world...

Please don't be so silly. The story of "rendering onto Caesar" was about the correctness of paying taxes to a pagan Emperor.

If "Christian theology" is an oxymoron, do you mean there is no "disciplined study of religious questions, such as the nature of God, sin, and salvation" in the Christian church?

If so, I can understand why you believe Jesus had no concern for what happens to us before we are dead. It absolves you of personal responsibility.

We may have to refer to Kings 3:25, if a baby is born in Houston with a Mexican mother and a American father.

 

[cebalrai]

How do y'all manage to get so much irrelevant rubbish in what's a pretty straightforward concept?

The 14th amendment citizenship language was a blunt instrument to address former slaves. It has a carveout for diplomats, etc., so it's clear the intent wasn't that EVERYbody born here is automatically a citizen. But that's how it's been interpreted.

The second amendment was a blunt instrument to permit the posession of muskets and cutlasses. But conservatives take it literally and here we are with folks advocating for the posession of machineguns and 21st-century assault rifles.

You're a conservative. You guys take the constitution literally. So don't complain about the constitution being taken literally, mmk?

 

[Wrong Element]

Wrong. The 20th amendment changed the 12th:

I think the 25th Amendment qualifies here too. Clearly you don't have to formally repeal an amendment in order to replace part of its meaning, anymore than we repeal any of the original articles of the Constitution when we pass a regular amendment. The 18th Amendment was repealed in full because there was no part of it that needed to be kept.

As for the current mania for repealing the 14th Amendment, I suppose the one good thing about it is that we might now finally get an end to the GB's moronic "We know the Democrats are the racist party and the Republicans are the anti-racist party, because that's how they were x many years ago" meme. If the modern day GOP pisses all over this very significant part of its legacy, they might as well consider themselves the party of Jefferson Davis instead of the party of Lincoln.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

And that's coming from the folks that want to encourage anchor babies, not preclude them.

Barf.

No. Both ends of the political spectrum are using this issue to advance their political agenda.

 

[eyer]

Ok, bronzeage...one last time:

Please don't be so silly. The story of "rendering onto Caesar" was about the correctness of paying taxes to a pagan Emperor.

Really? Let me ask you, bronzeage, for your own good: are you a believer or just a reader?

If "Christian theology" is an oxymoron, do you mean there is no "disciplined study of religious questions, such as the nature of God, sin, and salvation" in the Christian church?

What I mean is theology - your "study" - has no relation to being a Christian. Study all you want, as disciplined as you want, whatever questions you want, and none of it has any bearing on being a Christian. They're contrary; they're not related. That's why your "Christian theology" is an oxymoron.

If so, I can understand why you believe Jesus had no concern for what happens to us before we are dead. It absolves you of personal responsibility.

Since it's actually If not, you should thank me for giving you the opportunity to clean-up your own erroneous thinking.

We may have to refer to Kings 3:25, if a baby is born in Houston with a Mexican mother and a American father.

You know what God says about an unbeliever reading/understanding the bible, right bronzeage?

You're proving it by unrelentingly trying to unite the political and the spiritual...they're two completely different worlds, bronzeage, and no matter how hard you try, or/and how much you want it to be true, you can only truly live in one...that's the choice we have.

You've obviously made yours...why, then, do you continue to delude yourself there's no difference? That everything is relative?

That anyone can believe in Jesus, but not in who He says He is?

His own people didn't have a problem believing in Jesus the man...they crucified him for who He said He is. Most of us do the very same spiritually today...

I have no desire to argue with you anymore, bronzeage. If you want to discuss these things - that's cool.

 

[firespin]

The second amendment was a blunt instrument to permit the posession of muskets and cutlasses. But conservatives take it literally and here we are with folks advocating for the posession of machineguns and 21st-century assault rifles.

You're a conservative. You guys take the constitution literally. So don't complain about the constitution being taken literally, mmk?

Way to stay on topic, doofus.

You want to propose a change to the 2nd amendment, go for it.

 

[The Mutt]

You brought up the quote on taxes.

If you do not believe Christian theology has any place in this debate, that is your choice. We could go on to the parable of the Good Samaritan, which was sparked by the question, "Who is my neighbor?", but what point would there be?

If Jesus was telling that parable today, it would be called "The Good Wetback."

Or maybe "The Good Nigger."

Or "The Good Moose Limb."

 

[unregistered]

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Senator Jacob Howard who helped to draft the 14th Amendment spelled out the true intent of the Amendment's meaning:

"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."

Well, if he thought that, then maybe he should have made sure it got into the actual law.

Because that's not what it says.

The intent would be of value if there were a question about what it meant, but there isn't. It's specific.

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?

The same words "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" which exclude indigenous peoples like Eskimos and American Indians were believed to exclude "foreigners, aliens, etc." and for the same reason -- the prospect of an allegiance to or possible "jurisdictional" interest by some other government or ruling entity other than the United States.

Vetteman should have included Howard's sentence just before the exclusions because the full quote is more illuminating: "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..."

In other words, he did not include the specific exclusions as language IN the amendment because he viewed those exclusions as self-evident under current law and encompassed by the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof."

Unfortunately, what was self-evident to Howard and other members of Congress at the time of the 14th Amendment would become more complicated in the next few decades.

At the time of the Amendments passage immigration was not tightly controlled. People came and went pretty much at will. There was little distinction between a legal vs. illegal immigrant.

In Elk v. Wilkins (1884) the court ruled that an American Indian's voluntary revocation of tribal allegiance did not supercede the jurisdictional subjugation at the time and by virtue of the individual's birth on tribal lands.

In US v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) the Court distinguished the irrelevance of Wilkins and yet narrowed the application of the 14th Amendment in a way that Howard and other framers would not have anticipated:

The decision in Elk v. Wilkins concerned only members of the Indian tribes within the United States, and had no tendency to deny citizenship to children born in the United States of foreign parents of Caucasian, African or Mongolian descent not in the diplomatic service of a foreign country.

The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, "All persons born in the United States" by the addition "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases -- children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State -- both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html​

Since neither of those two cases applied to Wong's parents and since he had been born in the United States, the Court ruled that he could not be denied entry into the US by virtue of the Chinese Exclusion Acts passed by Congress in 1882.

The Court's disinclination to adopt Howard's broader application of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is hardly surprising but no less offensive to those of us who advocate an originalist view towards Constitutional interpretation.

The legal evolutionary philosophy of originalism holds that the intent of the framers, when discernible, is a substantially deterministic element in applying the Constitution to real world controversies.

Adherents to the "living, dynamic" Constitutional theory presumably (and at least theoretically) do not elevate their personal social philosophy above those of the framers of the Constitution -- it's just so hard to tell since the framers' viewpoints carry so little weight.

The right of judicial review which the Supreme Court reserved for itself in Marbury v. Madison does not proscribe the philosophical parameters by which that review shall take place. But it certainly establishes its supremacy over the views of Congress, the President and the will of the body politic save when that will is expressed by Constitutional amendment.

In any event, UD is quite correct that the issue of citizenship by birth is clearly within the Constitutional realm and beyond the reach of naturalization issues reserved for Congress by Article 1.

But nothing within the Constitution requires a wholesale repeal and substitution of the entire 14th Amendment.

The 28th Amendment to the Constitution could simply begin "The 14th Amendment to this Constitution shall be amended to read as follows:....". Not even the most partisan, ill-intentioned Court could invalidate a Constitutional amendment "on the merits."

 

[Colonel Hogan]

The same words "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" which exclude indigenous peoples like Eskimos and American Indians were believed to exclude "foreigners, aliens, etc." and for the same reason -- the prospect of an allegiance to or possible "jurisdictional" interest by some other government or ruling entity other than the United States.

Vetteman should have included Howard's sentence just before the exclusions because the full quote is more illuminating: "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..."

In other words, he did not include the specific exclusions as language IN the amendment because he viewed those exclusions as self-evident under current law and encompassed by the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof."

Unfortunately, what was self-evident to Howard and other members of Congress at the time of the 14th Amendment would become more complicated in the next few decades.

At the time of the Amendments passage immigration was not tightly controlled. People came and went pretty much at will. There was little distinction between a legal vs. illegal immigrant.

In Elk v. Wilkins (1884) the court ruled that an American Indian's voluntary revocation of tribal allegiance did not supercede the jurisdictional subjugation at the time and by virtue of the individual's birth on tribal lands.

In US v. Kim Wong Ark (1898) the Court distinguished the irrelevance of Wilkins and yet narrowed the application of the 14th Amendment in a way that Howard and other framers would not have anticipated:

The decision in Elk v. Wilkins concerned only members of the Indian tribes within the United States, and had no tendency to deny citizenship to children born in the United States of foreign parents of Caucasian, African or Mongolian descent not in the diplomatic service of a foreign country.

The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, "All persons born in the United States" by the addition "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases -- children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State -- both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html​

Since neither of those two cases applied to Kim's parents and since he had been born in the United States, the Court ruled that he could not be denied entry into the US by virtue of the Chinese Exclusion Acts passed by Congress in 1882.

The Court's disinclination to adopt Howard's broader application of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is hardly surprising but no less offensive to those of us who advocate an originalist view towards Constitutional interpretation.

The legal evolutionary philosophy of originalism holds that the intent of the framers, when discernible, is a substantially deterministic element in applying the Constitution to real world controversies.

Adherents to the "living, dynamic" Constitutional theory presumably (and at least theoretically) do not elevate their personal social philosophy above those of the framers of the Constitution -- it's just so hard to tell since the framers' viewpoints carry so little weight.

The right of judicial review which the Supreme Court reserved for itself in Marbury v. Madison does not proscribe the philosophical parameters by which that review shall take place. But it certainly establishes its supremacy over the views of Congress, the President and the will of the body politic save when that will is expressed by Constitutional amendment.

In any event, UD is quite correct that the issue of citizenship by birth is clearly within the Constitutional realm and beyond the reach of naturalization issues reserved for Congress by Article 1.

But nothing within the Constitution requires a wholesale repeal and substitution of the entire 14th Amendment.

The 28th Amendment to the Constitution could simply begin "The 14th Amendment to this Constitution shall be amended to read as follows:....". Not even the most partisan, ill-intentioned Court could invalidate a Constitutional amendment "on the merits."

*sigh* Nothing like being a dozen posts late to the party.

 

[unregistered]

 

[bronzeage]

Ok, bronzeage...one last time:

Really? Let me ask you, bronzeage, for your own good: are you a believer or just a reader?
What I mean is theology - your "study" - has no relation to being a Christian. Study all you want, as disciplined as you want, whatever questions you want, and none of it has any bearing on being a Christian. They're contrary; they're not related. That's why your "Christian theology" is an oxymoron.
Since it's actually If not, you should thank me for giving you the opportunity to clean-up your own erroneous thinking.
You know what God says about an unbeliever reading/understanding the bible, right bronzeage?
ou're proving it by unrelentingly trying to unite the political and the spiritual...they're two completely different worlds, bronzeage, and no matter how hard you try, or/and how much you want it to be true, you can only truly live in one...that's the choice we have.

You've obviously made yours...why, then, do you continue to delude yourself there's no difference? That everything is relative?

That anyone can believe in Jesus, but not in who He says He is?

His own people didn't have a problem believing in Jesus the man...they crucified him for who He said He is. Most of us do the very same spiritually today...

I have no desire to argue with you anymore, bronzeage. If you want to discuss these things - that's cool.

I freely admit to being a Christian. I am just not a very good one. I have no desire to argue either. I ask questions for my own satisfaction. I have no desire to make you a better person. That is my Christian failing.