14th Amendment, Let's Change It

[unregistered]

 

[Sean]

So... how about those Mexicans?

Not too many Mexicans, granted, but Indians, Pakistanis, Blacks of both African and Caribbean extraction, Bangladeshis, Chinese, the list is endless. London makes New York look like Nebraska.

 

[cjh]

Well we can clearly see what we're getting with minority rule can't we?

goose, gander.

majorities become minorities.

minorities become majorities.

when do you want your ox gored?

 

[MeeMie]

Fantastic Article on "Birthright" Citizenship on American Thinker



A Hole in the Fence of Immigration Reform



A gaping hole sits squarely in the middle of the fence of proposed "Immigration Reform." This crack, while inviting to those on the other side of the border, seems to go largely unnoticed by the politically correct mainstream on the American side. Many experts call this loophole an "illegal immigration magnet," or more commonly, birthright citizenship. Also known as the "anchor baby" policy, it is the current practice of granting U.S. citizenship to all babies born in the U.S. to non-U.S. citizen parents, whether here legally but temporarily or even illegally.




Reform of this practice is notably absent from the bipartisan "draft framework" proposed by Senators Charles Schumer (D-NY) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) as outlined in their Washington Post op-ed, although they described their plan as both an effort to end illegal immigration and to develop a "rational legal immigration system" going forward:

Our plan has four pillars: requiring biometric Social Security cards to ensure that illegal workers cannot get jobs; fulfilling and strengthening our commitments on border security and interior enforcement; creating a process for admitting temporary workers; and implementing a tough but fair path to legalization for those already here.​

In January, Lino Graglia, a Professor of Law writing in the Texas Review of Law and Politics, noted, "American law, as currently understood, provides an enormous inducement to illegal immigration: namely, an automatic grant of American citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants born in this country."

George Will quoted Graglia in his recent controversial essay, "An Argument to be made about Immigrant Babies and Citizenship." Will boldly opened with the statement:

A simple reform would drain some scalding steam from immigration arguments that may soon again be at a roiling boil. It would bring the interpretation of the 14th Amendment into conformity with what the authors of its text intended, and with common sense, thereby removing an incentive for illegal immigration.​

Graglia opined that the framers of the 14th Amendment "could not have considered the question of granting birthright citizenship to children of illegal aliens because ... there were no illegal aliens in 1868 ... because there were no restrictions on immigration. It is hard to believe, moreover, that if they had considered it, they would have intended to provide that violators of United States immigration law be given the award of American citizenship for their children."

Will highlighted some breathtaking statistics: "More than two-thirds of all births in Los Angeles public hospitals, and more than half of all births in that city, and nearly 10 percent of all births in the nation in recent years, have been to mothers who are here illegally." Graglia added: "Nearly half of illegal-immigrant households are couples with children, 73% of which have an American-citizen child. Illegal immigrant parents also benefit ... from the welfare and other benefits to which their citizen child is entitled."


The Heritage Foundation has published quite a bit of research that refutes the concept of birthright citizenship. Constitutional expert Dr. John Eastman, currently running for California Attorney General, in an article entitled "From Feudalism to Consent: Rethinking Birthright Citizenship" and an informative interview for Californians For Population Stabilization ("CAPS"), explained how this faulty interpretation has resulted in today's practice. Mark Cromer, in his essay "American Jackpot: The Remaking of America by Birthright Citizenship," wrote,

According to Eastman, the real shift in popular perception began to take root in the late 1960s, when the idea that mere birth on American soil alone ensured citizen status. "I have challenged every person who has taken the opposite position to tell me what it was that led to this new notion," he said. "There's not an executive order. There's not a court decision. We just gradually started assuming that birth was enough."

Eastman attributes some of it to our nation's loss of an intrinsic understanding of the language that the framers of the 14th Amendment spoke and used in that era, ergo a century later the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction" has been watered down in the collective American consciousness to require little more than an adherence to traffic safety laws.
​

In 2005, a Congressional hearing on "Dual Citizenship, Birthright Citizenship, and the Meaning of Sovereignty" was held before the House Subcommittee on Immigration, although it received scant media coverage. Dual citizenship, although now tolerated, is specifically disallowed by the oath of allegiance required for naturalizing citizens. Dr. Eastman's testimony at the hearing included the remark: "The notion that we can have dual allegiance, that we can expect some of our citizens to actually take up arms for countries that might one day be engaged in war against us means that now is the time to revisit this." None of the hearing participants affirmed that either birthright or dual citizenship were constitutional -- merely that both were commonly accepted practice.


In light of the new controversial Arizona immigration law, one wonders how authorities will handle the illegals they round up if they are found to be parents of U.S. citizen children. Graglia wrote:

Illegal alien parents with an American-citizen child remain subject to deportation, but that deportation becomes less likely. They will be able...to argue that deportation would subject the American-citizen child to "extreme hardship," a recognized ground for suspension of deportation, as it would potentially deprive the child of the benefits of his or her American citizenship... if the deported parents opt to take the American-citizen child with them, the child can return to this country for permanent residence at any time. The child can then, upon becoming an adult, serve as what is known in immigration law as an "anchor child," the basis for a claim that his or her parents be admitted and granted permanent resident status. The parents will then ordinarily be admitted without regard to quota limitations.​

Another important consideration in any sort of "guest" or "temporary" worker program is the children born to these workers while in America. If these children receive automatic citizenship, the unintended consequence of such a program could be the addition of millions more permanent citizens and, by extension, their families.

In the past few years, legislation to clarify, redefine, or eliminate birthright citizenship has been proposed by Representatives Ron Paul (R-TX), Nathan Deal (R-GA), Mark Foley (R-FL), Gary Miller (R-CA), and others. Harry Reid even proposed legislation in 1993.

Edwin Meese, in his 2007 Report "Where We Stand: Essential Requirements for Immigration Reform," recognized the "historically and legally inaccurate" concept of birthright citizenship, and concluded that:

immigration reform legislation, especially if it includes a temporary worker program, must correct this misunderstanding. In order to do so, Congress should reassert its constitutional authority.... They must rise above the politics and policy debate of the moment and develop a clear, comprehensive, meaningful, and long-term policy concerning immigration, naturalization, and citizenship.​

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/06/a_hole_in_the_fence_of_immigra.html

 

[Sean]

Oh God, here comes Lit's biggest regurgitator with more mindless c+p.

 

[Lost Cause]

We need to invoke the 10th Amendment by all states and reign in any edicts outside of the constitutional boundaries of the courts.

Power must come back to the states and the people that are most affected by these invasions..

The states have "Police Powers" and the Feds have immigration powers.

10th Amendment

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Section 8

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

 

[MeeMie]

Even Katie Cupcake gets it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_ZnX9JRo5M&feature=player_embedded

 

[Byron In Exile]

We need to invoke the 10th Amendment by all states and reign in any edicts outside of the constitutional boundaries of the courts.

Power must come back to the states and the people that are most affected by these invasions..

The states have "Police Powers" and the Feds have immigration powers.

10th Amendment


Section 8

You know that's just a strange jumble of confused stuff, right?

 

[Lost Cause]

You know that's just a jumble of strange confused stuff, right?

No it's not- it's very defined and backed up by reams of debate for it's inclusion during the constitutional convention- nothing contained in the constitution is arbitrary.

http://www.hermes-press.com/henrycc2.jpg

 

[Byron In Exile]

No it's not- it's very defined and backed up by reams of debate for it's inclusion during the constitutional convention- nothing contained in the constitution is arbitrary.

The 14th Amendment was ratified after the 10th Amendment, and therefore supersedes it.

 

[bronzeage]

I think you really to sit down for some quiet time and think about the ramifications of your repeated love of the "majority", and just what will happen to freedoms in this nation if we did have "majority rule".

Of late, you seem to be arguing for Legislation by Poll and/or Pure Democracy.

Sort of like if Ross Perot had won.

 

[Byron In Exile]

Sort of like if Ross Perot had won.

But wouldn't that have made a great Twilight Zone episode?

Several different ones, actually, depending on what he said at various times.

 

[Shagly]

No it's not- it's very defined and backed up by reams of debate for it's inclusion during the constitutional convention- nothing contained in the constitution is arbitrary.

http://www.hermes-press.com/henrycc2.jpg

"Give me liberty or give me death!"

 

[Sean]

But wouldn't that have made a great Twilight Zone episode?

Several different ones, actually, depending on what he said at various times.

Ever read any of Frank Herbert's George X McKee stories?

 

[Shagly]

What America needed was Benjamin Franklin for president not John Adams.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

That might apply to Native Americans, but how could it apply to illegal aliens?

If they were not subject to US jurisdiction, how could they be arrested and deported?

You're looking at this in the context of today. To be fair to Howard and the other framers, you have to view it in the context of their time.

Firstly, the phrase means total subjection to US jurisdiction -- not shared, split or encumbered by the jurisdiction of another tribe or nation. The fact that someone was born here and might be entitled to US citizenship dosen't mean they would necessarily want it upon coming of age. It dosen't mean that their parents might not INSIST on taking their child back "home" to be a citizen of the parents' native country.

How about you? Would you want to be Croation just because your mother fell victim to an untimely and protracted snafu with a travel intinerary?

Howard was merely trying to eliminate such ambiguous circumstances by restricting citizenship by birth to those totally subject to United States jurisdiction.

At the time of the Amendment's passage, there was no reason for him to believe that he had not accomplished precisely that.

 

[KingOrfeo]

2nd Amendment, Let's Change It.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

2nd Amendment, Let's Change It.

Oh but that's completely different..

 

[John Doe]

I'm not, you misunderstand my position.

Well, if you're saying we should take judicial review away from the Supreme Court (giving them little more to do than twiddle their thumbs) and giving the Legislature absolute power over the law (not only writing it but also interpreting it) then it seems that's exactly your position.

 

[mercury14]

I don't understand the kowtowing to the fucking courts on every little thing, it's almost as if we are slave to the Judiciary.

It's amusing that you're an absolute adherent to the Constitution on some things and then turn around and ask why we have to kowtow to the fucking thing...

 

[unregistered]

 

[mercury14]

IMWO, the SCOTUS is the most conservative today of the three branches, but it will not be long before the socialist tide overtakes it, too. With the most recent addition, it's very close now. Considering Roberts is the youngest "conservative" at 55, within 20 years what we know as "conservative" today will be totally gone from the Court.

Congress is socialist already, and the partisan presidency long ago lost any sense of independence.

We will have legal amnesty for all illegal aliens. We will have have legal gay marriage. We will continue to have cradle-to-grave entitlement. We will continue to forcefully take more and more and more from the bread of individual labor to give to those who are to lazy to work. And we, the people, will continue to petition our government for permission for all these things and more...

Thus, much more important than the three branches is the fact that no significant number of the people are willing to pledge their lives or their fortunes to what it will take to reverse the socialist slide were on. Most, obviously, are totally blind to the fall. Most of those who do know will do what human nature tells them: draw inward, hold on to what you can, protect your own, and hope for the best. After all, life goes on...

...very, very, very few will stand up and refuse to play the socialist game any longer.

And sacred honor?

Where, oh where has that sacred honor of the free individual gone?

Eyer is a paranoid moron on the level of Busybody.

 

[mercury14]

Congress has the constitutional power to limit Supreme Court Appellate Jurisdiction and has in the past. See Article III Section 2 Clause 2. One thing to note, the Court usurped Judicial review over Congress in Marbury v Madison.

You defnine power as being able to remove individuals?

What?

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Congress has the constitutional power to limit Supreme Court Appellate Jurisdiction and has in the past. See Article III Section 2 Clause 2. One thing to note, the Court usurped Judicial review over Congress in Marbury v Madison.

So exactly what would you accomplish if you removed ALL appellate jurisdiction from the Supreme Court?

You would merely restrict judicial review to the District and Court of Appeals levels.

Barack Obama has appointed two judges to the Supreme Court. Would you like to see how many other federal judges he has appointed?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_judges_appointed_by_Barack_Obama

In many judicial districts a conservative's only hope is to have the Supreme Court grant cert on appeal.

Be careful what you wish for.

 

[Ishmael]

The first clause of the 14th would have to be amended. I can see no way out of that.

The last clause of the amendment confers on congress the ability to enforce, but there is no provision for modification and the language of the first clause is quite clear, there's no wiggle room there.

Ishmael