14th Amendment

#26
#26
in 1868, when the 14th Amendment was passed, there was no such thing as illegal immigration.

this could actually be changed by legislation and not a Constitutional convention, just pass a law stating that US citizenship will not be automatically granted to any child born in the US to an undocumented mother, or anyone in the US on a travel visa, work visa, student visa, and so on.
 
#27
#27
Chattaben said:
Let me get this straight...the 14th Amendment which is an amendment that Republicans passed and has been seen as one of their greatest achievements in the history of this great nation is now being threatened with repeal/modifications by Republicans?
Click to expand...

How could you be soooo wrong??

The 14th amendment DOES NOT grant citizenship to children born to foreign nationals on American soil and SPECIFICALLY STATES JUST THAT.

Due to what some LEFT WINGNUT justice wrote into and an opinion quoting from and obscure 1912 book written by some BATBRAINED HARVARD PROFESSOR with no legal standing, we have been misconstrueing the meaning of the 14th amendment and mistakingly granting citizenship to 'anchor babies' for quite some time now.

This practice needs to end right now and as a matter of fact we could just revoke citizenship of many who were illegally granted citizenship.
 
#28
#28
MG1968 said:
in 1868, when the 14th Amendment was passed, there was no such thing as illegal immigration.

this could actually be changed by legislation and not a Constitutional convention, just pass a law stating that US citizenship will not be automatically granted to any child born in the US to an undocumented mother, or anyone in the US on a travel visa, work visa, student visa, and so on.
Click to expand...


Well the thing is that the 14th amendment as written specifically does not grant citizenship to foreign nationals from the very beginning.
 
#29
#29
Chattaben said:
Let me get this straight...the 14th Amendment which is an amendment that Republicans passed and has been seen as one of their greatest achievements in the history of this great nation is now being threatened with repeal/modifications by Republicans?
Click to expand...

The 14th Amendment was specifically to insure that ex-slaves had citizenship and should no longer apply to anyone.
 
#30
#30
Chattaben said:
Let me get this straight...the 14th Amendment which is an amendment that Republicans passed and has been seen as one of their greatest achievements in the history of this great nation is now being threatened with repeal/modifications by Republicans?
Click to expand...

Welcome to election year!

Where all kinds of crazy sh-t is thrown around as long as they think it better sells their candidates for his/her upcoming election/re-election
 
#31
#31
Hm...you know now I've got to ask:

Who do you think killed John F. Kennedy, gsvol?
 
#32
#32
TrueOrange said:
Hm...you know now I've got to ask:

Who do you think killed John F. Kennedy, gsvol?
Click to expand...

Who do you think killed JFK TootyFruityOrange??

More importantly why was he killed??

Other than being assassinated while being president of the USA, what do Abraham Lincoln, James A. Garfield, William McKinley and Jack Kennedy all have in common??

You could almost add Andrew Jackson to that list but two attempts on his life were unsessessful.

"The world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes."
Disraeli

"He who monopolizes all media of communication has full power to keep a tight hand on the individuals’ minds and souls."
Ludwig Von Mises
 
#34
#34
gsvol said:
How could you be soooo wrong??

The 14th amendment DOES NOT grant citizenship to children born to foreign nationals on American soil and SPECIFICALLY STATES JUST THAT.

Due to what some LEFT WINGNUT justice wrote into and an opinion quoting from and obscure 1912 book written by some BATBRAINED HARVARD PROFESSOR with no legal standing, we have been misconstrueing the meaning of the 14th amendment and mistakingly granting citizenship to 'anchor babies' for quite some time now.

This practice needs to end right now and as a matter of fact we could just revoke citizenship of many who were illegally granted citizenship.
Click to expand...

How long exactly? Wong Kim Ark predated whatever you are referencing
 
Last edited:
#38
#38
yeah,figured that's about what I'd hear back

i'll give you though that tootyfruity was original
 
#39
#39
emainvol said:
How long exactly? Wong Kim Ark predated whatever you are referencing
Click to expand...

And Salughterhouse predated Wong, what's your point??

As written and ratified, the 14th Amendment was never intended to grant citizenship to the children of foreign subjects, whether they were here legally or not. Senator Jacob Howard, a co-author of the Citizenship Clause offered his interpretation in 1866:

"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.
Click to expand...

Returning to the Amendment itself, Section 5 cedes control of implementing its provisions back to Congress, "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.". So, because the Constitution is a limiting document, the wording of the 14th Amendment citizenship clause means that no new categories can be invented outside those in the Amendment, such as children of visiting or resident aliens; i.e., they may not grant birthright citizenship to the children of illegals, nor the equivalent.






BTW, I suppose you are happy now that Barry Obambi has speant $23 m of our taxpayer money with the promise of tons of increased foreign aid to Kenya in his successful attempt to get a new constitution there that enfranchises islamic sharia law into the Kenyan legal system???





TrueOrange said:
yeah,figured that's about what I'd hear back

i'll give you though that tootyfruity was original
Click to expand...

Who you figure killed JFK or even MLK for that matter??

Who do you think was behind it??

Start a thread on assassinations if you are so interested in that topic.

Again, what is the common thread concerning the Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley and Kennedy assassinations??

How does this have anything at all to do with the 14th amendment and anchor babies??????

You're just trying some cheap personal shot at me, why is that?
 
#40
#40
The Constitution IS a limiting document. But in the actual wording NOTHING limits how the citizenship is determined regarding conditions of birth. A strict constructionist view of this is plain - anyone born here. It's simple. There are no conditions added to that. Mentioning anything about anchor babies and the status of the parents means YOU (or whoever mentions this) is the one adding to it.

The whole statement by Howard has always been attributed to those in a governmental role in a capacity of another foreign government. Diplomats have always been treated by law much differently such as immunity, etc. This has always been an understanding in US law and even in laws of other nations.

Here's another point that someone brought up which was interesting - an alien here illegally is not determined to be illegal until convicted of that crime thus the notion of innocent until proven guilty. Interesting point - does that truly apply here?
 
#41
#41
CSpindizzy said:
The Constitution IS a limiting document. But in the actual wording NOTHING limits how the citizenship is determined regarding conditions of birth. A strict constructionist view of this is plain - anyone born here. It's simple. There are no conditions added to that. Mentioning anything about anchor babies and the status of the parents means YOU (or whoever mentions this) is the one adding to it.

The whole statement by Howard has always been attributed to those in a governmental role in a capacity of another foreign government. Diplomats have always been treated by law much differently such as immunity, etc. This has always been an understanding in US law and even in laws of other nations.

Here's another point that someone brought up which was interesting - an alien here illegally is not determined to be illegal until convicted of that crime thus the notion of innocent until proven guilty. Interesting point - does that truly apply here?
Click to expand...

How you can read the text of the 14th amendment and come up with that interpretation is beyond me.

One only has to read the foremost legal dictionary of that time to find that your interpretation is false.

hardwork.png


08092010.jpg
 
#42
#42
As a complete aside, I hope people also realize the potential chaos involved in a Constitutional Convention. You might not like what comes out the other side of that process.
 
#43
#43
gsvol said:
How you can read the text of the 14th amendment and come up with that interpretation is beyond me.

One only has to read the foremost legal dictionary of that time to find that your interpretation is false.

hardwork.png
Click to expand...

not sure how I can be accused of being liberal. Tell me where in the wording of the amendment a child born to non-citizens can be denied citizenship. Show me the words in the amendment. It's not a matter of interpretation. It is 'where' in the wording.

The irony in your view on this is that you are taking what is considered an 'activist' viewpoint. Seeing your previous comments on activist judges I am not sure you would care to be labeled as such.

We're arguing strict constructionist, originalist, developmentalist, and activist in terms here.
 
#44
#44
the more I think about this, the more of a slippery slope I believe changing the Constitution becomes. I'm very pro-2nd Amendment and believe it guarantees and individual right to keep and bear arms. One argument against that is "well, the Founders couldn't possibly have envisioned AK-47s and grenade launchers."

In that same regard, it's now the argument of "my side" that the authors of the 14th Amendment didn't have an illegal alien problem and could therefore not have foreseen the problems we are having today.

If I'm going to be consistent, I am going to have to say to leave the Constitution alone and attempt to address this issue via legislation that will have to withstand Constitutional tests in the courts.
 
#45
#45
MG1968 said:
If I'm going to be consistent, I am going to have to say to leave the Constitution alone and attempt to address this issue via legislation that will have to withstand Constitutional tests in the courts.
Click to expand...

And that is the key. Too many people on both sides killing their credibility on the issue by flipping to principles they repeatedly fight against. You are one of the few who have stepped back and stood on consistency and principles rather than the passions of the issue. Care to be a federal judge?
 
#46
#46
MG1968 said:
the more I think about this, the more of a slippery slope I believe changing the Constitution becomes. I'm very pro-2nd Amendment and believe it guarantees and individual right to keep and bear arms. One argument against that is "well, the Founders couldn't possibly have envisioned AK-47s and grenade launchers."

In that same regard, it's now the argument of "my side" that the authors of the 14th Amendment didn't have an illegal alien problem and could therefore not have foreseen the problems we are having today.

If I'm going to be consistent, I am going to have to say to leave the Constitution alone and attempt to address this issue via legislation that will have to withstand Constitutional tests in the courts.
Click to expand...

And therein lies the rub. The Constitution should not be amended about an issue which is, in historical terms, quite transient. Yes, illegal immigration is a huge problem. Yes, it must be dealt with. But "fixing" the Constitution as a solution reeks of political, historical, and legal novice.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#47
#47
lawgator1 said:
And therein lies the rub. The Constitution should not be amended about an issue which is, in historical terms, quite transient. Yes, illegal immigration is a huge problem. Yes, it must be dealt with. But "fixing" the Constitution as a solution reeks of political, historical, and legal novice.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Your solution?
 
#48
#48
MG1968 said:
the more I think about this, the more of a slippery slope I believe changing the Constitution becomes. I'm very pro-2nd Amendment and believe it guarantees and individual right to keep and bear arms. One argument against that is "well, the Founders couldn't possibly have envisioned AK-47s and grenade launchers."

In that same regard, it's now the argument of "my side" that the authors of the 14th Amendment didn't have an illegal alien problem and could therefore not have foreseen the problems we are having today.

If I'm going to be consistent, I am going to have to say to leave the Constitution alone and attempt to address this issue via legislation that will have to withstand Constitutional tests in the courts.
Click to expand...

This is a quality post.

I'm pro-second amendment and against loopholes with illegal immigration, but honesty is honesty.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top