14th Amendment

[CSpindizzy]

Huckabee does as well: Huck: Don't change 14th Amendment - Andy Barr - POLITICO.com

 

[lawgator1]

Your solution?

Dramatic increase in Border Patrol to slow future increases plus some form of rational registraton or citizenship application process (not automatic) for those already here. For one thing, it would give us a handle on how big a problem it really is and where it is located, and also increase collection of tax revenues as appropriate.

Basically, if you are an illegal, you can register and pay taxes and have a path to citizensihip -- not automatic, but if you keep out of trouble and work and pay taxes, you can become a citizen in a reasonable period, say 3 years. If you don't register or do get into trouble (felony or repeat misdemeanors) then follow current plan of sending them back.

 

[gsvol]

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.

I'm not accusing you of anything other than expressing the liberal view of the issue.

Right and an activist judge led the way in the Wong decision in direct opposition to the 14th amendment as written and by the views stated by it's writers, in direct opposition of the previous Slaughterhouse decision while ignoring the definitions of the leading legal dictionary of that time.

The 14th amendment was written and passed to insure that those people who had previously been slaves would have full citizenship rights.

Section. 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.

A British citizen visiting the USA is still subject to the jurisdiction of Britian. So Fatima from Somaliland either legally or illegally visiting America is still a subject of the state from which she comes and if she gives birth while here, her baby IS NOT entitled to American citizenship.

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."

This question was addressed in the first Supreme Court interpretation of the 14th Amendment on record, The Slaughterhouse Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1872) (USSC). The author of the majority opinion was a contemporary of those who drafted and debated the Amendment. The following text is from the majority opinion written by the Chief Justice:

MILLER, J., Opinion of the Court:

"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."

The phrase, "subject to its jurisdiction" was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.

At the time we had no illegal immigrant problem nor millions of anchor babies who have wrongly been granted American citizenship.

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.".

Congress is responsible for addressing the issue and correcting bad executive branch and state dempartment policy.

The majority opinion, (Slaughterhouse) because it was contemporaneous with the ratification of the 14th Amendment, records the understanding of those who drafted, passed, and ratified the Amendment.

Here come da judge:

US v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) threw out Miller's opinion saying effectively that it didn't matter because the majority was going to redefine the phrase, "subject to the jurisdiction," as they saw fit, which is consistent with the behavior of the corporate attorneys who dominated the Supreme Court in those days.

Members of the majority in the wrong wong decision:

One member of the court was George Shiras who was a prominent railroad lawyer with no prior judicial experience and friend to corporate railroad barons with a rather keen interest in retaining Chinese coolies.

Another was Rufus Peckham, infamous inventor of the now-discredited term, "substantive due process," used to invalidate a state statute.

The author of the majority opinion was Horace Gray, a buddy of Brandeis, Holmes, and other noted court activists and a big fan of paper money.

Then there was Yalie David Brewer, founder of the American Society of International Law, peace advocate, and judicial activist toward using the court to supersede State laws.

Another Yalie was Henry Brown, a huge fan of the use of Admiralty Law as a regulatory means, even though he hired a substitute to serve in the military for him in the Civil War. Author of Plessy v. Ferguson.

The The dissenting opinion to this travesty was vigorous, a work that rings with predictions of the consequences we see today. It was written by Chief Justice Melville Fuller, a big fan of Thomas Cooley’s Treatise on Constitutional Limitations and a champion of individual property rights. Joining him was John Marshall Harlan, who had the temerity to oppose broad interpretation of the Commerce Clause and opposed Plessy v. Ferguson. (Justice McKenna did not participate as he was newly confirmed.)

Fuller's dissent began with simple logic, which should have been enough to collapse the opposition were they not committed to corrupted ends:

"If the conclusion of the majority opinion is correct, then the children of citizens of the United States, who have been born abroad since July 28, 1868, when the amendment was declared ratified, were and are aliens, unless they have or shall, on attaining majority, become citizens by naturalization in the United States; and no statutory provision to the contrary is of any force or effect. And children who are aliens by descent, but born on our soil, are exempted from the exercise of the power to exclude or to expel aliens, or any class of aliens, so often maintained by this court,- an exemption apparently disregarded by the acts in respect of the exclusion of persons of Chinese descent."

It's pretty strong language for a Supreme Court Justice. He has good reason. Citizenship appertains exclusively to the allegiance of parentage, else the choices and preferences of those parents as legitimately exercised under law, including changing citizenship by naturalization, is not something so easily superseded unless the State has a claim on the baby superseding the allegiances of the parents!!! Allegiances of parentage are not so easily transgressed in law as one might suppose either. Back to the dissenting opinion:

Twiss, in his work on the Law of Nations, says that 'natural allegiance, or the obligation of perpetual obedience to the government of a country, wherein a man may happen to have been born, which he cannot forfeit or cancel or vary by any change of time or place or circumstance, is the creature of civil law, and finds no countenance in the law of nations, as it is in direct conflict with the incontestable rule of that law.' Volume 1, p. 231.

Comprende??? See where I'm coming from yet??

As an addendum, this court was also responsible for Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific (118 U.S. 394 (1886)).

A headnote, written by the court clerk after the decision and having NOTHING to do with the case, supposedly established equal protection for fictitious persons, (corporations), which may in fact have been railroad lawyers. It has been used against we the people of the United States since that time in the interests of wll streaters et al.

I've been jumping up and down for over twenty years that this needs to be brought up before the SCOTUS, clarified and thrown out. Simply put, corporations DO NOT have the same rights as individual citizens, no matter how you cut it.

Interestingly, that self same court clerk, Court Reporter J. C. Bancroft Davis, was a corporate socialist, a student of Marx, and had a record of falsifying documents. So to ignore Chief Justice Miller's interpretation in the Slaughterhouse Cases while adhering to a clerk's headnote in Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific makes a mockery of jurisprudence, "settled law" notwithstanding.

All this adds up to the corporatists (and their puppets) now running the executive branch of our govenment and fanatically supported by democrats (and some republicans when they're needed) in congress to rob us the people and the next several generations of our offspring.

“Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power”
Benito Mussolini

 

[KB5252]

Dramatic increase in Border Patrol to slow future increases plus some form of rational registraton or citizenship application process (not automatic) for those already here. For one thing, it would give us a handle on how big a problem it really is and where it is located, and also increase collection of tax revenues as appropriate.

Basically, if you are an illegal, you can register and pay taxes and have a path to citizensihip -- not automatic, but if you keep out of trouble and work and pay taxes, you can become a citizen in a reasonable period, say 3 years. If you don't register or do get into trouble (felony or repeat misdemeanors) then follow current plan of sending them back.

The problem we have is that until we can properly patrol and or enforce our borders any form of amnesty will only serve as further motivation for aliens to cross our border illegally.

I agree that simply shipping them back is not a realistic option but history has shown us that simply forgiving the trespass is faulty policy as well as it has only lead to more problems. We simply must find a way to secure our borders.

 

[hndog609]

The problem we have is that until we can properly patrol and or enforce our borders any form of amnesty will only serve as further motivation for aliens to cross our border illegally.

I agree that simply shipping them back is not a realistic option but history has shown us that simply forgiving the trespass is faulty policy as well as it has only lead to more problems. We simply must find a way to secure our borders.

Precisely.

End the idea that simply being on our patch of dirt at the time you download a kid gives that kid, or anyone associated with it, any rights as a citizen. Imagine some pregnant lady sneaking into your house and dropping her nipple-nugget on your floor and proclaiming rights to your house. (ok, maybe a bit dramatic but I think everyone knows where I'm coming from) Even at a glance the idea of an "anchor baby" seems pretty preposterous. Take two people here outright illegally, they spin themselves up a zygote and 9 months later they're all here legally? I guess Trojan Man needs to be on the border patrol too?

End, with malice, the practice of hiring illegals. Give a little bit of time for everybody to break the bad news and start hiring US citizens. After a certain date you get kicked royally in the snickerdoodles if you have illegals on the payroll. Those that aren't criminals will pretty much have to go home with no way to make a living here.

 

[gsvol]

 

[MG1968]

44 - A blast from Harry Reid's past on birthright citizenship

Senate Majority leader Harry Reid may have an immigration problem. The Washington Times reports that Reid sponsored a bill in 1993 that would have denied citizenship to children born in the United States if their mothers were not citizens at the time of delivery.

of course, Reid has allegedly apologized

 

[KentheOrange]

Precisely.

End the idea that simply being on our patch of dirt at the time you download a kid gives that kid, or anyone associated with it, any rights as a citizen. Imagine some pregnant lady sneaking into your house and dropping her nipple-nugget on your floor and proclaiming rights to your house. (ok, maybe a bit dramatic but I think everyone knows where I'm coming from) Even at a glance the idea of an "anchor baby" seems pretty preposterous. Take two people here outright illegally, they spin themselves up a zygote and 9 months later they're all here legally? I guess Trojan Man needs to be on the border patrol too?

End, with malice, the practice of hiring illegals. Give a little bit of time for everybody to break the bad news and start hiring US citizens. After a certain date you get kicked royally in the snickerdoodles if you have illegals on the payroll. Those that aren't criminals will pretty much have to go home with no way to make a living here.

Only the baby per current interpretation of the 14th Amendment.

 

[gsvol]

Only the baby per current interpretation of the 14th Amendment.

While that is true, the parents are allowed to stay to take care of the baby American citizen and so are all their other children.

Leading Democrat proponents, such as Kennedy and Kerry, of (the wrong interpretation and not the intended purpose of the 14th amendment) anchor baby policy also advocate that the grandparents of the anchor baby be given the right to enter and live in America also.

Then the grandparents want to bring their other children and grandchildren and eventually you may have forty or more people who end up living in America because of that one anchor baby.

 

[gsvol]

More (in depth) information on the 14th amendment:

Patrick Henry "Ratified"

Scroll down to 'the new aristocracy.'

These folks amassed so much wealth, that the
rest of the country, many of whom were recent
immigrants ignorant of Constitutional principle,
fell prey to envy and instituted the income tax.
The rich immediately exempted themselves by
putting their wealth under the guise of “charity.”

It is these very tax-exempt foundations who
supply the bulk of the seed money to environmental
groups that sue complicit federal agencies. It is
these same “non-governmental organizations”
(NGOs) consisting principally of lawyers who sit
in on the various United Nations conferences
today, drafting treaty law in secret.

When you hear the mantra 'tax the wealthy'
know that smoke is being blown up your butt!!

The tax the wealthy initiatives isn't about taxing
the wealthy, it's about beheading the middle class
and removing any competition to the the wealthy
class.

Using a tax-exempt foundation under the guise
of “charity,” to twist the laws forcing people to
use your product, induce artificial scarcity to raise
prices, to use regulatory power to force competitors
out of the market, or to protect you from liability for
your product, all in order to reap a guaranteed profit
is tax fraud, racketeering, malicious mischief, and
theft on a grand scale.

To fund a process that systematically dismantles
constitutional protections for the unalienable rights
of the people and to construct in its place an extra-
national government to exercise powers exceeding
those proscribed by the Constitution and capable of
violating those rights, for whatever reason whether
profit or pretended altruism, is worse than mere
crime, it is treason.