11
11
0
From "The Washington Post"
Did Republicans just give away the 2016 election by raising birthright citizenship?
It may not seem like it, but this week has seen the most significant development yet in the immigration debate’s role in the 2016 election. I’d go even farther — it’s possible that the entire presidential election just got decided.
Is that an overstatement? Maybe. But hear me out.
For months, people like me have been pointing to the fundamental challenge Republican presidential candidates face on immigration: they need to talk tough to appeal to their base in the primaries, but doing so risks alienating the Hispanic voters they’ll need in the general election. This was always going to be a difficult line to walk, but a bunch of their candidates just leaped off to one side.
After Donald Trump released his immigration plan, which includes an end to birthright citizenship — stating that if you were born in the United States but your parents were undocumented, you don’t get to be a citizen — some of his competitors jumped up to say that they agreed. NBC News asked Scott Walker the question directly, and he seemed to reply that he does favor an end to birthright citizenship, though his campaign qualified the statement later. Bobby Jindal tweeted, “We need to end birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants.” Then reporters began looking over others’ past statements to see where they stood on this issue, and found that this isn’t an uncommon position among the GOP field. Remember all the agonizing Republicans did about how they had to reach out to Hispanic voters? They never figured out how to do it, and now they’re running in the opposite direction.
EDITORIAL COMMENT:- I can see how it might just possibly be a bit difficult to run for office on a platform which includes "And, of course, I'm going to say that I'm going to ignore the Constitution of the United States of America - because doing that is going to get me a whole bunch of votes but I know that I can't both do that and take the oath of office at the same time."
Did Republicans just give away the 2016 election by raising birthright citizenship?
It may not seem like it, but this week has seen the most significant development yet in the immigration debate’s role in the 2016 election. I’d go even farther — it’s possible that the entire presidential election just got decided.
Is that an overstatement? Maybe. But hear me out.
For months, people like me have been pointing to the fundamental challenge Republican presidential candidates face on immigration: they need to talk tough to appeal to their base in the primaries, but doing so risks alienating the Hispanic voters they’ll need in the general election. This was always going to be a difficult line to walk, but a bunch of their candidates just leaped off to one side.
After Donald Trump released his immigration plan, which includes an end to birthright citizenship — stating that if you were born in the United States but your parents were undocumented, you don’t get to be a citizen — some of his competitors jumped up to say that they agreed. NBC News asked Scott Walker the question directly, and he seemed to reply that he does favor an end to birthright citizenship, though his campaign qualified the statement later. Bobby Jindal tweeted, “We need to end birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants.” Then reporters began looking over others’ past statements to see where they stood on this issue, and found that this isn’t an uncommon position among the GOP field. Remember all the agonizing Republicans did about how they had to reach out to Hispanic voters? They never figured out how to do it, and now they’re running in the opposite direction.
EDITORIAL COMMENT:- I can see how it might just possibly be a bit difficult to run for office on a platform which includes "And, of course, I'm going to say that I'm going to ignore the Constitution of the United States of America - because doing that is going to get me a whole bunch of votes but I know that I can't both do that and take the oath of office at the same time."
Election 2016
Politics
Law
Republicans
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 35
14
14
0
Now I'm not a republican but I do agree with ending birthright citizenship. We already have a huge illegal immigrant problem. Those who came into this country illegally wouldn't have to worry if they came here legally. Bottom line they have broken the law and to allow them to stay because they had a kid here is ridiculous.
(14)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
Maj Richard "Ernie" Rowlette - Major; Much as I find it morally repugnant, I do concede that DRED SCOTT MIGHT have been correctly decided according to the laws of the United States of America AT THAT TIME.
I cannot agree that the Fourteenth Amendment was "to grant citizenship to slaves" as the Fourteenth Amendment simply didn't do that - it only granted citizenship to anyone who had been born in the United States of America and many slaves had not been born in the United States of America. Had the actual intent of the Fourteenth Amendment been "to grant citizenship to slaves" then Section 1 would have read along the lines of "All former and/or current slaves within the United States of America are now citizens of the United States of America." and Section 1 (as enacted) would have been Section 2.
The problem when considering the "Indian Cases" is that (notionally) the Native Americans were citizens of independent and sovereign nations (other than the United States of America) which just happened to be co-located with the United States of America. Native Americans "off the reservation" fell under the jurisdiction of the US government but Native Americans "on the reservation" (technically) did not.
What we might do were we to be enacting the Fourteenth Amendment today is almost totally irrelevant until the existing Fourteenth Amendment and US v. WONG have been bulldozed out of the road.
However, if the US government wants to establish a new policy whereby a system of "Anchor Homes" wherein the US born children of illegal aliens can be sheltered and raised as good American citizens after their scofflaw parents have been deported, the US government clearly has the authority to do so. [If it doesn't then the financial responsibilities would devolve onto the several states wherein those children are found when their felonious parents are apprehended and granted their full due-process rights before being deported and banned from ever entering the United States of America again. And, since that is the case, then I doubt that you would find a single "states' right" advocate who would argue that this was something that the Federal government didn't have the authority to do {and the responsibility to pay for}.]
I cannot agree that the Fourteenth Amendment was "to grant citizenship to slaves" as the Fourteenth Amendment simply didn't do that - it only granted citizenship to anyone who had been born in the United States of America and many slaves had not been born in the United States of America. Had the actual intent of the Fourteenth Amendment been "to grant citizenship to slaves" then Section 1 would have read along the lines of "All former and/or current slaves within the United States of America are now citizens of the United States of America." and Section 1 (as enacted) would have been Section 2.
The problem when considering the "Indian Cases" is that (notionally) the Native Americans were citizens of independent and sovereign nations (other than the United States of America) which just happened to be co-located with the United States of America. Native Americans "off the reservation" fell under the jurisdiction of the US government but Native Americans "on the reservation" (technically) did not.
What we might do were we to be enacting the Fourteenth Amendment today is almost totally irrelevant until the existing Fourteenth Amendment and US v. WONG have been bulldozed out of the road.
However, if the US government wants to establish a new policy whereby a system of "Anchor Homes" wherein the US born children of illegal aliens can be sheltered and raised as good American citizens after their scofflaw parents have been deported, the US government clearly has the authority to do so. [If it doesn't then the financial responsibilities would devolve onto the several states wherein those children are found when their felonious parents are apprehended and granted their full due-process rights before being deported and banned from ever entering the United States of America again. And, since that is the case, then I doubt that you would find a single "states' right" advocate who would argue that this was something that the Federal government didn't have the authority to do {and the responsibility to pay for}.]
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
Maj Richard "Ernie" Rowlette - Major; If it was meant "primarily for slaves" then it would have specified so. It didn't.
It was "meant primarily" for those who had supported the concept of slavery and or "second class" citizenship for Negros.
A little more attention to drafting to avoid the "Everybody Knows" syndrome would have been helpful.
Regardless of what the legislators/voters INTENDED to do, the actual wording of the Fourteenth Amendment is what they DID do.
It was "meant primarily" for those who had supported the concept of slavery and or "second class" citizenship for Negros.
A little more attention to drafting to avoid the "Everybody Knows" syndrome would have been helpful.
Regardless of what the legislators/voters INTENDED to do, the actual wording of the Fourteenth Amendment is what they DID do.
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
Maj Richard "Ernie" Rowlette - Major; If it weren't for United States v. Wong Kim Ark (No. 18) - 169 U.S. 649, I'd be more than happy to agree that the legislators wanted to ensure that the citizenship of slaves was enshrined in law.
The problem is simply that the legislators didn't do that (and, in fact, didn't even extend citizenship to ALL slaves - only the ones born in the United States of America).
It is the fact of what the legislators DID DO that the politicians will have to deal with.
PS - The "misinterpretation" has been around since 1898
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649
The problem is simply that the legislators didn't do that (and, in fact, didn't even extend citizenship to ALL slaves - only the ones born in the United States of America).
It is the fact of what the legislators DID DO that the politicians will have to deal with.
PS - The "misinterpretation" has been around since 1898
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649
United States v. Wong Kim Ark | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
A child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment...
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
Maj Richard "Ernie" Rowlette - Major; Indeed Mr. Wong's parents were legally in the United States of America (but they were [more likely than not] NOT "legal immigrants" since the Chinese were not (unless I've got my dates wrong) allowed to "immigrate" to the United States of America.
Regardless, the crux of the decision was not on HOW either Mr. Wong (or his parents) got to the United States of America but what the law was.
I agree that ALL judicial decisions are based on "interpretation" of the law - that is what the court is paid to do. Sometimes it's easy and sometimes it's hard, but the mandated task of the courts is NOT to decide what the law "says" but what the law "means".
I am well aware of what Mr. Howard says. I am also well aware of what a "parenthetical expression/phrase" is. I am also well aware that the Supreme Court of the United States of America has previously considered EXACTLY that argument and ruled against it.
Be that as it may, the proper course of action, since you cannot appeal a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States of America to any temporal court, is to stop nattering about it and get to work to amend the Constitution of the United States of America. (The easiest way would be to simply strike the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment. [Of course that would mean that Congress would have to get its act together and pass the 762 page "American Citizenship Act" {with one page of Preamble, one page defining "citizen", 150 pages defining how to become a citizen, and 612 pages of "tied spending" so that everyone could go home and show the voters what a good job they are doing}.]
Besides why would anyone want to wait ten or twenty years for a "constitutional reference case" to work its way up to the Supreme Court - only to lose it and then have to spend another ten or twenty years getting the Constitution amended? Twenty years doesn't really sound like a "quick fix" (ten years doesn't either but it IS less than twenty years).
Regardless, the crux of the decision was not on HOW either Mr. Wong (or his parents) got to the United States of America but what the law was.
I agree that ALL judicial decisions are based on "interpretation" of the law - that is what the court is paid to do. Sometimes it's easy and sometimes it's hard, but the mandated task of the courts is NOT to decide what the law "says" but what the law "means".
I am well aware of what Mr. Howard says. I am also well aware of what a "parenthetical expression/phrase" is. I am also well aware that the Supreme Court of the United States of America has previously considered EXACTLY that argument and ruled against it.
Be that as it may, the proper course of action, since you cannot appeal a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States of America to any temporal court, is to stop nattering about it and get to work to amend the Constitution of the United States of America. (The easiest way would be to simply strike the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment. [Of course that would mean that Congress would have to get its act together and pass the 762 page "American Citizenship Act" {with one page of Preamble, one page defining "citizen", 150 pages defining how to become a citizen, and 612 pages of "tied spending" so that everyone could go home and show the voters what a good job they are doing}.]
Besides why would anyone want to wait ten or twenty years for a "constitutional reference case" to work its way up to the Supreme Court - only to lose it and then have to spend another ten or twenty years getting the Constitution amended? Twenty years doesn't really sound like a "quick fix" (ten years doesn't either but it IS less than twenty years).
(0)
(0)
10
10
0
On this issue, as on abortion, Hispanics are not a monolithic voting block. My wife's father was born in Mexico and became a naturalized citizen. My wife, 3 of 6 siblings, and her father would support an end to birthright citizenship for illegals. The GOP has to have the right message on it, of course, but I'm not sure it's an election ending issue.
(10)
(0)
SSG Gerhard S.
It's rare that the Republicans get more than 15-20% of the Hispanic vote under any circumstances, with the notable anomaly of Bush 41 who once received approximately 40% of the (voting) Hispanic votes. This isn't to suggest Hispanics should be ignored, and in fact many Hispanics, who came here legally are NOT in favor of illegals coming to the US. That being said, I hate to even use that word "Hispanic" It is a meaningless word, assigned to a group together a diverse host of people of Latino origin, by the Nixon Administration in an attempt to quantify, offset, and pit the "Hispanics" against the black population neither of who largely didn't and still don't vote Republican. Clearly, Nixon was as clueless about such things as he was about economics.
(1)
(0)
Col Joseph Lenertz
2012 Pew research poll had 22% of Hispanics registered as republicans...down from 25% in 1999. So yeah, not much to lose there.
(1)
(0)
MSgt Steve Miller
It would take very little research to find that nearly every Republican candidate has far more that one lobbyist to keep happy. Trump is the only one on stage that does not have someone pulling his or her strings. GOP (personal opinion) is about big business and there are far too many lobbyists assuring that wall is never built. Labor is the most expensive cost to running a business, and keeping that boarder open assures lower labor cost. The rich get richer and everyone else sucks wind. We will never see that wall finished and properly manned under a GOP President.
(0)
(0)
10
10
0
It is time to stand up for principle - and rise or fall on the consequences, IMHO. We have too many mealy-mouthed politicians today that will say anything to get elected and then do whatever they want later. Enough.
(10)
(0)
SSG Gerhard S.
COL Ted Mc - How is it you can say no, when the man who wrote the amendment clearly stated that such persons do NOT fall under the full jurisdiction of the US government, as they are "foreigners, aliens," who owe their allegiance to a foreign nation, and therefore their children, even though born on American soil are NOT afforded any sort of American Citizenship? Here is the quote from Senator Howard of Michigan, who wrote the 4th amendment.
"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."
Clearly a child born to a foreign diplomat working in the US is not considered to be under the full jurisdiction of the US government and therefore such a child is not granted US citizenship, dual or otherwise, regardless the laws of the diplomat's home country.
Furthermore... " Sen. Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, author of the Thirteenth Amendment, and the one who inserted the phrase:
[T]he provision is, that 'all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.' That means 'subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.' What do we mean by 'complete jurisdiction thereof?' Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.
Trumbull continues, "Can you sue a Navajo Indian in court? Are they in any sense subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States? By no means. We make treaties with them, and therefore they are not subject to our jurisdiction. If they were, we wouldn't make treaties with them...It is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens; and there can be no objection to the proposition that such persons should be citizens.[2]
So, Sir, when Senator Trumbull says "not owing allegiance to anybody else", would YOU argue that people who cross our borders illegally, without declaring themselves, whether to traffic drugs across our border, or to seek employment, seasonal, or otherwise, have a singular allegiance to the United States of America? If you can make that argument, then your argument would hold, at least some water. It is clear that the meaning of that phrase "under the jurisdiction of", does NOT include people who came to this country without declaring themselves, (which by default means applying for, and being granted citizenship, as, up to that point a person has NOT declared singular allegiance to the United States.
Senator Howard then confirms Senator Trumbull's assertion...
"Mr. HOWARD: I concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Trumbull], in holding that the word "jurisdiction," as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now. "
And there's more Sir, in the article I've posted here a number of times. One has to wonder HOW these authors and ratifiers of the 14th Amendment could have made the intent of the Citizenship Clause any more clear, and unambiguous. Though, it is also clear that those who WANT the Citizenship clause to mean something else will add, remove, or move about, commas in the words themselves, while ignoring the original statements and arguments that support their present location. I have seen people make the same comma argument for the second amendment as well when they want to make it appear to mean something other than that which it was intended to mean, again, as made clear by the actual wording, AND the statements of the men who actually wrote, ratified, and inserted those amendments.
Again, respectful regards sir.
"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."
Clearly a child born to a foreign diplomat working in the US is not considered to be under the full jurisdiction of the US government and therefore such a child is not granted US citizenship, dual or otherwise, regardless the laws of the diplomat's home country.
Furthermore... " Sen. Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, author of the Thirteenth Amendment, and the one who inserted the phrase:
[T]he provision is, that 'all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.' That means 'subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.' What do we mean by 'complete jurisdiction thereof?' Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.
Trumbull continues, "Can you sue a Navajo Indian in court? Are they in any sense subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States? By no means. We make treaties with them, and therefore they are not subject to our jurisdiction. If they were, we wouldn't make treaties with them...It is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens; and there can be no objection to the proposition that such persons should be citizens.[2]
So, Sir, when Senator Trumbull says "not owing allegiance to anybody else", would YOU argue that people who cross our borders illegally, without declaring themselves, whether to traffic drugs across our border, or to seek employment, seasonal, or otherwise, have a singular allegiance to the United States of America? If you can make that argument, then your argument would hold, at least some water. It is clear that the meaning of that phrase "under the jurisdiction of", does NOT include people who came to this country without declaring themselves, (which by default means applying for, and being granted citizenship, as, up to that point a person has NOT declared singular allegiance to the United States.
Senator Howard then confirms Senator Trumbull's assertion...
"Mr. HOWARD: I concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Trumbull], in holding that the word "jurisdiction," as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now. "
And there's more Sir, in the article I've posted here a number of times. One has to wonder HOW these authors and ratifiers of the 14th Amendment could have made the intent of the Citizenship Clause any more clear, and unambiguous. Though, it is also clear that those who WANT the Citizenship clause to mean something else will add, remove, or move about, commas in the words themselves, while ignoring the original statements and arguments that support their present location. I have seen people make the same comma argument for the second amendment as well when they want to make it appear to mean something other than that which it was intended to mean, again, as made clear by the actual wording, AND the statements of the men who actually wrote, ratified, and inserted those amendments.
Again, respectful regards sir.
(1)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
SSG Gerhard S. - Staff; Because I am literate and can actually read and understand the English language. The fact that I also have a Law degree and degrees in both History and Political Science doesn't hurt either.
A newborn infant does NOT "owe their allegiance" to any country - since the very concept "country" is beyond them.
You can keep on repeating the same quotation as many times as you want, but until you show some understanding of what a "parenthetical clause" or "parenthetical expression" is and what its grammatical role is then you are simply repeating "Quadruple Hearsay" (the first person who reported the statement reported hearsay, the newspaper article that reported the words of first person who reported the statement reported double hearsay, the author of the article which reported the newspaper article that reported the words of first person who reported the statement reported triple hearsay, and when you report it again it becomes quadruple hearsay.
What you have to remember is that "Statute Law" consists of the ACTUAL words of the statute and there is no mention of "allegiance" in the Fourteenth Amendment.
I will grant you that ONE of the people who was supporting the Fourteenth Amendment MIGHT have INTENDED that the Fourteenth Amendment only apply to people who "owed allegiance" to the United States of America. HOWEVER, that is not what the law says. [Besides, that would mean that no one under the legal age of majority would be a citizen of the United States of America because they would be legally incapable of "owing allegiance" to anyone - and that's just plain stupid. (OK so legislators do dumb things all the time - but not that dumb.)
PS - I don't suppose that you noticed the "ought to be construed" bit. Just because something "ought to be" does not mean that it is or ever was.
A newborn infant does NOT "owe their allegiance" to any country - since the very concept "country" is beyond them.
You can keep on repeating the same quotation as many times as you want, but until you show some understanding of what a "parenthetical clause" or "parenthetical expression" is and what its grammatical role is then you are simply repeating "Quadruple Hearsay" (the first person who reported the statement reported hearsay, the newspaper article that reported the words of first person who reported the statement reported double hearsay, the author of the article which reported the newspaper article that reported the words of first person who reported the statement reported triple hearsay, and when you report it again it becomes quadruple hearsay.
What you have to remember is that "Statute Law" consists of the ACTUAL words of the statute and there is no mention of "allegiance" in the Fourteenth Amendment.
I will grant you that ONE of the people who was supporting the Fourteenth Amendment MIGHT have INTENDED that the Fourteenth Amendment only apply to people who "owed allegiance" to the United States of America. HOWEVER, that is not what the law says. [Besides, that would mean that no one under the legal age of majority would be a citizen of the United States of America because they would be legally incapable of "owing allegiance" to anyone - and that's just plain stupid. (OK so legislators do dumb things all the time - but not that dumb.)
PS - I don't suppose that you noticed the "ought to be construed" bit. Just because something "ought to be" does not mean that it is or ever was.
(2)
(0)
MCPO Katrina Hutcherson
SSG Gerhard Seidel, COL Ted Mc, I am not sure, but I thought a foreigner who was in this country legally and gave birth could choose dual citizenship for that infant.
(1)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
MCPO Katrina Hutcherson - Master Chief; That would actually depend on the laws of the two countries. The child might be a citizen of one country (the one that they were born in) due to Jus soli (Latin: right of the soil) and a citizen of another country or countries (the one[s] that their parent[s] was/were citizens of) due to 'Jus sanguinis' (Latin: right of blood).
Thus, the child of an expatriate (Jewish) Israeli woman who has become a citizen of Borneo and a Chinese national who has renounced their citizenship and become a citizen of Brazil that is born in the United States of America is quite likely to be a citizen (or at least be eligible for citizenship) of
[1] Israel,
[2] Borneo,
[3] China,
[4] Brazil, and
[5] The United States of America
due to the various "Nationality Laws" of the jurisdictions involved.
The United States of America has no legal provision (that I know of) for "revoking" citizenship which is NOT granted through a bureaucratic process - although it does have a legal provision for recognizing a person's "renunciation" of citizenship through either words or deeds.
Thus, the child of an expatriate (Jewish) Israeli woman who has become a citizen of Borneo and a Chinese national who has renounced their citizenship and become a citizen of Brazil that is born in the United States of America is quite likely to be a citizen (or at least be eligible for citizenship) of
[1] Israel,
[2] Borneo,
[3] China,
[4] Brazil, and
[5] The United States of America
due to the various "Nationality Laws" of the jurisdictions involved.
The United States of America has no legal provision (that I know of) for "revoking" citizenship which is NOT granted through a bureaucratic process - although it does have a legal provision for recognizing a person's "renunciation" of citizenship through either words or deeds.
(0)
(0)
4
4
0
COL Ted Mc
It is way too early for anybody to give away the November 2016 Presidential election. If this news came out one year from now it may well have an impact, but, not in the summer of 2015.
Birthright citizenship laws need to be re-looked and updated so that all children born to legal US citizens anywhere in the world are citizens of the USA and that any children born to illegal residents is not automatically granted citizenship but will not be prohibited from citizenship if they later work to meet the requirements.
My wife is Cuban and I know many Hispanics including some who are probably not legal. By and large they are socially conservative and do not support open asylum laws for all illegal aliens, birthright citizenship, etc. Many of the working class people who are ion this area are sending money to their home country and hope to return there.
It is way too early for anybody to give away the November 2016 Presidential election. If this news came out one year from now it may well have an impact, but, not in the summer of 2015.
Birthright citizenship laws need to be re-looked and updated so that all children born to legal US citizens anywhere in the world are citizens of the USA and that any children born to illegal residents is not automatically granted citizenship but will not be prohibited from citizenship if they later work to meet the requirements.
My wife is Cuban and I know many Hispanics including some who are probably not legal. By and large they are socially conservative and do not support open asylum laws for all illegal aliens, birthright citizenship, etc. Many of the working class people who are ion this area are sending money to their home country and hope to return there.
(4)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
Maj Richard "Ernie" Rowlette - Major; I concur.
How about limiting the Constitutional Convention to a maximum of 100 words for any Constitutional Amendment (if you can't express any "societal basic" in 100 words or less then it probably isn't a "societal basic") and then require the final reading to be certified as unambiguous by some outside authority (that doesn't have the authority to say how it should be reworded but DOES have to point out exactly where the ambiguities are to be found [and why they are ambiguities]) before proceeding forward on the road to ratification?
The first person who accuses me of "creating insurmountable barriers to constitutional amendment" has to buy the next round of cyber-beers.
How about limiting the Constitutional Convention to a maximum of 100 words for any Constitutional Amendment (if you can't express any "societal basic" in 100 words or less then it probably isn't a "societal basic") and then require the final reading to be certified as unambiguous by some outside authority (that doesn't have the authority to say how it should be reworded but DOES have to point out exactly where the ambiguities are to be found [and why they are ambiguities]) before proceeding forward on the road to ratification?
The first person who accuses me of "creating insurmountable barriers to constitutional amendment" has to buy the next round of cyber-beers.
(0)
(0)
LTC Stephen F.
COL Ted Mc - When you state that "You mean that they aren't taught that in school? Colonel, I am shocked - SHOCKED I say." I assume you are being sarcastic. While I am grateful that each State has the authority to educate the children of their state within Federal guidelines [good or bad at times], each state does decide how much state and Federal government education each child needs to graduate. I am familiar with Maryland, Virginia and Florida's primary through High School education. Of the 3, Virginia seems to provide the most robust government education. That is not surprising since Virginians participated in the Federal government establishment in very significant ways.
(1)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
LTC Stephen F. - Colonel; When in doubt, that's a good assumption to make.
While the students might well be exposed to the THEORETICAL way that the Federal government is supposed to function, I strongly suspect that the way that the Federal government ACTUALLY functions is something that the "Educational Theorists" want to burden impressionable young minds with.
Part of that suspicion is that knowing how the governmental system ACTUALLY works might incite keen young minds to the same mind-set as that of the Founding Fathers and people might start demanding that there be "No Taxation Without REAL Representation".
While the students might well be exposed to the THEORETICAL way that the Federal government is supposed to function, I strongly suspect that the way that the Federal government ACTUALLY functions is something that the "Educational Theorists" want to burden impressionable young minds with.
Part of that suspicion is that knowing how the governmental system ACTUALLY works might incite keen young minds to the same mind-set as that of the Founding Fathers and people might start demanding that there be "No Taxation Without REAL Representation".
(2)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
I did my own pew study and boy did it stink... LTC Stephen F. LTC Stephen C. CPT L S @SGT Slaughter, and the grinch who stole Ramadan....
(2)
(0)
4
4
0
I don't think they've given it away yet. They (with all other candidates) still have time to flip flop on the major issues. I agree in principal on the "anchor baby" thing, but I feel this is directed towards Hispanics vs. the broader situation of various nationalities who come here on vacation and have kids "suddenly". This was talked about on TV with the Chinese coming here and doing just that and having websites that promoted it. They need to make it a broad stroke instead of alienating a very large voting base.
(4)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
SFC Jenaro Arjemi - Sergeant; That would have the advantage of narrowing the field somewhat - wouldn't it.
(1)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
CPO Eugene Gillam - Chief; When you say "Baby's of illegal aliens/immigrants/whatever you want to call them, are subject to the jurisdiction of their parent's country, not the USA" does that mean that those babies could not be charged with any federal criminal offence as long as they are in the United States of America? If they ARE NOT "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States of America then they couldn't be. If they could be, they they ARE "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States of America.
I know that it's hard to comprehend, but you simply can't have it both ways - no matter how much you scrunch up your eyes and pretend.
PS - Just because the Fourteenth Amendment "wasn't considered to" give American citizenship to Native Americans until 1922 that doesn't mean that it didn't - it just means that "The White Man's Law" didn't consider Native Americans as people.
I know that it's hard to comprehend, but you simply can't have it both ways - no matter how much you scrunch up your eyes and pretend.
PS - Just because the Fourteenth Amendment "wasn't considered to" give American citizenship to Native Americans until 1922 that doesn't mean that it didn't - it just means that "The White Man's Law" didn't consider Native Americans as people.
(2)
(0)
SFC Jenaro Arjemi
COL Ted Mc - Sir, it most definite would. It clearly show how out of tough the republican party is that their own members can't see around them what's going on and are opening their mouths because they think that the people are to stupid to see the truth.
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
SFC Jenaro Arjemi - Sergeant; "No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public." - H L Menken (b. 1880)
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
Yeah I could see ending birthright citizenship, it would make running the border less appealing. If a person is going to enter a country they should do it legally. My thing is there are I don't know, however many millions of illegals in this country, its simply not realistic or practical to try and deport them, the cost factor, the logistics and such just wouldn't work out... so we need to give them a way to become TAX paying citizens. We need to hold Mexico more accountable for its side of the border.
(3)
(0)
LCpl Mark Lefler
SCPO Joshua I - there are different ways to grant amnesty and if i recall the first time around was done by reagan.
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
Are they going to start stripping those who were born here and grew up here of their citizenship because they had parents who were illegal? Those who are just as American as anyone who can trace generations back to crossing on a boat? If they do how far back will they go how many citizenships will they try to take going back how far. This is completely unreasonable and inhumane because with out immigration we wouldn't even have a country to call home. What gives you the right to take a home away from people fleeing and fighting for their lives for their families and for their children. What gives you the right to tell someone who is facing violence, famine and disease in the places they come from "sorry you have to go back" How dare you all act so inhuman towards another living breathing soul.
(2)
(0)
SCPO Joshua I
Most of the immigration that built this country was legal immigration, to begin with.
Second, people whose parents crossed illegally with them are deported all the time, including people who were brought here as infants and never knew any other country and don't even speak any language but English. There's no right to live in America for someone who came here illegally. There are many people trying to legally immigrate to the US, what right does someone who did not come here legally have to jump the line?
Emotional arguments appeal to emotional people, but they don't have any logical validity. They're just people crying because they don't like facts, normally.
Second, people whose parents crossed illegally with them are deported all the time, including people who were brought here as infants and never knew any other country and don't even speak any language but English. There's no right to live in America for someone who came here illegally. There are many people trying to legally immigrate to the US, what right does someone who did not come here legally have to jump the line?
Emotional arguments appeal to emotional people, but they don't have any logical validity. They're just people crying because they don't like facts, normally.
(0)
(0)
MCPO Katrina Hutcherson
We don't send them back if they apply for asylum. They will investigate wether it should be granted or denied and only deport them if their asylum case is denied.
(0)
(0)
SPC DV Gio Lozano
In my case I am a child of an illegal immigrant... And from what I am reading in many of your eyes I am not a U.S. Citizen because of it... Even though I was born and raised in the United States and have never known any other place as home... Would you have me shipped off to Mexico simply because I happened to be born to illegal immigrants?
(0)
(0)
SPC DV Gio Lozano
SPC DV Gio Lozano - granted they are naturalized citizens now but that was not the case in the beginning and I am sure there are plenty of military personnel who are in this situation.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
If the United States were to stop granting citizenship by birthright it will be following a global trend. Countries such as Great Britain, Japan, Australia, Germany, Switzerland.... These countries ended jus soli (on the soil) citizenship almost 40 years ago.
(1)
(0)
SSgt Terry P.
CPT (Join to see) As we should have a number of years ago,this is not a new complication.
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
CPT (Join to see) - Captain; No one is arguing that the US COULDN'T do that.
What would, however, be required to do that would be an amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America and not simply "An Act of Congress".
I am not expressing any opinion on whether or not it SHOULD be done - only on the fact that several of the Republican aspirants to the Republican nomination for the position of President of the United States of America appear to be total dunces when it comes to the Constitution that they are going to be swearing to uphold and protect if they get elected.
What would, however, be required to do that would be an amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America and not simply "An Act of Congress".
I am not expressing any opinion on whether or not it SHOULD be done - only on the fact that several of the Republican aspirants to the Republican nomination for the position of President of the United States of America appear to be total dunces when it comes to the Constitution that they are going to be swearing to uphold and protect if they get elected.
(0)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
COL Ted Mc - COL Ted Mc Just showing that it is a global concern not specific to us alone, Sir.
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
CPT (Join to see) - Captain; I am aware that this issue is of concern in other countries and am quite content to let other countries amend their own laws as they see fit according to their own particular circumstances.
Even if it were NOT a concern of other countries, it IS a concern within the United States of America and I am quite content to see the US amend its own laws as it sees fit according to its own particular circumstances.
[PLEASE NOTE:- The first statement above DOES NOT have the concurrence of the US State Department.]
Even if it were NOT a concern of other countries, it IS a concern within the United States of America and I am quite content to see the US amend its own laws as it sees fit according to its own particular circumstances.
[PLEASE NOTE:- The first statement above DOES NOT have the concurrence of the US State Department.]
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
This isn't a "Hispanic" issue. No issue is any "group's" issue. This is an American issue. Anchor babies need to go. They've been a loophole for too long. I know too many people who joined the military for their citizenship. This is not fair to legal immigrants who have to earn their status and can't just get a day pass to have a baby on American soil because they can't just drive across the border.
(1)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
SGT (Join to see) - Corporal; When you say "(Anchor babies) need to go. They've been a loophole for too long." are you aware that the citizenship of children born in the United States of America (regardless of the citizenship of the child's parent[s]) was decided in 1898 https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649 ?
This is NOT a "legal issue" it is a "policy issue".
Those "anchor babies" ARE American citizens and the US government DOES NOT have the right to "deport" (the correct legal term is NOT "deport" it is "exile") them. The US government DOES have the right to deport the child's parents - but then must accept the legal responsibility for rearing the child if the parents do not take the child with them when they are deported.
There is (as far as I know) NO LEGAL RIGHT for the US government to ban ANY US citizen from entering the United States of America - regardless of age, race, gender, religion, criminal record, economic status, or any other factor - even if that US citizen is 100% certain to become a charge on the state.
Quite frankly I'm surprised that no one has actually launched a test case (using someone who was not even old enough to vote) via someone standing 'in loco parentus' to test the US government's POLICY of denying American citizens the right to enter the United States of America on the basis of age and/or economic condition.
By analogy, the US government could "deny" a six year old child of welfare parents who lived on Point Roberts (WA) the "right of return" to the United States of America if that child were with its parents when its parents went to Blaine (WA) by road. [You have to drive through a foreign country to get from Point Roberts to Blaine.]
This is NOT a "legal issue" it is a "policy issue".
Those "anchor babies" ARE American citizens and the US government DOES NOT have the right to "deport" (the correct legal term is NOT "deport" it is "exile") them. The US government DOES have the right to deport the child's parents - but then must accept the legal responsibility for rearing the child if the parents do not take the child with them when they are deported.
There is (as far as I know) NO LEGAL RIGHT for the US government to ban ANY US citizen from entering the United States of America - regardless of age, race, gender, religion, criminal record, economic status, or any other factor - even if that US citizen is 100% certain to become a charge on the state.
Quite frankly I'm surprised that no one has actually launched a test case (using someone who was not even old enough to vote) via someone standing 'in loco parentus' to test the US government's POLICY of denying American citizens the right to enter the United States of America on the basis of age and/or economic condition.
By analogy, the US government could "deny" a six year old child of welfare parents who lived on Point Roberts (WA) the "right of return" to the United States of America if that child were with its parents when its parents went to Blaine (WA) by road. [You have to drive through a foreign country to get from Point Roberts to Blaine.]
United States v. Wong Kim Ark | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
A child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment...
(0)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
Yeah they are citizens. I'm not saying kick them out, but change things so this doesn't happen anymore. When i said they need to go, i meant the policy needs to go. If we were to kick them all out, we would we going against our own law, so we need to change the law so people can't just come here for a day to have a baby and be granted unchecked access. Maybe if the parents are documented visa holders and have been living here for an established amount of time, sure. But all of this "She's in labor, get across the border." And then we just say "Congrats on your baby! Stay as long as you like and we won't even follow up on your status!" That crap needs to be done.
(0)
(0)
Cpl (Join to see)
SGT (Join to see) In my opinion they are not citizens. The colonel et. al. are using an interpretation that doesn't take into account the founders beliefs intimate connection to British common law, which states that British Subjects who bear children on foreign soil are "natural born" and subjects of the British Crown. Since he is going to use the Wong case, read the attached pdf, 359, 360. The court decision was just as bad as Brown Vs the Board of Education. The colonel will admit that the court can be wrong, but not in this case, because it fits into is political ideology. "The Wong Kim Ark Court concluded that under English common law a child COULD BE NATURALIZED per statute, but "natural-born" status remained in the country of birth." What they said was he was natural born but not citizen. He still would have had to declare allegiance to the US through the naturalization process.
http://blogs.gonzaga.edu/gulawreview/files/2011/01/Lohman1.pdf
United States v. Rhodes:
All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution
A valid interpretation includes the defining language of the founders. See William Blackstone, Commentaries...
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_4_citizenships1.html
http://blogs.gonzaga.edu/gulawreview/files/2011/01/Lohman1.pdf
United States v. Rhodes:
All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution
A valid interpretation includes the defining language of the founders. See William Blackstone, Commentaries...
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_4_citizenships1.html
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
Yes but it does play well to their Nativist Base. Unfortunately it will be hard as hell to walk it back come the General Election.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google