"Anchor Babies" - Constitutional Nonsense?

[Flopper]

The fact that you use the PC word "undocumented" tells me a lot about you.

The fact that you use the word 'anchor baby' tells me a lot about you.

Just recently their parents became "anchored" to our country by Obama allowing them to remain here because they have U.S. born kids. Thus the word :"anchor baby" was an ample term all along.

"anchor baby' has always been a pejorative term aimed at American citizens whose only 'offense' was to be born to illegal aliens.

It's only pejorative term according to the pro-illegals like yourself. It's an ample term for the situation. Their parents come here hoping to anchor themselves unto our country by giving birth on our soil. No one is saying their U.S. born kids committed an offense but their parents certainly did. You're just spinning the truth now.

Actually I have seen anti-immigrants on your side call 'anchor babies' 'turds spit out by illegal immigrants'- and yes I have seen anti-immigrants on your side say that the children are illegals also.

Because actually- according to your misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment- if children of illegal aliens are not U.S. Citizens- then they are illegal aliens and committed a crime by being born here.

How does one commit a crime by being born?

 

[Oldglory1]

The fact that you use the word 'anchor baby' tells me a lot about you.

Just recently their parents became "anchored" to our country by Obama allowing them to remain here because they have U.S. born kids. Thus the word :"anchor baby" was an ample term all along.

"anchor baby' has always been a pejorative term aimed at American citizens whose only 'offense' was to be born to illegal aliens.

It's only pejorative term according to the pro-illegals like yourself. It's an ample term for the situation. Their parents come here hoping to anchor themselves unto our country by giving birth on our soil. No one is saying their U.S. born kids committed an offense but their parents certainly did. You're just spinning the truth now.

Actually I have seen anti-immigrants on your side call 'anchor babies' 'turds spit out by illegal immigrants'- and yes I have seen anti-immigrants on your side say that the children are illegals also.

Because actually- according to your misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment- if children of illegal aliens are not U.S. Citizens- then they are illegal aliens and committed a crime by being born here.

How does one commit a crime by being born?

Who said they did?

 

[Unkotare]

Oldgloryhole is still trying to pretend he's a constitutional scholar.

 

[Syriusly]

The fact that you use the word 'anchor baby' tells me a lot about you.

Just recently their parents became "anchored" to our country by Obama allowing them to remain here because they have U.S. born kids. Thus the word :"anchor baby" was an ample term all along.

"anchor baby' has always been a pejorative term aimed at American citizens whose only 'offense' was to be born to illegal aliens.

It's only pejorative term according to the pro-illegals like yourself. It's an ample term for the situation. Their parents come here hoping to anchor themselves unto our country by giving birth on our soil. No one is saying their U.S. born kids committed an offense but their parents certainly did. You're just spinning the truth now.

Actually I have seen anti-immigrants on your side call 'anchor babies' 'turds spit out by illegal immigrants'- and yes I have seen anti-immigrants on your side say that the children are illegals also.

Because actually- according to your misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment- if children of illegal aliens are not U.S. Citizens- then they are illegal aliens and committed a crime by being born here.

How does one commit a crime by being born?

LOL- well if they are not born citizens when they are born in the United States- and they are not the children of diplomats- clearly they would be entering the country without valid authorization.....

 

[Syriusly]

What hard evidence do we have that changing our birthright law which is in the constitution will reduce illegal immigration? There is much anecdotal evidence but what real evidence do we have. If we're going to change the constitution which would effect every parent having children now and in the future and every child who grows up without citizenship certification, every states birth laws and citizenship laws, as well as a number of federal statues and federal regulations we better have damn good evidence that the change will substantial reduce illegal immigration. That evidence just doesn't exist.

The only way to get "real" evidence is to institute the policy. Everything else is conjecture.

Mark

Why would we institute a policy based upon conjecture that you have no evidence to support?

Then why pass any law? I mean, until we actually lower the speed limit on a stretch of road, we cannot actually prove it will reduce accidents.

Mark

If you lower the speed limit on a road and it doesn't reduce accidents, then change the speed limit sign. Changing the constitution and laws in all the states is not that simple and it will impact millions of parents and children.

What if it impacts American citizens for the better?

Mark

What if it doesn't?

 

[Syriusly]

No, the Supreme Court has made no such ruling. .

I can keep reposting the specific quote from the Supreme Court as many times as needed.

Well the Supreme Court has actually specifically commented on the term 'jurisdiction' in regards to the 14th Amendment and illegal aliens.

Use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" thus does not detract from, but rather confirms, the understanding that the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's territory. That a person's initial entry into a State, or into the United States, was unlawful, and that he may for that reason be expelled, cannot negate the simple fact of his presence within the State's territorial perimeter. Given such presence, he is subject to the full range of obligations imposed by the State's civil and criminal laws. And until he leaves the jurisdiction -- either voluntarily, or involuntarily in accordance with the Constitution and laws of the United States -- he is entitled to the equal protection of the laws that a State may choose to establish.

While you argue that the Supreme Court has not specifically addressed the issue of the children of illegal aliens born in the United States, the Supreme Court has specifically addressed the only argument you have made- you claim that illegal aliens are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States- the Supreme Court has specifically said illegal aliens are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

Given that- are you ready to concede that your argument is either with:
a) the language of the 14th Amendment itself or
b) the analysis of the Supreme Court starting with Wong Kim Ark continuing onto Plyler v. Doe?

I note you didn't include a link to this so-called clarification of the 14th by the Supreme Court. Doesn't matter anyway, as I said we are not going to agree so why not move forward and push for legislation to put a stop to this nonsense? Apparently, you don't want that but instead want to continue to beat a dead horse to death. Why is that?

This will be my last reply to you unless you start addressing what should be done moving forward on this issue. So don't waste your time posting the same old stuff over and over to me.

then stop replying to me. You stopped making substantive replies ever since I pointed out to you that the Supreme Court has ruled on 'jurisdiction' and illegal aliens.

Well the Supreme Court has actually specifically commented on the term 'jurisdiction' in regards to the 14th Amendment and illegal aliens.

Use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" thus does not detract from, but rather confirms, the understanding that the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's territory. That a person's initial entry into a State, or into the United States, was unlawful, and that he may for that reason be expelled, cannot negate the simple fact of his presence within the State's territorial perimeter. Given such presence, he is subject to the full range of obligations imposed by the State's civil and criminal laws. And until he leaves the jurisdiction -- either voluntarily, or involuntarily in accordance with the Constitution and laws of the United States -- he is entitled to the equal protection of the laws that a State may choose to establish.

While you argue that the Supreme Court has not specifically addressed the issue of the children of illegal aliens born in the United States, the Supreme Court has specifically addressed the only argument you have made- you claim that illegal aliens are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States- the Supreme Court has specifically said illegal aliens are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

Given that- are you ready to concede that your argument is either with:
a) the language of the 14th Amendment itself or
b) the analysis of the Supreme Court starting with Wong Kim Ark continuing onto Plyler v. Doe?

Ok, so you are going to continue with this even though I said we will have to agree to disagree on the intent of the 14th? I asked you to move forward and join our movement to end this nonsense and you refuse to even address that. So I have no other alternative but to ignore you from now on.

As I said before- if you don't want to be confronted by the facts, all you have to do is stop responding.

Clearly you are not willing to discuss the very substantive issue you claimed to care about in the first place.

You were the one who claimed that illegal aliens are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

But when I pointed out that the Supreme Court has specifically said that they are- suddenly you don't want to talk about the 14th Amendment anymore.

Use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" thus does not detract from, but rather confirms, the understanding that the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's territory. That a person's initial entry into a State, or into the United States, was unlawful, and that he may for that reason be expelled, cannot negate the simple fact of his presence within the State's territorial perimeter. Given such presence, he is subject to the full range of obligations imposed by the State's civil and criminal laws. And until he leaves the jurisdiction -- either voluntarily, or involuntarily in accordance with the Constitution and laws of the United States -- he is entitled to the equal protection of the laws that a State may choose to establish.

Feel free to post whatever anti-immigration stuff you want.

You just aren't able to argue that the 14th Amendment supports your claims.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Denying American citizens their citizenship solely as a consequence of their parents' alleged immigration status would not only violate the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment, it would also violate the Amendment's Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses; that an immigrant is undocumented doesn't mean he's 'illegal,' as undocumented immigrants are entitled to due process of the law, where one is not 'illegal' until such time as that is determined in a court of law. Indeed, an undocumented immigrant might be eligible for legal status as a refugee. And to deny the child born of an undocumented immigrant his citizenship before his parents' status is determined in a court of law would violate the child's due process rights.

Moreover, to seek to disadvantage US citizens only because of their parents' undetermined immigration status would violate the equal protection rights of those citizen children by attempting to deny them their citizenship rights absent a rational basis, without documented evidence in support, and devoid of a proper legislative end; to so disadvantage American citizens is motivated only as a consequence of animus toward these citizens.

 

[80zephyr]

The only way to get "real" evidence is to institute the policy. Everything else is conjecture.

Mark

Why would we institute a policy based upon conjecture that you have no evidence to support?

Then why pass any law? I mean, until we actually lower the speed limit on a stretch of road, we cannot actually prove it will reduce accidents.

Mark

If you lower the speed limit on a road and it doesn't reduce accidents, then change the speed limit sign. Changing the constitution and laws in all the states is not that simple and it will impact millions of parents and children.

What if it impacts American citizens for the better?

Mark

What if it doesn't?

That's my point. Flopper seems to believe it will only impact the illegals. It might make it better for our own citizens as well, and he should consider it when making any point about the impact of the decision.

Mark

 

[Oldglory1]

Why would we institute a policy based upon conjecture that you have no evidence to support?

Then why pass any law? I mean, until we actually lower the speed limit on a stretch of road, we cannot actually prove it will reduce accidents.

Mark

If you lower the speed limit on a road and it doesn't reduce accidents, then change the speed limit sign. Changing the constitution and laws in all the states is not that simple and it will impact millions of parents and children.

What if it impacts American citizens for the better?

Mark

What if it doesn't?

That's my point. Flopper seems to believe it will only impact the illegals. It might make it better for our own citizens as well, and he should consider it when making any point about the impact of the decision.

Mark

Who cares if it impacts illegals anyway? Of course re-interpreting the law would be better for our own citizens. First off it would be less of an incentive for illegals to come here hoping to anchor themselves unto our country via giving birth on our soil. Second, there would be less drain on our tax coffers, less crowded schools and healthcare facilities. and all the other associated costs with a larger population.

 

[Oldglory1]

Denying American citizens their citizenship solely as a consequence of their parents' alleged immigration status would not only violate the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment, it would also violate the Amendment's Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses; that an immigrant is undocumented doesn't mean he's 'illegal,' as undocumented immigrants are entitled to due process of the law, where one is not 'illegal' until such time as that is determined in a court of law. Indeed, an undocumented immigrant might be eligible for legal status as a refugee. And to deny the child born of an undocumented immigrant his citizenship before his parents' status is determined in a court of law would violate the child's due process rights.

Moreover, to seek to disadvantage US citizens only because of their parents' undetermined immigration status would violate the equal protection rights of those citizen children by attempting to deny them their citizenship rights absent a rational basis, without documented evidence in support, and devoid of a proper legislative end; to so disadvantage American citizens is motivated only as a consequence of animus toward these citizens.

You're grasping at straws here. Whether or not one has due process if one is in this country illegally yes they are an illegal alien. There is nothing in the 14th that grants children of illegal aliens birthright citizenship. In fact it is clear that is doesn't. There is no such lingo in our immigration laws for a category called "undocumented immigrant". It is just a made up PC term by the pro-illegals.

Now, since you're another one that I don't agree with on the 14th's intent are willing to at least join the movement to push legislation that will require that at least one parent be a citizen or legal resident of our county in order for their newborn to gain birthright citizenship?

 

[Syriusly]

Denying American citizens their citizenship solely as a consequence of their parents' alleged immigration status would not only violate the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment, it would also violate the Amendment's Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses; that an immigrant is undocumented doesn't mean he's 'illegal,' as undocumented immigrants are entitled to due process of the law, where one is not 'illegal' until such time as that is determined in a court of law. Indeed, an undocumented immigrant might be eligible for legal status as a refugee. And to deny the child born of an undocumented immigrant his citizenship before his parents' status is determined in a court of law would violate the child's due process rights.

Moreover, to seek to disadvantage US citizens only because of their parents' undetermined immigration status would violate the equal protection rights of those citizen children by attempting to deny them their citizenship rights absent a rational basis, without documented evidence in support, and devoid of a proper legislative end; to so disadvantage American citizens is motivated only as a consequence of animus toward these citizens.

You're grasping at straws here. Whether or not one has due process if one is in this country illegally yes they are an illegal alien. There is nothing in the 14th that grants children of illegal aliens birthright citizenship. In fact it is clear that is doesn't.

Actually there is nothing in the 14th Amendment which excludes illegal aliens from birthright citizenship.

The language is quite clear. Anyone born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States is a citizen.

And the Supreme Court already said that illegal aliens are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States in Pyler.

Use of the phrase "within its jurisdiction" thus does not detract from, but rather confirms, the understanding that the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State, and reaches into every corner of a State's territory. That a person's initial entry into a State, or into the United States, was unlawful, and that he may for that reason be expelled, cannot negate the simple fact of his presence within the State's territorial perimeter. Given such presence, he is subject to the full range of obligations imposed by the State's civil and criminal laws. And until he leaves the jurisdiction -- either voluntarily, or involuntarily in accordance with the Constitution and laws of the United States -- he is entitled to the equal protection of the laws that a State may choose to establish.

 

[Syriusly]

Why would we institute a policy based upon conjecture that you have no evidence to support?

Then why pass any law? I mean, until we actually lower the speed limit on a stretch of road, we cannot actually prove it will reduce accidents.

Mark

If you lower the speed limit on a road and it doesn't reduce accidents, then change the speed limit sign. Changing the constitution and laws in all the states is not that simple and it will impact millions of parents and children.

What if it impacts American citizens for the better?

Mark

What if it doesn't?

That's my point. Flopper seems to believe it will only impact the illegals. It might make it better for our own citizens as well, and he should consider it when making any point about the impact of the decision.

Mark

It might be better for our citizens- and it might be worse for our citizens. And both should be considered when making any decision before changing the Constitution.

 

[80zephyr]

Then why pass any law? I mean, until we actually lower the speed limit on a stretch of road, we cannot actually prove it will reduce accidents.

Mark

If you lower the speed limit on a road and it doesn't reduce accidents, then change the speed limit sign. Changing the constitution and laws in all the states is not that simple and it will impact millions of parents and children.

What if it impacts American citizens for the better?

Mark

What if it doesn't?

That's my point. Flopper seems to believe it will only impact the illegals. It might make it better for our own citizens as well, and he should consider it when making any point about the impact of the decision.

Mark

It might be better for our citizens- and it might be worse for our citizens. And both should be considered when making any decision before changing the Constitution.

Having the ability to DECIDE which and when people become citizens couldn't be anything but a plus for our country. It sure beats hell outta having it decided for us.

Mark

 

[Syriusly]

If you lower the speed limit on a road and it doesn't reduce accidents, then change the speed limit sign. Changing the constitution and laws in all the states is not that simple and it will impact millions of parents and children.

What if it impacts American citizens for the better?

Mark

What if it doesn't?

That's my point. Flopper seems to believe it will only impact the illegals. It might make it better for our own citizens as well, and he should consider it when making any point about the impact of the decision.

Mark

It might be better for our citizens- and it might be worse for our citizens. And both should be considered when making any decision before changing the Constitution.

Having the ability to DECIDE which and when people become citizens couldn't be anything but a plus for our country. It sure beats hell outta having it decided for us.

Mark

We - meaning the people of the United States- did decide when the 14th Amendment became law.

If we- meaning the people of the United States- want to change that- then of course that is our perogative.

 

[Flopper]

Just recently their parents became "anchored" to our country by Obama allowing them to remain here because they have U.S. born kids. Thus the word :"anchor baby" was an ample term all along.

"anchor baby' has always been a pejorative term aimed at American citizens whose only 'offense' was to be born to illegal aliens.

It's only pejorative term according to the pro-illegals like yourself. It's an ample term for the situation. Their parents come here hoping to anchor themselves unto our country by giving birth on our soil. No one is saying their U.S. born kids committed an offense but their parents certainly did. You're just spinning the truth now.

Actually I have seen anti-immigrants on your side call 'anchor babies' 'turds spit out by illegal immigrants'- and yes I have seen anti-immigrants on your side say that the children are illegals also.

Because actually- according to your misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment- if children of illegal aliens are not U.S. Citizens- then they are illegal aliens and committed a crime by being born here.

How does one commit a crime by being born?

LOL- well if they are not born citizens when they are born in the United States- and they are not the children of diplomats- clearly they would be entering the country without valid authorization.....

My point is you can't commit a crime by being born. For the child, it is a passive event beyond the child's control. After birth, the child is technical committing a crime by living here. However, whether that crime can be prosecuted depends on the age of responsibility which varies with the crime and the state.

One thing many people ignore is the legal complexity of deportation. In order to deport a person, the receiving country must be willing to accept the person. Since the United States has extradition treaties will almost all countries, it's not usually a problem.

However, children present a problem. No country will accept deported young children without parents or a guardian to care for them which means someone has to locate such a person. If no one can be found the receiving country has to make the child a ward of the state before they can be deported. If the child claims that they are a victim of human trafficking or other acts covered by US laws, then the court has to make a decision on the validity of the claim. In the case of the thousands of children who have crossed our southern boarder, many of these are not from Mexico, so the deportation has to occur between the US an the child's country, not Mexico. The time, the cost, and legal hoops of deporting children without the family means that most of these kids will remain in the US indefinitely. This is just one the problems that needs to be addressed by immigration reform.

 

[Syriusly]

"anchor baby' has always been a pejorative term aimed at American citizens whose only 'offense' was to be born to illegal aliens.

It's only pejorative term according to the pro-illegals like yourself. It's an ample term for the situation. Their parents come here hoping to anchor themselves unto our country by giving birth on our soil. No one is saying their U.S. born kids committed an offense but their parents certainly did. You're just spinning the truth now.

Actually I have seen anti-immigrants on your side call 'anchor babies' 'turds spit out by illegal immigrants'- and yes I have seen anti-immigrants on your side say that the children are illegals also.

Because actually- according to your misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment- if children of illegal aliens are not U.S. Citizens- then they are illegal aliens and committed a crime by being born here.

How does one commit a crime by being born?

LOL- well if they are not born citizens when they are born in the United States- and they are not the children of diplomats- clearly they would be entering the country without valid authorization.....

My point is you can't commit a crime by being born. For the child, it is a passive event beyond the child's control. After birth, the child is technical committing a crime by living here. However, whether that crime can be prosecuted depends on the age of responsibility which varies with the crime and the state..

Yeah- my post was mostly intended to tweak the noses of those who insist that the children born of illegal aliens in the United States somehow are differently legally than the children of legal aliens born in the United States.

Note- not a single one of these 'defenders of the 14th Amendment' will even attempt to explain how children born in this country to aliens are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?

Notice how not one of them attempted to address the Supreme Court's clear enunciation that illegal aliens in this country are indeed subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

Dred Scott was one of the worst Supreme Court decisions ever made- but I don't think anyone tried to pretend that the United States could just ignore what the Supreme Court decided. Instead our country passed an amendment to in effect overrule Dred Scott.

If those folks don't like the 14th Amendment- then the amendment process is there for them to pursue.

 

[Flopper]

Denying American citizens their citizenship solely as a consequence of their parents' alleged immigration status would not only violate the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment, it would also violate the Amendment's Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses; that an immigrant is undocumented doesn't mean he's 'illegal,' as undocumented immigrants are entitled to due process of the law, where one is not 'illegal' until such time as that is determined in a court of law. Indeed, an undocumented immigrant might be eligible for legal status as a refugee. And to deny the child born of an undocumented immigrant his citizenship before his parents' status is determined in a court of law would violate the child's due process rights.

Moreover, to seek to disadvantage US citizens only because of their parents' undetermined immigration status would violate the equal protection rights of those citizen children by attempting to deny them their citizenship rights absent a rational basis, without documented evidence in support, and devoid of a proper legislative end; to so disadvantage American citizens is motivated only as a consequence of animus toward these citizens.

You're grasping at straws here. Whether or not one has due process if one is in this country illegally yes they are an illegal alien. There is nothing in the 14th that grants children of illegal aliens birthright citizenship. In fact it is clear that is doesn't. There is no such lingo in our immigration laws for a category called "undocumented immigrant". It is just a made up PC term by the pro-illegals.

Now, since you're another one that I don't agree with on the 14th's intent are willing to at least join the movement to push legislation that will require that at least one parent be a citizen or legal resident of our county in order for their newborn to gain birthright citizenship?

By denying citizenship and making them illegal, you will not be stopping the birth of these kids. You will just be producing more illegal residents which means higher crime rates, poverty, and increasing numbers undocumented kids.

 

[Oldglory1]

Denying American citizens their citizenship solely as a consequence of their parents' alleged immigration status would not only violate the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment, it would also violate the Amendment's Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses; that an immigrant is undocumented doesn't mean he's 'illegal,' as undocumented immigrants are entitled to due process of the law, where one is not 'illegal' until such time as that is determined in a court of law. Indeed, an undocumented immigrant might be eligible for legal status as a refugee. And to deny the child born of an undocumented immigrant his citizenship before his parents' status is determined in a court of law would violate the child's due process rights.

Moreover, to seek to disadvantage US citizens only because of their parents' undetermined immigration status would violate the equal protection rights of those citizen children by attempting to deny them their citizenship rights absent a rational basis, without documented evidence in support, and devoid of a proper legislative end; to so disadvantage American citizens is motivated only as a consequence of animus toward these citizens.

You're grasping at straws here. Whether or not one has due process if one is in this country illegally yes they are an illegal alien. There is nothing in the 14th that grants children of illegal aliens birthright citizenship. In fact it is clear that is doesn't. There is no such lingo in our immigration laws for a category called "undocumented immigrant". It is just a made up PC term by the pro-illegals.

Now, since you're another one that I don't agree with on the 14th's intent are willing to at least join the movement to push legislation that will require that at least one parent be a citizen or legal resident of our county in order for their newborn to gain birthright citizenship?

By denying citizenship and making them illegal, you will not be stopping the birth of these kids. You will just be producing more illegal residents which means higher crime rates, poverty, and increasing numbers undocumented kids.

They should be deported right along with their parents. Denying them citizenship will have the opposite affect as you are claiming because it will be one incentive removed to come here illegally in the fist place. There is no denying that.

 

[80zephyr]

What if it impacts American citizens for the better?

Mark

What if it doesn't?

That's my point. Flopper seems to believe it will only impact the illegals. It might make it better for our own citizens as well, and he should consider it when making any point about the impact of the decision.

Mark

It might be better for our citizens- and it might be worse for our citizens. And both should be considered when making any decision before changing the Constitution.

Having the ability to DECIDE which and when people become citizens couldn't be anything but a plus for our country. It sure beats hell outta having it decided for us.

Mark

We - meaning the people of the United States- did decide when the 14th Amendment became law.

If we- meaning the people of the United States- want to change that- then of course that is our perogative.

As stated before, I question your interpretation. For years, the right to bear arms was interpreted differently than it was than it was recently. Campaign financing fell the same way, as did eminent domain. I really see no reason to change something that already denies birthright citizenship. As you have stated often enough, you believe the "plain language" of the Amendment should control. And like I have stated before, Jefferson believed otherwise:

"On every question of construction, let us carry ourselves back to the
time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested
in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out
of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in
which it was passed."
Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The
Complete Jefferson, p. 322.

I tend to agree with Jefferson. Instead of twisting intent, lets apply the law as it was meant to be applied.

Mark

 

[Syriusly]

What if it doesn't?

That's my point. Flopper seems to believe it will only impact the illegals. It might make it better for our own citizens as well, and he should consider it when making any point about the impact of the decision.

Mark

It might be better for our citizens- and it might be worse for our citizens. And both should be considered when making any decision before changing the Constitution.

Having the ability to DECIDE which and when people become citizens couldn't be anything but a plus for our country. It sure beats hell outta having it decided for us.

Mark

We - meaning the people of the United States- did decide when the 14th Amendment became law.

If we- meaning the people of the United States- want to change that- then of course that is our perogative.

As stated before, I question your interpretation. For years, the right to bear arms was interpreted differently than it was than it was recently. Campaign financing fell the same way, as did eminent domain. I really see no reason to change something that already denies birthright citizenship. As you have stated often enough, you believe the "plain language" of the Amendment should control. And like I have stated before, Jefferson believed otherwise:

"On every question of construction, let us carry ourselves back to the
time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested
in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out
of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in
which it was passed."
Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The
Complete Jefferson, p. 322.

I tend to agree with Jefferson. Instead of twisting intent, lets apply the law as it was meant to be applied.

Mark

And ignore the language.

Which means use whichever interpretation fits the whimsy of the current political atmosphere.

The only question in the 14th Amendment is whether or not illegal aliens fall within the jurisdiction of the United States.

And the Supreme Court has already ruled that they do.

In order to argue for going for 'original intent' - you have to actually ignore what the 14th Amendment says.

And once you do that, anyone can argue it means anything.