WHY 14TH Amendment MUST BE APPEALED.

[Bern80]

How is it that immigrants legal or not are the cause of all things bad and awful? In the current economic situation no one mentions corporate outsourcing or manufacturing in third world nations, no one mentions the incredible war bill. It is always some people who are the reason.


"Hell is other people." Jean-Paul Sartre

Definition of a strawman argument: see above.

 

[JakeStarkey]

It doesn't need to be repealed, just followed. The 14th ammedment; Section 1 says:



Since illegal aliens are not under the jurisdiction of the United States (because they aren't citizens) then nor are their babies, even if born on U.S. soil.

The kook approach from Bern80. Sorry, kiddo, that is not true. All people are subject to due process and equal protection who live in the U.S. that's the way it, and it will never change.

Really? Kinda makes ya wonder why we make people jump through a bunch of hoops to become citizens if they're already entitled to all of those privelidges anyway by the mere act of being within our borders doesn't it?

Definition of a non sequitur: see above. So let's try again. Due process and equal protection are guaranteed to all who are subject to the law. That is what you can't contradict.

And Nosmo King tore your argument a part.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Hey LilOlLady (or as I like to call you, Big Old *****)........are you a graduate of the Sarah Palin Refudiate school?

FYI, dictionary.com is your friend..........

ap·peal  /əˈpil/ Show Spelled[uh-peel] Show IPA
–noun
1.an earnest request for aid, support, sympathy, mercy, etc.; entreaty; petition; plea.

2.a request or reference to some person or authority for a decision, corroboration, judgment, etc.

3.Law .
a.an application or proceeding for review by a higher tribunal.
b.(in a legislative body or assembly) a formal question as to the correctness of a ruling by a presiding officer.
c.Obsolete . a formal charge or accusation.

4.the power or ability to attract, interest, amuse, or stimulate the mind or emotions: The game has lost its appeal.

5.Obsolete . a summons or challenge.
–verb (used without object)

6.to ask for aid, support, mercy, sympathy, or the like; make an earnest entreaty: The college appealed to its alumni for funds.

7.Law . to apply for review of a case or particular issue to a higher tribunal.

8.to have need of or ask for proof, a decision, corroboration, etc.

9.to be especially attractive, pleasing, interesting, or enjoyable: The red hat appeals to me.
–verb (used with object)

10.Law .
a.to apply for review of (a case) to a higher tribunal.
b.Obsolete . to charge with a crime before a tribunal.
—Idiom

11.appeal to the country, British . country ( def. 16 ) .
Use appealed in a Sentence
See images of appealed
Search appealed on the Web
Origin:

I think this is the word you were looking for.......

re·peal
   /rɪˈpil/ Show Spelled[ri-peel] Show IPA
–verb (used with object)
1.to revoke or withdraw formally or officially: to repeal a grant.
2.to revoke or annul (a law, tax, duty, etc.) by express legislative enactment; abrogate.
–noun
3.the act of repealing; revocation; abrogation.

Or.........do you need to "refudiate" these definitions?

 

[Bern80]

The kook approach from Bern80. Sorry, kiddo, that is not true. All people are subject to due process and equal protection who live in the U.S. that's the way it, and it will never change.

Really? Kinda makes ya wonder why we make people jump through a bunch of hoops to become citizens if they're already entitled to all of those privelidges anyway by the mere act of being within our borders doesn't it?

Definition of a non sequitur: see above. So let's try again. Due process and equal protection are guaranteed to all who are subject to the law. That is what you can't contradict.

And Nosmo King tore your argument a part.

Okay. I'm inclined to agree that illegal aliens have equal protection under the 14th. The question of the OP I believe however is whether it really grants citizenship to anyone born within our borders regardless of whether the parent is a citizen or not.

 

[LilOlLady]

You mean 'repealed', don't you? Amendments can't be appealed, they're the basic law of the land, like the rest of the Constitution.

No, I think amended would be a better choice.

 

[LilOlLady]

Reasons for repeal; abuse, fraud, cost.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Really? Kinda makes ya wonder why we make people jump through a bunch of hoops to become citizens if they're already entitled to all of those privelidges anyway by the mere act of being within our borders doesn't it?

Definition of a non sequitur: see above. So let's try again. Due process and equal protection are guaranteed to all who are subject to the law. That is what you can't contradict.

And Nosmo King tore your argument a part.

Okay. I'm inclined to agree that illegal aliens have equal protection under the 14th. The question of the OP I believe however is whether it really grants citizen ship to anyone born within our borders regardless of whether the parent is a citizen or not.

The real issue, I think, for those who deny automatic citizenship to "anchor babies" is that since illegal parents are officially domiciled in the mother country while illegally in the U.S. Thus, children of illegal parents fall under the citizenship of the parents' mother country. The argument is political.

One reason why it will never happen is political as well. Background: 48mm Latinos with 19.8mm voters are the largest minority voting block in the country. In this year alone, they make up more than 10% of the electorate in nine states. And their numbers grow quickly every year. Thus, if any party seriously tries to impair the citizenship of the children, the adult voters will retaliate at the polls.

A second reason exists as well: the Supreme Court. The Court, with the exception of Clarence Thomas, believes in precedence; Scalia is in the group of eight. The Court will uphold Wong Kim Ark (1889).

 

[Madeline]

WHY 14TH Amendment MUST BE REPEALED.

14th Amendment must be appeal before any kind of reform is thought about, because it alone is bankrupting this country. Anchor babies can and do collect welfare, food stamps, Medicaid, public housing assistance and their parents, who are in this country illegally benefit through them. Anchor babies qualify on their parent income and since they are low income earners they qualify. (at the expense of the American tax payers)

Illegal Aliens Get Millions In Monthly Welfare Checks

On the verge of going bankrupt with an astounding $26.3 billion deficit, the nation’s most populous state is considering saving hundreds of millions of dollars annually by cutting monthly welfare payments to illegal immigrants.
An example of who the state cuts the monthly checks to is an unemployed 43-year-old illegal immigrant from Mexico who gets $650 a month for each of her four children and about $500 in federal food stamps and other vouchers.
Its still chump change compared to what the state spends—between $4 billion and $6 billion annually—on schools, jails and hospitals for illegal immigrants. That doesn’t even include other local government costs such as police and fire, road maintenance and other public services. Illegal Aliens Get Millions In Monthly Welfare Checks | Judicial Watch

You're a good-hearted woman, LilOlLady, but no, we do not need to repeal the 14th Amendment. This is bedrock American Civil Rights law and without it, you and I would not be legally entitled to jobs, education or professional licenses.

Baby, bathwater.....'nuff said.

 

[editec]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrzMhU_4m-g[/ame]

 

[midcan5]

How is it that immigrants legal or not are the cause of all things bad and awful? In the current economic situation no one mentions corporate outsourcing or manufacturing in third world nations, no one mentions the incredible war bill. It is always some people who are the reason.


"Hell is other people." Jean-Paul Sartre

Definition of a strawman argument: see above.

So a lack of work/jobs and wasteful spending are irrelevant to the current political zeitgeist? I guess that is why you can believe as you do in the tooth fairy.

Weird how immigrants only become an issue when a 'source' of trouble is required to distract from real causes.


"...[O]nce society and politics are transformed by market capitalism, and democratic institutions are in place, the outlook fundamentally changes. Now the inequalities in resources that market-capitalism churns out produce serious political inequalities among citizens.

Whether and how the marriage of polyarchal democracy to market-capitalism can be made more favorable to the further democratization of polyarchy is a profoundly difficult question for which there are no easy answers, and certainly no brief ones. The relation between a country's democratic political system and its nondemocratic economic system has presented a formidable and persistent challenge to democratic goals and practices throughout the twentieth century. That challenge will surely continue in the twenty-first century." Robert A. Dahl

 

[pinqy]

It doesn't need to be repealed, just followed. The 14th ammedment; Section 1 says:

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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Since illegal aliens are not under the jurisdiction of the United States (because they aren't citizens) then nor are their babies, even if born on U.S. soil.

Illegal aliens are not under US jurisdiction? Seriously? You realize that means they can't be arrested or tried for any crimes then? The "under the jurisdiction" clause refers to diplomats etc. If an ambassador or other foreign government representative who enjoys diplomatic immunity has a child on US soil, then that child does not gain US citizenship at birth. The Supreme court has covered that and that's the only exception to being born on US soil.

Edited to add: I forgot the other two exceptions to US jurisdiciton. Children born to foreign occupiers/invaders, and Indians born on a reservation under tribal law.

 

[Bern80]

Definition of a non sequitur: see above. So let's try again. Due process and equal protection are guaranteed to all who are subject to the law. That is what you can't contradict.

And Nosmo King tore your argument a part.

Okay. I'm inclined to agree that illegal aliens have equal protection under the 14th. The question of the OP I believe however is whether it really grants citizen ship to anyone born within our borders regardless of whether the parent is a citizen or not.

The real issue, I think, for those who deny automatic citizenship to "anchor babies" is that since illegal parents are officially domiciled in the mother country while illegally in the U.S. Thus, children of illegal parents fall under the citizenship of the parents' mother country. The argument is political.

One reason why it will never happen is political as well. Background: 48mm Latinos with 19.8mm voters are the largest minority voting block in the country. In this year alone, they make up more than 10% of the electorate in nine states. And their numbers grow quickly every year. Thus, if any party seriously tries to impair the citizenship of the children, the adult voters will retaliate at the polls.

A second reason exists as well: the Supreme Court. The Court, with the exception of Clarence Thomas, believes in precedence; Scalia is in the group of eight. The Court will uphold Wong Kim Ark (1889).

It seems the court has taken these on a case by case basis. Wong's child was granted citizenship upon birth, even though his parents were not citizens, not simply beause his parents were within U.S. borders, but because Mr. Wong spent the bulk of his time in the U.S. on business he was thus under it's jurisdiction. Found this rather interesting article on the subject

WALPIN: 14th Amendment never meant for illegals - Washington Times

It is implied by the Wong case that citizenship to illegal aliens is not a black and white issue. It seems implied that while Wong's child was granted citizenship, another illegal should not expect to jump the fence, pop out a kid and expect the child to considered a U.S. citizen.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yes, the argument is quite clear. Whether it's quite convincing is another matter. Almost 20% of the population in my area is Latino. I don't know about other areas and districts, but here, when it comes to Latino interests, they vote solidly regardless of party affiliation in favor of their own perceived interests. That is certainly acting American.

 

[konradv]

It doesn't need to be repealed, just followed. The 14th ammedment; Section 1 says:

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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Since illegal aliens are not under the jurisdiction of the United States (because they aren't citizens) then nor are their babies, even if born on U.S. soil.

But it says, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States". You don't have to be a citizen to be "under the jurisdiction of the United States". Alien residents have to pay income tax and obey the laws, don't they? Sounds like jurisdiction to me.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Of course aliens are under the jurisdiction of the state and federal laws. To think otherwise makes reason stare.

 

[Liability]

It doesn't need to be repealed, just followed. The 14th ammedment; Section 1 says:

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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Since illegal aliens are not under the jurisdiction of the United States (because they aren't citizens) then nor are their babies, even if born on U.S. soil.

But it says, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States". You don't have to be a citizen to be "under the jurisdiction of the United States". Alien residents have to pay income tax and obey the laws, don't they? Sounds like jurisdiction to me.

Actually what it SAYS is: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof * * * *"

One may be born here and not subject to its jurisdiction. For example, the child of an ambassador.

But the question is whether (or not) anybody else can be born here and yet not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. And again, the answer is: yes and no.

In SOME ways it is necessarily true that everyone here (other than a diplomat) IS subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Even an illegal alien, for example, is not free to commit an armed robbery by claiming that our laws don't control him. Yes, they do. So, in THAT small way, the illegal alien IS subject to our jurisdiction.

But there are other ways in which an illegal alien may NOT be subject to OUR jurisdiction.
Although it is contrary to the anchor baby philosophy, it has been said that the child of an alien who still owes allegiance to the foreign power is not one subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

Others have said that the meaning is that anyone who does not owe FULL allegiance to the United States is not a person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. In other words, subject to the jurisdiction means FULLY subject to that jurisdiction.

For an interesting article on these notions, the following link is pretty good: What 'Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof' Really Means

 

[LilOlLady]

WHY 14TH Amendment MUST BE REPEALED.

14th Amendment must be appeal before any kind of reform is thought about, because it alone is bankrupting this country. Anchor babies can and do collect welfare, food stamps, Medicaid, public housing assistance and their parents, who are in this country illegally benefit through them. Anchor babies qualify on their parent income and since they are low income earners they qualify. (at the expense of the American tax payers)

Illegal Aliens Get Millions In Monthly Welfare Checks

On the verge of going bankrupt with an astounding $26.3 billion deficit, the nation’s most populous state is considering saving hundreds of millions of dollars annually by cutting monthly welfare payments to illegal immigrants.
An example of who the state cuts the monthly checks to is an unemployed 43-year-old illegal immigrant from Mexico who gets $650 a month for each of her four children and about $500 in federal food stamps and other vouchers.
Its still chump change compared to what the state spends—between $4 billion and $6 billion annually—on schools, jails and hospitals for illegal immigrants. That doesn’t even include other local government costs such as police and fire, road maintenance and other public services. Illegal Aliens Get Millions In Monthly Welfare Checks | Judicial Watch

You're a good-hearted woman, LilOlLady, but no, we do not need to repeal the 14th Amendment. This is bedrock American Civil Rights law and without it, you and I would not be legally entitled to jobs, education or professional licenses.

Baby, bathwater.....'nuff said.

Entire Amendments are seldom amended. Only the part that define citizenship need repealing or amending.

Protects rights against state infringements, defines citizenship, prohibits states from interfering with privileges and immunities, requires due process and equal protection, punishes states for denying vote, and disqualifies Confederate officials and debts.

 

[LilOlLady]

It doesn't need to be repealed, just followed. The 14th ammedment; Section 1 says:

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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Since illegal aliens are not under the jurisdiction of the United States (because they aren't citizens) then nor are their babies, even if born on U.S. soil.

But it says, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States". You don't have to be a citizen to be "under the jurisdiction of the United States". Alien residents have to pay income tax and obey the laws, don't they? Sounds like jurisdiction to me.

What 'Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof' Really Means
By P.A. Madison on September 22, 2007


Who are the subjects of a foreign power? Thomas Jefferson said “Aliens are the subjects of a foreign power.” Thus, the statute can be read as “All persons born in the United States who are not aliens, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.”

The 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.

House Report No. 784, dated June 22, 1874, stated, “The United States have not recognized a double allegiance. By our law a citizen is bound to be ‘true and faithful’ alone to our government.” There is no way in the world anyone can claim “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” affirms the feudal common law doctrine of birth citizenship to aliens because such doctrine by operation creates a “double allegiance” between separate nations
What 'Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof' Really Means




Citizenship is not determined on how much taxes you pay. Illegal aliens obeying the law is quiet questionable.

 

[LilOlLady]

14th Amendment Doesn't Make Illegal Aliens' Children Citizens
The Constitution doesn't guarantee birthright citizenship
By Matthew Spalding
Posted: August 30, 2010
Naturalization—the idea of a foreigner becoming an equal citizen as if by nature—follows directly from America's political principles. Individuals have a natural right to emigrate from their homeland, but they may only immigrate to this country with the consent of the American people as expressed through U.S. laws. With that consent, a person of any ethnic heritage or racial background can become, in every sense, an American citizen.

It was in 1898 (in United States v. Wong Kim Ark) that the Supreme Court expanded the constitutional mandate, holding that the children of legal, permanent residents were automatically citizens. While the decision could be (and is often) read more broadly, the court has never held that the clause confers automatic citizenship on the children of temporary visitors, much less of illegal residents


14th Amendment Doesn't Make Illegal Aliens' Children Citizens - US News and World Report

Ending automatic birthright citizenship would not fix our immigration problem, but it is a good beginning.

 

[LilOlLady]

Illegal aliens have broken every immigration law we have plus some. Which mean they have to go to the end of the line and maybe never given access to this country. That is the punishment they should get.
The law in the country is if you do the crime, you do the time. Ilegall immigration is a crime and it carries a punishment and $5,000 is not a punishment. Learning English is not a punishment. Given legal status is not a punishment.
Entering this country illegally is not a federal crime, but what they do in order to stay and work is a crime. A federal crime and fraud.