The 14th amendment clearly was not written with pregnant Mexican women in mind. I think we need to be sure that we don't mistake generosity for stupidity. It is crazy for Mexican women to cross the border to have a baby here for no other purpose than citizenship. That's not a knock on the women, but a knock on our own stupid policies.

The remedy to the law is change the law through the process.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

That's not a knock on the women, but a knock on our own stupid policies.

---

Hello j:

You SAY the founders didn't have pregnant Mexican women in mind when they wrote it.. But, you have no idea what was in their minds. Clearly, they had SOME pregnant non citizen woman in mind when they wrote the amendment.. Otherwise, why write it? So, it absolutely DOES include Mexican women, and purposefully so.

Be that as it may, the gropenfuhrer cannot change the Constitution with an executive order. It's HARD to change.

Do you know WHY I love the Constitution?? It's because it was written for dummies like me.. It's pretty short, and doesn't use any big words. So, to me, what these words mean is CLEAR: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."

I thought right wingers LOVED the Constitution too.. No, huh?

excon

Quote:

---

You SAY the founders didn't have pregnant Mexican women in mind when they wrote it.. But, you have no idea what was in their minds. Clearly, they had SOME pregnant non citizen woman in mind when they wrote the amendment..

---

Uhm... actually, we do know what was in their minds. The amendment, passed in 1866, was clearly enacted with former slaves in mind, and was done to counteract the policies enacted in southern states which severely limited the rights of the newly freed slaves. It was considered so essential that southern states had to ratify the amendment in order to regain congressional representation. The idea that pregnant women would cross the border ILLEGALLY, have a child in the U.S. (paid for, of course, by us), and then have automatic citizenship bestowed upon them was never imagined and would have, we can be sure, been considered an insane idea.

https://www.history.com/topics/black...enth-amendment

I think it's a real stretch to imagine that the protections of the Constitution should be extended to those who have broken the law to enter the country and are thus here illegally. It would be somewhat similar to extending Constitutional protections to spies or enemy troops who have invaded. Not as extreme, to be sure, but still the same principle.

I am originalist and textualist. That is the quandary . Original intent was to make sure former slaves and their children would be citizens Textually it supports current interpretation. The only case law is 1898 United States v. Wong Kim Ark ruling in favor of current interpretation ; and it has not been challenged since . The one thing I'm clear on is that it can't be reversed by EO . The law has to be changed by Congress and then the law has to survive court challenges and all the stare decisis silliness .

Besides illegals there is the issue of Birth tourism. The Chinese are creating a 5th column with that.

So are the Russians potentially.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...-miami-n836121

Quote:

---

The child gets a lifelong right to live and work and collect benefits in the U.S. And when they turn 21 they can sponsor their parents' application for an American green card.

---

That doesn't seem to be a smart policy either, but seems to be a profit motive involved, since I haven't heard a peep about THOSE anchor babies, but everybody is up in arms about poor brown babies.

I only call em as I see it . My point is that it becomes a national security concern regarding specifically Chinese birth tourism. I also think that if the parents are not here legally then they are NOT 'subject to the jurisdiction therof " ;nor should their children be . That is old English feudal law where a person born in a land is a subject of that land ("Jus Soli"). "Subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was purposely inserted by Congress to prevent Jus Soli in America. When we have that article 5 convention ,this is one of the subjects that needs to be brought up.

Here legally on a temporary visa for a luxury vacation with the purpose of giving birth to an anchor baby for American benefits later seems to go against everything the dufus campaigned on. Why? Because he profits. Now if you said no pregnant females from anywhere can enter this country LEGALLY then we may have agreement.

Until then... forget about it as far as I'm concerned. My way sound fair enough to me! What Russians with American rights isn't as potential a security threat or something?

Quote:

---

Here legally on a temporary visa for a luxury vacation with the purpose of giving birth to an anchor baby for American benefits later seems to go against everything the dufus campaigned on. Why? Because he profits. Now if you said no pregnant females from anywhere can enter this country LEGALLY then we may have agreement.

Until then... forget about it as far as I'm concerned. My way sound fair enough to me! What Russians with American rights isn't as potential a security threat or something?

---

Then we finally agree. No woman can enter the country, legally or otherwise, for the purpose of giving birth on American soil so their child can have American citizenship. Deal!

Unfortunately, we don't make or enforce the law and it's unlikely the dufus or congress will make that change, unless we change the congress and that includes the president.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

I think it's a real stretch to imagine that the protections of the Constitution should be extended to those who have broken the law to enter the country.

---

Hello j:

Nahhh… The NEW citizen didn't break any law.

excon

Quote:

---

The NEW citizen didn't break any law.

---

As every fourth grader in America knows, the NEW citizen would not have been in the U.S. if mom had not brought him/her in. It boggles the mind to think that there are people who support those who break the law and profit from it, which then serves to encourage many others to do likewise. Who profits? Democrat politicians, which explains their enthusiastic support for it.

Quote:

---

Unfortunately, we don't make or enforce the law and it's unlikely the dufus or congress will make that change, unless we change the congress and that includes the president.

---

That one made me laugh. You can be sure that a democrat president and congress will be sure to tighten up immigration laws in the great tradition of that famous hard-liner on immigration, Barack Obama.

Blather on about liberals but repubs have done NOTHING to solve the problem, and you run the government. Your only claim to fame is a trade war, and making the rich richer, and trying to dismantle the affordable care act, while you run up the debt. While you rail against the brown people you make laws to keep out, you allow for rich foreigners with brighter skin to make this their future retirement homes. What has the dufus done about it? Jack up his rent.

And repubs say and do NOTHING about it. You say and do nothing about it. For you conservatives its all about the brown people staying out, and the southern border, while the east and west are open to ALL with CASH. That's why you will see more troops at the southern border than deployed in the shooting war with the Taliban.

We may agree on NO anchor babies across the board, but we both know it ain't going to happen, because for repubs it's just about the brown people and their kids.

Quote:

---

While you rail against the brown people you make laws to keep out, you allow for rich foreigners with brighter skin to make this their future retirement homes. What has the dufus done about it? Jack up his rent.

---

Skin color has nothing to do with it. Illegal entry has EVERYTHING to do with it. Now you are right about deficit spending, but considering you supported Mr. Obama for eight years, you have no grounds for complaining. He is the all time world champ. I would agree, however, that it will eventually ruin us.

Hello again, j:

Way back in 1978, my wife and I took a vacation in Mexico, when all of a sudden, she delivered.. Who expected THAT? My son now has duel citizenship. It's afforded him and his family, many opportunities in Mexico that a tourist doesn't get.

Did I do a bad thing? Would you have a problem if a Mexican couple vacationed here legally and had a kid??

excon

Tal stop the "brown skin" bs. Employers in this country welcome and NEED more workers . You see more and more stories like this all over the country .
https://www.westword.com/restaurants...-hard-10454517

All I ask is that they enter the country legally .

Grant them asylum and give 'em those jobs you say you need filled, I mean that Russian pregnant rich girl sure ain't going to work in a kitchen or wait tables. You only assume they will sneak in when the last batch stood in line for days waiting to get in legally. Sure some got tired of waiting, but sending soldiers instead of processors is how the dufus rolls and you go along with it.

I don't!

Quote:

---

Did I do a bad thing? Would you have a problem if a Mexican couple vacationed here legally and had a kid??

---

Ex, I don't know how else to explain a simple concept to you. If I go into a bank and walk out with money I withdrew from my account, then that is a good thing. If I walk out with money I took in a robbery, then it is not a good thing. The difference is in the legality of the act.

Now think about that for two minutes, and you'll pretty much have it. Tal might even get it as well. "

Quote:

---

Sure some got tired of waiting,

---

No, they didn't get tired of waiting. They didn't wait at all. It's just incredible to me that you have so little regard for the law. Those who are doing things the right way get to wait, while those who are breaking the law get in ahead of them. What a strange view of things you have. And the only plea you seem to make is to resort to the tired, moth-eaten liberal strategy of crying about race. I wouldn't care if the caravan was made up of Norwegians. They are breaking the law.

One thing I know for sure. If those illegals were taking YOUR job, you'd suddenly become a rock-ribbed conservative supporter of border security.

You speak of the law only when convenient. It's the dufus breaking the law since seeking asylum is LAWFUL.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/as...van/ar-BBPbrPM

Quote:

---

Instead of expanding capacity to process asylum seekers at border crossings, officials have forced them to wait. The method varies from crossing to

crossing

.

---

Obviously it's you who have NO regard for the law or the process that maintains order.