 |
'Terror babies': The new immigration scare tactic - CNN.com
How does paranoia develop? It develops when politicains continually use scare tactics to keep the public on edge. This is a paranoia grown out of scare mongering. Be careful what you wish for, it just might come to pass
Regardless if the threat is real or not ;the issue of "anchor babies " is a real concern. Why should it be that an illegal can cross the border ;have a baby ;and that child is automatically by birthright an American citizen ?
It is a flaw in the interpretation of the 14th Amendment that needs addressing.
The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees citizenship to anyone "born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,"
And the bold part is the misunderstood part by American lawmakers.
During the floor debate when the 14th was proposed Senator Reverdy Johnson of Maryland said the citizenship clause provides "that all persons born in the United States and not subject to some foreign power . . . shall be considered as citizens of the United States." , Senator Jacob Howard,who wrote the amendment said that the clause "will not, of course, include foreigners."
This is a classic example of what we mean when we say we want "original intent" when the courts interpret the Constitution .
The authors of the amendment never meant it to be interpreted as a blank slate .
Sometimes. Tom, it is better to leave well enough alone and then you have original intent
Too late ;our judges have been applying their own standards to the Constitution since Chief Justice Marshall expanded the power of the judiciary.
Hello tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
When Sweden was handing out citizenship, nobody had to prove they were Swedes. Same thing with most countries. Here, we weren't founded by a race, but rather an idea. Therefore, determining which race should be American is futile. That's why the writers of the amendment used the term "all persons". It's ORIGINAL INTENT is clear to anyone who can READ. If they wanted other language in the amendment, like you suggest, they COULD have written it in. They didn't. I suspect that that was INTENTIONAL.
You are allowed to believe the amendment means something OTHER than what it says.
excon
PS> Jeez, I'm glad I don't live in Texas. They're NUTS down there.
Totally agree with you there.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
All the words in the amendment have meaning including subject to the jurisdiction thereof,"
They were put in there for a reason ;and the reason can be found in the debate leading up to the amendment . All I suggest to you is that you do more research before you conclude that your expansive translation is the original intent. I know that it would never've been passed if they meant it as a broad invite for anyone born here by foreigners to become a citizen .
They probably didn't mean privately-owned firearms when they said "a well-regulated militia" either. But then, that's a different thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Actually yes they did . The meaning of the word militia now is different than it was in colonial America . The threats were different ,and the biggest threat they saw (from their experiences with the British Crown ) was the threat government posed on the citizens . Therefore the idea that the government would control the militia would be an absurd thought to those who drafted the 2nd Amendment .
Life in the U.S. has changed. The situation is different, not like the founding fathers could ever have imagined. Therefore, interpretation of how the Constitution and amendments are applied must change?Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
I'll leave the research to you. All I'm doing is reading what they said. If they wanted other wording, they should have, and could have put it in. They didn't. You'd think somebody doing the debating would have recognized that. Therefore, I take ALL persons to mean, of all things, ALL persons. Call me crazy!
Besides, I don't know anybody here who ISN'T subject to the jurisdiction of the US government. If foreigners AREN'T subject to the jurisdiction of the US, why are there so many of 'em in our jails? And, when you travel to Mexico (if you did), wouldn't you be under their jurisdiction? I think you would.
excon
Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Just don't let this incident take away from what the real issues are. It is not at all unusual for there to be much ado made to focus on the more extreme statements. Media is notorious for that. Hence the focus is taken off the reality.
No doubt you are familiar with the same sort of debates over immigration policies in Australia to try and keep illegal boat people out, and to change policies to insure those gaining the necessary points to emigrate legally are from a higher-skilled labour force.
Many countries share similar concerns. They just don't seem to get as much flack as the US for wanting to improve and protect conditions for their own citizens.
Thousands of people are asked everyday to show some identification, proof of citizenship, entry visa, etc. when they come through airports to insure they are here legally. If someone tried to come in without the proper paperwork they are detained and likely deported, as they should be. I don't understand why people feel it is unrealistic to expect doing the same at any other port of entry or when asked for identification.
My husband gets asked to show his paperwork fairly often and there have been times he has not been allowed in certain locations. He is not a citizen, but he is here legally. He doesn't cry discrimination and he doesn't expect to have all of the same rights.
While certainly measures to impede the influx of all illegal immigrants, regardless of where they are from, should continue, a far bigger pressure should be applied to those who hire them and provide them incentive to enter and stay illegally.
Just my opinion... stepping off soap box
Quote:
Life in the U.S. has changed. The situation is different, not like the founding fathers could ever have imagined. Therefore, interpretation of how the Constitution and amendments are applied must change?
I completely disagree . If the intent is no longer applicable then the remedy is to amend the constitution... not to have Justices divine from whole cloth what the Constitution means. Without the reference to the intent there is no rational basis for a ruling. The Constitution means whatever 5 of 9 appointed for life oligarchs say it means.
In the example I make regarding Brennan ,it was he that slipped an observation into the 5-4 opinion Plyler v. Doe decision that , claimed that “no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment 'jurisdiction' can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful.” ... thus creating the anchor baby issue.
Was Brennan citing the founders ? No Was he citing the authors of the amendment ? No .
Brennan ,the literary scholar that he was ,lifted the thought from a book written in 1912 by some guy named Clement L. Bouve called 'A treatise on the laws governing the exclusion and expulsion of Aliens in the United States'.
And what was Bouve ? A legal scholar ? A Senator or lawmaker of any kind ? Nah ,he was a lawyer who later rose to
Prominence on his job registering copyrights.
But you get my point ? A footnote observation by a judge suddenly became the constitutional law of the land.
Unfortunately ,this nonsense is so embedded now ,that Sen Graham is right,the 14th Amendment itself needs amending .
But you said, "The meaning of the word militia now is different than it was in colonial America." So if that works for the 2nd Amendment, why can't it work for the 14th?Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
You know, Ex, that is a really good question. Why are there so many of them in your jails, why don't you just deport them? Not content with jailing the ones you can get your hands on you even expect to extradite people from other countriesQuote:
Originally Posted by excon
Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
In part, because some countries refuse to allow them reentry. They don't want them back.
They are only subject to our jurisidiction in so far as they break our laws. It is absurd to say that the children of illegals have some birthright to American citizenship .It is flawed ,it is fundamentally unfair to the people who enter here legally .
I know from the debates of the 14th amendment it was never intended to be so ;and I fully support efforts to repeal that part of the 14th since it is being incorrectly applied .
Wondergirl . The intent of the 2nd amendment has not changed since it was ratified . The people have a right to own guns and to self defense against the tyranny of the criminal breaking into their house or the tyranny of an oppressive government.
The intent of the 14th amendment was to naturalize the former slaves ;not to give carte blanche citizenship for children of people who happen to have their babies born in the country. If that had been proposed at the time of the ratification it would've been rejected soundly .
Hold on to your hat now: I agree with you here.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
The bolded part is not in the Amendment, is it? That is a broader interpretation of what it actually says.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
I agree. INS etc. (not the illegals) must be changed.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:15 PM. |