Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Activists say yes. I say no.

What do you think? Read the 14th Amendment for yourself.

http://www.ask.com/wiki/Fourteenth_Amen ... nstitution" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

George Will argues the point in another long-winded column:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl ... 04954.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If they're born here they're ours.

Technically, I believe yes as i like to be consistenet in supporting the Constitution as written. However, this shouldn't preclude our government from either breaking the family apart by shipping the parents back over the border or amending the Constitution to eliminate the abuse of "anchor" babies....

Benne wrote:If they're born here they're ours.

Agree....but the parents aren't & should be sent back over the border. Their choice if they want to take the baby with them or not....

Appaholic wrote:

Benne wrote:If they're born here they're ours.

Agree....but the parents aren't & should be sent back over the border. Their choice if they want to take the baby with them or not....

Brutal, Appy. It's been done before and it's one of the things the Aztlanistas and La Raza complain about most loudly.

No.

I realize we don't have the resources to deport every illegal, but if we did, I'd support 100% deportation. Would families get broken up? Yep, lots of them. Should have thought about that before you jumped the fence, Pedro.

native wrote:

Appaholic wrote:
Agree....but the parents aren't & should be sent back over the border. Their choice if they want to take the baby with them or not....

Brutal, Appy. It's been done before and it's one of the things the Aztlanistas and La Raza complain about most loudly.

Yep. but no more brutal in the application of law than the illegals who use an "anchor baby" to establish residency in this country...

93henfan wrote:I realize we don't have the resources to deport every illegal, but if we did, I'd support 100% deportation. Would families get broken up? Yep, lots of them.

I don't think so. IMO, it's the families making the choice to break up the family. While the child has every right to be in this country, the parents do not enjoy the same access. So, what's stopping them from taking the baby with them & the baby returning when it is legal age as it has the right of citizenry...citizen right's should be non-transferable to immediate family members...

Appaholic wrote:Technically, I believe yes as i like to be consistenet in supporting the Constitution as written. However, this shouldn't preclude our government from either breaking the family apart by shipping the parents back over the border or amending the Constitution to eliminate the abuse of "anchor" babies....

I do not disagree with your deportation solution, not only because it is consistent with the law, but also because its consequences are less egregious than NOT enfocring the law.

However, I disagree with your presumption that the 14th Amendment, written after the Civil War to provide full citizenship for former slaves, grants or was ever intended to grant citizenship to the children of illegal aliens, who arrived here by deliberately breaking the law.

As George Will writes in his previously cited analysis, there were no laws restricting immigration at the time the amendment was written. "...If those who wrote and ratified the 14th Amendment had imagined laws restricting immigration -- and had anticipated huge waves of illegal immigration -- is it reasonable to presume they would have wanted to provide the reward of citizenship to the children of the violators of those laws? Surely not. ..."

I don't care what the constitution technically says on this. They should not be considered an American citizen ever, period. And just so you know I have no problem with Mexican workers.

native wrote:

Appaholic wrote:Technically, I believe yes as i like to be consistenet in supporting the Constitution as written. However, this shouldn't preclude our government from either breaking the family apart by shipping the parents back over the border or amending the Constitution to eliminate the abuse of "anchor" babies....

I do not disagree with your deportation solution, not only because it is consistent with the law, but also because its consequences are less egregious than NOT enfocring the law.

However, I disagree with your presumption that the 14th Amendment, written after the Civil War to provide full citizenship for former slaves, grants or was ever intended to grant citizenship to the children of illegal aliens, who arrived here by deliberately breaking the law.

As George Will writes in his previously cited analysis, there were no laws restricting immigration at the time the amendment was written. "...If those who wrote and ratified the 14th Amendment had imagined laws restricting immigration -- and had anticipated huge waves of illegal immigration -- is it reasonable to presume they would have wanted to provide the reward of citizenship to the children of the violators of those laws? Surely not. ..."

I have no problem with that & it makes sense for me. I didn't read the George Will article, but I like that rationale. Only problem is the "slippery slope". It's real easy to go from his rationale to the rationale of "there were no semi-auotmatic machine guns during colonial times". Is it reasonable to assume the framers of constitution did not mean Tec9's when ratifying the 2nd amendment? I'd rather not start that process....couldn't we just adhere to the letter of the law & avoid alot of these hypothetical discussions which tend to lead to eroding personal rights?

Appaholic wrote:

native wrote:
I do not disagree with your deportation solution, not only because it is consistent with the law, but also because its consequences are less egregious than NOT enfocring the law.

However, I disagree with your presumption that the 14th Amendment, written after the Civil War to provide full citizenship for former slaves, grants or was ever intended to grant citizenship to the children of illegal aliens, who arrived here by deliberately breaking the law.

As George Will writes in his previously cited analysis, there were no laws restricting immigration at the time the amendment was written. "...If those who wrote and ratified the 14th Amendment had imagined laws restricting immigration -- and had anticipated huge waves of illegal immigration -- is it reasonable to presume they would have wanted to provide the reward of citizenship to the children of the violators of those laws? Surely not. ..."

I have no problem with that & it makes sense for me. I didn't read the George Will article, but I like that rationale. Only problem is the "slippery slope". It's real easy to go from his rationale to the rationale of "there were no semi-auotmatic machine guns during colonial times". Is it reasonable to assume the framers of constitution did not mean Tec9's when ratifying the 2nd amendment? I'd rather not start that process....couldn't we just adhere to the letter of the law & avoid alot of these hypothetical discussions which tend to lead to eroding personal rights?

Your slippery slope point is well taken, Appaholic. However, we don't have to use divining rods to discern original intent. It is only appropriate to consider contemporary writings of the authors from the time of the original law, like using the Federalist Papers to understand the Constitution.

native wrote:

Appaholic wrote:
I have no problem with that & it makes sense for me. I didn't read the George Will article, but I like that rationale. Only problem is the "slippery slope". It's real easy to go from his rationale to the rationale of "there were no semi-auotmatic machine guns during colonial times". Is it reasonable to assume the framers of constitution did not mean Tec9's when ratifying the 2nd amendment? I'd rather not start that process....couldn't we just adhere to the letter of the law & avoid alot of these hypothetical discussions which tend to lead to eroding personal rights?

Your slippery slope point is well taken, Appaholic. However, we don't have to use divining rods to discern original intent. It is only appropriate to consider contemporary writings of the authors from the time of the original law, like using the Federalist Papers to understand the Constitution.

I know that...you know that....but how long before self-serving lobbyists & politicians whip the masses from both side into an orgasmic frenzy based upon ignorance...

Yes. Seems pretty cut-and-dry to me.

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

Parents shouldn't be granted citizenship but should be allowed to live and work here if they choose.

Skjellyfetti wrote:Yes. Seems pretty cut-and-dry to me.

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

Parents shouldn't be granted citizenship but should be allowed to live and work here if they choose

Agree...pretty cut & dry...now where was that 2nd part you mentioned in the Amendment? I must have missed that.....

Skjellyfetti wrote:Yes. Seems pretty cut-and-dry to me.

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

Parents shouldn't be granted citizenship but should be allowed to live and work here if they choose.

Even if they entered illegally??? I think not...

Skjellyfetti wrote:Yes. Seems pretty cut-and-dry to me.

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

Parents shouldn't be granted citizenship but should be allowed to live and work here if they choose.

Illegal aliens are, by definition, "subject to the jurisdiction" of the countries they came from.

Appaholic wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:Yes. Seems pretty cut-and-dry to me.



Parents shouldn't be granted citizenship but should be allowed to live and work here if they choose

Agree...pretty cut & dry...now where was that 2nd part you mentioned in the Amendment? I must have missed that.....

Oh, sorry. I meant it was pretty cut and dry about the subject of the thread: "Do Illegal Alien Children Have a Birthright?"

After that was just my own opinion on what y'all were talking about... which was different from the subject of the thread. And it's just based on what I think is moral/humane. I'm not that familiar with the Supreme Court cases and such... I do know that it's the policy now to deport the parents. I'm just saying, morally, we should allow them to stay. Legally? Above my pay grade.

14th Amendment is very clear on this. Yes, they are citizens. Only way to change that through a Constitutional Amendment. Not even the most activist, living Constitutionalist could find a way around the clear and precise language.

dbackjon wrote:14th Amendment is very clear on this. No, they are not citizens. It has been interpreted otherwise due to "progressive" judicial activists.

FIFY, Jon!

native wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:Yes. Seems pretty cut-and-dry to me.



Parents shouldn't be granted citizenship but should be allowed to live and work here if they choose.

Illegal aliens are, by definition, "subject to the jurisdiction" of the countries they came from.

It doesn't say "not subject to any other jurisdiction" it says "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"... they're subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. They're citizens.

A lot of non-citizens are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

CitadelGrad wrote:A lot of non-citizens are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

Yup....and if they were born in the US they are, by the plain language of the 14th Amendment, US Citizens.

native wrote:

dbackjon wrote:14th Amendment is very clear on this. No, they are not citizens. It has been interpreted otherwise due to "progressive" judicial activists.

FIFY, Jon!

Seems like the activism/denial of the Constitution is coming from the Right on this.

dbackjon wrote:

native wrote:
FIFY, Jon!

Seems like the activism/denial of the Constitution is coming from the Right on this.

Exactly. Be careful what you wish for Conks....