Petition against amnesty

I know there is a legal term for that and I know it is enforced. Common sense prevents a criminal from profiting from his crime via books, movies, etc. Why does a person who commits the act of enter this country illegally get to benefit from that crime just because they happened to give birth within it’s borders?

csdeven on May 21, 2007 at 6:20 AM

For the same reason that when a Congressperson gets caught defrauding the American people, or serves a felony conviction for cheating and stealing from the American people they still get to keep all of the benefits of a retired honorable congressperson.

I’m not sure what you mean here, so I’ll address both points in what you cited from my comment.

First of all, I’m sorry to say this, Janos, but I think you’re wrong on both counts. The requirement to be come a citizen includes a loyalty oath that requires the renunciation of all previous allegiances. It’s federal law. see Title 8, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 337 (8CFR337.1)

The Oath of Citizenship

I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God. In acknowledgement whereof I have hereunto affixed my signature.

If you are referring to how the Supreme Court has ruled, stare decisis appears to be Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982), which ruled:

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

BTW, this is the decision that requires that the children of illegal aliens be provided with public schooling.

Further, Pyler, in footnote 10, refers to United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), where the USSC ruled: “[e]very citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States.”

Quite clearly, the stare decisis position is that if you live in the United States, you are subjected to the jurisdiction of the United States.

QED

As I said, Congress could pass a law the denies citizenship to children of illegal aliens that were born in the USA. I happen to think that the courts would quickly overturn such a law. Hamdi is indicative that the court’s interpretation of the “subject to” phrase is so narrow as to be inapplicable to illegal aliens and their children born in the United States.

I’d like to be proven wrong, because from the point of prudentialism, “anchor babies” are a device to prevent deportation of illegal aliens when caught. But I don’t think I am.

Therefore, I continue to maintain that the best way to deal with illegal aliens coming to America to have their “anchor babies,” is to amend the Constitution, specifically the 14th Amendment, and categorically state that the children of illegal aliens are not citizens.

Since amending the Constitution is a very long and difficult task, the next best solution is to implement strong border security and prevent illegal aliens, particularly the pregnant ones, from entering the country in the first place.

Not to pick a nit or anything,
georgej on May 21, 2007 at 5:18 PM

That isn’t nit picking. I appreciate accuracy especially if I am guilty of not being accurate. No prob. You keep doing that.

I agree with you about border security.

Since 1795, naturalized citizens had to openly renounce their prior citizenship of their birth country. But we do not require “native born” citizens to do so, because it is presumed that any person born in America is automatically “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” It pretty hard to live in the United States and not be “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the process

This is your opinion, not ’stare dececis’

Can you amend and Amendment inside its text?

profitsbeard on May 20, 2007 at 5:18 PM

yes

We should process the workers we need into the country legally; And as we bring one legal immigrant in, send one illegal alien out.

Not to pick a nit or anything, but the 14th Amendment wasn’t an artifact of the Founders, but the post-Civil War era. The only thing the founders cared about, with respect to being native-born, was that you had to be a native born citizen to become either President or Vice President.

Romeo13 writes: “BUT, you do realize that this will lead to a National ID card…”

Yep. Or implanted chips or tattoos, or something like this. It’s another reason to despise this legislation. I think employers are caught between the rock and the hard place on this legislation. They are expected to not hire illegals (and will be punished if they do), but currently, they have no way to determine if a person REALLY is legal or not. They can check with the Social Security administration and all the SSA will say is that the SSN is valid or not. But as the false ID industry is STEALING valid SSNs when they forge SSN cards, this is useless. So, expect the lobbying to begin in earnest to create a “tamper-proof” national ID card, issued by the federal government. The attempt to force the states to issue such identity cards using drivers licenses or state ID cards has already failed: At least one state has told the feds to stuff it.

Can you say: “Your paperz, pleeze?” God forbid that coming to pass. What would come next, internal passports?

Freelancer: You are correct in describing the origin of the 14th Amendment and how it applied to former slaves. However, at the time, there were no “illegal immigrants” in the USA, as that concept didn’t emerge until the 20th Century. The 14th Amendment itself was enacted to overturn Dred Scott v. Sanford where the US Supreme Court ruled that former slaves (even those manumitted or freed) could never be citizens of the United States.

You are entitled to your opinion as to what you think the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means. I think your opinion (which I would like to see prevail) is a minority one.

The current intrepretation of that phrase is limited to the children of foreign diplomats that are born in the United States. These citizenship of those births are governed by treaty.

At the time of enactment of the 14th Amendment, the meaning of the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” really meant “not owing allegience to any to any other foreign power.” Which is where the diplomatic exception originates, I believe.

Since 1795, naturalized citizens had to openly renounce their prior citizenship of their birth country. But we do not require “native born” citizens to do so, because it is presumed that any person born in America is automatically “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” It pretty hard to live in the United States and not be “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the process.

Think of the ramifications if this were not the case.

For one thing, one could intrepret it as meaning that the laws of the United States do no apply to such individuals. That would be a litteral intrepretation of not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

I don’t think that would fly.

But let’s presume that your intrepretation of “illegal births” not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” takes root.

Why stop with the children of illegal aliens? Why not require the children of NATURALIZED citizens to apply for naturalization, too. Then we’d have TWO CLASSES of citizens: Natural and naturalized. That opens the door for discrimination and guts the entire concept of “equal protection of the law,” because some citizens would be “more equal than others.” Shades of Animal Farm! I’d rather not go there, thank you.

I know, it’s not likely, but it opens the door.

If children, regardless of their parentage, can be assumed to be “illegal births” (as you suggest for the children of illegal aliens), i.e., not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” then the “pro-choice” people have the opportunity to extend the so-called “right” of “choice” to living babies. Right now, if an aborted baby survives the experience (and it does happen), it cannot be snuffed out like a candle. If we allow the concept of “illegal births,” than no-doubt, some ACLU lawyer will attempt to apply it to such “mistakes.” I call that infanticide. I don’t want to go there, either.

As the treaty provisions concerning the citizenship of children born in America to diplomats applies ONLY to diplomats, what would be the citizenship of such children born from illegal aliens? While some countries assume that the children of their citizens, regardless of birthplace, are also citizens, many do not. Do we create a class of stateless persons? People who are citizens of NOWHERE, because they cannot be citizens of the United States where they were born? Would they be denied the freedom to travel because they’d have no passports? Would they be allowed to own property?

Up until about a year ago, the US Supreme Court was silent about what “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” meant. They have since voted to apply the Constitution to Yaser Hamdi, a person born in the USA, but who was raised outside of the USA by his Saudi parents and who was caught fighting American troops in Afghanistan. I personally think that a person actively engaged fighting America has renounced “the jurisdiction thereof” part but that’s just my opinion, and my opinion doesn’t count.

Congress could pass a bill denying citizenship to “anchor babies” tomorrow. I’d bet money that the USSC would overturn it in short order.

I believe that the 14th Amendment needs clarification by AMENDMENT to exclude the children of illegal aliens. Absent that, the best way to avoid the problem is to ENFORCE THE BORDER and prevent them from dropping “anchor” here in the first place.

FEEL FREE TO PASS IT ON…link if you like…JUST PASS IT ON so people CAN UNDERSTAND!!!

Killer write-up on the Visigoths. Well done.

The “anchor baby privilege” is not a “privilege” — it is a Constitutional right, unfortunately.

georgej on May 20, 2007 at 4:54 PM

You highlighted the wrong words, george. The key phrase is “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”. A child born to someone whose presence on American soil is itself an illegal act is NOT under the jurisdiction of the United States, and that child is NOT entitled to citizenship. Otherwise, please explain the point of including those words, as they are clearly a qualifier. Those who crafted the Amendment referenced British, Spanish, and other European legal documents are source matter for its construction. In both those reference laws, and contemporary writings of the legislators responsible, their meaning was made very plain.

A purpose of the 14th amendment was to extend citizenship to the children, born on U.S. soil, of slaves who were brought here against their will. To artificially expand this concept to include any person whose parents manage to squat on our land just long enough to deliver is absurd.

“We’re about families and family values” Pelosi added.

No … you crooked, treasonous hag … you’re talking about votes. Burn in hell.

darwin on May 20, 2007 at 3:16 PM

could not agree with you more, mate.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070518-4.html

did answer some of my criticism of the bill… if it all survives to passage…

One thing I would add however, is putting the military on the border NOW to secure the border.

BUT, you do realize that this will lead to a National ID card… look at the points carefully… as under Equal Protection we CAN’T force Z Visa holders to have an ID tied to these databases, without all citizens having one as well.

THE GOTH WORKER PROGRAM

North Carolina has about 2-300000 unemployed former textile & furniture plant folks. We are like number five in the nation with just over 450,000 illegal aliens and their spawn. My base elementary school currently has about 25% (of 700 kids total) kids listed as “Free & Reduced” lunch and “English as Second Language” (ESL). Get who gets all the attention and special services. It is like that all over the county I live in. It is estimated that between 10-12% of the student population are illegal aliens or children thereof (120,000 students total). It is destroying our quality of life and raising our taxes.

“Mr. Kennedy, do you believe the laws in Mexico are justified by securing their Southern borders, tracking every citizen and issuing tracking numbers to every single visitor to Mexico, or do you believe this to be an infringement on people’s rights?”

“Of course the Mexican government has the right to do all those things; Mexico is a sovereign country”.

“Sir, do you believe the U.S. government should follow all these rules to protect its own sovereignty”.

“No, of course not, that would be racist”.

FACT: This bill is the product of months of extraordinary negotiations between Senators from both parties and Cabinet-level officials.

But not the american people.

Only 20 are publicly committed - and they haven’t heard from all the callers yet. Apparently they don’t care about demonstrations in the street, but do care about threat about donations, votes and being confronted.

georgej on May 21, 2007 at 9:24 AM

I understood your position. I was talking about common sense, not a bunch of mumbo jumbo invented by lawyers.

Does anyone really think the founding fathers wanted this wording in the constitution to be applied as it is to a huge group of people that are a threat to this nation? No, I think not. This is a situation where the rights of the many are more important than the rights of criminals who are not citizens of this country. It’s real easy to try to justify concepts by cherry picking the constitution. The citizens of this country have rights above and beyond those of illegals, and their illegal act was never meant to give them a short cut to become citizens of this country. Deport them as we catch them, if the parents abandon their children in this country, the children are put up for adoption. Period. Or the parnets can get in line, apply for a visa, and wait their turn just like those who respect the laws of the United States.

Is that harsh? Yep! Damn right it is! But it is harsher to infringe on the rights of american citizens by taking their tax money, their jobs, and creating a culture of criminality and disdain for american culture and values.

And THAT is the problem. Illegals apologists want to discuss this in a vacuum when it should be discuss in the context of its relativity to its impact on actual citizens of this country.

WHAT A LOAD of CRAP. More like “K-Y” for the masses.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janissary

Also, I would hire the South Korean army to fortify our border similar to what is on the North/South Korean border. Time to stop screwing around.