• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

State lawmakers taking aim at amendment granting birthright citizenship

Chappy

User
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 24, 2009
Messages
2,443
Reaction score
733
Location
San Francisco
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Liberal
Excerpted from “State lawmakers taking aim at amendment granting birthright citizenship” By Shankar Vedantam, Washington Post Staff Writer, The Washington Post, Wednesday, January 5, 2011; 2:23 PM
[SIZE="+2"]I[/SIZE]n a move certain to escalate the legal tug of war over illegal immigration, state lawmakers from across the country announced Wednesday that they were launching a united effort to prevent the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment, which grants citizenship to all children born in the United States, from applying to children of undocumented immigrants.

State lawmakers from Arizona, Pennsylvania, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Georgia and other states said they were taking aim at birthright citizenship and seeking to return the interpretation of the 14th Amendment to what they described as the original intent of its creators. …

Will the insanity never cease? Are there really this many state lawmakers so ignorant of the essentialness of 14th Amendment to preventing a subclass from forming in this country?
 
Will the insanity never cease? Are there really this many state lawmakers so ignorant of the essentialness of 14th Amendment to preventing a subclass from forming in this country?

I am by no means a liberal, but this is misguided. People born in the United States are US citizens under the Constitution. End of story. If they want to change this, you need to change the Constitution, which isn't going to happen in this case.
 
But people keep telling me it's only liberals who selectively interpret the constitution. I'm so confused!
 
Excerpted from “State lawmakers taking aim at amendment granting birthright citizenship” By Shankar Vedantam, Washington Post Staff Writer, The Washington Post, Wednesday, January 5, 2011; 2:23 PM
In a move certain to escalate the legal tug of war over illegal immigration, state lawmakers from across the country announced Wednesday that they were launching a united effort to prevent the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment, which grants citizenship to all children born in the United States, from applying to children of undocumented immigrants.

State lawmakers from Arizona, Pennsylvania, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Georgia and other states said they were taking aim at birthright citizenship and seeking to return the interpretation of the 14th Amendment to what they described as the original intent of its creators. …

The correct term is "illegal alien", and I agree with this effort compleatly.
 
… I agree with this effort compleatly.

Are you an American under the terms of this effort that you agree with so ‘compleatly?’ Since you don't know how to spell c-o-m-p-l-e-t-e-l-y you're likely an English as a second language immigrant which means that this will be easy for you to prove that you're a legal citizen — just show us your naturalization papers.

But, if you have the great blessing of being born in this country, then under the terms of this new effort to repeal the 14th Amendment the only way to prove you are here legally is to prove that your parents were here legally when you were born. Please provide your parents' naturalization papers, please.

Oh, and if your parents were born in this country, too, then, as you know, without the 14th Amendment, to prove that you actually belong here and not somewhere far, far away from here, we'll be requiring your grandparents papers. All four, please. No worries, we'll wait here while you track them down. Thanks in advance.

And, if any of them were blessed and born in this country, then, you know the drill at this point, without the 14th Amendment, we'll be requiring both your great-grandparents naturalization papers. This could be a set of eight naturalization papers; I guess you could have a nice book to keep them all together.

God bless you for complying with the law. Of course, if you don't fulfill the legal requirements the alternative is to let us know what country you'll be traveling to. It might be one that none of your ancestors have known for generations, but, it's where you'll be going for the rest of your life. Please go without burdening real American taxpayers you God damn illegal immigrant!

Thank you for your cooperation.
 
Will the insanity never cease? Are there really this many state lawmakers so ignorant of the essentialness of 14th Amendment to preventing a subclass from forming in this country?

Times have changed. Change with them, or cease to exist.
 
Will the insanity never cease? Are there really this many state lawmakers so ignorant of the essentialness of 14th Amendment to preventing a subclass from forming in this country?

The founding fathers didnt see that we would be invaded by illegals. And those illegals were going to purposely push out kids called anchor babies so they could slowly rape this country of its resources. I am a BILLION percent for congress to dissallow these babies from becoming US citizens. Kick the illegal parents out and kick their babies out with them. If the parents are here illegally their babies should also be considered illegal.
Makes sense on MANY levels.
The city I live in is overrun with these illegal Mexicans. Hell, you go to Walmart youre LUCKY to hear English being spoken.
 
The founding fathers didnt see that we would be invaded by illegals. And those illegals were going to purposely push out kids called anchor babies so they could slowly rape this country of its resources. I am a BILLION percent for congress to dissallow these babies from becoming US citizens. Kick the illegal parents out and kick their babies out with them. If the parents are here illegally their babies should also be considered illegal.
Makes sense on MANY levels.
The city I live in is overrun with these illegal Mexicans. Hell, you go to Walmart youre LUCKY to hear English being spoken.

The Founding Fathers did NOT draft the 14th amendment... it is one of the Civil War amendments passed in the aftermath of the Civil War, decades after all of the Founding Fathers passed away...

nice try at an appeal to emotional rhetoric, however...
 
Are you an American under the terms of this effort that you agree with so ‘compleatly?’ Since you don't know how to spell c-o-m-p-l-e-t-e-l-y you're likely an English as a second language immigrant which means that this will be easy for you to prove that you're a legal citizen — just show us your naturalization papers.

But, if you have the great blessing of being born in this country, then under the terms of this new effort to repeal the 14th Amendment the only way to prove you are here legally is to prove that your parents were here legally when you were born. Please provide your parents' naturalization papers, please.

Oh, and if your parents were born in this country, too, then, as you know, without the 14th Amendment, to prove that you actually belong here and not somewhere far, far away from here, we'll be requiring your grandparents papers. All four, please. No worries, we'll wait here while you track them down. Thanks in advance.

And, if any of them were blessed and born in this country, then, you know the drill at this point, without the 14th Amendment, we'll be requiring both your great-grandparents naturalization papers. This could be a set of eight naturalization papers; I guess you could have a nice book to keep them all together.

God bless you for complying with the law. Of course, if you don't fulfill the legal requirements the alternative is to let us know what country you'll be traveling to. It might be one that none of your ancestors have known for generations, but, it's where you'll be going for the rest of your life. Please go without burdening real American taxpayers you God damn illegal immigrant!

Thank you for your cooperation.

Lots of strawmans here. You do know that when the 14th amendment was made and before SCOTUS decided that it included those born here when it originally didn't that people got along just fine as regards to weather they were citizens or not? No one went around asking for peoples parents birth certificates or any crap like that.

But hey, look what we have today....Social Security Cards AND our own personal birth certificates if worse comes to worse. No need for parents BC.

And yes, I support bringing the 14th back to its original meaning as written and argued for by its original author. Who specifically told members of congress, while they were debating on adding it, that it was never meant to include those that came here illegally.
 
The founding fathers didnt see that we would be invaded by illegals. And those illegals were going to purposely push out kids called anchor babies so they could slowly rape this country of its resources. I am a BILLION percent for congress to dissallow these babies from becoming US citizens. Kick the illegal parents out and kick their babies out with them. If the parents are here illegally their babies should also be considered illegal.
Makes sense on MANY levels.
The city I live in is overrun with these illegal Mexicans. Hell, you go to Walmart youre LUCKY to hear English being spoken.
Do you have any other reasons or do you just not like "Mexicans"? Btw, not everybody who speaks Spanish is from Mexico.
 
The Founding Fathers did NOT draft the 14th amendment... it is one of the Civil War amendments passed in the aftermath of the Civil War, decades after all of the Founding Fathers passed away...

nice try at an appeal to emotional rhetoric, however...

Yup. I made a mistake. 1868 is when it was enacted. I appreaciate the correction :)
 
Do you have any other reasons or do you just not like "Mexicans"? Btw, not everybody who speaks Spanish is from Mexico.

I love mexicans! I have mexican friends. Why would you think otherwise? :confused: And regarding the Spanish language....... no **** Sherlock! Thanks for pointing that out Capt. Obvious. :roll:

This is a matter of law. Dont be a low-minded person and make this a race issue because that would be the DUMBEST most ignorant thing to do. ;)
 
The original intention is that people born in American territory are American citizens. The only way the children of illegal immigrants aren't citizens is if the offspring of illegal immigrants aren't people.

I wouldn't feel so annoyed with this departure from principle (not the first) if the instigators stopped insisting they are principled.
 
Last edited:
Do you have any other reasons or do you just not like "Mexicans"? Btw, not everybody who speaks Spanish is from Mexico.

Why is it that whenever illegal aliens are being talked about that everyone just assumes that it is a race thing?

You do realize that not all illegal aliens are from south of the border right? That there are white illegals? That there are Asian illegals? Arab illegals? And everything in between illegals?

A bit of advice...lose the race card. You'll sound far more intelligent if you do.
 
Why is it that whenever illegal aliens are being talked about that everyone just assumes that it is a race thing?

You do realize that not all illegal aliens are from south of the border right? That there are white illegals? That there are Asian illegals? Arab illegals? And everything in between illegals?

A bit of advice...lose the race card. You'll sound far more intelligent if you do.

Its a strategy of the people that are FOR illegal mexicans. They want to turn this whole thing into something OTHER than what it REALLY is. Its smoke and mirrors bull****. But there ARE weak-minded people that believe the BS propaganda that is spead by terrorist organizations like La Raza. :roll:
 
Its a strategy of the people that are FOR illegal mexicans. They want to turn this whole thing into something OTHER than what it REALLY is. Its smoke and mirrors bull****. But there ARE weak-minded people that believe the BS propaganda that is spead by terrorist organizations like La Raza. :roll:

No need for BS propaganda. The lawmakers want something. They way to get it is by amending the U.S. Constitution. That requires far more compromise than they are willing to give. So they want to short cut it by subverting the U.S. Constitution.

It's easy to take a negative view of that.

Let's glance at wikipedia:

The text of the Citizenship Clause was first offered in the Senate as an amendment to Section 1 of the joint resolution as passed by the House.
There are varying interpretations of the original intent of Congress, based on statements made during the congressional debate over the amendment.[2] During the original debate over the amendment Senator Jacob M. Howard of Michigan—the author of the Citizenship Clause—described the clause as excluding Indians, who maintain their tribal ties, and “persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.” He was supported by other senators, including Edgar Cowan, Reverdy Johnson, and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lyman Trumbull.[3]
Howard additionally stated the word jurisdiction meant "the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now"[3] and that the United States possessed a “full and complete jurisdiction” over the person described in the amendment.[4][5][3] Other senators, including Senator John Conness,[6] supported the amendment, believing citizenship ought to be extended to all children of foreigners born in the United States.

So, some lawmakers decided the amendment had limitations and others did not.

How did that become incorporated into the "unshakable" pillar of "author's intent?" It should be mandatory that conservatives preface their every insistence of Founder's intent with, "selected from among several."
 
Last edited:
No need for BS propaganda. The lawmakers want something. They way to get it is by amending the U.S. Constitution. That requires far more compromise than they are willing to give. So they want to short cut it by subverting the U.S. Constitution.

It's easy to take a negative view of that.
There is PLENTY of reasons for propaganda! READ: La Raza, Mexican Terrorist Organization

I say do whatever is neccessary to keep out invaders! I dont want my taxes to rise because we need more money to pay for people that shouldnt even BE here!
 
There is PLENTY of reasons for propaganda! READ: La Raza, Mexican Terrorist Organization

I say do whatever is neccessary to keep out invaders! I dont want my taxes to rise because we need more money to pay for people that shouldnt even BE here!

They're lying and manipulating federalism because they don't want to actually sacrifice toward their goals.
 
So, some lawmakers decided the amendment had limitations and others did not.

How did that become incorporated into the "unshakable" pillar of "author's intent?" It should be mandatory that conservatives preface their every insistence of Founder's intent with, "selected from among several."

It has always been my view that the original author should be the one to decide what something they wrote means. Not those that can see a way of twisting it to their own advantage.
 
Are you an American under the terms of this effort that you agree with so ‘compleatly?’

Yup.

Since you don't know how to spell c-o-m-p-l-e-t-e-l-y you're likely an English as a second language immigrant which means that this will be easy for you to prove that you're a legal citizen — just show us your naturalization papers.

Oh, you want to play silly games. Very good, let's play silly games.

But, if you have the great blessing of being born in this country, then under the terms of this new effort to repeal the 14th Amendment the only way to prove you are here legally is to prove that your parents were here legally when you were born. Please provide your parents' naturalization papers, please.

The OP'sarticle ain't jivin' about repeal'n da 14th. No one iz jivin' about repealing da 14th. otay buh-weet

Oh, and if your parents were born in this country, too, then, as you know, without the 14th Amendment, to prove that you actually belong here and not somewhere far, far away from here, we'll be requiring your grandparents papers. All four, please. No worries, we'll wait here while you track them down. Thanks in advance.

TEH OPS ARTICLE ISNT TALKIN BOUT REPEALIN TEH 14TH. NO WAN IZ TALKIN BOUT REPEALIN TEH 14TH.

And, if any of them were blessed and born in this country, then, you know the drill at this point, without the 14th Amendment, we'll be requiring both your great-grandparents naturalization papers. This could be a set of eight naturalization papers; I guess you could have a nice book to keep them all together.

Y, si cualquiera de ellos fue bendito y nacido en este país, entonces, usted sabe la taladradora en este punto, sin la 14a Enmienda, requeriremos ambos sus papeles de naturalización de bisabuelos. Este podría ser un juego de ocho papeles de naturalización; adivino que usted podría tener un libro agradable para guardar a todos ellos juntos.

God bless you for complying with the law. Of course, if you don't fulfill the legal requirements the alternative is to let us know what country you'll be traveling to. It might be one that none of your ancestors have known for generations, but, it's where you'll be going for the rest of your life. Please go without burdening real American taxpayers you God damn illegal immigrant!

Thank you for your cooperation.

I'll be deploying to Afghanistan in a few months. See you there?
 
It has always been my view that the original author should be the one to decide what something they wrote means. Not those that can see a way of twisting it to their own advantage.

Multiple authors with different perspectives + Ambiguously phrased laws = Indefinite meaning.

What you fail to appreciate is that almost all our laws were phrased ambiguously because laws needed to be passed but people wanted to avoid immediate conflict. As such, many disputes between the federalists and the Democratic-Republicans in the Early Republic centered around the courts, where the battles over interpretation played out.

Liberals complain that conservatives are misguided to believe Founder's intent is codified law, but any close examination of our legal history demonstrates that is the wrong criticism; "Author's intent" isn't a concept with uniform meaning, because the lawmakers intend ambiguously phrased language to mean different things.

Not statically either. A lawmaker's opinion of a law's meaning is set to change depending on a number of conditions.
 
Last edited:
I agree completely that allowing people to break the laws, come here, pop out a kid, and then use that kids citizenship as an emotional club to beat the American people into granting them absolution from their crime was not what people invisioned as the purpose of the 14th amendment.

Then again, I'm sure the founders didn't invision the 2nd amendment allowing someone to fire off two or three clips of ammo in the time it took them to shoot, reload, and shoot again. Or that the 1st amendment would allow someone to be heard by over a million people at the same time if not more.

But those unforseen things aren't reason enough for us as conservatives to go along with laws like assult weapons bans or the fairness doctrine.

I have sympathy for these states and agree with their desire for this, and think its the correct desire to have. But there's a method to do what they want to do and the end around they're doing isn't right. Its something conservatives have rallied against when liberals have done it time and time again, and it is an afront to our principles if we do similar. The constitution is important...ALL of it...and that includes the proper means of bypassing constitutional requirements.
 
I agree completely that allowing people to break the laws, come here, pop out a kid, and then use that kids citizenship as an emotional club to beat the American people into granting them absolution from their crime was not what people invisioned as the purpose of the 14th amendment.

Then again, I'm sure the founders didn't invision the 2nd amendment allowing someone to fire off two or three clips of ammo in the time it took them to shoot, reload, and shoot again. Or that the 1st amendment would allow someone to be heard by over a million people at the same time if not more.

But those unforseen things aren't reason enough for us as conservatives to go along with laws like assult weapons bans or the fairness doctrine.

I have sympathy for these states and agree with their desire for this, and think its the correct desire to have. But there's a method to do what they want to do and the end around they're doing isn't right. Its something conservatives have rallied against when liberals have done it time and time again, and it is an afront to our principles if we do similar. The constitution is important...ALL of it...and that includes the proper means of bypassing constitutional requirements.

How much money is spent on entitelment programs, because of the 1st and 2nd Amendments?

The mass shootings you reference happened in gun free zones. What good did the law restricting guns do?

How many of these illegal aliens that are now anchored down with a kid are we going to pay for?
 
I am by no means a liberal, but this is misguided. People born in the United States are US citizens under the Constitution. End of story. If they want to change this, you need to change the Constitution, which isn't going to happen in this case.

States can stop granting residence status to these people.
 
Will the insanity never cease? Are there really this many state lawmakers so ignorant of the essentialness of 14th Amendment to preventing a subclass from forming in this country?

IMO, the 14th has been misintrepreted for many years. One should read what the original authors wanted the 14th to do. It has nothing to do with todays illegals entering the US hand having kids.

http://www.14thamendment.us/birthright_citizenship/original_intent.html

The correct interpretation of the 14th Amendment is that an illegal alien mother is subject to the jurisdiction of her native country, as is her baby.

Over a century ago, the Supreme Court appropriately confirmed this restricted interpretation of citizenship in the so-called "Slaughter-House cases" [83 US 36 (1873) and 112 US 94 (1884)]13. In the 1884 Elk v.Wilkins case12, the phrase "subject to its jurisdiction" was interpreted to exclude "children of ministers, consuls, and citizens of foreign states born within the United States." In Elk, the American Indian claimant was considered not an American citizen because the law required him to be "not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance."

The Court essentially stated that the status of the parents determines the citizenship of the child. To qualify children for birthright citizenship, based on the 14th Amendment, parents must owe "direct and immediate allegiance" to the U.S. and be "completely subject" to its jurisdiction. In other words, they must be United States citizens.

Congress subsequently passed a special act to grant full citizenship to American Indians, who were not citizens even through they were born within the borders of the United States. The Citizens Act of 1924, codified in 8USCSß1401, provides that:
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom