Time to limit 14th Amendment “anchor baby” language

The summer months of 1967 are recalled by many middle-aged hippies as the “Summer of Love.”  The summer of 2010 may be remembered as the “Summer of Immigration Discontent.”  From Arizona to Nebraska, and in political contests from California to Georgia, immigration debates raged white-hot across the land. 

  •  In Fremont, Nebraska a local, immigration-based law was passed that would require any person, regardless of their immigration status, to register with the local police and obtain a permit before being able to reside in any dwelling within the city limits.
  • In Phoenix, a federal judge granted in large part an injunction sought by the Obama Administration to halt implementation of the state law passed earlier this year, commonly referred to as “S.B. 1070,” that would have significantly enhanced the power of state and local law enforcement authorities to take action against known or suspected illegal aliens.
  • In Georgia’s gubernatorial primary, one Republican candidate endorsed establishing a “Guantanamo Bay of Georgia” to deal with the problem of illegal immigration.
  • Former Republican Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado has called for President Obama to be impeached, because he has abrogated his “duty” to protect the country “from invasion” by illegal immigrants.
  • In Washington, DC, South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham has reignited the debate over whether in fact the 14th Amendment to our Constitution automatically grants American citizenship to any baby born within our borders, regardless of whether the parents are in the country legally. 

The Fremont, Nebraska ordinance has been placed on temporary hold, and the Arizona law is now firmly enmeshed within the federal judiciary (which rarely is applauded for acting swiftly).  Still, the visceral reaction by many in this country to the topic of illegal immigration is not likely to die down any time soon; and certainly not before the vote in November.

Politics asides, the fact that at least some aspects of immigration policy are now being teed up for what is hoped will be definitive judicial rulings, is welcome news.  If the Arizona case moves through the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and to the Supreme Court, all 50 states hopefully will have at least some guidance regarding whether and to what extent they can – consistent with principles of federalism – interfere with and enforce federal responsibilities.  And, if the courts take notice of the Fremont, Nebraska ordinance, perhaps municipalities across the country will better understand that infringing civil liberties of all in order to enforce immigration policies against a few, is not a permissible exercise of local government power.

Of special interest, however, as we enter the final month of this summer’s immigration discontent, is the issue of whether the 14th Amendment really does require states and the federal government to recognize as full-fledged citizens of the United States, babies whose only connection with this country is the fact that their mother was in the country unlawfully at the moment of their birth.  Just as the Supreme Court had never, until its Heller decision in 2008, ruled definitively that the Second Amendment in fact recognized an individual right to keep and bear arms, the high Court has never decided the scope or intent of the 14th Amendment’s so called “anchor baby” language.

Perhaps now one or more states will take action directly (through a legal challenge to the 14th Amendment) or indirectly (through passage of a state law to be challenged by the administration) to determine whether this 1868 Amendment, designed to ensure citizenship for former slaves, should continue to be interpreted to force states to recognize as recipients of taxpayer-funded services in their states, children born to foreign mothers not even lawfully in the country.  If this is part of the legacy of the summer of 2010, it will not have been such a bad one after all.

177 comments Add your comment

Karl Marx

August 9th, 2010
6:33 am

Mr. Barr your libertarian buddies will want to tar and feather you after this. They want a one way open boarder into the United States.

Drifter

August 9th, 2010
7:10 am

Only connection with this country is the fact that their mother was in the country unlawfully at the moment of their birth? Not quite. Their mother was seeking out a better life for her and her child(ren), just like all of our ancestors. Unless you are Native American, I can show you someone who believes your ancestors were here illegally too.

Redneck Convert (R--and proud of it)

August 9th, 2010
7:23 am

Well, I say round ‘em up as soon as their moms birth ‘em, put ‘em in the back of our pickemup trucks, give us a little gas money, and dump ‘em over the border. That’s the way to deal with the wetbacks that want to make their babys American citizens.

But lets not stop there. Put border agents at the school house door. Question the kids the minute they step off of the bus. If they ain’t got a True American birth certificate (long form only) or if they show signs of being from librul famblys, into the back of the pickemup trucks they go.

We need to Take Our Country Back. And a good way to start is hauling illegals and librul riff-raff out of it.

Georgian

August 9th, 2010
7:52 am

It is the plain language in the 14th Amendment that clearly states that those born on U.S. soil are u.S. citizens. Period. What about your strict “Constitutionalist Principles”? Hypocrite!

Stasha

August 9th, 2010
8:01 am

“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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” I really don’t see much wiggle room there and I find it horribly unpatriotic for people to want to repeal a constitutional amendment. How can someone support the repeal while flying a Don’t Tread on Me flag? People’s quickness to relinquish civil liberties due to fear or hatred is disturbing.

Skip

August 9th, 2010
8:13 am

Plug in Muslim for Mexican and tell me how you feel.

Supreme Being

August 9th, 2010
8:19 am

I have 13 cousins that live in South America. They are looking for a better life and thought they would come here. They can’t read or write or speak English and they don’t have any real usable skills. Can any of you nice people give them a job? If not, Maybe they can move in with you while they get settled in because they need a place to live. While you are at it, could you give them some money each morning so they can buy food and clothes. Oh…almost forgot… 4 of them are pregnant, so if you could spare some extra bucks for the babies that would be good too. I know you are probably struggling with your own budget and family expenses, but you see, they are seeking a better way of life and since you all have it so good, maybe you could just reach in your pocket to help them instead of going to the movies next weekend. How about you Drifter, maybe you can step up.

Valerie

August 9th, 2010
8:22 am

It’s not disturbing that people, like myself, would
Like to stop footing the bill for people who can’t go thru the legal channels to get here…. Like ALL laws, there are loopholes. This part of the constitution was not made to allow any and all to come in and remain here without becoming legal citizens. The ones we want gone are the illegals, the ones not paying taxes, the ones using our already taxed out services, the ones who cannot be bothered to learn English. I’m sorry, but if I moved to another country, I would do it legally. I would learn the native language instead of crying foul when others don’t know their language…. I wouldn’t expect to be catered to the way the citizens of my city seem to love to do. I do not in the least bit agree with how the city I live in is conducting itself in regards to illegal immigrants. Then again the douchebags who run this upper Midwest city also welcome squatters, which is a huge slap in the face to those of us who manage to pay our bills no matter how difficult it can be at times.

I’m tired of being walked on and yes, the illegal immigrants walk all over us and so the “don’t tread onme” flags most definitely apply!!!!!!

Lib on a Red Island

August 9th, 2010
8:29 am

Conservatives better be careful here. I heard one of the talking heads say that the authors of the 14th amendment could not have known that it would be so easy to travel to the US when they wrote it therefore the current situation was not their intent. I say you could say the same thing about the right to bear arms. The authors were talking about muskets, not AK-47s. This is a dangerous precedent to set and it could backfire on them when somebody uses the same argument on an issue the like gun control.

Buzz G

August 9th, 2010
8:29 am

If we enforced existing immigration law, there would be no illegals here and we would not have an anchor baby problem. The 14th amendment would not even be a problem.

GB

August 9th, 2010
8:32 am

Georgia and Stasha:

You need to think a bit harder. Re-read the part about “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” and reflect upon its meaning.

And maybe read some more detail on the subject.

http://federalistblog.us/2007/09/revisiting_subject_to_the_jurisdiction.html

And Stasha, you find it “horribly unpatriotic for people to want to repeal a constitutional amendment.” The Constitution has provisions providing for amendments. Amendments can be added and modified or repealed with later amendments. Why is it unpatriotic to make changes in our Constitution in accordance with the terms of the Constitution itself. In 1919 the prohibition amendment was adopted. In 1933 or so it was repealed. Was that unpatriotic?

Finally, go to Mexico illegally, have a baby, and see if that baby is a Mexican citizen. If it is wrong for us to disallow citizenship for anchor babies, isn’t it wrong for other countries?

john k

August 9th, 2010
8:35 am

Finally, go to Mexico illegally, have a baby, and see if that baby is a Mexican citizen. If it is wrong for us to disallow citizenship for anchor babies, isn’t it wrong for other countries?

Our Constitution does not apply to other countries.

Go Jackets

August 9th, 2010
8:39 am

The question for the federal courts is what does the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” mean. In the legal context, “jurisdiction” can mean many things. In the 14th amendment, the term is not clarified – “jurisdiction” of what? The federal courts? The state courts? The IRS?

Simply being within the borders of the country as the child of an illegal immigrant when born may not necessarily subject you to the “jurisdiction” of the United States in the same way that former slaves were. The language of the 14th amendment was intended to have retroactive effect – the former slaves in many ways were subject to the “jurisdiction” of the United States in much different ways than modern day illegal immigrants.

Swede Atlanta

August 9th, 2010
8:45 am

So Mr. Barr, exactly what are you proposing? Once again you are devoid of any ideas.

Let’s say the 14th Amendment as is (or as you would have it changed but have no proposal) was not in effect when you were born. You grow up here, go to kindergarten, grade and middle school and even graduate high school. But your legal status is unknown? At what point does the little baby born here start the process to determine their legal status?

It seems to me that having been born within the terrority of the U.S. as certified on a birth certificate is the most clear cut way of determining that status.

Until you come up with a proposal for what the change you envision would look like I suggest you keep your ideas (or lack thereof) in your little head.

Meka

August 9th, 2010
8:52 am

Changing the Constitution . . . Republicians are Destructive!

lovelyliz

August 9th, 2010
8:57 am

Time to limit 14th Amendment?!?!?!?!

Not until after they limit the 2nd.

Sick&Tired

August 9th, 2010
8:57 am

These people only care about the Constitution when it benefits them. They want everyone else to follow it to the letter “T”, but want to change it to benefit their views.

Are we going to create a generation of kids who don’t belong to any country? How can you force the mother’s native country to accept them as their citizens? They don’t have to nationalize them since the child was not born on their soil.

This whole change the 14th Amendment thing is just stir crazy.

uga_b

August 9th, 2010
8:57 am

I am a Libertarian as well; however, there is a real intersection between property rights and defense versus free trade of labor inside the immigration debate. If we respect citizenship and borders as property, we should want to defend it. It is also not like the only answer to free trade of labor is illegal immigration.

Port O'John

August 9th, 2010
9:22 am

Let’s see illegal immigration is down, deportation of illegal immigrants is up 30% over the Bush years, crime is down in several major american border towns near Mexico. Sounds more and more like an election year wedge issue. Tired of bashing gays?

I suppose its a GOP/libertarian dream to go around and ask dark-skinned Americans for their papers.

Sure Mexico has laws that would not allow a child of immigrants to claim citizenship; and yes you cannot build a christian church in Saudi Arabia. So lets judge our country based on what they do in Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Iran (hello death penalty), etc.

Is America a great country or what? Sadly, not anymore.

GB

August 9th, 2010
9:22 am

“Finally, go to Mexico illegally, have a baby, and see if that baby is a Mexican citizen. If it is wrong for us to disallow citizenship for anchor babies, isn’t it wrong for other countries?

Our Constitution does not apply to other countries.”

Thanks, John k. But I already knew this.

The Constitution and statutes are not immutable. If we are discussing what is the best policy, if we are discussing possible changes in the law, then it is perfectly reasonable to discuss our laws in context with the laws of other countries. If our laws affect citizens of other countries in certain ways, isn’t it relevant to consider how those countries’ laws affect U S citizens?

ButtHead

August 9th, 2010
9:26 am

Georgian, did you NOT read this article? We have a type of government that if some laws written in the 1700’s seems out dated we can change it, do you understand that, or should we still have laws that say you can’t walk you pig on main street?

YesIndeed

August 9th, 2010
9:27 am

Yep, the constitution clearly says “born on US soil”. And yep, I, like other conservative and libertarian minded people, care about and believe in “Constitutionalist Principles”.

And there is clearly a way to change the constitution, as outlined in the constitution. I believe we SHOULD change it, and get rid of the 16th amendment and 17th amendment while we’re at it.

Which is how a person that believes in a constitutional government should approach changes. Legally.

As opposed to the liberal/progressive/fascist method. Appoint liberal judges who legislate via the bench, and expand federal power way beyond what a normal person believes should be allowed, all in the name of interstate commerce.

joe

August 9th, 2010
9:27 am

liberal elitists are socialists h-bent on damaging our country from within…they are our country’s true enemy, along with their so called organizations like ACLU, unions, SLC, ACORN, etc.

jwr

August 9th, 2010
9:27 am

Swede, you miss the point. The 14th doesn’t need to be changed or eliminated…it just needs to be interpreted by the USSC that it only applies to those born here to people who are in the country legally. If your parents are legal immigrants or citizens, then you are a citizen. Simple, really. I’d go so far as to make the law retroactive to 1868. Besides, there is an easy path to citizenship for any immigrant…2 years of military service.

Tech Buzz

August 9th, 2010
9:30 am

How can the child of an illegal be legal simply by being born here? Isn’t that the same thing as rewarding someone for breaking the law..what’s next a bonus for robbing a bank the robber doesn’t kill anyone?

ga_bulldawg79

August 9th, 2010
9:31 am

@LibonaRedIsland, the 2nd Amendment says “arms” not musket loaders. As been rehashed many times on here the 2nd Amendment is a natural right to defend yourself from criminals and a criminal government, period. Its not a right to hunt because in 1787 they didn’t have a Publix to get food, if you didn’t hunt you starved. The 2nd Amendment wasn’t a right to eat. If you have any dought about the 2nd Amendment read the Federalist Paper’s written by the “Father of the Constitution” James Madison, and the intent of the 2nd Amendment is very clear.
As for the 14th Amendment, it was specifically written for slavery not illegal immigrants. I always say look at the “spirit” or the “intent” of the law vs. exactly how its worded…i.e. what was the purpose of the this law?. what was it trying to accomplish? It was trying to accomplish getting slaves citizenship, not citizenship for babies born here to illegal parents trying to “game” the immigration system in this country. That is the exact reason I don’t like “LIBERAL” interpretations of the Constitution, because they will take how its worded and bend it against the “spirit” or “intent” of the law to fit there needs or agenda. I have no problem with birthright citizenship for people born here to non-citizens that are here legally, i.e. on a visa for vacation or visiting a relative, but not for anyone whose parents tried to bypass our immigration laws.

nelson

August 9th, 2010
9:34 am

In 1994 the range in expense for educating children of illegal aliens went from 87.5 million in Pennsylvania to 1.04 billion in Texas. In California in 1994 there were 74,987 deliveries[births] to illegal immigrant mothers at a cost of 215 million to the state of California.
This met higher taxes for the citizens of California and the illegal immigrants being rewarded for 14th Amendment Law Breakers. Breaking the law by being in the country illegaly

Don't Forget

August 9th, 2010
9:41 am

If the 14th amendment was intended only for former slaves why wasn’t it worded that way?

JR

August 9th, 2010
9:44 am

“Time to limit 14th Amendment?!?!?!?!

Not until after they limit the 2nd.”

Why, genius? What does one have to do with the other?

Sick&Tired

August 9th, 2010
9:44 am

The 14th Amendment was added to grant citizenships to slaves, who were born and brought to the USA. The slaves were certainly NOT “Illegals” during that time period and the law has nothing to do with our current immigration situation today. The only reason the 14th Amendment was necessary was to keep the “Hateful” citizens during that time period from denying ex-slaves certain rights; which they eventually did with Jim Crow and other laws regardless of citizenship granted by the 14th amendment.

The desire to change the 14th amendment is just another hateful tool used by the current hateful citizens in our country. They have already come up with their version of Jim Crow in Arizona and many want to push the same laws in other states.

We are headed backwards and history is doomed to repeat itself.

JR

August 9th, 2010
9:45 am

” These people only care about the Constitution when it benefits them.”

This is the epitome of liberalism. Always accuse your adversaries of the same transgression of which you, yourself are guilty.

Don't Forget

August 9th, 2010
9:45 am

Whatever happened to the flag burining amendment? Oh yeah, that was a bogus issue to whip up the GOP base.

HDB

August 9th, 2010
9:53 am

What this is is nothing but an attempt to make discrimination LEGAL in the US…..and begin a new version of Jim Crow or aparthied!! Let’s ewxamine the question that was previously asked: ““Finally, go to Mexico illegally, have a baby, and see if that baby is a Mexican citizen”….

Technically…..YES…but the child would also have DUAL citizenship……so the child would be legal to apply for a paassport in TWO nations!!

Tech Buzz August 9th, 2010
9:30 am
“How can the child of an illegal be legal simply by being born here?”

Can one ACCURATELY determine when a child is to be born?? Is it the CHILD’S fault for being born?? Here’s another example of certain people decrying the government’s ROLE…but asking for a governmental SOLUTION!! Can’t have it both ways!!

jwr August 9th, 2010
9:27 am
“Simple, really. I’d go so far as to make the law retroactive to 1868.”

Legally, a law can NOT be made retroactively…….

YesIndeed August 9th, 2010
9:27 am
joe August 9th, 2010
9:27 am

SInce you are decrying certain progressive policies…..are you advocating a return to segregation and Jim Crow….or slavery….or not allowing women to vote….or the creation of the National Parks….or the Interstate Highway System?? Are you against organizations that defend the Constitution (i.e., civil LIBERTIES)…or organizations that advocate and defend the working class in this nation (unions)…….

Be careful of what you wish for….you may not like the taste of it!!

HDB

August 9th, 2010
9:55 am

Sick&Tired August 9th, 2010
9:44 am
THANK YOU!! You also can see through the mush that’s being pushed….and where it could lead!!

JR

August 9th, 2010
9:56 am

Here’s an idea. Let’s not do away with the 14th amendment. Let’s strengthen it. Let’s change it to say you’re an American citizen at the time of conception, with all the rights and protections afforded an American citizen. Come on liberals. Surely you won’t have a problem with that.

Fred

August 9th, 2010
9:59 am

Liberals/Progressives/Fascists have such a shallow understanding of history. Too busy reading up about the latest aromatherapy breakthroughs. Or worse, reading that joke of a book, Nickel And Dimed by that azz-clown author. Ever see the Reason interview with her. What a fraud and a charlatan. Like the mindset of just about every progressive.

Limit Time

August 9th, 2010
10:01 am

Great legal argument: just “limit” the parts of the constitution that immigrant-haters don’t like! I’ve got a few provisions I’d like to “limit” also. How can I get that enacted???

JR

August 9th, 2010
10:04 am

Liberals are so predictable. If you don’t agree with them, you’re a racist. It’s 2010. Please update your playbook.

Oh, and let’s not forget. The child may be an American citizen, but the mother is still illegal. And she’s more than welcome to take the child with her when she’s deported.

JR

August 9th, 2010
10:07 am

“Great legal argument: just “limit” the parts of the constitution that immigrant-haters don’t like! I’ve got a few provisions I’d like to “limit” also. How can I get that enacted???”

That’s ILLEGAL immigrant-haters. Get your facts straight. Legal immigrants I like. But I don’t particulary care for anybody who breaks the law. Or their enablers.

Unintended consequences

August 9th, 2010
10:09 am

The Amendment is clear. Sure the intent was obvious, but once conservatives go down that road, they become the judicial activists they so deride liberals for allegedly being.

The makers of the amendment just didn’t see the potential consequences, so either change the amendment, or quit bellyaching about judicial activists, lest you look the fool, even if you are right about the damaging unintended consequences of the law.

Sick&Tired

August 9th, 2010
10:09 am

JR

August 9th, 2010
9:56 am

As long as we include the rights for Gay & Lesbians to “marry” and “adopt” children. That should help with the overflow of children in our already crowded shelters. Healthcare and Welfare must be apart of the amendment, because we don’t want those children to die once they are brought into the world.

Also, let’s give all felons the right to vote regardless of what state they current live in.

Cold hard facts

August 9th, 2010
10:13 am

“Can one ACCURATELY determine when a child is to be born??”

HDB is so right. How can anybody tell when someone is born? Crazy talk, all this talk about “date of birth” and “birthdays” and all that other nonsense. At best you can only narrow it down to a five year window. The rest is just pseudoscience.

Frontman

August 9th, 2010
10:19 am

The choice is not between “Progressive” and Neanderthal. If you are against allowing US citizenship to a child born of a person here illegally, you are not hateful, mean, and otherwise completely reprehensible, so just stop the name-calling. Another alternative available to the states not mentioned here is in amending the Constitution again to “write out” the portion of the 14th amendment which “allows anchor babies”. The amendment’s language could be positive (completely spelling out the requirements for “native-born” citizenship) or negative (prohibiting citizenship for certain circumstances). Considering that the approval of 3/4 of the states is required, I think that would be a better way to achieve the rational than simply supplicating a democratic idea to the whims of the federal judiciary.

JR

August 9th, 2010
10:19 am

I’m not so sure about this overflow of children in shelters, but sure. Whatever’s best for the children. If you’re talking about newborns, there won’t be a shortage of couples to adopt them. And anybody willing to provide a safe, happy home for an orphaned child should be allowed to adopt them. I’m really not sure why gays need to be married to do that, but other than that, OK. And I’m really not sure what felons voting have to do with this.

Tech Buzz

August 9th, 2010
10:24 am

HDB what are you mental ? Here we go again “it not the poor child’s fault” your right take a gold star for the day..its the parents fault for being here illegally why in the name of all that;s holy would you grant citizenship to that child his patents 1) broke the law and 2) broke the law in most cases to cash in on the “my child is a U.S citizen” benefit…again you reward an illegal action. If the parents didn’t break the law we never have the problem. No more rewarding of those that do..period.

Sick&Tired

August 9th, 2010
10:27 am

JR

August 9th, 2010
10:19 am

If you start forcing women to have children they don’t want, there will need to be room at children shelters. A few will be joyful at birth, but others will still not want to be mothers.

And I added felons to the list, just because you were okay with amending the Constitution; so I thought it would be a great opportunity to make a few more citizens happy. I believe that anyone who has to file and pay taxes, should have their rights restored. It’s not like felons can opt out of paying taxes.

Jefferson

August 9th, 2010
10:28 am

It is what it is. There is a procedure to change the constitution, if foolish enough to attempt. This would solve very little of the problem, it just sounds “tough”.

Lib on a Red Island

August 9th, 2010
10:30 am

@ga_bulldawg79 : You completely contradict yourself with your entire argument. You complain about liberals fitting the constitution to their wants and beliefs (right, were the only ones) while doing the exact same thing in your argument on the 2nd and the 14th. You argue intent on the 14th while in the paragraph just before it you argue that we should listen to the exact verbiage on the 2nd.

You say the 2nd ammendment was about “arms” and not muskets. While this may be true the “spirit” of it was not to allow drug dealers to aquire AK-47s to be used during turf wars, which we know is the outcome. If the intent is protection from criminals, why does the NRA and the GOP continually quote it when others try to enact common sense gun laws (ie the gun show loophole) to keep guns out of the hands of criminals?

All I am saying is you can’t have it both ways.

DeadPhish

August 9th, 2010
10:40 am

Karl Marx…what kind of “boarder?” Is this one who rents by the day, week, or what?

Tech Buzz

August 9th, 2010
10:42 am

Lib on a Red Island drug dealers by definition are criminals so they don’t acquire AK-47’s legally so why should any honest citizen have their rights restricted? Criminals are restricted by law from owning firearms restricting honest citizens from their legal rights makes no sense. The second amendment doesn’t address the rights of criminals only those of free men and women.

HDB

August 9th, 2010
10:52 am

Cold hard facts August 9th, 2010
10:13 am
“Can one ACCURATELY determine when a child is to be born??”

“HDB is so right. How can anybody tell when someone is born? Crazy talk, all this talk about “date of birth” and “birthdays” and all that other nonsense. At best you can only narrow it down to a five year window. The rest is just pseudoscience.”

Note my distinction: date to BE born versus date OF birth!! That’s two different things! The birthdate is when the occurrance HAPPENED….doctors estimate when the child is to BE born…..what about premature births….or births via C-Sections……some mothers give birth before or after their estimated due date….THAT’S the focus…..get your perspective right!!

Tech Buzz

August 9th, 2010
10:24 am
HDB what are you mental ? Here we go again “it not the poor child’s fault” your right take a gold star for the day..its the parents fault for being here illegally why in the name of all that;s holy would you grant citizenship to that child his patents 1) broke the law and 2) broke the law in most cases to cash in on the “my child is a U.S citizen” benefit…again you reward an illegal action. If the parents didn’t break the law we never have the problem. No more rewarding of those that do..period.

By LAW (which conservatives seem to decry when it’s counter to their ideology): 1. 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”

Does it mention illegal or legal?? The LAW is pretty clear!! If the LAW is applied, the CHILD has rights that are not to be abrogated unless DUE PROCESS occurs!! What you are asking is that due process be DENIED to an American citizen!! Where does that lead us as a nation??? Sounds like apartheid to me….

Chief Three-Legs

August 9th, 2010
10:56 am

I completely agree: Repeal the 14th ammendment. And, make it retroactive to 1776 – O, wait – that’s not what you meant, is it?

Wiley

August 9th, 2010
11:00 am

Well, the liberals and liberal lawyers see separation of church and state to be very different to what our forefathers intended and the 2nd also. So we can just interpret the 14th to mean American citizens and be done with it.

Richard

August 9th, 2010
11:03 am

Out of curiosity, if the 14th amendment no longer applies, how do you get to be an American citizen in the first place? The illegal immigrant’s child is then a citizen of what country?

Linda

August 9th, 2010
11:07 am

The Silverios came to the US illegally with 3 children. Mrs. Silverio had her anchor baby prematurely costing Joaquin General Hospital in Stockton, CA $300,000, where 70% of babies are born to illegal aliens. Another of the Silverios children gave birth. The Silverios earn $18,000 per year picking fruit & the children earn $12,000 from welfare (one has asthma). The cost to send their children to school is $7,000 per child per year X 5 = $35,000 X 12 yrs. = $420,000. CA needs a bailout.

In 10 yrs., 60 hospitals closed in CA. because they were not paid.

The busiest maternity ward in the US is Parkland Memorial Hospital Dallas, where 70% of women giving birth are illegals. 11,200 babies per year received $34.5 million in Medicaid, $9.5 million from the fed. govt. & $31.3 million from Dallas taxpayers.

The story in Atlanta is not any better.

Boneyard Randy

August 9th, 2010
11:07 am

does a baby born to an illegal on a flight from Mexico City to Toronto count as a citizen if it took place over Oklahoma?

Frontman

August 9th, 2010
11:14 am

Richard,
That’s why a new amendment would finally define what being a natural-born citizen is. As to your 2nd question, a country can only define citizenship for itself, not for other countries as well. The U.S. could define whether or not the illegal immigrant’s child is a U.S. citizen, but other countries are free to have their own requirements. Underlying all of this is the fundamental question: where are the requirements for U.S. citizenship actually laid out? Seems to be a haphazard mish-mash of common law and court-inferred diktat. I think what is needed is to define it in as absolute terms as possible. That’s why we may have to go the constitutional amendment route in order to make it happen; if you pass a law, there will be a Constitutional challenge per the 14th amendment anyway.

Don't Forget

August 9th, 2010
11:19 am

So what happens if we deny these babies US citizenship? Would any country grant them citizenship?

oldschoolrider

August 9th, 2010
11:20 am

Same story every city! Except here in California, we pay over $16,000 per year/student. The anchor babies are always the sickest and the mothers have no prenatal care, typically. The baby is instantly elegable for social security and public assistance, as are the parents. Food stamps, welfare, education, hospital care-birth-follow up treatment-therapy, PRISONS, law enforcement , on and on! An while most work labor jobs, they pay no taxes, so their is zero contribution for the services aims at citizens. They typically take these services for decades, then have kids who do the same.
This is simple.
Do some math. Citizens pay every cent the illegals take. FACT!

lovelyliz

August 9th, 2010
11:21 am

Becasue the 2nd amendment is much more dangerous to the populace of our country. It also one of the most loosely interpreted of the constitutional amendments.

Well, than and it would drive the GOP crazy.

ga_bulldawg79

August 9th, 2010
11:22 am

Tech Buzz, Thank you for explaining my point.
@Lib, Criminals can’t legally own guns, and criminals lose certain rights or have others restricted once convicted of a crime, so the 2nd Amendment wouldn’t apply to them. At the end of the day the 2nd Amendment was placed in the Constitution because monarches/goverment tried to disarm the people of England in the 16th century so that they could do whatever they wanted without fear of revolt. The Founders feared the same thing could happen here. And remember our rights are unalienable which means they are given by our Creator, not the government. The government’s job is to protect the rights and just because you don’t like my right to protect myself from a criminal or an oppressive government doesn’t mean you or our government has a right to take mine right away, because you don’t give it to me in the first place. Our great Republic is based on ‘individual rights’ not “collective” ones.

That's nice

August 9th, 2010
11:23 am

Hey Drifter,

You can correct me on this if I am wrong, but I do not believe that any of the Native American tribes had any laws against entering the “country”.

It is a nice bleeding heart kind of thought, but please don’t overstate your opinion.

My family came here before the American Revolution legally.

Frontman

August 9th, 2010
11:25 am

HDB,
You seem hysterically devoted to the 14th amendment as it is. The point has been made repeatedly that law has, and can be, amended. Most contributors to this thread are saying that the LAW needs to be changed. If the LAW couldn’t be changed, then abortion would still be illegal, right?

christian

August 9th, 2010
11:30 am

i thought the conservative christians wanted OBAMA to uphold the constitution…now they want to change ther constitution to fit their racist beliefs…hypocricy at its best

christian

August 9th, 2010
11:33 am

Nice job of bringing religion into a totally unrelated topic.

You forgot to say that they are racist as well.

Grow up and learn to make a point and not just bash someone because you do not agree with them.

Frontman

August 9th, 2010
11:39 am

christian,
I’m not really sure what your point was. Were you referring to my post? Religion had nothing to do with it; it was just about law. Not sure who you are talking about bashing people and being racist. Could you clarify? And do you have a standard rule that the word “racist” must be included in every one of your posts? If so, just include it as the first or last word so it is more easily ignorable.

Dr. Pangloss

August 9th, 2010
11:51 am

“The summer months of 1967 are recalled by many middle-aged hippies as the ‘Summer of Love.’”

The Summer of Love was 1969. Not that I was ever a hippie.

And this is a phony issue.

christian

August 9th, 2010
11:53 am

if the illegals were white then they wouldnt be a problem

Wiley

August 9th, 2010
12:12 pm

Linda

August 9th, 2010
11:07 am
Good post! However if the rich democrats would only pay their taxes….

Lib on a Red Island

August 9th, 2010
12:15 pm

@# Techbuzz and ga_bulldaeg: You guys are missing my point. You are arguing that the 14th ammendment should be changed based on the intent of what was written, not the actual words. I am trying to use the 2nd ammendment as an example of how this can open a big can of worms for issues that the GOP would prefer to argue “as written” versus “intent. I’m not arguing the 2nd, I am a gun owner.

@ga-bulldawg: You said “The government’s job is to protect the rights and just because you don’t like my right to protect myself from a criminal or an oppressive government doesn’t mean you or our government has a right to take mine right away, because you don’t give it to me in the first place.” I could say the same thing for the 14th. Those babies have been given the right to be a citizen of this country, what gives you or the current batch of politicians the right to take that away from them just because you don’t like it?

See my point? You don’t want your rights messed with but you want to mess with others rights when it benefits your point of view. That’s a dangerous precedent to set.

HDB

August 9th, 2010
12:18 pm

Frontman August 9th, 2010
11:25 am

First…since this IS the law….it must be followed!
Second: What you are looking at proposing is what is occurring in Germany…in that only CERTAIN people become citizens…isn’t there enough balkinization in this nation as it is??
Third: Many unjust laws are overturned by judicial fiat…then updated by legislative mandate
Fourth: Isn’t it true that conservatives want the government to GET OUT OF THE WAY?? Now you’re asking for governmental intervention!! Which way is it??

Wiley

August 9th, 2010
12:24 pm

christian

August 9th, 2010
11:53 am
Mabe if they were white they would not be illegals?

One crazy woman

August 9th, 2010
12:30 pm

I ain’t got to worry about my mortgage, ain’t gotta worry about puttin gas in my SUV. Obama say if I help him, he’s gonna help me.
Just how longs it gonna be befo NOBODY werks and the Govmint takes care of everbody. I’m tired of waitin. I want da Govmint to do it now.
That is ecept for dose evil rich folk—they still gotta work!

Sick&Tired

August 9th, 2010
12:43 pm

Wiley

August 9th, 2010
12:24 pm

If you weren’t the first to occupy the land, then you are illegal. So, that makes you an illegal regardless of your skin color.

Linda

August 9th, 2010
12:50 pm

America is not safe, according to ICE agents, & we’re being lied to.

Their entire union, an affiliate of the AFL-CIO, representing all 7000 employees, sworn to protect us, has turned on the Obama adm. They voted unanimously against his leadership heads, accusing them of dishonesty, failure to abide by their oath to uphold the law & compromising our safety (& theirs) to further promote his amnesty agenda.

90% of ICE detainees are first encountered in jails, arrested on criminal charges, & sent to play bingo & learn to dance. The letter describes a massive criminal alien problem in the US…large scale release of criminals.” Most ICE agents are no longer allowed to make arrests. They can’t search detainees in ICE facilities for weapons or drugs.

This vote of no confidence has been covered up since 6/11 & will continue to lack coverage in the alphabet media.

Wiley

August 9th, 2010
12:50 pm

Sick&Tired

August 9th, 2010
12:43 pm
HORSEPUCKY! The native indians were squatters.

Larry

August 9th, 2010
1:00 pm

Since the parents do not consider our laws to be relevant to them, and since our federal government does not enforce the current immigration laws, there may be a question regarding “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” since both parties ignore the law and these individuals are not subject to deportation as called for under the current law.

HDB

August 9th, 2010
1:07 pm

Wiley August 9th, 2010
12:50 pm
“Sick&Tired

August 9th, 2010
12:43 pm
HORSEPUCKY! The native indians were squatters.”

Hmmmm…Native were here when the Mayflower landed….Mayflower settlers moved the Natives out; who’s the squatter?
Cherokee Nation was displaced by whites in Florida: who are the squatters?
Creek, Apache, Najavo, Iriquois nations were displaced by white settlers..natives are deligated to live in reservations; WHO’S THE QUATTERS?

Please redefine the definition……………

barking frog

August 9th, 2010
1:10 pm

Just mark through the word born on all the copies.

barking frog

August 9th, 2010
1:12 pm

The US believes that native americans were the
reason God made Oklahoma.

Linda

August 9th, 2010
1:16 pm

History always repeats itself. Reagan make a mistake with amnesty in 1986. He failed to secure the borders first. There was extensive document fraud with illegals trying to prove they had been living here continuously for 5 yrs. & were law-abiding. The number who applied far exceeded the projections. Laws against employers were not enforced.

What has changed in 24 yrs.? The border is still not secure. There’s at least 12 million illegals here (as of yesterday) compared to the 3 million granted amnesty in 1986. We have more laws, few of which are being enforced. States & cities are in dire situations, especially those who harbor illegals. We have terrorists seeking entry into our country to kill all of us.

Americans will never support amnesty again until the borders are secure. All amnesty does is encourage more illegal immigration & Democratic votes. Illegals are being used a pawns.

barking frog

August 9th, 2010
1:39 pm

Numbers may lie, there’s 12 million mexican restaurants here.

MU in GA

August 9th, 2010
1:51 pm

I’m amazed at the number of women who seem disturbed by the thought of a change to the constitution. Please go read up on your history particularly the part about the 19th amendment.

Linda

August 9th, 2010
1:55 pm

A dozen GOP lawmakers are trying to get to the bottom of a memo regarding granting amnesty by executive order.

How much nerve would Obama have & how desperate would he be to grant amnesty without congressional approval before the November elections?

How much money would the reorganized ACORN make signing up each illegal multiple times to vote?

Would there be any tea left in America from all the new tea party attendees?

Jefferson

August 9th, 2010
1:58 pm

That would be 12 no votes on any given subject…

Wiley

August 9th, 2010
1:59 pm

HDB

August 9th, 2010
1:07 pm
Well, blacks didnt return to Africa so I guess they are the squatters. White christains were promised this land, didnt you know?

Not cool

August 9th, 2010
1:59 pm

I find it hypocritical that we conservatives are willing to easily hold debate on amending the Constitution when it comes to the 14th amendment, but God forbid we even think about regulating our right to bear arms according to the 2nd.

Amending the Constitution to “solve” a problem that could be solved with just the implementation of our current laws sets a dangerous precedent. I’m sure our founding fathers might not have foreseen the illegal immigration problem that we currently have. Nevertheless, they were aware that being born in this nation was a blessing, and that being born within “the jurisdiction” of the United States entitled you to legal and natural rights that no person, state, or political majority could infringe upon. Now, to debate whether or not to take away those rights from an American citizen just because of the legal status of their parents is unnatural. For remember we are discussing the citizenship of a person born here not of their parents; the parents shall not be granted any special treatment because of their child but the child is and will be an American citizen by “Jus soli” (law of ground)

Jconservative

August 9th, 2010
2:28 pm

As the Republican National Committee pointed out over the weekend, the 14th Amendment is a purely Republican amendment. Not a single Democratic member of congress vote for it.

Now I have no idea why the RNC made that pronouncement, but they did.

Now you have the Republican members of congress wanting to examine/change the language of the 14th Amendment.

I would think the quickest way to get a Supreme Court decision is to get a bill through Congress and signed into law. The Supreme Court will handle it within a year. See the Line Item Veto Bill that the Court shot down within months of Clinton signing it into law.

Heads up! There are already rumblings in the pro-life community that any change to the interpretation of the 14th Amendment is “anti-life”.
So the debate may move from the “immigration” battlefront to the “pro-life” battlefront. Or pit the two groups in a head to head confrontation.

Gerald West

August 9th, 2010
2:31 pm

Typical “conservative” ploy, Bob. Stir up the rabble with a hate issue, but offer no solution. Actually, there’s not a solution the American people will tolerate. So, keep the hate stirred so that nothing at all will be done about the illegal immigration “problem”.

Now, what about all those gay people demanding their same-sex marriage rights under the 14th Amendment? Spew some hate on that next!

Where would America be if we got rid of all the children born to illegal immigrants and prevented gay people from marrying? Right where we are now, with a declining economy and dim prospects for a better future.

OneFreeMan

August 9th, 2010
2:35 pm

Gotta blame somebody….Instead of balming US Businessmen for shipping high paying job offshore and replacing them with low-paying jobs and CREDIT, blame people coming here to work.

Linda

August 9th, 2010
2:38 pm

While we’re amending the constitution, let’s amend term limits, define marriage, require patriotism & a balanced budget & promote free enterprise.

HDB

August 9th, 2010
3:02 pm

Wiley

August 9th, 2010
1:59 pm
HDB

August 9th, 2010
1:07 pm
Well, blacks didnt return to Africa so I guess they are the squatters. White christains were promised this land, didnt you know?

Who promised them the land?? The Natives didn’t!! The preponderance of black people came here BY FORCE!! Just as the Natives were forcibily removed from their lands…so were the African blacks taken from their homes and families…by FORCE!!

mike

August 9th, 2010
3:14 pm

Isn’t it ironic all the folks who talk about illegal immigrants are the descendants of the ones who stole, murdered, and generally crooked their way into this country. They tried to exterminate the Native Americans and used blacks as slave labor. It is amazing to see those morons each night on the local and national news talk about taking their country back. If you are from Georgia, then you know Old Bob and his brand of politics. So pushing this agenda is within his scope of reasoning. Sort of sad to see this in this day and age. But what else do these people have.

Wiley

August 9th, 2010
3:15 pm

Well I can tell you why people are talking ammending the constitution. It is because we have a President whose administration is bound and determined to force social laws and values upon the American citizen. The public other than the present reigning party does not want this administration to burden this country with more debt simply by allowing illegal immigrants citizen status so they can vote them back into office. You can all it politics but I call it throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I and my family will not support this type of Chicago style menuevers. POTUS is very close to becoming a KING.

Wiley

August 9th, 2010
3:16 pm

mike

August 9th, 2010
3:14 pm
Yepper and a man got to know his limitations.

Wiley

August 9th, 2010
3:20 pm

HDB

August 9th, 2010
3:02 pm
Ever heard of indentured servants? Did you know the first colony in Ga was formed by convicts made to clear the land? Yep, they settled it. Of course I do not know if all the convicts were white but it was a majority. Oh and remember you folks left Africa to colonize/relocate into the world according to history. It was OK for you then but not for those da*n whites in exploring and settling the new world.

Sick&Tired

August 9th, 2010
3:25 pm

Linda,
Patriotism is more than just waving a flag on the sidelines and buying bumper stickers;
It should be defined as required to serve your country:

Man or woman 18 years of age must register

Regardless of your social status (Poor, middle class, millionaire, billionaire or in the trillions)

Regardless of your education plans (already in college, plan to go to college or graduating from college)

Regardless of you being an only child (son or daughter)

You must fight on the battle field (not on the sidelines or just as support) – men & women

You must deploy with no excuses and regardless of your (political, religious or military views)

While enlisted you must respect the current President and deploy upon notification

I’m sure I could think of a few more patriotic requirements.

HDB

August 9th, 2010
3:34 pm

Wiley August 9th, 2010
3:20 pm

Look, colonization was required so that the world would be as it is….but the preponderance of colonization was done by Europeans….not Africans. African exploration primarily took place on the continent. European colonization started with the Greeks, Phoenicians and Romans….modern history shows the French, British, Spanish, Portuguese exerted thewir global influence on the African continent. It is also historical fact that white people spread more diseases and killed indigeneuos populations by disease and force than any other nationality!! (Quoting HISTORY…not my personal opinion!!) Christopher Columbus brrought smallpox to the Americans.

“No evidence has been found of any smallpox-like diseases in Latin America before the arrival of European explorers. With the discovery of the New World, Europeans brought with them Old World diseases, most notably smallpox, which were to decimate the native population.

The Amerindians of Latin America had no natural resistance to the disease, and smallpox was to spread rapidly and disastrously. Spanish Conquistadors were set to wage war against the civilizations of Latin America with steel and horse, but no weapon could have been more lethal than smallpox.”

From: www. suite101.com/content/the-history-of-smallpox-in-latin-america-a152524#ixzz0w8gEXIL4

Linda

August 9th, 2010
3:35 pm

One Free @ 2:35, Why is it wrong for a US businessman to (legally) go offshore to work & it’s okay for an alien to come here illegally to work?

Assuming the US businessman & the illegal alien are both promoting the products of Merck Pharmaceuticals, is it more or less egregious for the American to legally sell cocaine to hospitals offshore than for the illegal alien to sell it in streets of America?

Wiley

August 9th, 2010
3:38 pm

Linda

August 9th, 2010
2:38 pm
You took my breath away!

Sick&Tired
August 9th, 2010
3:25 pm
I am sick&tire of liberals. Is that original or what?

Linda

August 9th, 2010
3:53 pm

Sick & Tired @ 3:25, I think we should start by bringing our flag & pledge back into the classroom, along with teaching civics, the constitution & American history.

When the next generation learns that the “separation of church & state” is located nowhere in the constitution, that it’s a figment of the progressives’ imagination, maybe we can get a little prayer back in the classroom.

(It would also help if fifth graders were still taught science to learn that breathing/air doesn’t cause global warming.)

No More Progressives!

August 9th, 2010
3:53 pm

Georgian

August 9th, 2010
7:52 am
It is the plain language in the 14th Amendment that clearly states that those born on U.S. soil are u.S. citizens. Period. What about your strict “Constitutionalist Principles”? Hypocrite!

Now tell us what the 2nd Amendment says………….

This should be fun…..

Wiley

August 9th, 2010
3:56 pm

HDB

August 9th, 2010
3:34 pm
They all came out of Africa.

Wiley

August 9th, 2010
3:59 pm

Linda

August 9th, 2010
3:53 pm
I need oxygen! Where have you been? A real American! Keep posting please!

Linda

August 9th, 2010
3:59 pm

Wiley @ 3:38, I took your breath away? Then you won’t be leaving your carbon footprint on the environment. Pray tell how you are to continue to clean your glasses, blow out your birthday candles & blow up balloons.

Wiley

August 9th, 2010
4:01 pm

Your posts will resuscitate me!

Wiley

August 9th, 2010
4:04 pm

Ok I will stop. However, Linda and others drive the progressive liberals off the blog. She directs her comments with facts and American traditions and customs. Soon they will gang up and personally attack her. It is their motto.

Linda

August 9th, 2010
4:06 pm

Wiley @ 4:01, Then you will harm the environment. Carbon dioxide is your breath when you exhale. Did you know that?

Wiley

August 9th, 2010
4:11 pm

Well, but Al Gore wont like me anymore if I contaminate the environment with CO2. I guess I should breath in the fumes of his jet exhausts.

I think you have intimidated all the others.

Deal? Get Real!

August 9th, 2010
4:12 pm

This is nothing more than the latest wedge issue. Thanks to all for playing. Tools.

sam

August 9th, 2010
4:12 pm

One way to slow down this illegal immigration stuff is to put a bounty on their heads. Every real American ought to just shoot a Mexican. That would clean up the mess right away. About those anchor babies–we have enough little b…tards born to welfare mothers who are legal, why would we want any more? We can’t afford all these leeches.

Deal? Get Real!

August 9th, 2010
4:18 pm

All Americans who have ever benefited from the labor of one of these “leeches” are responsible for this problem and have broken the law. Such a shame to suffer the consequences of your own actions.

Linda

August 9th, 2010
4:19 pm

Wiley @ 4:01, Let them attack me personally. I can hold my own.

They should be tired of the same old rhetoric & childish name-calling. They are like the boy who cried wolf in Aesop’s Fable. The moral of the story was, “Even when liars tell the truth, they are never believed. The liar will lie one, twice & then perish when he tells the truth.”

No More Progressives!

August 9th, 2010
4:20 pm

HDB

August 9th, 2010
3:34 pm

The Amerindians of Latin America had no natural resistance to the disease, and smallpox was to spread rapidly and disastrously.

I wasn’t aware that you had a background in immunology. Tell us, HDB, what society does have a “natural resistance” to smallpox?

While you’re at it, explain to us how the AIDS virus was transmitted from primates…………..

And for your encore, tell us that the rats that spread the Bubonic Plague to Crimea in 1346 were “white.”

Wiley

August 9th, 2010
4:21 pm

sam

August 9th, 2010
4:12 pm
Calm down or your blood pressure will shoot through the roof? I agree with your logic but your means are too much. Besides, you pull a gun out and the liberals will run to mexico. Then drug cartels will declare war on us.

HDB

August 9th, 2010
4:25 pm

Linda -August 9th, 2010
3:53 pm

Make sure that when American history is taught….ALL of American history is taught….not just the Euro-centric versions that those in Texas wish to claim as true American history!!

Prayer still exists in the classroom — ask any student who’s preparing to take an exam!!

Wiley

August 9th, 2010
4:04 pm
Ok I will stop. However, Linda and others drive the progressive liberals off the blog. She directs her comments with facts and American traditions and customs

LEst you forget that many facts, custom, and traditions began as progressive ideas….
1) Father’s Day: In 1966, President Lyndon Johnson issued the first presidential proclamation honoring fathers, designating the third Sunday in June as Father’s Day.[
2) National Park Service: The first effort by any government to set aside such protected lands was in the United States, on April 20, 1832, when President Andrew Jackson signed legislation to set aside four sections of land around what is now Hot Springs, Arkansas to protect the natural, thermal springs and adjoining mountainsides for the future disposal of the US government.
3) Mother’s Day: One of the early calls to celebrate Mother’s Day in the United States was the “Mother’s Day Proclamation” by Julia Ward Howe. Written in 1870, it was a pacifist reaction to the carnage of the American Civil War and the Franco-Prussian War. The Proclamation was tied to Howe’s feminist belief that women had a responsibility to shape their societies at the political level
4) Civil Rights Act of 1964: The conference bill was passed by both houses of Congress, and was signed into law by President Johnson on July 2, 1964. Legend has it that as he put down his pen Johnson told an aide, referring to the Democratic Party, “We have lost the South for a generation.”

Enough???

Wiley

August 9th, 2010
4:25 pm

Linda

August 9th, 2010
4:19 pm
THAT, I have no doubt.

Wiley

August 9th, 2010
4:32 pm

HDB

August 9th, 2010
4:25 pm
HDB

Mothers day? What has that become? Fathers day? Only the liberal biased media knows when that is. Civil rights a good thing. Parks? That is the government controlling property. You know you will never own your own property. The government will keep you paying for it as long as your live–property taxes. Well, if your are a rich democrat you might not pay taxes.

Linda

August 9th, 2010
4:42 pm

This is my plan. The Tea Party sneaks up on them at the border. We confiscate their drugs, sell them in California & pay off the national debt by the November elections. (Will get rid of Cal. & debt at same time.) Back at the border, we call up Williams Brothers Concrete Co. & have the drug dealers/kidnappers, etc. build a fence wearing the pink prison uniforms from Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s jail. We buy pink socks to match. Someone will be assigned to go the Kennesaw Mt. Nalt. Battlefield Park & borrow the cannon balls. We’ll show gang members what chain gangs are all about.

Deal? Get Real!

August 9th, 2010
4:43 pm

HDB- You’re casting your pearls to swine here. Thanks for showing that there are other opinions than those spewed here. Don’t expect to change any minds though.No thanks to ACLU member Barr for throwing the red meat out here. Our immigration problems are not the fault of the 14th ammendment. We let these illegals in because of their cheap labor. What? Did we expect them not to procreate in their off hours? The problem lies in the mirror.

Linda

August 9th, 2010
5:02 pm

HDB @ 4:25, I’ll give you an A minus for not reminding us that FDR extended the Great Depression for over 10 years & that history is repeating itself as I type. I would venture to say that the great majority of Americans have no clue as to the progressive agenda in 2010. I can assure you that it has absolutely nothing to do with recognizing mamas & daddies let alone with personal responsibility & freedoms. My eyes are wide open & know exactly what they are up to.

Deal? Get Real!

August 9th, 2010
5:09 pm

” My eyes are wide open & know exactly what they are up to.”

Too bad your mind is so closed to anything except right-wing dogma. Your oh-so-vigilent eyes do not give me comfort. They’re actually kind of creepy.

Jefferson

August 9th, 2010
5:22 pm

Linda — should we vote on what prayers we have at school? I’m all for it as long as it is my kind of prayer. What if I get outnumbered?

Jeb

August 9th, 2010
5:40 pm

I say deport adulterers. Oops..Bob would have to go.

Bob

August 9th, 2010
5:40 pm

I don’t have a problem with the baby becoming a citizen, however the mother should still be deported. If she wants to take the baby with her that is her decision and the baby can come back when it is 18. If the mother does not want the baby (still her decision), I am sure we can find a home for it.

Linda

August 9th, 2010
5:52 pm

Deal @ 5:09, Over 30 yrs. ago when my husband introduced me to our new accountant, my husband warned him that I would be asking a lot of questions. I’ve never forgotten my husband’s perspective of me in our early marriage & I’ve never changed. I question everything & everyone & I learn something new every day. I was raised in a Dem home & hometown & converted to a Rep as Dems became more liberal & I became more conservative, as people often do as they mature & experience life. The only things my mind are closed to are sins outlined in the Bible & breaking the law.

You should take “comfort” in the fact that there are still people on both sides of the political spectrum that question each others’ perspectives & try to seek the truth & common ground, without calling each other “creepy.”

Linda

August 9th, 2010
6:13 pm

Jefferson @ 5;22, I think all prayers should focus more on thanking than asking. We should only ask for God’s blessings & pray for each other.

I thank God everyday for sending me problems & challenges. If other people did not have them, I would not have had a job for 40 yrs. If I did not have my share of them, I would not be the person I am today.

May God bless you.

christian

August 9th, 2010
7:40 pm

this country is getting to dark for white christian conservatives….

Lee

August 9th, 2010
7:42 pm

Here’s what the 14th Amendment says:

“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.”

Key phrase, ….AND subject to the jurisdiction thereof…

Plainly put, if you are an illegal alien, you are not subject to the jurisdiction of the state.

Linda

August 9th, 2010
7:43 pm

According to immigrationcounters.com,
22,937,000 illegal aliens in the USA
585,400 illegals other than Mexicans (terrorists perhaps)
$35,760,000,000 wired to Mexico since 1/06 (that’s billions)
$298,100,000,000 wired to Latin America since 1996 (that’s billions)
$397,500,000,000 cost of social services to illegal aliens since 1996 (that’s billions)
5,300,000 number of children of illegal aliens in public schools
$173,726,000,000 cost of illegal alien children in K-12 since 1996 (that’s billions)
428,404 number of illegal aliens currently incarcerated
$27,250,000,000 cost of incarcerating illegals since ‘08
750,000 illegal alien fugitives
5,050,000 anchor babies since ‘02
11,750,000 skilled job provided to illegals
Their $10 per hour jobs are costing American taxpayers billions of dollars per year.
The world is laughing at American for our lack of securing our borders, our self-imposed drilling for our own natural resources, our belief that air causes global warming & our president’s ability to appoint communist/socialist czars to implement national policy.

Linda

August 9th, 2010
8:08 pm

Christian @ 7:40, Give it up. You are not a Christian, a speller or a conservative.

To translate, you are taking the name of God in vain (Exodus 20:17), you are showing your lack of fundamental education (fifth grade) & you are displaying the liberals’ mantra of calling conservatives racists which is so old hack that it went out with flat-earthers. Cry wolf one more time & see what it gets you.

christian

August 9th, 2010
8:09 pm

@LINDA

U SOUND LIKE A RIGHTWING commie….u and the rest of your commie rightwing conservatives didnt say anything about illegal aliens until OBAMA became president…y’all didnt make a peep for 8 yrs while DUBYA GUMP was in office…typical rightwing hypocricy

christian

August 9th, 2010
8:12 pm

@LINDA

the truth never gets old…if the illegals were white it wouldnt be a problem…but then again it wasnt a problem until we got a black president…the country is getting to dark for you…lol…and who are u to say who is and isnt a christan?…u must get your talking points from drug addict LIMBAUGH

olderandwiser49

August 9th, 2010
8:12 pm

“Subject to the jurisdiction thereof” doesn’t mean born in the U.S. It is common law that children are aligned with the same country to which their parents owe their allegiance. Since illegals owe their allegiance to the country from which they came, until or unless they become legal U.S. citizens, their children are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S., but rather, subject to the jurisdiction of their parents’ home country. Seems pretty clear-cut to me. If we would stop paying to house, feed, and educate the children of illegals (and why we do makes no sense at all), and eliminate (or “clarify”, in politcally correct words) the “anchor baby” law, two-thirds or more would probably return to their homelands. Instead, we do everything but put up signs reading, “Welcome to Obamaland, all illegal immigrants. Feel free to choose any or all of these free benefits, or free to you, anyway. We have housing, food, jobs, education, and medical treatment free for the taking, just for coming over the border. Wife knocked-up? No worries. Just cross the line, and make your kid a U.S. citizen. That’s when we really sweeten the pot for you and your family, with welfare programs and benefits almost as good as we give our politicians, and certainly better than we offer our own citizens. Why are they better? Because they have to pay for theirs, and yours, too!!!” Maybe I shouldn’t print this. Next thing you know, there will be signs just like this all along the border, but they will have Obama’s picture on them with the slogan, “Another great project arising from my wonderful stimulus package!”

christian

August 9th, 2010
8:20 pm

@olderwiser49

ITS funny that u conseratives said nothing about illegal immigration until a black president came to power
…where was y’alls phony outrage when DUBYA GUMP was in office for 8 yrs

Linda

August 9th, 2010
9:47 pm

Christian @ 8:09 & 8:12, I was unaware that any Communists were in the conservative party. Would that not negate what we stand for: individual freedoms & the right to fail? Enlighten me.

On the other hand, I can name you bunches of Communists/Marxists/Socialists in the Obama adm., including Obama, from his czars to his friends, appointees & their quotes from their own mouths to prove my point. It would take up many spaces on this blog.

If you would read my former post on this blog today, I said that Reagan make a mistake in 1986 by granting amnesty without securing the border. It only caused the problem to worsen. The problem is that we have 4 times the illegal aliens today than we had then. It didn’t solve the problem then & it won’t now. Americans will never again fall for amnesty again until the border is secure! Amnesty in1986 for 3 millions illegal aliens made the problem much worse, one of those causing another over 12 million to cross the border.

Both the Rep & Dem parties have supported illegal immigration against the wishes of the American people, for decades, for their own political agenda.

I must be stupid but I was unaware Mexicans & Latinos were not white. When did we start going by shades of color? When did we start discriminating against people from other countries & Americans who like to sit out by the pool?

Conservatives are not against Obama because he is black or half-black. They voted for them. They are against his policies. Calling us racists is like crying wolf & old rhetoric.

I know a Christian & you show no signs of being onel

I don’t listen to the radio.

Tinsel

August 9th, 2010
9:50 pm

It comes as no surprise that libs want those babies anchored here in the U.S. thereby severing the umbilical cord to their illegal parents. Libs have no interest in the family unit.

Brown v Brown.

Linda

August 9th, 2010
10:00 pm

Christian @ 8:30, Americans, both conservatives & liberals have been screaming to secure the border for decades. It’s only the politicians in DC that are against it, both Dems & Reps for different reasons.

kamakiri001

August 9th, 2010
10:37 pm

Parts of the 14th Amendment have already been repealed previously (by the 19th and 26th Amendments):

“Amendment XIV, Section 2 eliminated the three-fifths rule, specifically stating that representation to the House is to be divided among the states according to their respective numbers, counting all persons in each state (except Native Americans who were not taxed). The provision also punished states that did not let all males over the age of 21 vote by reducing their population for purposes of representation in Congress.

With the adoption of the Nineteenth Amendment in 1920, the right to vote in federal elections was extended to women. Eighteen- to twenty-one-year-olds became voters in 1971, with the adoption of Amendment XXVI. But language in this section has been used to support the constitutionality of state laws than deny felons the right to vote.”

So how come nobody is complaining about the previous alterations to the 14th Amendment (via the 19th and 26th Amendment) until now?

No More Progressives!

August 10th, 2010
5:58 am

HDB

August 9th, 2010
4:25 pm
Linda -August 9th, 2010
3:53 pm

Make sure that when American history is taught….ALL of American history is taught….not just the Euro-centric versions that those in Texas wish to claim as true American history!!

Well, HDB, another pearl of your version of wisdom. I suppose that schools everywhere could teach Afro-centric history………if it were written down. Remove the Egyptian influence in the north, and the Dutch/English influence in the south, and what do you have? A continent that lives the same way today as they did 5,000 years ago.

History lesson over.

Bob

August 10th, 2010
10:04 am

Every person should have a right to be a citizen of some country. Every right ever granted, either by the State or by God, has been used and abused. Does that mean every right being abused should be abolished? If I, a US citizen, marries a Mexican Citizen living in the US, does that mean my children should not be citizens of ANY country? They wouldn’t be Mexican and, under the proposal to limit the 14th Amendment, not citizens of the US either.

Also these so-called “anchor babies” don’t stay babies. They grow up to become adult American citizens in 18 short years, with the full rights and responsibilities of a citizen. They pay taxes. They have to work for a living. They become us. How does that threaten America? How does that do anything but strengthen America?

Keep the 14th Amendment the way it is.

zeke

August 10th, 2010
10:18 am

THERE ARE NO NATIVE AMERICANS! THEY ALSO CAME HERE FROM ELSEWHERE! GET OVER IT!!

Eddie

August 10th, 2010
10:21 am

You are a citizen of the country you are born in. That’s basic. Nothing else makes any sense.

I'm Here from the government and I'm here to help

August 10th, 2010
10:41 am

Time to follow the first paragraph of the Constitution!

No More Progressives!

August 10th, 2010
10:46 am

Eddie

August 10th, 2010
10:21 am
You are a citizen of the country you are born in. That’s basic. Nothing else makes any sense.

Nick Price, one of the best golfers of the 90’s, was born in Durbin, S. Africa. He currently resides in Florida.

Is he 1) African-American, 2) African, 3) American, or 4) all of the above?

Grob Hahn

August 10th, 2010
10:48 am

I get so tired of hearing people proclaim that present-day Americans are “immigrants” or that we are here unlawfully in some way. As if we personally came here and took the place in the night when the native population wasn’t looking. Settling this country took centuries and the land would have been taken by any number of other nations if left to the native population to protect and hold. That’s just a fact of life on earth, you only keep what you can defend. And the native population was too sparse and disconnected to defend the entire mass. They only realized it was worth defending when they had already lost it. But we wouldn’t even have an America if not for the continuous warfare with the native population. They taught colonists how to fight and ultimately the colonists defeated a far more powerful master nation to achieve freedom. My own family has been here since before the Civil War. I’m not an immigrant and I’m not leaving my native country; America. So whine about it all you like. Sure you can show me a few disgruntled (in their own mind) people who will swear up and down that anyone who isn’t a “Native American” is clearly an illegal immigrant even to this day. Sorry, but that’s just a dream and has no basis in reality. Americans aren’t going to pack up and leave after working so hard to build this nation and improve the world in the process. Instead of sitting around griping about a time you weren’t even part of, why not live in reality and become part of America and America’s future. Surely you know that you can’t fix the past. Ever!
Grobbbbbbbbbbbbb

No More Progressives!

August 10th, 2010
11:17 am

While you open borders liberals are cogitating on the above, look up the phrase “sovereign nation.” It may mean nothing to you apologists out there, that think the greatest nation in world history is resposible for every miniscule problem that befalls anybody. But it means something to those of us willing to adhere to the law and die defending it.

The Romans lasted 1,480 years. We’ll be luck to make 250.

mpercy

August 10th, 2010
2:49 pm

As a libertarian, I am for more open borders and freer trade. However, unchecked immigration is not compatible with a welfare state (which as a libertarian, I also oppose). Since we have a welfare state, at this point I concluded that I have to oppose unchecked (illegal) immigration.

And the proposal is not to do away with the 14th, but rather the clarify for the modern era and strengthen the application of the phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”.

In 1873 the United States Attorney General ruled the word “jurisdiction” under the Fourteenth Amendment to mean:

The word “jurisdiction” must be understood to mean absolute and complete jurisdiction, such as the United States had over its citizens before the adoption of this amendment… Aliens, among whom are persons born here and naturalized abroad, dwelling or being in this country, are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States only to a limited extent. Political and military rights and duties do not pertain to them. (14 Op. Atty-Gen. 300.)

At the time, the phrase was understood to exclude Indians, as they were technically subjects of a sovereign power (their own tribes as recognized by treaty).

Only recently has “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” come to be seen to have been completely erased from the clause (apparently only to apply to children of diplomats).

I see absolutely no problem with clarifying the phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” to require explicitly that a child born on US soil will be a US citizen if and only if at least one parent was a natural born or naturalized citizen at the time the child was born (legal visa holders and illegal aliens are not citizens!).

Of course, such a change would not be applied retroactively, and so does not affect anyone already born so crying about that is a smoke screen. Instead it merely removes one of the incentives for coming here or staying here illegally in the future. And is clearly in line with the thinking of the framers of the 14th, who were struggling with language to define former slaves as citizens but not to include everyone who could, however tenuously, claim citizenship.

Jefferson

August 10th, 2010
4:12 pm

The problem is what to do with the illegals that are here, this discussion about the 14th does nothing but incite bs and solves nothing.

mpercy

August 10th, 2010
7:26 pm

HDB: Does it mention illegal or legal?? The LAW is pretty clear!! If the LAW is applied, the CHILD has rights that are not to be abrogated unless DUE PROCESS occurs!! What you are asking is that due process be DENIED to an American citizen!! Where does that lead us as a nation??? Sounds like apartheid to me….

Not at all, what we’re discussing is amending the Constitution to clarify the phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”. Following clear and Constitutional principles to do so. Having Congress and 3/4 of the States agree. And the change would apply only to *future* children of illegal aliens.

Due process is certainly followed, and it is not at all apartheid nor DENIAL of DUE PROCESS to insist that illegal aliens not be given the benefit of citizenship for their children simply for having successfully avoided deportation for their several criminal offenses before they managed to give birth.

mpercy

August 10th, 2010
7:33 pm

HDB: Hmmmm…Native were here when the Mayflower landed….Mayflower settlers moved the Natives out; who’s the squatter? Cherokee Nation was displaced by whites in Florida: who are the squatters?
Creek, Apache, Najavo, Iriquois nations were displaced by white settlers..natives are deligated to live in reservations; WHO’S THE QUATTERS?

And many of the illegal aliens we’re discussing are themselves descendants of the Spanish, who conquered and devastated the Aztec and Mayan populations of Central America, and who are claiming some sort of rightful ownership over the southwestern US.

What’s your point?

mpercy

August 10th, 2010
7:43 pm

Oh, and HDB, there are no indigenous people on this continent, so the term “native” is a misnomer. There are only the descendants of people who arrived here sooner than other people. Yes, they got here first and by some 12,000 years head start and by all means should have had the right to be here without the near-genocide that was enacted upon them by encroaching Europeans (French, English primarily in North America and Spanish in Central/South America).

But they are not “native” any more than the horses with which the various Plains Indians are commonly associated, which of course were brought here by the invading Spaniards (who were themselves the forefathers of the most of the invading horde of illegal aliens).

mpercy

August 10th, 2010
7:50 pm

mike @3:14 pm Isn’t it ironic all the folks who talk about illegal immigrants are the descendants of the ones who stole, murdered, and generally crooked their way into this country. They tried to exterminate the Native Americans and used blacks as slave labor.

Isn’t it ironic all the illegal immigrants are the descendants of the ones who stole, murders, and generally crooked their way into South America. They tried to exterminate the Aztecs, Inca, and Mayans and used blacks as slave labor.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_colonization_of_the_Americas
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_Spanish_New_World_colonies

mpercy

August 10th, 2010
7:57 pm

Dammit, I hate when I’m late to the party and don’t even notice! I apparently lost a day somewhere and thought this was today’s blog!

Rick

August 10th, 2010
9:09 pm

GB August 9th, 2010 8:32 am

Georgia and Stasha:

You need to think a bit harder. Re-read the part about “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” and reflect upon its meaning.

And maybe read some more detail on the subject.

http://federalistblog.us/2007/09/revisiting_subject_to_the_jurisdiction.html
========================
Clearly with regards to children of Mexican parentage, they are Mexican citizens (by the Mexican Constitution)! They are NOT subject to the jurisdiction of the US government anymore than their Mexican parents are subject to the jurisdiction of the US! They are entitled to representation from the Mexican consulate. As evidenced in many parades featuring illegal aliens holding Mexican flags, they still owe their allegiance to Mexico and have not renounced such!

I hope they get this to the US Supreme Court soon! We need to cut these “anchor” babies off from all the US social benefits they have been illegally receiving.

Pat

August 10th, 2010
10:22 pm

Post-Civil War reforms focused on injustices to African Americans. The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 to protect the rights of native-born Black Americans, whose rights were being denied as recently-freed slaves. It was written in a manner so as to prevent state governments from ever denying citizenship to blacks born in the United States.

In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by stating:
“Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons”.

It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. The children born in the U.S. to illegal alien parents are NOT U.S. citizens. The illegal aliens are NOT under the jurisdiction of any state in the US( the states don’t know the illegals), can they (illegals) be compelled to serve jury duty? NO. Only LEGAL US Citizens can serve as jurors. Therefore, they are NOT under the jurisdiction of any state in the US.

The 14th Amendment stipulates that Congress has the power to enforce its provisions by enactment of legislation, and the power to enforce a law is necessarily accompanied by the authority to interpret that law. Therefore, an act of Congress stating its interpretation of the 14th Amendment, as not to include the offspring of illegal aliens, would fall within Congress’s prerogative.

ZOO

August 10th, 2010
10:41 pm

“If the Arizona case moves through the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and to the Supreme Court, all 50 states hopefully will have at least some guidance regarding whether and to what extent they can – consistent with principles of federalism – interfere with and enforce federal responsibilities.”

INTERFERE WITH? Odd choice of words for a seemingly ‘neutral -toned’ piece. Perhaps Barr is or should be part of Obama’s attack team.

ZOO

August 10th, 2010
10:55 pm

BOB sez: “If I, a US citizen, marries a Mexican Citizen living in the US, does that mean my children should not be citizens of ANY country?” – The proposed clarification is to require at least ONE of the parents be a U.S. citizen. The answer to your question is no.

BOB sez: “Also these so-called

Rachel

August 10th, 2010
11:23 pm

The 14th Amendment does NOT need to be amended in order to prevent citizenship being granted to the children of illegal aliens. Senator Jacob Howard authored the phrase ‘and subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ for the 14th Amendment and described the purpose of the phrase in a public statement:

h t t p://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_M._Howard
“[The 14th amendment] will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of person.”

The Constitution does not have to be modified, the intent of the author is already clear. All that would be needed would be a majority vote on legislation defining the term ‘and subject to the jurisdiction thereof’ as the author intended, or a SCOTUS interpretation of the clause.

The children of illegal aliens, regardless of what the ‘intent’ of their parents is, are not eligible for citizenship through birth on US soil. The intent of the authors of the 14th amendment was NOT to reward the children of people that broke the law. After all, can anyone name a specific right/privilege/program that is only made available to the children of burglars, or those who are incarcerated? Of course not. Why? Because we DO NOT AND SHOULD NOT REWARD ILLEGAL BEHAVIOR. Anyone that can think straight is perfectly aware of this.

As usual the open borders wailers will use the term racist as a scare tactic to threaten anyone who supports the law. Unfortunately for them, that card has been way overplayed and is no longer effective.

Rachel

August 10th, 2010
11:27 pm

Personally I believe that we should do what most countries have done in requiring that the child take on the citizenship of the mother. If the father of that child is a citizen, then he should petition to sponsor them while they wait for approval to become US citizens. That way he is responsible for their care, not the taxpayers.

Rachel

August 10th, 2010
11:39 pm

Jefferson

If we have a lawful presence requirement for anyone to receive any taxpayer funded privilege, benefit, service or grant, and set it up so that all employers and hospitals are also required to utilize e-verify, it would be a moot point. Unable to get a job or any benefits, the vast majority would self deport, much as they have been leaving Arizona since SB1070 passed. While technically we cannot deny a child a K-12 education thanks to Plyler v. Doe, it is time to challenge that decision. At that time the children of illegal aliens cost the state of Texas roughly $1 million to educate, which is a drop in the bucket even by the standards back then. However, today multiple billions of taxpayer dollars are spent educating the children of illegal aliens and it is now having a severe fiscal impact on many states, all due to the federal refusal to and failure in securing the borders and enforcing immigration laws.

AngryLegalAmerican

August 11th, 2010
12:50 am

Those of you commenting on how the 14th amendment is clear on awarding children born in the USA, even if their parents are illegal aliens, are probably wrong in their assessment.

14th Amendment:
Section 1. 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.

Here is the part most of you fail to observe:
“and subject to the jurisdiction thereof…..

As most illegal alien children born in this country have parents that are NOT U.S. CITIZENS and are not SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF(the U.S.), therefore the child born IS NOT subject to the jurisdiction thereof (the U.S.) either.

AngryLegalAmerican

August 11th, 2010
1:12 am

I comment on many websites concerning the MASSIVE PROBLEM of ILLEGAL ALIENS(not immigrants) and the bottom line of all of this is WE ARE BEING INVADED. Anyone who doesn’t call 20-30 MILLION citizens from another country entering our country ILLEGALLY needs to have their heads examined(to see if they have brains) and be forced to have a portion of these illegal aliens live in their homes indefinitely.
If you have NO problem with them being in this country then you should not have any problem housing them too.
But I suppose for you to consider it “an invasion” they need to be wearing uniforms and carrying guns.
Maybe then you’d realize the seriousness of the problem.
But I honestly doubt you would even then.

Brooke

August 11th, 2010
3:14 am

Amazing that some folks are asking what country the babies born here would be citizens of if the anchor baby option was taken away. The babies would naturally take the same citizenship as their mothers!

Augiestyles

August 11th, 2010
5:18 am

Let me make this as clear as possible for the libs and progressives out there who don’t seem to grasp the seriousness of 40 million illegal aliens feeding off one country…..THE CONSTITUTION IS NOT A SUICIDE PACT!!!

No More Progressives!

August 11th, 2010
8:06 am

Rachel

August 10th, 2010
11:39 pm
“However, today multiple billions of taxpayer dollars are spent educating the children of illegal aliens……..”

Well said. My wife, an ICU nurse of some 30 years, can tell you story after story of pregnant illegals who sit in the hospital parking lot, waiting for the contractions to get closer. Then, when birth is imminent, they enter the ER and, Voila!, Medicare (a/k/a the US taxpayer) get stiffed with the ER & neo-natal bill. This happens right here in out little town in W. GA. Immagine CA or AZ.

SITDOWN

August 11th, 2010
8:42 am

This amendment is being ABUSED. Of course it should modified. And all you “truth to power” lefties who whine about how “we” (Normal people) expect adherence to the constitution, just remember that this amendment was designed to legitimately help former slaves, not open the door for LYING, AMERICA HATING, INVADERS to finagle aw way into this great nation. Your “argument” is so weak as to be laughable and you will roundly deserve the ass kicking you have coming. You fools defend ANYTHING that undermine our sovereignty and there for you are ENIMIES of the state. You have some very big payback heading your way, you sniveling punks.

Alex

August 11th, 2010
10:56 am

Drifter:
Only connection with this country is the fact that their mother was in the country unlawfully at the moment of their birth? Not quite. Their mother was seeking out a better life for her and her child(ren), just like all of our ancestors. Unless you are Native American, I can show you someone who believes your ancestors were here illegally too.
———————————————————————————————————————————————-
I am Native American from New Mexico and we are now living in a modern United States.
It was a nice country until the powers that be wanted to destroy what we had and decided not
to enforce our immigration laws.
American immigrants entered through Ellis Island so they came here legally.
Now we have the Latin American savages and their offspring entering and they are not
always decent people.
So stop with your ignorant asinine rhetoric! Stop the anchor baby mess which is not legal.

No More Progressives!

August 11th, 2010
12:16 pm

Alex

August 11th, 2010
10:56 am
I am Native American from New Mexico and we are now living in a modern United States.

That’s great! I’m a native American from New Mexico, too! I was born in Los Alamos in the 50’s (Dad was in the Amry & assigned to the LANL). We moved all over the place; I’m still an American, born & raised.

My family can trace it’s roots to 940 AD from the Isle of Man, UK.

Funny, but you never hear the English whining about the Romans that came to Brittania illegally; (read about Hadrians Wall)or the Vikings that pillaged the Monastey at Lindesfarne in 793. Were those folks in England illegally?

Jimi

August 11th, 2010
12:19 pm

Dog and Pony show, just used to placate the masses. Nothing will be done. The nation will continue to decline and it will collapse within our lifetime. It’s all over except for the fat senorita singing…

norris hall

August 12th, 2010
2:08 am

If we are going to start tinkering with the US constitution, why not just start over from scratch.
All this nonesense about the constitution being some kind of sacred document that has withstood the test of time and should be followed to the letter of the law is a bunch of hogwash.
If conservatives don’t like something in the constitution…just change it. No big deal.

As for me, perhaps we need to take another look at the second amendment too. That was written at a time when the most dangerous handweapon was one that took one minute to reload after the first shot. Nothing like the semi automatic weapon that Cho used at Virginia tech to kill 30 people.

Yeah. Let’s reconsider the second amendment too.
I like that.

Alphare

August 12th, 2010
4:00 pm

“Conservatives” are amazing, when they want to hide a gun in their pants, they cite 2nd amendment like chickens picking grain on the ground. When they see a darker-skinned person showing up in front of them, 14th amendment is like a piece of used toilet paper.

Do you realize most “conservatives” live in the south now? the most backward part of the country? that should tell you how much the “conservative principles” are worth.

No More Progressives!

August 12th, 2010
5:08 pm

Do you realize most “conservatives” live in the south now? the most backward part of the country? that should tell you how much the “conservative principles” are worth.

If we’re so backward, why does everybody re-locate here?

What bastion of utopia do you live in? Michigan?

Stay away from my beloved Southland, infidel. We don’t need any more yankee transplants clogging the highways.

INJURED HUMANITY

August 13th, 2010
10:55 am

WITH THESE INTERESTING COMMENTS BY THE READERS THE TRUE LEGACY OF AMERICA WILL ALWAYS SHINE THRU!!!!AWESOME

INJURED HUMANITY

August 13th, 2010
11:10 am

HAVE PEOPLE EVER STOPPED AND REALIZED THAT BEFORE 1968 ALL LAWS AND CODES WERE AGAINST PEOPLE OF COLOR. THE TV RADIO NEWSPAPER POLICE GOVERNMENT CONSTANTLY FEED US A SHOVEL FULL OF HATE EVERYDAY THAT PEOPLE OF COLOR ARE LESS THEN HUMAN. WHITE AMERICANS WHERE PROGRAMMED TO THINK OF US AS INFERIOR THIS IS EMBEDDED IN THE FABRIC OF AMERICAN SOCIETY. SO WHEN THESE ISSUES ARISE THAT FABRIC IS EXPOSED. UNTIL WE CAN ALL SIT DOWN AND SAY THAT BOTH BLACKS AND WHITES HAVE BEEN TRAUMATIZED BY THE INSTITUTION OF RACISM ON BOTH ENDS OUR GREAT COUNTRY WILL ULTIMATELY CRASH AND BURN. REMEMBER JIM CROWE BLACK CODES LYNCHING TERRORISM BY KKK AND WHITE MOBS THIS WAS CONSIDERED FREEDOM JUSTICE LIBERTY? OF COURSE NOT BUT WITH THE PREMISE PROGRAMMED TO THE MASSES OF PEOPLE THAT PEOPLE OF COLOR ARE LESS THEN HUMAN I GUESS IT WAS OK AND ITS STILL OK ACCORDING TO THE GREAT HISTORY AND LEGACY OF AMERIKKKA…

Ben Allen

August 13th, 2010
10:33 pm

Hey Bob, I voted for you in 2008 and you’re my Facebook friend and all, but I think you’re wrong on this one. Creating an “if/then” system for birthright citizenship just opens the door to federal abuse, denying people of all stripes of their citizenship. They’re already trying to strip citizens of their citizenship just for being ACCUSED of terrorism, why make their job any easier? Besides, before we even start worrying about “immigration reform” or whatever the inevitable legislative disaster will be named, shouldn’t we get to work on a balanced budget amendment? Or an Enumerated Powers act?

RonJB

August 26th, 2010
1:30 am

No limit is needed on the 14th amendment since it disallows ‘anchor’ babies of illegals to be US citizens. It says any baby born here who is subject to the jurisdiction of the USA which they are not since they avoid the jurisdiction of US immigration law.

Those who violate this and grant them birthright anyway, need to be punished! Unless of course they can afford to support 30-40 million illegals and their babies retroactively for at least 2 generations till now, out of their own wallet. Since that won’t happen the tax payer is the patsy.
Unfortunately he is the patsy for more than he can manage already.
The hospitals and social services go broke, the prisons and the schools scream for tax money, Heck, the States go broke and look to Washington to defray the cost or do their duty to enforce immigration law fully. Mexican drug cartel armies roam our border States and ICE posts signs warning US citizens away from our soil. The law breaker should pay even if it is Washington and the Supreme Court!
It’s not the fault of the 14th. It’s clear enough, if your not using it for politics. It is not automatic birthright like the media keeps saying. If you obey immigration law and thus do subject yourself and you are not a foreign national (subject to another jurisdiction) your newborn is covered by the 14th now. This also disallows travel package birthright nonsense as well. I hear the Chinese are the leading offenders at the moment. See, where will we be after Asia is finished with our Social Security while it lasts? No other country allows such lunacy. It’s about the tax payer, not race!
We spend fortunes on defense but can’t defend ourselves.