Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Let's think about the morality of this issue. Should someone be rewarded because their Mother was A. Very sneaky or B. Fast with a good 400 meter time to make it across the border? I mean, come on, where is the spine of these people that pull this off? Busting in the back door to claim all the goods.
This has all the merit of a fake College degree. Where is the shame?
I've noticed that the pro-illegal crowd is quick to latch on the the ambiguous phase "subject to the jusidiction of" and twist it to suit their end but what about this part:
How can you seriously dispute the meaning of that part of the amendment?
I've made posts pointing this out before and of course it always seems to be ignored by the pro-illegal side as I'm sure this also will be. But I'm asking in all seriousness for the pro-illegal side to address that part and tell us how you can deny it's meaning. How can that be twisted around to say that we DO allow the children of foreigners and aliens to be citizens.
I am honestly curious about this because it really seems pretty clear to me.
Rough analogy here: the 'separate but equal' claptrap used to segregate Blacks and Whites years ago here in the USA by supplying different schools, etc.--------------never mind that all men were considered equal under the US Constitution.
I completely agree with you Benicar. However, because there are a number of definitions, I think it would be wise going through each one. Also, a basic dictionary serves no purpose to a judge or a lawyer. Each one has its own dictionary to be able to practice in their field. I also have to use the one designed for my own profession. If we are discussing law and practice, wouldnt you agree that the proper thing would be to check with a law dictionary vs a basic dictionary?
I think there are different opinions about this one. I respect your opinion.
If we were to write the sentence without the " and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"...that would be very explicit and you would be right. However, the clause, in my opinion, was added as ...there are exceptions to the law and the Supreme court has power to grant or deny.
Let me give you an example: In The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, the "jurisdiction thereof" allowed for Mexicans occupying the land to become US citizens. Without the clause, the US would have occupied the land but the people would have continued to be non-citizens. Again, even with a treaty, nothing superceeds the constitution. Nothing can be implied when documented. If it is not legally documeted properly, it is not valid.
I respectfully disagree with you. I dont see it as a manipulation to support a political agenda or disgrace but maybe its because I am not that well informed on this one. An illegal immigrant who is also a foreign diplomat, happens to have a child on US soil, that child is denied citizenship also, as how it is written in our constitution.
Lets also remember that not all foreign diplomats are "guests". I'm making up this scenario but hear me out. Do you remember Noriega? He was a foreign diplomat who we incarcerated in a federal penetenciary for, if I remember correctly, 10 years. Even prisioners have basic human rights. Unless a violent criminal, he would have the right to congugal visits with his wife. Lets say, he happens to get his wife pregnant and the child is born on US soil. Dont you think this is a high risk for us? How about diplomats from North Korea and Iran? This can get potentially dangerous for our country but who knows. I'm just throwing it out there. On the other hand, illegal immigrants come to this country, mostly poor, have no political influence in their country. Therefore, they do not present to be a threat to us. The wording is correct, imho.
The framers of the Constitution were quite explicit. I don’t know how the following could be misinterpreted.
Quote:
This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that 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.
Manual Noriega was hardly a foreign “diplomat.” He was a cocaine-dealing criminal, brought to the U.S. to stand trial for various crimes. I realize this is hypothetical, but I don’t believe we would grant him conjugal visits. I believe he would have to rely on in-house sources for his sexual gratification; if you catch my drift. We are also not in the habit of maintaining diplomatic relations with our known enemies; ergo, we have no such relations with either Iran or North Korea.
I must also respectfully disagree. The framers of the Constitution clearly did not intend for the 14th Amendment to be used by foreign nationals who illegally enter or overstay visas, and subsequently give birth on U.S. soil. It was enacted to ensure citizenship and the rights and privileges it entails, to freed slaves and their offspring. Nothing more, nothing less.
Shamefully, it has been manipulated to grant citizenship to the U.S.-born children of foreign invaders. I’m sure the framers are turning over in their graves; along with the slaves for whom this amendment was intended. As a descendent of slaves, I am appalled beyond description.
I agree that ‘some’ illegal aliens pose no violent threat to this country. However, many illegal aliens are indeed terrorists from enemy nations; members of drug cartels; human traffickers; rapists, murderers, pedophiles, and other vile miscreants. Thus, they do in fact pose a threat to the citizens of this country.
I think we will simply have to agree to disagree. Otherwise, we are beating a dead horse. The 14th Amendment is what it is. Thankfully, my citizenship is not in question. Therefore, no matter how it is interpreted, I will still be considered a bona fide U.S. citizen.
How about those women, mainly from Korea and the Middle East, who fly in for the sole purpose of giving birth in the US, have their babies, stay a couple of weeks, then go home? I understand those babies are deemed citizens, just by virtue of the fact they were born here, when no way can their parents be said to have any allegiance to this country, nor can the US be said to have jurisdiction over them.
Manual Noriega was hardly a foreign “diplomat.” He was a cocaine-dealing criminal, brought to the U.S. to stand trial for various crimes. I realize this is hypothetical, but I don’t believe we would grant him conjugal visits. I believe he would have to rely on in-house sources for his sexual gratification; if you catch my drift. We are also not in the habit of maintaining diplomatic relations with our known enemies; ergo, we have no such relations with either Iran or North Korea.
I must also respectfully disagree. The framers of the Constitution clearly did not intend for the 14th Amendment to be used by foreign nationals who illegally enter or overstay visas, and subsequently give birth on U.S. soil. It was enacted to ensure citizenship and the rights and privileges it entails, to freed slaves and their offspring. Nothing more, nothing less.
Shamefully, it has been manipulated to grant citizenship to the U.S.-born children of foreign invaders. I’m sure the framers are turning over in their graves; along with the slaves for whom this amendment was intended. As a descendent of slaves, I am appalled beyond description.
I agree that ‘some’ illegal aliens pose no violent threat to this country. However, many illegal aliens are indeed terrorists from enemy nations; members of drug cartels; human traffickers; rapists, murderers, pedophiles, and other vile miscreants. Thus, they do in fact pose a threat to the citizens of this country.
I think we will simply have to agree to disagree. Otherwise, we are beating a dead horse. The 14th Amendment is what it is. Thankfully, my citizenship is not in question. Therefore, no matter how it is interpreted, I will still be considered a bona fide U.S. citizen.
This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that 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.
Lets quickly analyze the sentence in red:
This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States.. (This sets the goal of this sentence, to exclude certain persons. The details to come next)
or the next part I will add some math notation to group the words properly using the connectors in the sentence:
who are {foreigners, [aliens,] [who belong to: the families of (ambassadors ) OR (foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, ...)}
From the grouping, the word foreigners has two modifiers: aliens, and "who belong to..", and the who has two qualifiers: To be either the family of an ambassador or to be the family of a foreign ministers.
So the exception is for foreigners -> who are also known as aliens -> who fall within the "belong to .." clause.
I do not see how this would except the children of illegal aliens from the 14th. And even if you would like to think that it means foreigners AND aliens, yet the AND is not there, it would not only exclude illegal aliens but all aliens. Legal or illegal. But again this is not the case.
If someone has better control of the English language please feel welcome to analyse the sentence so that it counters my analysis. Just saying that the sentence support your claim without any analysis is not really good.
Some more stuff that I found onlilne:
Quote:
Under the traditional interpretation of the constitution, four categories of persons are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States at birth despite being born there. The first three categories were inherited from England: children born to foreign diplomats, children born on foreign public vessels in territorial waters, and children born to women accompanying and invading army...
This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that 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.
Lets quickly analyze the sentence in red:
This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States.. (This sets the goal of this sentence, to exclude certain persons. The details to come next)
or the next part I will add some math notation to group the words properly using the connectors in the sentence:
who are {foreigners, [aliens,] [who belong to: the families of (ambassadors ) OR (foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, ...)}
From the grouping, the word foreigners has two modifiers: aliens, and "who belong to..", and the who has two qualifiers: To be either the family of an ambassador or to be the family of a foreign ministers.
So the exception is for foreigners -> who are also known as aliens -> who fall within the "belong to .." clause.
I do not see how this would except the children of illegal aliens from the 14th. And even if you would like to think that it means foreigners AND aliens, yet the AND is not there, it would not only exclude illegal aliens but all aliens. Legal or illegal. But again this is not the case.
If someone has better control of the English language please feel welcome to analyse the sentence so that it counters my analysis. Just saying that the sentence support your claim without any analysis is not really good.
Give it up! This horse is dead. However, you are free to interpret, analyze, or dissect it until the cows come home. It won’t change the intent of the framers. Nor, will it change the fact that illegal aliens exploit the misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment to suck this country dry.
I have no respect for people who exploit children.
Give it up! This horse is dead. However, you are free to interpret, analyze, or dissect it until the cows come home. It won’t change the intent of the framers. Nor, will it change the fact that illegal aliens exploit the misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment to suck this country dry.
I have no respect for people who exploit children.
As you stated.
If you are here legally; that is one thing----------if here illegally, leave or else.
Manual Noriega was hardly a foreign “diplomat.” He was a cocaine-dealing criminal, brought to the U.S. to stand trial for various crimes. I realize this is hypothetical, but I don’t believe we would grant him conjugal visits. I believe he would have to rely on in-house sources for his sexual gratification; if you catch my drift.
He was a military dictator, you know. That he was a drug dealer is true but what we fail to see is that whom he was drug dealing with was the US. When he would not deal with us anymore, that is when the US went after him. Sounds more like hypocritical. Also, it would not suprise me if he did not have conjugal visits since he was (and is) in a low security federal prison but that is neither here nor there...not related to illegal immigration.
We are also not in the habit of maintaining diplomatic relations with our known enemies; ergo, we have no such relations with either Iran or North Korea.
Of course we are not in the habit of maintaining diplomatic relations with our known enemies but when do we predict who will become one? 20 years ago, I would not have imagined that we would be involved in these senseless wars.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benicar
I must also respectfully disagree. The framers of the Constitution clearly did not intend for the 14th Amendment to be used by foreign nationals who illegally enter or overstay visas, and subsequently give birth on U.S. soil. It was enacted to ensure citizenship and the rights and privileges it entails, to freed slaves and their offspring. Nothing more, nothing less.
No Benicar, I actually agree with you 100% that the framers of the Constitution did not intend for the 14th amendment to be used by those entering the country illegally but I do think they left that clause open(intentionally) for exceptions as the court saw fit. what they didnt forsee was the current events of illegal immigration and labor issues we are now faced with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benicar
Shamefully, it has been manipulated to grant citizenship to the U.S.-born children of foreign invaders. I’m sure the framers are turning over in their graves; along with the slaves for whom this amendment was intended. As a descendent of slaves, I am appalled beyond description.
With all respect, as a descendent of slaves also, I think we need to let go of the past and live the present without resentment. Lets work together to fix our laws and get this country back on track. It serves no purpose to be fixated on the latest revision of the Constitution when really if you think about it, it would only allow for immigrants of European descent and African Americans descendents of slaves. That would mean, no Africans or descendents of Africans post times of slavery, Asians and Latinos. Thankfully the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 allowed for that to happen. Again, that is just my opinion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benicar
I agree that ‘some’ illegal aliens pose no violent threat to this country. However, many illegal aliens are indeed terrorists from enemy nations; members of drug cartels; human traffickers; rapists, murderers, pedophiles, and other vile miscreants. Thus, they do in fact pose a threat to the citizens of this country.
Its the other way around and the statistics have shown time and time again. There are 'many' illegal aliens that pose not violent threat and there are 'some' illegal aliens that are all the above you mentioned.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benicar
I think we will simply have to agree to disagree. Otherwise, we are beating a dead horse. The 14th Amendment is what it is. Thankfully, my citizenship is not in question. Therefore, no matter how it is interpreted, I will still be considered a bona fide U.S. citizen.
I agree, lets agree to disagree. Neither your citizenship or mine is in question. However, until we fix our illegal immigration problem, one way or the other, we will continue to have this problem with the 14th amendment. That is the way the Supreme Court interprets it and that is just the way it is.
This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that 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.
Lets quickly analyze the sentence in red:
This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States.. (This sets the goal of this sentence, to exclude certain persons. The details to come next)
or the next part I will add some math notation to group the words properly using the connectors in the sentence:
who are {foreigners, [aliens,] [who belong to: the families of (ambassadors ) OR (foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, ...)}
From the grouping, the word foreigners has two modifiers: aliens, and "who belong to..", and the who has two qualifiers: To be either the family of an ambassador or to be the family of a foreign ministers.
So the exception is for foreigners -> who are also known as aliens -> who fall within the "belong to .." clause.
I do not see how this would except the children of illegal aliens from the 14th. And even if you would like to think that it means foreigners AND aliens, yet the AND is not there, it would not only exclude illegal aliens but all aliens. Legal or illegal. But again this is not the case.
If someone has better control of the English language please feel welcome to analyse the sentence so that it counters my analysis. Just saying that the sentence support your claim without any analysis is not really good.
Exactly! If it were two different categories in one sentence, it would be a run-on-sentence. I dont think the framers of the Constitution meant to write sloppy and without proof reading and editing. The fact that it is all together means it is part of the same requirements for 'foreign diplomats'.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
