I never said that I didn't think that something needs to be done. I certainly do. I was very much in favor of President Bush's proposed immigration reform. What I don't support (and don't think is feasible) is the "round 'em all up and ship 'em back" type of approach.

I agree, that would be impossible.

I agree something must be done. But at the cost of violating constitutional rights?

If Obama would get to work on this, these kind of laws wouldn't be a problem.

I am all for legal immigration. I am the son of an Immigrant.

 

I personally don't believe that sneaking into the country and having a baby makes the baby a US citizen. I also don't believe that was the intent of the 14th Amendment.

 

The 14th admendment? The one that provided freed slaves citizenship?

 

The concept of 'anchor babies' has never made it to the SC. The intent of the 14th was not to grant automatic citizenship based only on jus soli. But it has been intrepreted, including by lower courts, as doing so.

 

From the article itself...

 

"It was intended to provide citizenship for freed slaves and served as a final answer to the Dred Scott case, cementing the federal government's control over citizenship. "

 

 

I thought the Amendement was very clear when it said the word "born". You guys aren't nearly as supportive when the "intent" of the 2nd Amendment is questioned. Is the militia being well regulated?

 

Anchor babies or not if they are born here they are citizens under the consititution. This law if passed will be ruled unconstitutional before it ever take effect.

The 300,000 births number was based on 2008 numbers. I'm sure it's more now. The number I've heard recently for total illegals is 11 million to 13 million which is 3.5 to 4.25 percent of the total population.

 

With numbers like those is it any wonder AZ is desperate to try something different?

With numbers like those is it any wonder AZ is desperate to try something different?

Article in the paper the other day said hispanics were leaving AZ by the thousands before the new law goes into effect.

I thought the Amendement was very clear when it said the word "born". You guys aren't nearly as supportive when the "intent" of the 2nd Amendment is questioned. Is the militia being well regulated?

 

Anchor babies or not if they are born here they are citizens under the consititution. This law if passed will be ruled unconstitutional before it ever take effect.

 

It says born or naturalized and it has some additional qualifications.

 

"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."

 

The highlighted phrase above is where the debate is. And I am not advocating any specific position. But prior to the 14th the states controlled 'Citizenship' and for some states jus soli alone was not a qualification to be a citizen.

 

So even without the background of 'intent' there is debate as to the meaning of that highlighted phrase.

 

As for the 2nd Amendment. The Amendment is 100% clear - "..., the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed". Any wording you want can can go in front of that comma. The fact that it pertains to militias (the standard national defense force in the 1700s) is interesting but it does not change the words and the declaritive, stand-alone statment following the comma. Penn and Teller explain this well. But their explainations are not good family viewing so no link here...

Edited June 15, 201016 yr by Bluegrasscard
minor wording

Article in the paper the other day said hispanics were leaving AZ by the thousands before the new law goes into effect.

They are leaving Arizona but they are not heading back to Mexico...

I am all for legal immigration. I am the son of an Immigrant.

 

I personally don't believe that sneaking into the country and having a baby makes the baby a US citizen. I also don't believe that was the intent of the 14th Amendment.

 

It says born or naturalized and it has some additional qualifications.

 

"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."

 

The highlighted phrase above is where the debate is. And I am not advocating any specific position. But prior to the 14th the states controlled 'Citizenship' and for some states jus soli alone was not a qualification to be a citizen.

 

So even without the background of 'intent' there is debate as to the meaning of that highlighted phrase.

 

As for the 2nd Amendment. The Amendment is 100% clear - "..., the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed". Any wording you want can can go in front of that comma. The fact that it pertains to militias (the standard national defense force in the 1700s) is interesting but it does not change the words and the declaritive, stand-alone statment following the comma. Penn and Teller explain this well. But their explainations are not good family viewing so no link here...

 

The word "or" is not a qualification:

used as a function word to indicate an alternative , the equivalent or substitutive character of two words or phrases , or approximation or uncertainty

 

If you are born here you are a citizen and I agree the 2nd Amendment is clear, as clear as the 14th is.

I thought the Amendement was very clear when it said the word "born". You guys aren't nearly as supportive when the "intent" of the 2nd Amendment is questioned. Is the militia being well regulated?

 

Anchor babies or not if they are born here they are citizens under the consititution. This law if passed will be ruled unconstitutional before it ever take effect.

 

Actually the intent and meaning of all parts of the constitution is exactly what I support. It is the liberals/progressives/socialists/whatever it is that they call themselves who believe in the modernization of the constitution. You know, the ones who believe it is flawed because it limits what the government can do.

Actually the intent and meaning of all parts of the constitution is exactly what I support. It is the liberals/progressives/socialists/whatever it is that they call themselves who believe in the modernization of the constitution. You know, the ones who believe it is flawed because it limits what the government can do.

 

What is "modernization of the Constitution?"

The word "or" is not a qualification:

used as a function word to indicate an alternative , the equivalent or substitutive character of two words or phrases , or approximation or uncertainty

 

If you are born here you are a citizen and I agree the 2nd Amendment is clear, as clear as the 14th is.

 

Its not the naturalization term that gets debated. It is the 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof'. And it is connected to the other requirement by the word 'and'. So you have to be born in the US AND subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

 

Some have argued that jurisdiction clause should be read as 'subject to the SOLE jurisdiction thereof'. Meaning there would be no dual allegiance. The problem I have with this is that I know of couples on assignment to the US from other countries who have had children in the US. The child is granted dual citizenship - until they are 18. Then they must declare one way or the other. This seems reasonable but it would not be allowed if the the 'sole' jurisdiction is applied. However, what is different is that the children are registered properly with the local state AND with their consulate of their parents country. Just as a child born to 2 US citizens abroad must be registered to the US consulate before becoming a US citizen and entering the US.

 

Detailed related reading here:

 

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

What is "modernization of the Constitution?"

 

There is a large number of people who feel that the constitution needs to be interpreted in today's terms, because times have changed so much since it's writing. There have been a number of judges who seem to feel that way and are setting presidents with their rulings. There has been a big attempt by the courts to rewrite it on their own.

 

The beauty of the constitution is that it can be changed. It has a procedure to be changed, and it's not the courts that are supposed to change it. Perhaps a constitutional convention is in order.

There is a large number of people who feel that the constitution needs to be interpreted in today's terms, because times have changed so much since it's writing. There have been a number of judges who seem to feel that way and are setting presidents with their rulings. There has been a big attempt by the courts to rewrite it on their own.

 

The beauty of the constitution is that it can be changed. It has a procedure to be changed, and it's not the courts that are supposed to change it. Perhaps a constitutional convention is in order.

 

So where would Roe V Wade fall? Good or bad "modernization?"

So where would Roe V Wade fall? Good or bad "modernization?"

 

Based on the constitution, Roe v Wade is a state issue not a federal issue. So therefore, based solely on that IMO it is bad. I don't care about the content, I care about the method of imposing federal law on people. On a side note. I am not opposed to first trimester abortions.

So where would Roe V Wade fall? Good or bad "modernization?"

 

Yes.