http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/01/19/welfare-tab-children-illegal-immigrants-estimated-m-la-county/

 

Thought this was interesting, especially with all the talk of ending citizenship to children of illegals born in the US that has popped up lately.

Unfortunately, a hard decision needs to be made here. You can't make everyone happy in a situation like this. While it is unfortunate, I think the citizenship does need to be revoked. While it isn't their fault, the parents brought this upon them. A line has to be drawn somewhere.

Unfortunately, a hard decision needs to be made here. You can't make everyone happy in a situation like this. While it is unfortunate, I think the citizenship does need to be revoked. While it isn't their fault, the parents brought this upon them. A line has to be drawn somewhere.

 

So the 14th amendment be danged?

So the 14th amendment be danged?

 

I guess it depends on what your think the intent of the 14th amendment is.

So the 14th amendment be danged?

 

If the parents are here illegally then having their citizenship that was never there revoked is not in the 14th amendment.

Here is the what the 14th amendment states...

 

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. 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.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

So the 14th amendment be danged?

 

Or is it that the 14th Amendment should be read in its proper context?

Or is it that the 14th Amendment should be read in its proper context?

 

Born or Naturalized and subject to its laws. Only people not subject to our laws are foreign dignitaries so kids born here are citizens and by the same amendment are to be provided equal protection.

Born or Naturalized and subject to its laws. Only people not subject to our laws are foreign dignitaries so kids born here are citizens and by the same amendment are to be provided equal protection.

 

Do you think Congress considered non-tax paying illegal immigrants when they drafted the 14th Amendment in 1868, or do you think its main purpose was to legitimize blacks as citizens in the United States?

Born or Naturalized and subject to its laws. Only people not subject to our laws are foreign dignitaries so kids born here are citizens and by the same amendment are to be provided equal protection.

Again, it's what the intent of the framers was.

 

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.

This is the phrase that is in dispute. I don't believe the intent of this phrase was to legalize anyone born inside of our boarders. Are illegals subject to the jurisdiction thereof?

Again, it's what the intent of the framers was.

 

I've got to stop here. If that's the case, then why does it not apply when discussing the 2nd ammendment?

113 Billion annually? $22 billion in CA? Those are some serious numbers.

Again, it's what the intent of the framers was.

 

 

This is the phrase that is in dispute. I don't believe the intent of this phrase was to legalize anyone born inside of our boarders. Are illegals subject to the jurisdiction thereof?

 

Yes they are subject to our jurisdiction, or by definition they could not be "illegal". We could not arrest them for crimes or anything. They would simply be outside of the law and free to roam and do as they saw fit.

 

As to the intent of the framers, they were smart men. If they had meant for it to be slaves, they would have said that. I feel it was their intent for it to encompass a larger group . . . so you and I disagree on the intent the supreme court decides, and I think they decided long ago.

 

Surely you don't want to play the intent game to its natural conclusion do you? If so, we can have a whole lot of fun with the 2nd amendment.

As to the intent of the framers, they were smart men. If they had meant for it to be slaves, they would have said that. I feel it was their intent for it to encompass a larger group . . . so you and I disagree on the intent the supreme court decides, and I think they decided long ago.

 

Surely you don't want to play the intent game to its natural conclusion do you? If so, we can have a whole lot of fun with the 2nd amendment.

 

Just to clarify:

 

You think that the Amendment was enacted to legalize a larger group of people, not just blacks?

 

What other classes of people could have been contemplated in 1868? Were those contemplated classes of people taxpayers who financially contributed to the country but were just viewed as 2nd class citizens? Or were those contemplated citizens people who illegally entered the country and attempted to avoid taxation?

It is probably more than that since the majority of the money made in America is sent back and spent in Mexico instead of in local stores adn supporting local business. Good job by all gov. officials for letting this happen, keep up the great work.