Comments on: Congress Debates Birthright Citizenship

By: domingo arong

domingo arong — Tue, 03 Jan 2006 14:28:20 +0000

Why is the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the Citizenship Clause enclosed within a PAIR OF COMMAS, with the first comma placed before the coordinating conjunction "and"?

By: Michael J

Michael J — Wed, 28 Dec 2005 04:37:18 +0000

I live in Las Vegas and drive to school pass a delapidated area with apartments that use to be pretty nice. Not it looks like a Tijuana Barrio, with Mexican Women pushing Baby Strollers with 2 or 3 other kids walking next to them,and they are usually Pregnant with another nino.I passed a Mexican man and woman the other day with their 9 kids behind them.Our population is already 40% Hispanic and growing daily. The numbers speak for themselves, We will NEVER recover from this unwanted invasion. We have no one to blame but our elected Politicians from LBJ thru Bush,with that 1965 Immigration act Traitor Ted Kennedy thrown in.The America that we once knew and loved is history, and all this talk about enforcing the Borders is more rhetorical Horseshit.Its to late to worry about "Birthright Citizenship" or any other of these Illegal immigration issues because the future is beyond obvious.WHy we have let a Third World Cesspool and their poor and illiterate population take over our Country is beyond comprehension,and these Politicians that have allowed it should be prosecuted for Treason.

By: ken

ken — Tue, 27 Dec 2005 21:06:44 +0000

RA, I forgot to explain that only people with diplomatic immunity are outside the jurisdiction of our laws.

By: ken

ken — Tue, 27 Dec 2005 21:02:04 +0000

Illegals are not subject to the jurisdiction.

You shouldn't show your stupidity in such an obvious manner.

By: RA

RA — Tue, 27 Dec 2005 20:42:30 +0000

"and subject to the jurisdiction"

Illegals are not subject to the jurisdiction. If they were they wouldn't be here. If you have a green card you are subject to the jurisdition. This means your children will be citizens automatically.

Children of illegals should not be citizens. Guest workers children should not be citizens. Its time to close the loopholes that will turn our country into a socialist, economic disaster by these unskilled uneducated Mexicans.

By: Anderson

Anderson — Tue, 27 Dec 2005 19:27:57 +0000

Well, I actually have no problem with amending the Constitution to limit citizenship, so I guess I'm a fascist AND an America-hating liberal. I am large, I contain multitudes ...

Agreed however that the 14th as written isn't subject to legislative revision. "Born or naturalized" is pretty darn clear.

By: Boyd

Boyd — Tue, 27 Dec 2005 19:06:20 +0000

Jimbo, you also might want to expanding your apparently limited vocabulary of adjectives to include more than just "racist" and "fascist." You know the old line about if all you have is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail.

By: ICallMasICM

ICallMasICM — Tue, 27 Dec 2005 19:06:01 +0000

I'm almost 100% sure the proposal needs to be go thru the legislative process and doesn't have a racial component to it but I guess writing 'fascist racist ' somehow makes the opposing viewpoint less valid.

By: James Joyner

James Joyner — Tue, 27 Dec 2005 18:57:58 +0000

Jimbo: Your argument makes little sense. I don't disagree that we should change our immigration law to acknowledge our desire for low-wage immigrants from the 3rd World. That really has nothing to do with whether infants, who tend not to be very good workers, should be given automatic citizenship pursuant to their parents commiting a crime.

By: jimbo

jimbo — Tue, 27 Dec 2005 18:51:50 +0000

This is a fascist racist proposal. Like it or not, there is a huge demand for labor that can only be satisfied by immigrants. Immigrants increase our productivity. Throughout our history, those who have left their homeland to come here have been the best, the most ambitious. Their payroll taxes pay for the retirement of old white people by increasing the number of workers per retiree. The fascist racist elements in this country refuse to allow for an increase in the number of LEGAL immigrants needed to fill that demand for labor. In addition to being fascist and racist, restrictions on immigration are SUICIDAL. The result is that plenty of employers are offering jobs to illegal immigrants. They would not come here if they did not have jobs. It is bad enough that there are some who want to make criminals out of those who struggled to come here to do our dirty work. It is unconscionable that so many fascist racist members of congress want to bring back bastardy and turn children, even infants, into criminals. THIS IS INSANE. It is especially troubling that you, Mr. Joyner, seem to sympathize with this fascist racist cabal.

By: LJD

LJD — Tue, 27 Dec 2005 18:37:13 +0000

Naturalization refers to one being admitted to citizenship. Admission does not mean free-entry, it means we get to regulate it. Especially in an era of international terror.

400,000 U.S. citizens per year, with ILLEGAL parents, is an astounding figure. Those poor American children with criminals for parents.

Interesting that you do not pay due respect to those who have waited in lines, filled out forms, and waited some more, to be LEGALLY admitted to the protections of the Constitution. Just hand it out to any one who can swim or tunnel their way in: drug traffickers, terrorists, violent criminals included.

By: Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator

Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator — Tue, 27 Dec 2005 18:16:31 +0000

'Birthright citizenship' policy change illegals stirs debate

A proposal to change long-standing federal policy and deny citizenship to babies born to illegal imm

By: ken

ken — Tue, 27 Dec 2005 18:14:58 +0000

LDJ, when the writers included 'naturalization, they included immigrants. Naturalization applies to no one but immigrants. This is evidence that this admendment was adapted with a forward looking view regarding the composition of our national citizenry. It was written at a time of huge influxes of immigrants.

If you know anything about American history following the civil war, the western expansion, the development of the oil industry, industrialization, you would understand.

Following a brutal civil war fought over the status of the lowest among us, the consensus among the winners was to try and prevent another sub-class of people from developing and being exploited. It might be hard to understand the idealism expressed by this admendment but remember the people who passed this admemdment just fought war over such values.

By: The Florida Masochist

The Florida Masochist — Tue, 27 Dec 2005 18:06:05 +0000

Still a bad and dangerous idea

James Joyner calls this debate silly. I'll go further and call it dangerous. I've made my opinions known in posts here and here. Steve Benen clearly points out that Supreme Court precedent is not on the side of any changes proposed by Congress becaus...

By: LJD

LJD — Tue, 27 Dec 2005 17:46:57 +0000

Ken, some of the amendments were intended to be added to, removed, or interpreted as times change. I would think your liberal views would make that clear- or do you pick and choose the ones you like?

So now you know what the framers were thinking when they wrote the Constitution? Wow. You should be on the Supreme Court!

Half our current population? Not quite, but it will be soon if we keep going the way we are. There are LEGAL ways to enter the country Ken. If one enters LEGALLY and has a child here, they should be granted citizenship in accordance with the law. Why reward fence-jumpers, and in some cases criminals that no other country wants?