Let me finish tonight with the 14th Amendment to the constitution.
"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."
Some senators now say they don't like this provision. They don't like all the Hispanics who have come here illegally and have had children here. They want this provision of the 14th Amendment changed.
Is this want "we" want to do: say that the children of immigrants, no matter how they got here, are not Americans?
Is this what we want to do: tell young people growing up in America to know they are not one of us, that they belong somewhere else, back in the old country of their parents? Is this a way to assimilate people into our American culture and values; telling them to go back to where their parents came from?
What about the "children" of the children of illegal immigrants? Do we tell them that, even though their parents were born here, they are "still" not American, they still need to go "home," and that their home is back in the country of their grandparents?
And how on earth do you enforce this new cauterized 14th Amendment?
My grandmother came from Northern Ireland, my grandfather from England. I assume they came here legally but I really don't know how it came about. I certainly couldn't take an oath that they did - again, because I don't know.
Would I fall under the scythe Senators Graham and Kyl and the rest are now preparing to wield? Would I be declared a foreigner once the 14th Amendment is not what it was?
I am not big on this long list of constitutional amendments people are forever sporting about. They've got them on abortion, prayer in public school, marriage, you name it.
The weirdest thing is that they're always being promoted and ballyhooed by the same folks who strut their fealty to the constitution as written. Isn't it odd that it's these "strict constructionists" who now can't wait to tear down the very structure that has guarded our freedoms all these years?
They remind me of the spouse who gets married saying she loves the other person, then immediately starts saying, "there's this thing about you I'd like to change. In fact, there are a number of things!"
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Leave a Comment:
Thats right Chris, we should join the rest of the world and stop birthright citizenship. Ireland was the last of the EU countries to stop it in 2004. The rest of Europe stopped it long ago. They know the problems with allowing in millions of third worlders. France is in the process of deporting thousands now.
We can NEVER have this Guest Worker program if millions of these "guests" are allowed to have babies and then tie up the courts forever. The dems will make them all citizens to get votes and the repubs will try to get them for slave labor for the chamber of commerce. Leaving us to pay for them.
70% of births in Dallas hospitals are to illegal alien mothers.
China now sponsors birth tourism by giving out visas to pregnant women to come here and the hospitals cater the the cash paying group. The WaPo has the info:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/17/AR2010071701402.html
And te 14th is worded to this affect "...under the jurisdiction of.... We dont need to amend, we just need to have the congress define what that means. Already the Ambassadors do not become citizens if their wives have babies here. Perhaps we could address it under some form of that. Perhaps we could say all the illegal hispanics here are "..under the jurisdiction of Mexico..." and the 14th would NOT APPLY to them.
But it can be done and it must be.
Yes, Change The 14Th
No changes to the 14th amendment. It is the only guarantee that slavery will never return as a market. There are those in this country who would have no problem enslaving minorities, and reopening slave markets.
You are right and I sincerely hope and pray you continue to PRESS THIS SUBJECT on your show! The hypocrisy; the "convenient" politics of the republicans; the desperation to setback the country...to a "comfortable" time for conservatives (1776 - 1942) when they perceived they had a better grasp on this country as a whole.
One thing: Americans who really care need to read the history and learn about the the political climate that persisted after slavery was declared illegal and ultimately because "conservatives" could not be persuaded to leave slaves alone under any lasting conditions, the need for the 14th amendment came to be as a catch-all for all peoples considered as minorites in America. Read the personal politics of the majority south during THAT era. The fact that the conservatives of that time and place would not, could not, be persuaded to leave freed blacks (and possibly others) to prosper as they, conservatives, prospered. These same conservatives, incidentally who wield the Bible as if it was handed directly to them from All-Mighty God, then and now, have no problem at all firmly and HAWKISHly holding back every other people group in this country. Well, the 14th amendment shall not be removed.
Conservatives, nor anyone else, should go anywhere near the 14th amendment! Solve your immigration problem some other way!!!!!!
Finally, when you do read the history of Slavery, start with Virginia politics and see for yourself how "with a stroke of a pin" Statehouses and politicians made laws that put an entire class of people under forced labor and how it took all the way to 1963 (Johnson) to finally adequately deliver Blacks reasonably out of Jim Crow. Politicians (and religion by 1600 proclamation) started slavery in America with a signature in their statehouses and nowthey want to do it again. No Way. Stay away from the 14th amendment!!!!
"Is this want "we" want to do: say that the children of immigrants, no matter how they got here, are not Americans?"
No, of course not.
However, THAT'S NOT THE ISSUE! The issue it that the children of ILLEGAL ALIENS should not be afforded the right to citizenship. The 14th amendment did not have "illegal" immigrants to deal with when it was written. Now that our country has become a haven for those not willing to go through the proper steps to enter this country legally, we should close this loophole that allows them to claim that they should be able to remain in this country just because they were able to conceive while here.
Those immigrants who enter this country LEGALLY should be afforded ALL THE RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES granted under the law. But those who flaunt our laws should NOT!
So Please stop trying to weaken the issue by lumping ILLEGAL ALIENS with those immigrants who have come here LEGALLY and follow our laws. There's a BIG DIFFERENCE between the two groups.
D-web, you are right. Chris asked the question you quoted prematurely. That is, he asked it BEFORE he stated his premise: Quote. "And how on earth do you enforce this new cauterized 14th Amendment? End quote.
The question "Is this want [sic] "we" want to do: say that the children of immigrants, no matter how they got here, are not Americans?" fits better when it comes after the bolded question above.
In my humble opinion: Chris is saying that in 2010 "we" find ourselves in one heck of a mess with having accepted a gathering brood of working class (now stateless) persons within our borders. We have always had IMMIGRATION statues written down. Those in authority looked the other way, because they could...until the problem metasized. (Frankly, this is the kind of illegality that we empower (hire) Government to protect us against. Illegal immigration is a High Priority problem, and it should have never come to this: The common person struggling to empower itself to solve illegal immigration!)
An illegal immigrant by definition is not under the jurisprudence (legal system) of the United States. At best, illegals exist in America as aliens or stateless persons. BTW no Government creates lawsinherently benefitting law-breakers. If "we" can figure this out, WHY CAN NOT OUR 21st century leaders?
Here is a quote from George Wallace's 1963 inauguration speech (mind you, this is a long speech and this is only a "tiny" snippet near the end of it.):
http://www.archives.state.al.us/govs_list/inauguralspeech.html
So then, Gov. Wallace, a segregationist in 1963, thought the 14th amendment was "illegal"...interesting, republican Mitch McConnell thinks it needs to be changed ...
I use to work for an emigration center next to Kennedy Airport. Many alien attempt to enter the country with forged document, and they are immediately detained and slated for a return flight to Frankfort Germany. which appears to be the hubs of all this activity.
Once an alien is discovered with forged document (which should be a felony offense) he or she will ask for amnesty and by our laws we must bring them into the detention center and scheldule a hearing before the dept of justice. This detention can sometimes run into a year.
One day a pregnant lady looking like she ready to give birth attempted to enter with forged document and she asked for amnesty. The next day she gave birth
In conclusion I think there is something dreadfully wrong when aliens can circumvent the law to have a child born in the USA.
Many others sneak across the border and have children here, knowing they will be Americans,
Meanwhile in many countries people are legally wating for a visa to enter the country.
I think the 14th amendment should be rewritten or modify to avoid this abuse.
I understand your frustration. Here's what is confusing to me: She had forged documents, while her (legal) status would later be determined, I presume you are saying her child became a US citizen, is that correct? There is no dilemma, she and the child have not come under legal jurisprudence of the U.S.
Why would she be? She has not be "certified" prior to delivery! She and her baby are de facto citizens of the land they arrived from until certified American.
This is where lawyers, politicians and their ilk screw up the system that a simple man can run efficiently!!
What you described as a "path taken to citizen" is not the spirit of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution. Citizenship rendered this way is foisted upon the 14th Amendment to the Constitution! Our leaders have immigration laws already in the box, just use those well-established laws.
I agree with D-web. Don't change the 14th amendment ( and it won't happen anyway, it would take a 2/3 majority in congress to do it).
What we need to do is enforce the laws already in place. E-verify. If they're not here legally don't give them jobs. I'm in Cincinnati and there are plenty of employers who hire illegals here for the cheap labor and pay them in cash.
These employers encourage illegal immigration.
Chris I do not understand you anymore. The argument that you are having about illegal immigrants is not valid. It is true that they come here to get the social programs that will be available to them when they drop an anchor baby.
It is also very true that the 14the amendment was created in 1968 to counter the exiting law that did not give citizenship to the newly freed African slaves and their children. It is also true that there were no illegal immigration problems in 1868. Therefore Chris this law did not pertain to illegal folks today. It is like you want to give citizenship to people who broke the law to come into this country, then continue to break even more of our laws to stay here. Stealing social security cards of our children and our dead. Working with those numbers so that when our children become of age, it will seem as though they have already received social security benefits. There is more much much more Chris Matthews much more. Most of the people that are illegal that I have run into over the last 30 year say they do not like America or Americans they just want the money which the do not spend much here the send it home to their country. Tell Luis Guitierrea he is and idiot if he thinks anyone believes his words about these wonderful family oriented folks.
It is also very true that the 14the amendment was created in 1968
the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868. And since it contains provisions that make slavery a crime, keep it as it is.
Yes we do want to say the the children of illegal immigrants are not Americans simply because they are not. If the children of dipolmats are not citizens of the USA. Then why would we say that a law breakers kid is a citizen? Huh. Try and make sence of that somene any one.
Sorry about the type o's folks. I hope you understand what I am trying to say. That congressman of Illinois should shut up. No one likes what he says about this subject and no one cares what he says about this subject. Luis G
Illegals are under the jurisdiction of the country that they come from. No doubt. And we need to stop this we must take care of the world before we take care of us. A lot of us are going down fast. Americans need the help that we are sending around the world.
I agree with you Chris, how do we define this law is very crucial. This change in the admendment would personally effect me. I am an African Amercan citizen my husband is Latin and originally from Chile. He has his green card works and pays taxes in this country. Because he is not "truly a citizen" does that mean that my child who I am 4 months pregnant with will not be a citizen. And who are the the republicans to have a right to decide to change this country's constitution. The originally purpose of this admendment was for the children of freed slaves would have rights in the country that they were born in. In 1868 when this admendment was modified freed slave children were still being denied their rights. We know from history that this would still continue until the signing of the civil rights act of 1964. So often children are caught up in the ideas of adults and politicians, why put an innocent child into a situation that they did not ask to be in. So often we loose sight of what America stands for, when I think of America, I think of civil liberties, the freedom to live, speak and raise my family the way that I want. This change to the 14th admendment could potentially redefine was a family is and how societ and the law sees a family. I feel that no family should ever be defined based upon what society thinks but by the way that they define themselves.
If YOU are a US citizen, then our child would be a US citizen! Where's the issue? Even our husband is here LEGALLY if he has a valid Green Card.
All the "rights" afforded US citizens and LEGAL visitors are not the issue. It's those who have come here ILLEGALLY that should NOT be able to tap into those rights.
Brandi,
You make an even larger point. Read the history of how slavery came to be in America (starting in Virginia). It was decided in the Virginia statehouses...and spread like a cancer to many other states. Interestingly, the precedence for U.S. slavery was based on a court case involving a former indentured servant. That case later on formed the basis for a pattern of societal rule changes that led to STATEHOUSES and politicians approving slavery in them (google it). With the stroke of a pen....
When English-Americans realized that the African-Americans were outside of (his) law, that is any law he had to respect, the majority of English-Americans wrote laws that ultimately caused Africans to be stateless, and they gave them what amounted to an ultimatum: Go back to Africa (no ship, no fare) or stay and be a permanent class of underdeveloped forced laborers. Well, history records what occurred.
So then, watch and pray. Why is are changes to the 14th Amendment being trial-floated? I am just saying!
Calvinw:
One distinction is that the African slaves did not come here voluntarily and as you so eloquently stated most had no means of returning to Africa once freed even if they wanted to therefore they were stateless people through no fault of their own. The discussion today is people that are not here legally or here legally on a temporary basis of their own volition who either walked across a border, fashioned a boat or had the wherewithall to purchase an airfare to fly here who are NOT stateless and who I assume should have the ability and wherewithall to return from where they came once their legal status here expires.
I am no noone is proposing that Brandi's child should not be immediately granted citizenship upon bith as the child of a US Citizen (Brandi) and what sounds like as the child of a permanent resident on the path to citizenship (her husband) either on the grounds on their marital status or other status as am I am not sure what the nature of his resisdency is.
Leoidas2010,
Actually ethnic AFrican slaves first brought over to America were treated similiarly as whites: Irsh, Germans, and others people brought over to America- as indentured servants. When each could pay off the debt (whatever owed) to his Debtor within 7 years that "servant" was given BACK his freedom. Truth is, black people have not ALWAYS been slaves in North America. Some blacks persons prospered in the 1600, having served off there "payments" The were left to go into the land and proper as any other man, even white men. That is before Virginia Statehouses and politicians realized that they needed workers to pick tobacco, and Mississipp needed workers to pick cotton. These booming industries had no workers. So they sublety wrote laws (STatehouses) which intended to strip the properous negro of his property, and since he was not viewed as being America, politicians wrote laws that made a group of people PROPERTY IN EVERY SENSE OF THE WORD!
That is true Calvin but most of them were slave owners themselves. There was several "wealthy" africans who owned slaves in this country during that time. There were also deals betweent he african leaders (in africa) and other africans(in this country).
Leon-my husband is a permenant resident and plans to do dual citizenship. His mother who is Chilean born is already a US citizen who holds dual citizenship. He has every intention of becoming a citizen since he has his permanent visa. But just hasn't had the time in the midst of working and full time job and pursuaing his graduate degree and trying to help me raise my son by a previous relationship. I will be so sad that a man who has worked so hard and accomplished so much be told that his child is not a united states citizen. I feel sorrow for all of the couples out there like us who are watching to see what happens and who are terrified of the outcome.
Brandi!
Then FIGHT for what you want to happen! You and many families similar to yours are prime candidates for protecting not only the rights granted by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, but also contesting anyone who openly discusses changing the status of your family(ies) existence! You do not have to be 100% percent knowledgeable about the 14th Amendment to change hearts and minds-though the more you know about history the better you can defend yourselves.
Your life situation is powerful; your posts have affected me! It took me a day to answer your post, because you made me stop and consider. I feel your distress through your words. You are already on track to turn distress into meaningful and listened to ACTION. BE HEARD!! VOTE YOUR CONSCIENCE!!! GET OTHERS TO VOTE THEIRS!!! Remember it was in the 1600's in U.S. Statehouses that first one, than another, another, than an avalanche of Statehouses approved and accepted the opinions of politicians, who with a stroke of a pen, plunged an ethnic group of black people into slavery.
"Leon-my husband is a permenant resident and plans to do dual citizenship. His mother who is Chilean born is already a US citizen who holds dual citizenship. He has every intention of becoming a citizen since he has his permanent visa. But just hasn't had the time in the midst of working and full time job and pursuaing his graduate degree and trying to help me raise my son by a previous relationship. I will be so sad that a man who has worked so hard and accomplished so much be told that his child is not a united states citizen. I feel sorrow for all of the couples out there like us who are watching to see what happens and who are terrified of the outcome."
Again, Your husband is here LEGALLY. Your child will be a US citizen. If your husband wants dual citizenship, and the US government grants it, he's still LEGAL. Your family has NO cause for concern as long as all laws are followed.
His child is a citizen, and was from the moment of birth, regardless of his legal status.
Do you realize how many of us are the children and grandchildren of immigrants that never legally gained American citizenship? A LOT!
Also, isn't it interesting that Republicans are so willing to change an Ammendment that deals with restriciting citizenship, because they say "things are different now"? However, they believe in the sanctity of the Ammendment that retains the right of everyone to bear arms; guns of any sort. I would say that times have changed since the founding fathers made that law.
They believe in the sanctity of the Constitution, etc. if it upholds THIER rights, but not the rights of those "others". . .
Those in this country ILLEGALLY have no rights. If those here ILLEGALLY want to become legal, then they can take the PROPER LEGAL steps to become legal. And, for the most part, that entails RETURNING TO THEIR COUNTRY OF ORIGIN and applying for LEGAL entry.
So, OF "others" want to flaunt our laws, they should NOT expect any rights.
I think the issue concerning our own legal status should have been cleared up with the 1986 amnesty. So if you came to this country illegally after that amnesty program, you are not legal.
Nothing has changed in regards to the right of citizens to bear arms. Back in those days they had locks on the doors and criminals just as there has been throughout time. Were jails a 19th or 20th century concept? But this illegal immigration problem that the politicians only solve in half-measures was not an issue in the founders times.
We are a country of LAWS not men. And the law dictates who would be here legally and who is not. Do you believe in the sanctity of the Constitution? Do you respect and obey the law? If so, why do you not expect others to do the same. Why do you believe it is okay for some people to break the law?
If you are here illegally you do not have rights afforded to you by the Constitution, therefore, you are not "...subject to the jurisdiction thereof...".
I believe there was a mistake made by the congressman. He stated we didn't have immigration laws in the 1800's and we didn't have a immigration problem. However, if I remember my history correctly, we had a major influx of Irish because of the potato famine. The young Irishmen were told if they wanted to have citizenship in the American they would have to serve in the civil war (many died during the war). And on the west coast, there was an influx of Chinese who helped build the Intercontinental Railroad. The Chinese were viewed by many with suspicion. We had immigration laws, we had restrictions, we had our prejudices then. Not much different than now.
I wonder what the real rational for wanting to change the 14th Amendment is. To avoid coming up with a good immigration program? OR To establish the format for investigating President Obama's citizenship? Would he as a child born in the US not qualify for being a citizen because his father was Kenyan? What a waste of time! We have other issues more pressing. Leave the 14th amendment alone.
While I reject the assertion that some progressives are making that clarifying the 14th Amendment is racist. I think the way the GOP is proposing to do seems to specifically target Latinos. The Republican congressman on tonight in favor of revisiting the 14th Amendment stated that they only proposing to end anchor babies for illegal immigrants which seems to specifically target people from Mexico and Central America, Haiti and Canada who presumably have the ability to illegally enter our country by land or sea. This would not address people here in our country (typically from Asia, Eastern Europe, Middle East and Africa) on temporary Visas like tourist Visas that can simply give birth here and get a fast track to citizenship that puts them in front of another immigrant that would have been in front of them in line for citizenship (essentially allowing them the "cut in line" in front of others that are waiting.
Everyone living in our country except Native Americans are immigrants (voluntarily or involuntarily) and, although I normally have agree with Chris Matthews on most issues, I find it preposterous that he thinks we are going to re-examine everyone who is already a citizen.
After the idiocy of the 2000-2006 Congress and the new idiocy of the 2008-2010 Congress none of which seem to know how to write laws that actually have the intended affects vs giveaways to the friends and lobbyists (on both sides) I doubt the GOP nor the DNC will be able to write a sensible immigration reform law or reasonable change to the 14th Amendment either.
The GOP acting in their own self interest and Fortune 500 lobbies or going to leave H-1B visas and employment Visas and visas for wealthy investors (mostly Caucasians, Asians and some from the Middle East) wide open and grant citizenship to their kids and block citizenship to those who are not on these types of special Visas. And the DNC is going to frame this debate as a racist issue to poach Latino votes from the GOP like the Democrat congressman that was on your show.
We should move closer to the standards of other sensible developed nations and allies like Europe and Japan which typically require AT LEAST one of the parents of children born there to automatically qualify for citizenship or for PERMANENT (not temporary) RESIDENTS already approved and on the pathway to citizenship, NOT student, tourists, temporary workers etc.
Does it make any sense the if my wife was pregnant and for some reason we happened to be in France or Japan on vacation or for business or going to college there and neither of us were of French or Japanese descent and neither of us were related to anyone there that our child would be a French or Japanese national? This makes no sense.
My wife is a Pacific Islander and I am a German / Puerto Rican and the assertion that I am racist because I agree with most Europeans, Japanese, South Koreans, Chinese, Isrealies, Lebanese other developed nations naturalization policies is offensive and preposterous. I am sure the people of the rest of our G20 allies are not racists either.
I support President Obama's proposal for amnesty and a path the citizenship for those already unlawfully here as long as they have not been convicted of any crimes while here (which usually disqualifies citizenship already) and they pay any taxes or fees due and get to the back of the line of people already in the legal process. I support prosecuting all employers including those who illegally hire people including Congressmen and Senators (I'm sure they will exempt themselves and their lobbyist friends from these laws like they always do that's why all the laws are 2000+ pages so we won't bother to read them) that have illegal domestic staff and those of us also breaking the law who employ people illegally by hiring day workers from the local hardware store etc once the new programs are in place for the people already here now.
I DO NOT support Arizona's proposal and think while the law itself is not racist on it's face it will lead to profiling by police and enforcement that could easily become racist. I believe in the laws of supply and demand if we make it nearly impossible to someone here illegally to get a job here there will be no demand for illegal labor thereby eliminating the supply of illegal labor. I only wish it would be as easy to reduce the demand for illegal drugs thereby eliminating supply.
I hope I presented a reasoned balanced position on this issue based upon the realities of 2010 not the world as it existed in the 1860's when there were no civil rights for slaves. The rest of the world has moved ahead on this issue so should we.
Leonidas2010 I agree with 99.99% of your message. On amnesty, you mentioned you support a ‘proposal for amnesty and a path to citizenship for those already unlawfully here’ –as long as they meet certain conditions. Question: Is it practical to send illegal immigrants to the back of the line since that is one of the conditions which caused these persons to bypass the line in the first place? I wondered about this condition when I first heard the authorities mention it.
I agree that Arizona’s proposed immigration law, while it may be helpful to moderate large scale illegal immigration, inevitably will be heavy-handedly applied by “hawkish” people who will certainly apply and accept the job opening that this proposal will provide. It is inevitable. Just listen to the words of instructions of “America’s toughest Sheriff”, Sheriff Arpiao, a man who has a moniker that means “enforced discipline”. When the law was publicly proposed he went on TV with a certain cooperative tone with events du jour (of the moment), however after the law was favorably blocked, Sheriff Arpaio’s tone abruptly changed to one of noncompliance, not willing to come to full acceptance of the Judge’s order. Arpaio’s actions denote one who is “self-righteous”. One who believes in taking personal actions in spite of the spoken view of another. Therefore, he is a hawk. There are citizens in this country who have learnt through maltreatment from Authority figures that their freedoms are more conditioned on the applier of the law, than the rules themselves.
Furthermore the lesson of history is that cheap labor has always been part of the life of successful American capitalism, and world capitalism. Equally so, illegal drugs have become a stable in the USA and world. Really, what are the chances of controlling either?
I would reccomend anyone who wants to examine this issue to draw their own conclusions of what changes we should make (if any) to birthright citizenship in the U.S. should search Jus soli and Jus sanguinis in Wikipedia to further understands this topic and the current international norms or other countries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_sanguinis
The reason they want to change the 14th Amendment is also, as stated by your guest, to make it that if one person is American and the other is Illigal or not American the child would be illigal. Well lets think who that might be. President Obama's mom is and was a US citizen his dad is a Kenyan Citizen. It could be twisted around in the new law proposed by these nuts against the 14th amandment that Our President is not a Legal Citizen. This gives the BIRTHERS Their new LAW!!! Just a thought to maybe think about. With all the hate going out to our fundamental beliefs in the consitutuin here lately the Terrorist have won. Don't build a Mosque near Ground Zero. Freedom of Religion violation. Don't anone see that the attacks in 9/11 have not had a major folow up because we are dividing ourselves to death and They are LAUGHING.
Dave Martin:
I share your concern and I hope that is not where the GOP is trying to go with this.
Being that it takes 2/3 or 3/4 majorities to make any changes to the 14th Amendment I dont think the GOP would ever be able to pull that off even if they wanted to. I don't think any developed country requires BOTH parents to be citizens just one. If they propose that BOTH parents have to be U.S. citizens than I also would have a serious issue with the proposed changes and would not take seriously anyone making such a crazy proposal. with a 66% to 75% needed I would hope we could get a "balanced" reasonable law with any moderate Democrats, Republicans and Independants (not that there are many left) despite what those on the extreme right and extreme left would like to see.
Matthews played the "race" card with his comment about would the Rep challenge Obama's birth location if he wasn't Black?
Lets get beyond this and have Obama show is birth certificate - it's that simple...
And the 14th needs to reflect that at least one parent is a USA citizen...
He has posted his birth certificate online for all to see. He was born born in honolulu hawaii. He doesn't have to show it on demand anymore then I have too.
Come ON Chris! Get Real!
I agree with you on a lot of stuff, but here you are using the same Scare Tactics that the idiotic Birthers are using.
The modification or new amendment wouldn't be applied to those already born under the old 14th. It would have to include an effective or start date on passage. Those born in the US under any circumstances before passage wouldn't have their citizenship stripped.
This is a ruse by the Republicans to take the real issue off the table. If they spend time talking about revoking the 14th Amendment they sound BIG to their base although the chances of it actually happening are slim-to-none. So when it doesn't happen they can say, "We tried." This is so bogus, what they are really trying to avoid is REAL immigration reform or enforcing current laws. The Republicans are in the back pockets of Corporate America who really need this cheap labor but the Republicans must appear tough to their base.
Could it be that the Right wingers are looking at changing the 14th Amendment to remove President Obama from the Presidency? He was born in Hawaii to one legal resident, but his father was on a student visa. Is the right using immigration as a smoke screen to their ultimate target of Barack Obama?
The republicans are trying to do more with the 14th amendment than they are letting on.
They are talking about the immigration issue now, but look what else could come into play:
PURPORTED INTEREST #6: THE CATCHALL INTEREST
Finally, proponents assert that Proposition 8 advances
“[a]ny other conceivable legitimate interests identified by the
parties, amici, or the court at any stage of the proceedings.” Doc
#605 at 15. But proponents, amici and the court, despite ample
opportunity and a full trial, have failed to identify any rational
basis Proposition 8 could conceivably advance. Proponents,
represented by able and energetic counsel, developed a full trial
record in support of Proposition 8. The resulting evidence shows
that Proposition 8 simply conflicts with the guarantees of the
Fourteenth Amendment.
Yes, let us assume that these "strict constructionists" are also open to changing or repealing the 2nd amendment since it was also created at a very different time in U.S. history, and partly as a response to aspects of British colonial rule. No need for that antiquated old amendment anymore.
What is wrong when we have to have a constitutional amendment to try to police our borders? Let us not try to destroy excellent relationships for at least 150 years with most Canadians and Mexicans changing a part of our mutual heritage. Until 30 years ago or so, Canadians came across the US border in rural areas to have their children born in US hospitals. At least in those days, the motivation was rarely for the kids to become citizens, but to have medical care for childbirth. As a matter of fact, for most Canadian families, until the dual citizenship was allowed for Americans, the issue was a hard one because children reaching majority (who were Canadian born in the US) had to decide whether to be US or Canadian citizens and reject the other.
Finally, dual citizenship was allowed by the US and avoided this problem. However, the problem of language, and acceptance of English has always been important in this country. In New England, it has always been common to wait a generation for the first born in the US to use English in daily life, in school, and in commerce. I hope we can find another way than a constitutional amendment to solve this issue, which I think is at the core of current problems. We do not want French as a second language, or Spanish, or any other in this country. It is destructive to imagine that whatever the population, for the US to become embroiled in a second language or an official religion contest IS anti-American. Otherwise, the gradual assimilation into English-speaking culture is damaged at a time when English, through our as well as British influences, it has become the default language of the world.
I think the whole discussion wraps around "under jurisdiction". So, any illegal alien in this country can do anything they want, including breaking laws against rape, murder, assault, robbery, etc. and we could not apply our laws to them? That is B.S.
Mexican citizens who have been prosecuted for murder in Texas have been denied legal representation from the Mexican Embassy, been convicted and in fact, put to death. I think the number is rather high and Mexico is not happy about it. What should we do in retrospect? Can you honestly say that we have no jurisdiction?
When illegal aliens pay social security taxes on false documents, do we owe them money plus interest? When they go into our stores and pay sales tax, do we not have jurisdiction over them? When they fail to pay rent and the landlord wants them to leave, cannot they be evicted UNDER LAW?
The very fact that we deport them ACCORDING TO OUR LAW proves that we have jurisdiction over them.
This whole issue is because Republicans have figured out that Hispanics are not going to vote for them. They can't change the minds of immigrants because they have to whip up the angry white vote for the mid-terms. The next best thing is to disenfranchise the 5 million first generation Hispanics who will vote Democratic, if they vote. Their whole strategy has been to get rid of Democratic support because they can't win on ideas.
So by the logic you are implying I can go to any country in the world and live there legally? Like let's take Mexico for example. I can go there and buy beach front property even though that is against the law? I can walk down the street of a Mexican city and if they ask me for my papers I can tell them no and go about my business? How about if I take a boat to Cuba. Will they give me a free rice cooker like they do the rest of it's citizens?
How is it logical that an illegal alien can benefit from the laws of a country. In essence, they are criminals. So what if a person who commits murder on U.S. soil does not get legal representation from Mexico? He murdered a U.S. citizen. Should we deport him before he is punished, telling him not to come back.
When Social Security fails will I get my money back with interest? I doubt it! When a state goes in the red because of the extra costs of illegal immigrants (and their reckless spending) and I then have to pay extra to have an emergency unit respond to a car accident how is that fair. This is all about "fairness" right?
To wrap this up, you lose this argument because you had to use the race card. Conservatives don't need to win with ideas anymore. The answers are already proven in history. Democrats are beat by facts and the truth. All people like you can do is play on peoples fears. The angry white man is coming to get you. The Republicans will take away your Social Security. The Republicans want your grandma to die. What party plays on fear the most?
Open your eyes lady! All of the politicians in Washington are corrupt. They will not do the hard things because they are afraid of losing power. They point the fingers at each other yet the problems don't get solved, they become worse. You need to stop, look, and listen to the things going on around you without looking through tainted glasses.
If an undocumented immigrant breaks the law, can he be arrested? If so, it sounds like he is "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" and therefore would satisfy the criteria of the 14th Ammendment.
I agree with Kate. While we're considering tinkering with our Constitution, let's repeal the Second Amendment. Since we no longer need to organize state militias, we no longer need to protect the right to bear arms. l assume those attacking the 14th will be willing to go along with repeal of the 2nd. Or are only some amendments held sacrosanct?