Legislators set sights on 'anchor babies'By Mariano Castillo, CNNJanuary 5,

[George Gervin's Afro]

Legislators set sights on 'anchor babies'By Mariano Castillo, CNNJanuary 5,

(CNN) -- A group of state legislators opposed to illegal immigration plan to propose a legislative "fix" Wednesday that would prevent children of illegal immigrants born in the United States from being citizens, a spokesman said.

The group, State Legislators for Legal Immigration, will reveal their strategy at a Wednesday morning news conference at the National Press Club in Washington, Ty McCauslin said.

The coalition counts members from 40 states. It argues that the 14th Amendment has been wrongly applied to so-called "anchor babies."

The 14th Amendment says that "all persons born ... in the United States" automatically become U.S. citizens.

Should birth grant citizenship?

2010: 14th Amendment rewards immigrants? The group's proposal "is to fix the misapplication of the 14th Amendment as it applies to the children of illegal aliens," McCauslin told CNN.

The group would not divulge additional details of the proposal before it is officially announced, but said that there would be several constitutional scholars on hand to vouch for its legality.

Besides unauthorized immigrants, no other group would be affected by the proposal, the spokesman said.


http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/01/05/legislators.illegal.immigration/index.html?hpt=T2


So we now have the GOP led states wanting to clarify what the intent is of the constitution as opposed to actually what the document states.


Yet for the 2nd Amendment those same people argue that the text of the contstituion supports the right to bear arms.....


so which is it? Do you take the consitution literally? Or do you believe in justifying the intent even though the text may state otherwise?

[CosmicCowboy]

Good.

[RandomGuy]

Good.

Why do you hate the Constitution?

[Wild Cobra]

Why do you hate the Constitution?
It has to do with understood intent.

Why do you hate such realities? We know that the purpose and scope of the 14th amendment was to make slaves, citizens. It was never intended to allow those not following immigration policies from benefiting.

So I turn that around on you. Why do you hate the constitution.

[boutons_deux]

Only the Repugs "know" the intent of the Constitution's writers, who put black on white, but with many dog whistles, the more xenophobic and discriminatory the better, heard only by Repugs and their extremist SCOTUS activists.

[Wild Cobra]

I hope this is the decade of many constitutional challenges that set America back on course.

[FromWayDowntown]

It has to do with understood intent.

Why do you hate such realities? We know that the purpose and scope of the 14th amendment was to make slaves, citizens. It was never intended to allow those not following immigration policies from benefiting.

So I turn that around on you. Why do you hate the constitution.

So the Constitution means what it says except when what it says is somehow contrary to an "understood intent," at which time (but no other) we can somehow divine the intent of the drafters and use that in lieu of the text?

Sounds like textualism except where it's inconvenient.

[Wild Cobra]

So the Constitution means what it says except when what it says is somehow contrary to an "understood intent," at which time (but no other) we can somehow divine the intent of the drafters and use that in lieu of the text?

Sounds like textualism except where it's inconvenient.

It's a complex issue, and I am not going to spend the required time on such topics again with you libtards. Immigration was meant to be controlled. Congress is given that power. Fuck you loopholes that were never meant to be you maxist faggot.

[clambake]

what an ass.

[CosmicCowboy]

Since there were no immigration laws in effect at the time of the 14th amendment it clearly did not address or include children of illegal immigrants. If the later immigration laws that were enacted conflict with the 14th amendment then the intent of the 14th amendment should be clarified and the conflict resolved one way or the other.

[boutons_deux]

"Immigration was meant to be controlled."

Holy shit.

US's first immigration control act was until 1882.

Up to then about the only laws concerned which arrived immigrants, wide open borders, were to be excluded from naturalization, eg, black slaves, Asians.


Say where in the Constitution that immigration was to be controlled?

[ElNono]

It's a complex issue, and I am not going to spend the required time on such topics again

Of course you won't.

[ElNono]

Immigration is under the control of the federal government.
There's always the option to secede if they don't like what the federal government does or doesn't do.

[Stringer_Bell]

Say where in the Constitution that immigration was to be controlled?

It may not be in there, but it sure as hell is implied. Our founding fathers hated Mexicans, I doubt they'd be happy with how they're taking over the country. Just look at the numbers provided by the GOP on this issue, the facts speak for themselves.

[ElNono]

Since there were no immigration laws in effect at the time of the 14th amendment it clearly did not address or include children of illegal immigrants. If the later immigration laws that were enacted conflict with the 14th amendment then the intent of the 14th amendment should be clarified and the conflict resolved one way or the other.

Change the amendment then. Congress should be able to do that.

[FromWayDowntown]

Since there were no immigration laws in effect at the time of the 14th amendment it clearly did not address or include children of illegal immigrants. If the later immigration laws that were enacted conflict with the 14th amendment then the intent of the 14th amendment should be clarified and the conflict resolved one way or the other.

I don't dispute that. I also don't necessarily dispute that the Supreme Court could readily construe the 14th Amendment in that fashion because of evidence of that intent.

But I just think it's interesting that WC is willing to assume intent and read it into the Constitution when it supports his position, but is wholly unwilling to do that very thing when the intent might (or does) contravene his position.

For a textualist like WC, I'd think the preferred method would be to amend the Constitution to expressly incorporate that intent, rather than disregarding the text and turning the Constitution into a living document.

But since getting such an amendment ratified might be practically difficult, I guess the last refuge of the ardent textualist is resort to the very discernment of intent that he believes to be so anathema to constitutional jurisprudence.

[FromWayDowntown]

It's a complex issue, and I am not going to spend the required time on such topics again with you libtards. Immigration was meant to be controlled. Congress is given that power. Fuck you loopholes that were never meant to be you maxist faggot.

Why not amend the Constitution? or have you suddenly become a non-textualist?

I'm glad to see, though, that you're willing to defend your position without resorting to ridiculous things like name-calling. It's so refreshing around here.

[baseline bum]

It's a complex issue, and I am not going to spend the required time on such topics again with you libtards. Immigration was meant to be controlled. Congress is given that power. Fuck you loopholes that were never meant to be you maxist faggot.

:lol

http://www.ragecry.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/you_mad.jpg

[boutons_deux]

"implied" :lol :lol :lol

aka, strict constructionism/textualism, the same bullshit "Christians" Bible literalists pull when they dream up their own interpretation. :lol :lol :lol

[Trainwreck2100]

the problem isn't the babies, it's that America doesn't have the cajones to deport the parents

[boutons_deux]

I've been saying for years that US is turning into France, where the state is much more important than the citizens.

And Vichy France offers the US an excellent model for deporting undesirables out of the country: shipping 10s of 1000s of French Jews to Germany, adding in few gays and gypsies for embesslishment.

Go For It! The Founding Fathers meant it that way! :lol

[Blake]

Sounds like textualism except where it's inconvenient.


It's a complex issue, and I am not going to spend the required time on such topics again with you libtards.

I wonder how many of Wild Cobra's 17,000+ posts contain the phrase "I don't have the time."

[boutons_deux]

"how many of Wild Cobra's 17,000+ posts contain the phrase "I don't have the time." "

Hey, "do your own research" :lol

[Blake]

"how many of Wild Cobra's 17,000+ posts contain the phrase "I don't have the time." "

Hey, "do your own research" :lol

I'm not going to spend the required time on such a topic with you, libtard.

[LnGrrrR]

It has to do with understood intent.

Why do you hate such realities? We know that the purpose and scope of the 14th amendment was to make slaves, citizens. It was never intended to allow those not following immigration policies from benefiting.

So I turn that around on you. Why do you hate the constitution.

WC, don't you remember me schooling you on this before? Why do you pretend that didn't happen?

They already discussed the idea of "anchor babies" when the 14th Amendment was being argued, and that provision was dismissed.

Just because you don't like what history says means you get to change it.

[LnGrrrR]

Since there were no immigration laws in effect at the time of the 14th amendment it clearly did not address or include children of illegal immigrants. If the later immigration laws that were enacted conflict with the 14th amendment then the intent of the 14th amendment should be clarified and the conflict resolved one way or the other.

Actually, that very specific topic was brought up. Except instead of Mexicans, they used gypsies as an example.

http://www.blogforarizona.com/blog/2010/11/tea-publican-priority-not-jobs-but-repeal-of-14th-amendment-citizenship.html



While the 14th Amendment was primarily intended to overrule Dred Scott and make sure that freed slaves and their children were granted U.S. citizenship, it was not limited to freed slaves. Congressional debate of the Citizenship Clause included lengthy debate over Native Americans, Chinese immigrants in California, and Gypsies.
Sen. Edgar Cowan of Pennsylvania, a raging racist who voted against the 14th Amendment, expressed his concerns during debate that the people of California would be "overrun by a flood of immigration of the Mongol race," and "Therefore I think, before we assert broadly that everybody who shall be born in the United States shall be taken to be a citizen of the United States, we ought to exclude others besides Indians not taxed, because I look upon Indians not taxed as being much less dangerous and much less pestiferous to society than I look upon Gypsies."


So this idea was already argued, and dismissed obviously, since it's not in the Amendment.

[LnGrrrR]

And of course, there's some common-law precedent. From the same link above:


The Supreme Court ruled in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) that "where birth in the United States was clear, a child of Chinese parents was, in the Court's opinion, definitely a citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment, even though Chinese aliens were ineligible to naturalize under then-existing law." (Chinese Exclusion Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Exclusion_Act)).




The Court stated that long before the adoption of the 14th Amendment, "all white persons" born in the U.S., including children of "foreigners," were considered native-born citizens (provided that they were not "children of ambassadors or public ministers of a foreign government"), and that "[t]o hold that the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution excludes from citizenship the children, born in the United States, of citizens or subjects of other countries would be to deny citizenship to thousands of persons of English, Scotch, Irish, German, or other European parentage who have always been considered and treated as citizens of the United States."


So anyone that argues that the 14th Amendment doesn't allow "anchor babies" is pretty much ignorant.

[LnGrrrR]

It's a complex issue, and I am not going to spend the required time on such topics again with you libtards. Immigration was meant to be controlled. Congress is given that power. Fuck you loopholes that were never meant to be you maxist faggot.

Poor form WC.

[Duff McCartney]

It may not be in there, but it sure as hell is implied. Our founding fathers hated Mexicans, I doubt they'd be happy with how they're taking over the country. Just look at the numbers provided by the GOP on this issue, the facts speak for themselves.

Technically when the Founding Fathers were around..there were no Mexicans as there was no Mexico.

[Duff McCartney]

I think we should have more restrictive gun laws...after all that's a "well-regulated militia" means...or that there should be no laws against freedom of speech because after all the first amendment says "Congress shall make no law".

[George Gervin's Afro]

I think we should have more restrictive gun laws...after all that's a "well-regulated militia" means...or that there should be no laws against freedom of speech because after all the first amendment says "Congress shall make no law".

I think the founders were speaking that the right to bear arms was only to form a militia if necessary.. that is what the text implies....

[George Gervin's Afro]

conservative logic fails miserably again....