Reply With Quote
Good.
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 cons utional 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/...ex.html?hpt=T2
So we now have the GOP led states wanting to clarify what the intent is of the cons ution as opposed to actually what the do ent states.
Yet for the 2nd Amendment those same people argue that the text of the conts uion 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?
Good.
Why do you hate the Cons ution?
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 cons ution.
Only the Repugs "know" the intent of the Cons ution'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.
I hope this is the decade of many cons utional challenges that set America back on course.
So the Cons ution 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 lib s. Immigration was meant to be controlled. Congress is given that power. you loopholes that were never meant to be you maxist got.
what an ass.
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.
"Immigration was meant to be controlled."
Holy .
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 Cons ution that immigration was to be controlled?
Of course you won't.
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.
It may not be in there, but it sure as 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.
Change the amendment then. Congress should be able to do that.
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 Cons ution 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 Cons ution to expressly incorporate that intent, rather than disregarding the text and turning the Cons ution into a living do ent.
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 cons utional jurisprudence.
Why not amend the Cons ution? 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.
"implied"
aka, strict constructionism/textualism, the same bull "Christians" Bible literalists pull when they dream up their own interpretation.
the problem isn't the babies, it's that America doesn't have the cajones to deport the parents
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!
I wonder how many of Wild Cobra's 17,000+ posts contain the phrase "I don't have the time."
"how many of Wild Cobra's 17,000+ posts contain the phrase "I don't have the time." "
Hey, "do your own research"
I'm not going to spend the required time on such a topic with you, lib ."how many of Wild Cobra's 17,000+ posts contain the phrase "I don't have the time." "
Hey, "do your own research"
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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
