Arizona Clears Strict Immigration Bill

[Wild Cobra]

You're a fan of interepreting what the writers meant at the time a do ent was written, right? Let's see what the people arguing the Amendment had to say.

The first amendment is to section one, declaring that all "persons born in the United States and Subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside. I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.

Congressional Globe, 39th Congress (1866) pg. 2890

So tell me, how is it misinterpreted?

The fact that laws of immigration are left to congress and it wasn't illegal for at the time for them to be here.

Riddle me this. During that time, was there ever any prosecutions for illegal aliens?

The answer is NO. Citizens of Mexico were free to come here without immigration control them.

What you quoted was also one man's explaination. Not necessarily the definition voted on either.

[Wild Cobra]

LnGrrrR, did you read the third column of the record by chance?

[LnGrrrR]

The fact that laws of immigration are left to congress and it wasn't illegal for at the time for them to be here.

The discussion wasn't about illegal immigration though. It was about how CITIZENSHIP is generated/created/maintained etc. Which is what we were discussing.

What you quoted was also one man's explaination. Not necessarily the definition voted on either.

The amendment that the man proposed is VERBATIM to the 1st section of the 14th Amendment that currently stands. Obviously, not EVERY member of Congress will get up and say something about the bill.

Given that the bill passed, VERBATIM to the Amendment this man was arguing for, then a majority of the people signing it must have agreed with the Amendment.

[LnGrrrR]

LnGrrrR, did you read the third column of the record by chance?

That, and the following five or six pages. The man makes the same argument, roughly, that you do. Considering the Amendment passed, I'd say his argument didn't win out.

[EmptyMan]

gotdamnitt people


dey took our jarbs!

[Wild Cobra]

And Congress rejected that argument. Which is why you don't see the law being applied that way.

Congress likes to have more people who rely on them.

[LnGrrrR]

Congress likes to have more people who rely on them.

So I can chalk this up as a win then, refuting your statement that the 14th Amendment is applied improperly?

[admiralsnackbar]

gotdamnitt people


dey took our jarbs!

[Wild Cobra]

So I can chalk this up as a win then, refuting your statement that the 14th Amendment is applied improperly?

If you wish. I'm not going to waste the time going over another six pages, especially since I've been up for 27 hrs now. If you disagree with section five, as I applied it, then there is no convincing you. If you think that debate over the wording is agreeing with the arguments of the loopholes available, then there is no convincing you either. The vote was agreed to by the text vited yes to, and how the legislators thought it would be understood. Not how we apply it today.

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

With section five, definitions applying to "jurisdiction" can be legislated, since it is a huge gray area.

[LnGrrrR]

If you wish. I'm not going to waste the time going over another six pages, especially since I've been up for 27 hrs now. If you disagree with section five, as I applied it, then there is no convincing you. If you think that debate over the wording is agreeing with the arguments of the loopholes available, then there is no convincing you either. The vote was agreed to by the text vited yes to, and how the legislators thought it would be understood. Not how we apply it today.

I assume that's the best I'll get out of you, so I'll take it as a W. Especially since my definition IS the one currently applied, unless you know of a case where someone was born on US territory and wasn't granted US citizenship. (Barring, of course, children of foriegn diplomats)