Share this on:Mixx Facebook Twitter Digg delicious reddit MySpace StumbleUpon

[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 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 lead 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?

[George Gervin's Afro]

doh...double thread..

[boutons_deux]

Strict Constructionism applies whichever way the Repugs and extremist SCOTUS activists want to apply it. Stare Decisis? GFY

Strictly constructively, where does the Cons ution say a corporation is a person?

The CA Supreme Court voted 5-2 that cellphones (and now every other item on your person) can be searched without warrant, and I'm sure the SCOTUS will agree. We are "unreasonable" to have ANY expectation of privacy.

Next up? full body cavity searches without warrant.

America is so ed, will continue to be ed more, and is un able.

[Winehole23]

The CA Supreme Court voted 5-2 that cellphones (and now every other item on your person) can be searched without warrant, and I'm sure the SCOTUS will agree.