Let's try a new way of discussing immigration..

[iplaw]

quote:"(A)ll men are created equal" is an unambiguous statement and the basis for "equal protection".

Then why isn't every citizen of the world considered a US citizen then...that statement is just rediculous.

Anyways it's peripheral to the fact that you stated it was the intent of the drafters of the amendment that ideas like "anchor babies" were to be included, and that's simply not the case.

quote:On a separate track, name me a single lawmaker who says the 14th Amendment is "overbroad"?

Is one enough?  Because there are a whole slew of them right now (and during Plyler)who are/were.  Congress simply passes a law outlawing protection for "anchor babies" while limiting the federal court's jurisdiction to review...whether it will be done or not is a matter of time and politics.

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

"...subject to jurisdiction..." is much more clear in intent to some people than others.

Conan, can an illegal immigrant violate the laws of the United States of America?      

Let me answer that one for ya...sure as sh*t they can.  There's no ambiguity here.

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

quote:"(A)ll men are created equal" is an unambiguous statement and the basis for "equal protection".

Then why isn't every citizen of the world considered a US citizen then...that statement is just rediculous.

Baloney, IP.  All men are created equal, and we have a naturalization process that is the same for everyone.  It's not ridiculous...equal opportunity is a core American value.

quote:Anyways it's peripheral to the fact that you stated it was the intent of the drafters of the amendment that ideas like "anchor babies" were to be included, and that's simply not the case.

I never made such a statement.  I said that US citizenship is a birthright...and it is.  What is your claim to US citizenship, IP?  You are the joker (at least I presume you are joking) who made assertions about the intent of the drafters.  Get your facts straight.

quote:

quote:On a separate track, name me a single lawmaker who says the 14th Amendment is "overbroad"?

Is one enough?  Because there are a whole slew of them right now (and during Plyler)who are/were.

 Please list them.

quote:
Congress simply passes a law outlawing protection for "anchor babies" while limiting the federal court's jurisdiction to review...whether it will be done or not is a matter of time and politics.

In other words, Congress simply passes a law that denies Americans equal protection under the law...yeah, right.  Again, what is your claim to citizenship, IP?

[iplaw]

quote:Baloney, IP. All men are created equal, and we have a naturalization process that is the same for everyone. It's not ridiculous...equal opportunity is a core American value.

Please tell that to my friend from South Africa who can't manage to gain citizenship then.  Immediate amnesty was granted to illegals last time in the 80's.  This poor guy has been here for 12 years.  Tell me again that "the process is the same for everyone."  That's an out-and-out lie.  If you come from Mexico the process gets REAL easy about every 15 years or so.

quote:
I never made such a statement. I said that US citizenship is a birthright...and it is. What is your claim to US citizenship, IP? You are the joker (at least I presume you are joking) who made assertions about the intent of the drafters. Get your facts straight.

As with everything in the law it's a gray area.  The constitution/bill of rights are not infallible documents.  If they were we wouldn't need judges.  Judges in the past have construed that broadly, that may not be the case forever, and judges aren't the final arbitor of constitutional law.

quote:
In other words, Congress simply passes a law that denies Americans equal protection under the law...yeah, right. Again, what is your claim to citizenship, IP?

No.  They use an equally valid constiutional process to limit rampant abuses of our resources and violations of law.  Congress also has the constitutional duty to protect and defend the rest of the country in the process.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

"...subject to jurisdiction..." is much more clear in intent to some people than others.

Conan, can an illegal immigrant violate the laws of the United States of America?      

Let me answer that one for ya...sure as sh*t they can.  There's no ambiguity here.

Well, that's a big "duh".  They violate American law which we have a right to enforce  when they enter the country "illegally".

"Subject to the jurisdiction" refers to being a citizen of another country.  The drafters saw the biggest threat as being Indians at the time.  The didn't have the foresight to see that a budding country would eventually be over-run do to their lack of specificity.

What should we expect when attornies write our laws?  Keeps them all in business.

What's the old joke:

"A mobster will make you an offer you can't refuse.  An attorney will make you an offer you can't understand."

[iplaw]

quote:Please list them

Okay.  How about every congressman that signed onto:

2005-2006: H.R. 698
2003-2004: H.R. 1567
1999: H.J.Res.10
1999: H.R.73
1997-1998 H.J.Res.26-105
1995: H.R.1363
1997: H.R. 7
1997-1998: H.J.Res.26-105

FYI, there are scores if not hundreds of them.

[Chicken Little]

No, conan, "subject to jurisdiction" refers to the status of the parents at the moment when the child was born, i.e., are they diplomatic employees.  If you aren`t a foreign diplomat, then your child is an American.  Speaking of, what is your claim to citizenship?

[Chicken Little]

ip, what is your claim to US citizenship?  thanks for the cites, I`ll look `em up when I`m not on this phone.

[Conan71]

Born to two American citizens who were also born here from a long line of others born in America.  I have ancestors who migrated as far back as prior to the DOI.  None later than 1820 to 1830 that I'm aware of.  My family owned and farmed land around Gettysburg from the American Revolution to beyond the civil war prior to moving further out west.  Yep, my family was amongst the original rapists and pillagers.

I refer you again to the words of Senator Howard, apparently you have a different read on this than I do:

"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."

[guido911]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

quote:Originally posted by guido911

Really, your #1 problem related to immigration and immigration reform is the expression "anchor baby"? Wow.

Yup.  Because it's an epithet that distinguishes and diminishes a subset of Americans.  And, as Conan clearly relates...

quote:Unfortunately the words "subject to their jurisdiction" is pretty vague and largely ignored in favor of "all persons born..."

...that's exactly the goal of many people.  Their is no question of law; the 14th Amendment decided that American citizenship was a birthright.  That's about as settled as any law ever was, and people who truly respect the law should be content, or at least resigned.  But you see, for many, this isn't about the law; the law is just a thin veil for personal predjudices.

This term, and the term "chain migration" are just nasty neologisms for processes that are very established, and very American.  Chances are your own great-great-grandparents were "chain migrants" and/or "anchor babies"...who the h*ll cares? Should you feel guilty?  Heck no.

So, yeah, "anchor baby" bothers me because it affirms that, for many, this is about predjudice.

So in your world, the immigration problem will be solved once we banish the phrase "anchor babies" from our language. Hey, maybe racism will end once we banish the "N" word.

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

ip, what is your claim to US citizenship?  thanks for the cites, I`ll look `em up when I`m not on this phone.

It's not a vaild question.  It's interesting how you want to be such a strict constructionalist when it suits your purposes...

Common sense was the rule of the day when this amendment was drafted, which is certainly not the case today.  Those drafting that amendment certainly were not faced with the same issues as we are today.  The Irish, etc. did not immigrate to the US simply to squirt out a baby to receive citizenship.  Anchor babies are an affront to everyone who has worked to gain legal citizenship.

You never answered my question either.  Are you still asserting that the system is fair for all?  No one could make such a claim with a straight face.

[iplaw]

quote:"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."

I don't think it can be stated any more clearly.

[Double A]

Reward those immigrants who obey the law by coming legally, punish the immigrants that don't. It's really simple. Since our immigration laws have not been meaningfully enforced, is it so awful to give  enforcement a try instead of giving our country away? Since our borders have never been meaningfully secured, is it so awful to build a fence to secure it? Historically, this is a very effective way to secure a border. Just ask China, they have centuries of experience in this regard.

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

Born to two American citizens who were also born here from a long line of others born in America.  I have ancestors who migrated as far back as prior to the DOI.  None later than 1820 to 1830 that I'm aware of.  My family owned and farmed land around Gettysburg from the American Revolution to beyond the civil war prior to moving further out west.  Yep, my family was amongst the original rapists and pillagers.

I refer you again to the words of Senator Howard, apparently you have a different read on this than I do:

"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."

That's a pretty awesome pedigree and sh*t, but what, in all of that, makes you an American citizen?  Seriously...and by that I mean legally...what makes you an American citizen? I mean, Winston Churchill's mom was a Yank and Wong Kim Ark's parents were from China, so, forgive me for asking, but what makes you an American?  Ya see, Wong Kim Ark was borned in Cali and died before your grandparents were borned in PA or wherever, and the 14th amendment to the Constitution had this to say about him:

quote: 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.

This was all figured out like, a hundred years ago.  And, if you don't like it, you are welcome to go pound sand down a rathole.  By the way, I've got ancestors that trump yours by 10,000 years or so, does that make me a SuperAmerican?  What are my special powers?  Can I like melt an "ullegal" with my x-ray glower or something?  

'Cause ya see, what really matters is this 1830 thing that you bring up, because Ark's parents had him in 1870 or so, which is like way, way different.  I could possibly find you some sand for your ratholes...I don't know...I could make some calls...let me know.

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by guido911

So in your world, the immigration problem will be solved once we banish the phrase "anchor babies" from our language. Hey, maybe racism will end once we banish the "N" word.

Yeah, Guido, when people like you consider Americans to be Americans, I'll be happy.  I can probably find you some sand, too.  Do you need some sand?  I'm almost certain that if you need sand to pound down a rathole, I can help you out...I'll try anyway...let me know.