Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'Is it unequivocal?'.
Found 1 result
In the thread, "Harry Binswanger on Open Immigration," Neil Parille Posted in June 2014: I read a story recently that said 30% of Mexicans would come to the US if they could. With children that is around 40 million of people. I assume the same is true with many other countries in the world. Binswanger believes they should all be let in, without any background checks. Even the legitimate functions of government would be overwhelmed. But Binswanger won't even talk about this. I have asked him if Israel should have open immigration and he didn't respond . . . . I have it on good authority that Binswanger was shocked when he learned that Moslem immigrants from Chechnya were behind the Boston Bombing. He thought it was much more likely that this crime was committed by members of the Daughters of the American Revolution or the Mayflower Society. end quote whYNot wrote, more recently on the same thread: A passing comment from Thomas Sowell's recent column: "The endlessly repeated argument that most Americans are the descendants of immigrants ignores the fact that most Americans are NOT the descendants of ILLEGAL immigrants. Millions of immigrants from Europe had to stop at Ellis Island, and had to meet medical and other criteria before being allowed to go further". end quote The 14th Amendment addresses citizenship rights and equal protection under the law and that is a good thing but it was bitterly contested by Southern States that needed to ratify it in order to regain representation in Congress. Those States had been in rebellion but the South was not a monolith with one mind. There were plenty of people who never wanted to rebel against their country, and many did not own slaves and thought slavery was medieval and inhumane. I have heard several legal scholars including Judge Napolitano on Fox News say the 14th Amendment is unequivocal, and that ALL children born in the United States are automatically citizens. But the Amendment reads, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” which immediately makes the first exception: the children born to diplomats are not automatically citizens of the United States. In a different section of the 14th Amendment it states, “But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States . . . .” Without borders you don’t have a country. A person who enters the country illegally is NOT under the jurisdiction of the United States because they are invisible to the law. And by breaking a law as they entered our country they are in rebellion against the laws of the United States. Therefor the government should NOT pay for their birth, medical benefits, education, nor should Americans be required to make them a citizen. They should be deported. However, if a non citizen is here working legally and they have a baby then that baby would be a citizen of the United States. Look at litigation that has sprung from the 14th Amendment and it is obvious that the wording is EQUIVACAL. It formed the basis for several landmark decisions such as Roe v. Wade in 1973 regarding abortion, Bush v. Gore in 2000, regarding presidential elections, and Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015, regarding same-sex marriage. From Wikipedia: The second, third, and fourth sections of the amendment are seldom litigated. However, the second section's reference to "rebellion and other crimes" has been invoked as a constitutional ground for felony disenfranchisement . . . . end quote So a case can also be made against the concept and actuality of anchor babies who are born to illegal immigrants and are considered the citizens of other countries, by those countries. Also, these babies are not refugees or seeking asylum. From Wikipedia: The fifth section gives Congress the power to enforce the amendment's provisions by "appropriate legislation". However, under City of Boerne v. Flores (1997), Congress's enforcement power may not be used to contradict a Supreme Court interpretation of the amendment. end quote So, changing the Amendment through a Constitutional convention is not necessary. Congress can enact appropriate legislation to not grant illegals citizenship and at the same time ensure that citizens’ rights are protected and that they have true and equal protection under the law.