Article

2010-08-09 Home Front: Politix

Changing 14th Amendment 'worth considering,' Boehner says

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Fred 2010-08-09 00:00|| || Front Page|| [11127 views ] Top

#1 I think they should add to it a passage that revokes the citizenship of anyone that uses the term immigrant when they mean illegal immigrants.

Posted by rjschwarz 2010-08-09 00:30|| 2010-08-09 00:30|| Front Page Top

#2 I think they should add to it a passage that revokes the citizenship of anyone that uses the term immigrant when they mean illegal ALIEN ~~immigrants~~.

FIFY

These are not IMMIGRANTS - we need to stop calling them that.

Posted by CrazyFool 2010-08-09 00:58|| 2010-08-09 00:58|| Front Page Top

#3 Section 1. 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. 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, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

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

Consider the the first "and" in Section 1 of the amendment. That's important. They didn't use "or". I'm sure by then folks had the difference between the two conjunctions down pretty good in a legal sense, and were pretty good about not dragging their knuckles around when legislating, too. Any talk about needing to rework this amendment is mere distraction from the fact that it is not necessary to rewrite it in order to achieve the desired effect of kicking out all undocumented Donks. I'm sure if the Donks get their hands on a rewrite of this amendment it will only lead to no good. They probably think that being involved in a new amendment will make them super-cool, too. If the Donks want the illegals to stay here, they had better repeal that amendment fast, because the federal government is in breach of contract regarding illegals overrunning this place.

Posted by gorb 2010-08-09 05:39|| 2010-08-09 05:39|| Front Page Top

#4 I've read other analyses that agree with yours, Gorb.

Illegal immigration was unheard of in 1867. It didn't exist. People immigrated to the US but none of it was illegal. We didn't conjure up that idea until another generation had passed.

So it's not surprising that the Framers of the 14th didn't explicitly consider immigration.

What they did consider explicitly was that many would try to deny the newly-freed slaves their rights, and they wanted to prevent that. Alas, they failed, and the slaves were dumped on for another hundred years.

One can argue that illegal immigrants are not 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the United States (except for deportation) and thus don't benefit from the 14th. It's harder with the anchor babies -- are they also not subject? If born in an American hospital and registered as a live birth, what then? It's an interesting legal question, and I've read opinions on both sides.

What Sen. Graham (RINO-SC) and Boehner are doing, however, is not encouraging a debate on the 14th -- what they're doing is clearing the road for another blanket amnesty.

Posted by Steve White 2010-08-09 09:13|| 2010-08-09 09:13|| Front Page Top

#5 Inre: "Anchor Babies"

Yes, I think they would fall under the jurisdiction of the US. That is, I believe, the point of a new ammendment: to make them explicitly under the same jurisdiction as their parents.

Posted by Grenter, Protector of the Geats 2010-08-09 09:31|| 2010-08-09 09:31|| Front Page Top

#6 Parkland Hospital in Dallas gave birth to 11,200 anchor babies in 2006. That is 70% of the births that occurred at one hospital.

Posted by JohnQC 2010-08-09 09:50|| 2010-08-09 09:50|| Front Page Top

#7 I think anchor babies are born in the US but not subject to our jurisdiction. Otherwise, the parents would need to jump through all kinds of hoops to take their baby home with them, including adoption papers because they are taking an American citizen out of the country with them.

Everybody has to be born somewhere.

Posted by gorb 2010-08-09 11:57|| 2010-08-09 11:57|| Front Page Top

#8 gorb is right - they are subject to the jurisdiction of thecountry of their parents.

Anchor babies are a lunacy.

One more thing, I wonder what would happen if the Repubs in Congress offered amnesty to illegals but ony if the illegals right to vote was delayed 20 years. Think the Dems would still be pushing for it?

Posted by Hellfish 2010-08-09 12:41|| 2010-08-09 12:41|| Front Page Top

#9 http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/birth-tourism-industry-markets-us-citizenship-abroad/story?id=10359956

An article about American "birth tourism".

Apparently we're the only suckers in the world to allow this.

Posted by Black Charlie Chinemble5313 2010-08-09 12:58|| 2010-08-09 12:58|| Front Page Top

#10 70% of the women who gave birth at Parkland were illegal immigrants. 11,200 per year.
The hospital spent $70.7 million per year on a total of 15,938 babies. Medicaid kicked in 34.5 million, Dallas County taxpayers kicked in $31.3 million and the feds kicked in another 9.5 million. Maybe chickenfeed but when tallied up for the entire country maybe not chickenfeed.

Posted by JohnQC 2010-08-09 18:40|| 2010-08-09 18:40|| Front Page Top

#11 Anchor babies are a lunacy

Something like that. They are a political tool comprised of 50% leftist ideology supported by another 50% peasant ignorance.

Don't let them get their hands on the amendment or they will make it into law.

Posted by gorb 2010-08-09 20:45|| 2010-08-09 20:45|| Front Page Top

#12 There's a small claque on Wikipedia that's trying to expunge 'anchor baby' from the lexicon as being only used in a hateful way. That's a classic PC tactic to frame and limit discourse by prohibiting trenchant English vocabulary in favor of forced circumlocution. See the 'discussion' page for 'anchor baby'.

Posted by KBK 2010-08-09 20:48|| 2010-08-09 20:48|| Front Page Top

#13 Besides, I like the law when it is written in generalities and written correctly as was the style then. Nowadays, when modern libtards get hold of it, their tendencies are to turn it into 1000+ pages splintered between ironclad multi-generational pork, hideously over-detailed indebting garbage, and vaguely worded bureaucracy-generating rubbish that will be used in the Supreme Court to justify the fact that the meaning of the word "regulate" in the Constitution has gone from "to make regular" to "control".

Posted by gorb 2010-08-09 20:53|| 2010-08-09 20:53|| Front Page Top

#14 There's a small claque on Wikipedia that's trying to expunge 'anchor baby' from the lexicon as being only used in a hateful way.

It doesn't matter what you call it. People won't like it and it will be classified as hate speech.

Posted by gorb 2010-08-09 20:55|| 2010-08-09 20:55|| Front Page Top

#15 gorb is right -- the originial intent of 14th IIRC was so that the children of recently freed slaves would not be disenfranchised their citizenship.

Posted by Broadhead6 2010-08-09 21:01|| 2010-08-09 21:01|| Front Page Top

23:52 CrazyFool
23:46 CrazyFool
23:20 3dc
23:12 Ricky bin Ricardo (Abu Babaloo)
23:05 anymouse
22:52 Barbara Skolaut
22:38 Barbara Skolaut
22:29 Asymmetrical Triangulation
22:24 Willy
22:22 Thing From Snowy Mountain
22:19 Broadhead6
22:17 Barbara Skolaut
22:16 Gabby
22:10 JosephMendiola
22:04 Goober Goobelopolous
22:02 Asymmetrical Triangulation
21:57 Goober Goobelopolous
21:55 JosephMendiola
21:53 Asymmetrical Triangulation
21:49 JosephMendiola
21:33 Besoeker
21:31 lotp
21:26 gorb
21:25 OldSpook