Home > Uncategorized > Birthright Citizenship

Birthright Citizenship

Good show on Monday to kick off another week of Hometown Radio:

Mary Golden and the Central Coast Natural History Association needs to raise another $2,000 to complete their fundraising for a new mural for the building’s outside wall in Morro Bay State Park. All the information is on their web site.  Good people doing good work. Please support them if you can.

Karen Velie was back from CalCoastNews reporting on the fact that San Luis Obispo police seem to be spending more money on their cars than neighboring police departments. Arroyo Grande police, for example, lease their cars. SLO, meanwhile, has spent nearly $40,000 in 7 months to repair basically new cars. What’s that about?

But the biggest response from the callers came during the last 45 minutes when we talked about birthright citizenship and illegal immigration. As I said on the radio, I “get” the anger in Arizona. I understand their frustration towards the feds. I’m not even bothered by the law they tried to enact, though I’m not surprised the judge blocked most of it. I understand the problem.

When it comes to the Constitution, though, I’m reluctant to tamper just to score political points. Several conservative senators are pushing to repeal the 14th Amendment. Basically, their position is this: if your parents come here illegally, you should not get citizenship automatically.

Why not? Why can’t the child of illegals born in Nevada grow up to be a great American? Why should the baby be punished for the actions of the parents. The U.S. is like at least a dozen other countries, recognizing birth location as being enough for citizenship. I’m an American because I was born in New York City. A baby born in Phoenix is still an American, regardless of the parents.

We should not open that Pandora’s Box. Crack down on illegal immigration, yes. But not by changing the constitution. It’s a knee jerk reaction to something far more complicated.

Other Notes: Singer-songwriter Jim Messina is my special guest Tuesday at 3:05. Let’s hear about his upcoming concert at the Clark Center and give away some free tickets.

Advertisements
  1. richinpaso
    August 3, 2010 at 11:14 am

    What is the diffence? The Obama Administration is selectively enforcing laws they want. The CIS is floating a memo around Washington to “selectively enforce” portions of US immigration law which amounts to de facto amnesty. They have stated that they will “defer” deportations and court appearances. How is this any less an assault than some conservative lawmakers talking about changing the 14th Amendment. It is CHANGING the 14th Amendment. Furthermore, the amendment does NOT automatically grant citizenship. The amendment states “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.” Just because a mother from another country has a baby in the US, that baby is not automatically a US citizen. If the president of France and his wife just so happen to have their baby in the US for whatever reason, that baby would NOT be automatically a citizen nor would the parents SEEK citizenship in the US. Only MEXICAN mothers having babies in the US seek citizenship in the US for their babies and liberals (yes, this is a liberal vs conservative issue) seek to give it to them. So how exactly does the jurisdiction of the US get extended to a baby of illegals? When exactly does that take place? When the baby of ilegals votes Democrat?

    The fact is Judge Bolton handed down a miscarriage of justice. She made up scenarios out of whole cloth as a means of issuing her injunction, which is against the standards of the facia review of the law. The only legally sound way to prove a facia challenge is to PROVE (with facts! not suppositions) that the law would be unconstitutional IN ALL CASES. She failed to provide any proof that the law, which hadn’t even gone into effect, would violate legal citizens rights. The other fact is that the police can only ask immigration status if they have already stopped you for another crime, same as it is with getting a no seat belt ticket. How is it a burden on cops to say “Are you in the US legally?” All the person asked has to say is “Si”, I mean “yes, officer” and they are prosecuted/ticketed for the other crime they committed necessitating the police contact. All of this underscores the fact that when offered help by the State of Arizona to enforce federal laws, the federal government said “No way in hell”. Finally, the federal government exercises concurrent jurisdiction and readily invites State assistance with enforcing federal laws. Terrorism is solely in the federal field, but the NYC police were the ones that foiled the would-be Times Square bomber. The DEA uses local police support every day. Same goes with the ATF. I

    I say that the 14th Amendment should be changed to read “All persons born of a parent that is a native born or naturalized US citizen of the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

  2. jurisdoctor78
    August 3, 2010 at 1:35 pm

    Births to illegal alien mothers are adding more to the U.S. population each year than did immigration from all sources in an average year prior to 1965. Something must be done. The USA is now officially a welfare state thanks to Obama. The first rule in economics is “There is not enough of the good stuff that everybody wants to go around”. Somebody must do without. It’s simple math. Anchor babies is not the byproducts of illegal immigration, they are the reason for illegal immigration.

    The cost of educating illegal alien children in the nation’s seven states with the highest concentration of illegal aliens was $5 billion in 2000. This estimate does not take into account the additional costs of bilingual education or other special educational needs. Our nation is broke. Most states are broke. Approximately 600,000 to 800,000 children born to illegal aliens each year! In 1994, California paid for 74,987 deliveries to illegal alien mothers, at a total cost of $215.2 million. You do the math.

    Misinterpreting the 14th Amendment and granting automatic birthright citizenship to children of illegal aliens is but one aspect of the dismantling of America.

  3. jurisdoctor78
    August 3, 2010 at 2:20 pm

    The correct interpretation (by the Supreme Court) of the 14th Amendment is that an illegal alien mother is subject to the jurisdiction of her native country, as is her baby.

    Over a century ago, the Supreme Court appropriately confirmed this restricted interpretation of citizenship in the so-called “Slaughter-House cases” [83 US 36 (1873) and 112 US 94 (1884)]13.

    “Notwithstanding any other provision, a person born on the island of Ireland who does not have at the time of birth of that person at least one parent who is an Irish citizen or entitled to be an Irish citizen is not entitled to Irish citizenship or nationality unless provided by law.”

    Change a couple of words, and it is a safe bet that that amendment would receive a high level of popular support in the United States. Why not let the people vote on it? hmmmm?

  4. richinpaso
    August 3, 2010 at 10:32 pm

    Hey Jurisdoctor, question for you: Does not the Constitution say that ONLY Supreme Court can preside over cases involving lawsuits against the States? Wouldn’t that invalidate the injunction on the Arizona law SB1070 and, since the date of execution for the law has passed, allow the law to go into effect?

    Article III, section 2 states: “In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.”

    I know the Constitution says what it says, but what I don’t get is why everyone pretends the Constitution DOESN’T say this and listen to Judge Bolton, a lower court judge, to trample on the Constitution and take powers that are not her’s to take? What do you think?

  5. philochs
    August 4, 2010 at 12:47 am

    The Constitution says what the Supreme Court says it does. Period. Which in its current incarnation is not a good thing for freedom loving people every where.

    More tripe and trope promoting the summer of hate from the usual suspects.

  6. jurisdoctor78
    August 4, 2010 at 4:23 am

    The 14th amendment was never meant to secure citizenship for babies of law breaking border jumping criminals. That much we do know. However a small portion of our country don’t call them criminals or even illegal aliens but rather “Undocumented democrats”. Therein lies the problem. It would take a constitutional amendment to respecify what we already know is true and that is likely not to happen. This conversation is raised for the purpose of appeasing the 73% of Americans that support Arizona and SB-1070 and the 23 states that are currently drafting similar legislation.

    • atty78
      August 6, 2010 at 9:20 pm

      Big Tent, you’ve obviously never read the case of Wong Kim Ark. That opinion along with Plyler state that the 14th Amendment was crafted with common law in mind and, since common law gave no consideration to legal vs. illegal immigrants, the 14th Amendment applies to illegal immigrants’ children as well.

      You are no Juris Doctor. You are a fake and a fraud. You are Big Tent Republican.

  7. richinpaso
    August 4, 2010 at 9:24 am

    You are wrong, Phil. The Supreme Court is ALLOWED to interpret the Constitution by fiat. There is no Constitutionally granted power of judicial review. John Marshall created the concept of judical review during the Marbury vs Madison. And the fact that people take on faith that when the Supreme Court speaks, well, that as they say is that, is wrong. This nation endured 76 years of legal and constitutionally supported SLAVERY because 9 men on the Supreme Court said it was legal (Dred Scott decision). This nation endured 100 years of Jim Crow laws all over this nation because 9 men said it was legal and proper to create ‘separate but equal’ facilities for blacks and whites (Plessy v Ferguson). It took 9 men 100 years later to reverse that decision (Brown v Board of Ed, Topeka). Recently, 9 members of the supreme court authorized any level of government to steal your property so long as they threw you a couple of bones and gave it to someone to build a strip mall on to ‘boost” tax revenues to campaign contributors (Keloh v New London, CN)
    The expressed power to strike a law as unconstitutional is not defined ANYWHERE in the Constitution, as is the concept of “checks and balances”. This last comment by Phil goes to demonstrate the levels of mythology that some create around the Constitution. There is no more a constitutional grounds for judcial review than there is for a “wall of separation between church and state” or the “penumbra” and “emanations” of a concept of privacy that the Supreme Court invented to justify a woman being able to snuff her fetus on her whim (Griswold v Connecticutt). The Supreme Court of the United States stood idlly by and let FDR suspend habeus corpus and imprisoned 110,000 INNOCENT Japanese and Japanese Americans. The SCOTUS has ruled that our exhalations, which amount to a whopping .03% of the total atmospheric volume of the earth, are a pollutant and need to be regulated (liberals: insert your hate-filled slanders and barbs here). SCOTUS said that the billions of dollars spent bribing our elected officials over the years is an exercise of “free speech”. So don’t EVEN think about trying to lecture me about any supposed infallability of the Supreme Court nor try to justify the rampant abuses of power the SCOTUS wields over the American people on a daily basis. If what the SCOTUS said was divine gospel, our legislators would codify those changes into amendments to the Constitution, but they don’t. Mostly because I think they are lazy and just don’t care enough to make the Constitution whole so they let the Supreme Court do their dirty work for them.

    Bottom line is that our government is bloated, broken, and holds WAY too much power that the government neither needs nor uses correctly.

  8. marilyninslo
    August 4, 2010 at 3:01 pm

    I am of the opinion that a Constitutional amendment would be a dangerous precedent. When people are born, they do not have a choice in what circumstances they are born into. The parents of U.S. born children may enter illegally, but it is not the child’s fault. Those are human rights issues and should not be subject to political bickering or prejudice masked as concern over the economic situation in the country. Even if the economy of the U.S. crashes and every one of us becomes destitute, that is never a reason to violate the rights of others or asttempt to change laws will may allow us to commit those violations. That is scapegoating. Human rights remain the same, espcially in challenging times. THAT is the reason those rights exist.

    Constitutional laws that address human rights should never be placed in the claws of the average citizen or politicians, but in the hands of ethicists and humanitarians who are trained in Constitutional Law and human rights and who are detached from above the influence of social or political currents.

    Most economies in the world are facing difficult times. The problem lies in the conditions that promote injustice and that compel people to migrate in order to make a living. War, international corporate dominance over indigenous land and natural resources, widening gap between the richest and the poorest, the proliferation of minimum wage jobs versus farming or skilled labor, and the almost total control of the military-industrial complex over every aspect of technology and energy that could free people from the shackles of corporate servitude, are but a few of the things that may need to change.

  9. jurisdoctor78
    August 4, 2010 at 7:17 pm

    The constitution belongs to “We the People” for the purpose of limiting government and ensuring our freedoms and liberties. Period. Anchor babies are subject to the jurisdictions of the country the criminals came from. 400-800,000 anchor babies a year at a cost of billions and billions makes no sense to anyone.

    • atty78
      August 6, 2010 at 9:22 pm

      Big Tent, if you’re going to advertise yourself as a Juris Doctor, you should do some of the reading first year law students have to do. Wong Kim Ark states that jurisdiction applies to illegal aliens. That case explains that the 14th Amendment was crafted with common law in mind and common law gave no consideration to legal vs. illegal immigrants.

      You are no Juris Doctor. You are a fake and a fraud. You are Big Tent Republican.

  10. richinpaso
    August 5, 2010 at 7:55 am

    Where else on the PLANET can a baby be given citizenship of a nation just by the fact that the baby was born with the borders of a nation not of the parents’ birth? NO WHERE.

    The fact is and always has been that the parents of the anchor baby conspired to commit an illegal act, that being to enter the United States illegally, and the baby is reaping benefits from that illegal act. Profiting from illegal acts used to be illegal under former liberal administrations. Under this one, it is the PREFERRED method.

    • August 5, 2010 at 2:06 pm

      Actually, Rich, there are about 15 countries who do so. Mardi read the list on the radio earlier in the week. I’ll see if I can find it. Lots of South American countries. I also think Canada is one.

  11. jurisdoctor78
    August 5, 2010 at 5:04 pm

    Modification of jus soli (also known as birthright citizenship)

    In a number of countries, the automatic application of jus soli has been modified to impose some additional requirements for children of foreign parents, such as the parent being a permanent resident or having lived in the country for a period of time. Jus soli has been modified in the following countries:

    * United Kingdom on 1 January 1983
    * Australia on 20 August 1986[2]
    * Republic of Ireland on 1 January 2005[2]
    * New Zealand on 1 January 2006[2]
    * South Africa on 6 October 1995[2]
    * France also operates a modified form of jus soli
    * German nationality law was changed on 1 January 2000

    States that observe jus soli include:

    * Antigua and Barbuda[3]
    * Argentina[3]
    * Barbados[3]
    * Belize[3]
    * Bolivia[3]
    * Brazil[3]
    * Canada[3]
    * Chile[4] (children of transient foreigners or of foreign diplomats on assignment in Chile only upon request)
    * Colombia[3]
    * Dominica[3]
    * Dominican Republic[3]
    * Ecuador[3]
    * El Salvador[3]
    * Fiji[5]
    * Grenada[3]
    * Guatemala[3]
    * Guyana[3]
    * Honduras[3]
    * Jamaica[3]
    * Lesotho[6]
    * Malaysia[3]
    * Mexico[3]
    * Nicaragua[3]
    * Pakistan[3]
    * Panama[3]
    * Paraguay[3]
    * Peru[3]
    * Saint Christopher and Nevis[3]
    * Saint Lucia[3]
    * Saint Vincent and the Grenadines[3]
    * Trinidad and Tobago[3]
    * United States[3]
    * Uruguay[3]
    * Venezuela[3]

    Interesting. Almost all the industrialized and wealthy nations of the world restrict anchor babies except the United the states. The ones that allow jus soli are all third world countries except the United States. You draw your own conclusions. I just supply the facts and the laws.
    In this humble reporter’s opinion the USA will adopt restive laws regarding anchor babies before the 2012 elections and it will be retroactive to 1983. I could be wrong, but I rarely am.

  12. richinpaso
    August 6, 2010 at 9:25 am

    I looked up the list of jus soli nations and the list of the nations with the largest GDP. First, I stand corrected on the use of the absolute. I was wrong. However, it is ironic that Mexico has jus soli but is busy exporting their underemployed and unemployed to the United States with many of their women giving birth here.

    Bottom line for me is that this cannot continue. What the US needs is a clearer definition of who is a citizen and what rights and priviledges are exclusive to citizens. So far, we have activists, both judicial and private, that are busy extending US citizenship priviledges to illegal aliens, terrorists at Gitmo, and others.

  13. atty78
    August 6, 2010 at 9:25 pm

    NEW RULE:

    Anyone proposing to amend the Constitution and change law that has been in effect for over 100 years cannot claim to be a “conservative.”

  14. richinpaso
    August 6, 2010 at 11:27 pm

    That is just stupid.

    NEW RULE: If you received your education from Stanford, Yale, Harvard, Berkeley or Princeton, you are BANNED from working anywhere in Washington D.C..

    Those are the breeding grounds for this latest crop of neo-marxists running things in D.C. these days.

  15. sloconservative
    August 7, 2010 at 4:13 am

    New rule: If you have never had a real job in the private sector and if have never had to meet a payroll you can not advise a president on economic issues and policies especially if he never had a real job.

    Only one in three Americans are buying Obama’s spin on any issue. November will be historic beyond anyone’s expectation. 40 seats in the house and 10 in congress and we start to put this train-wreck back on the tracks. That task will be complete in 2012.

  16. atty78
    August 9, 2010 at 5:33 pm

    richinpaso :
    You are wrong, Phil. The Supreme Court is ALLOWED to interpret the Constitution by fiat. There is no Constitutionally granted power of judicial review. John Marshall created the concept of judical review during the Marbury vs Madison. And the fact that people take on faith that when the Supreme Court speaks, well, that as they say is that, is wrong.

    Marbury v. Madison, if you’ve read it, states that the Constitution is the law of the land and that the Supreme Court is the final interpreter of the Constitution.

  17. richinpaso
    August 10, 2010 at 5:17 am

    But what in the Constitution gave the SCOTUS the power to make that claim in Marbury v Madison? Nothing. Its not there.

    • atty78
      August 10, 2010 at 4:47 pm

      Article 3, Section 2 taken along with common law and the Federalist papers. It’s a rather explanatory opinion, but you’d need to, first, have some basis of legal/historical knowledge and, second, take the time to read and understand it.

  18. californiawiseguy
    August 10, 2010 at 4:50 pm

    JurisDoctor is once again promoting the debilitating “scarcity mentality” when he writes: “The first rule in economics is “There is not enough of the good stuff that everybody wants to go around”.

    That statement is nothing more than a justification for selfishness and callousness.

    The FACT is that our world has the capacity to adequately feed and house and provide healthcare to everyone. It is the attitude that denies this that causes so much of our problems.

    Furthermore, love is an inexhaustible resource and allowing that to flow freely is the lubricant that allows everything to work at its best. When we put love and compassion for our fellow humans as the first priority, everything else works out as best as it ever will.

    Because of negative attitudes our society has not even come close to realizing its potential to overcome common problems and ease human suffering.

    It is our priorities and attitudes that are our greatest obstacles. It’s an issue of mind over matter and a willingness to let go of selfish attitudes, embrace sacrifice, and live in a state of love. It’s quite simple really. But one must overcome fear at the very same time so many people promote fear, as we see in so many of the fear-mongering comments on this forum and elsewhere.

    • atty78
      August 10, 2010 at 6:08 pm

      He’s not a Juris Doctor. He’s Big Tent Republican.

  19. richinpaso
    August 11, 2010 at 1:17 am

    Here is Article 3 section 2, “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

    In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

    Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.”

    Nothing here says that the SCOTUS has the authority to a) determine the cosntitutionality of a law, nor b) that the SCOTUS has authority to strike down a law as unconstitutional, and certainly not c) that the SCOTUS has the authority to replace a law with a remedy of the courts own choosing as they did during Roe v Wade.

    Also, I reviewed Federalist 78 which deals exclusively with the judiciary.

    He says,”Whoever attentively considers the different departments of power must perceive, that, in a government in which they are separated from each other, the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them.” Over time, Hamilton has been proved wrong. Dred Scott, Plessy v Ferguson, and Kelo v New London just to name three quick one that the SCOTUS got horribly wrong. I am also sure all you liberals would be first to say that Bush v Gore injured the political rights of the constitution.

    he continues, “The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.” So how is it that you claim that hamilton agreed to the idea that the SCOTUS would be the final arbitor of constitutionality? Here he say the can only offer “judgement”, by that I take to mean just an opinion without force of law. Also, what hamilton says in my opinion is that thjob of the courts is ONLY to declare a law unconstitutional and NOT impos a remedy. Hamltion talks expressly about this when he says,”A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.” Here he is saying that the constitution is the preferred state over a law passed by the legislature. To this I also believe that he is supporting the 10th Amendment, as it is the with the people where all non-enumerated powers rest

    Quickly, here is also what Hamilton believes:
    “It can be of no weight to say that the courts, on the pretense of a repugnancy, may substitute their own pleasure to the constitutional intentions of the legislature.” Judges should not use personal preference but only use a strict interpretation of what the constitution means.

    Where is judicial review, as exercised by Marshall and the SCOTUS today, expressed here in Article 3, section 2 or in The Federalist papers? And please drop the misplaced arogance as for you to name three founding documents and a wave of dismissiveness on your part is not sufficient here? Well, counselor?

    • atty78
      August 11, 2010 at 10:04 pm

      Whoa, a guy in Paso named Rich who was surfing the internet has just blown apart the 200 year-old decision which was virtually the foundation for our Judicial Branch’s power! Really, Rich? Rich, the danger of lay people who suddenly begin to get interested in interpreting the Constitution over the internet is that they mistakenly expect its limits to be defined by strict literal interpretation of its text. They expect it to read like the instructions on the back of a Pop Tarts box. They don’t. If the Constitution was to be interpreted by strict literal interpretation, only well-regulated militia’s would have the right to bear arms and the term “arms” would include all weapons. Historical context is needed, Rich.

      A lengthy explanation is required and Judge Marshall provides a good one. Instead of reading briefs and summaries of his opinion, stop being lazy and read the whole thing for yourself. It is thoroughly explanatory. Read it.

  20. californiawiseguy
    August 11, 2010 at 4:10 am

    So what?

  21. californiawiseguy
    August 11, 2010 at 7:00 pm

    Immigration, legal or otherwise, is a minor problem in the scope of things. The controversy is primarily a form of scapegoating at a time when so many Americans are simply unhappy and unsatisfied based primarily upon their own lack of spiritual grounding and attachments.

    It’s always interesting to note that the biggest complainers are often people who are doing quite well financially compared to most people in the world. It seems the more some people have the more fearful they are of losing what they have and thus live lives steeped in fear, consternation and selfishness.

  22. sloconservative
    August 16, 2010 at 3:59 pm

    The 14th amendment does NOT need to be revised by a constitutional amendment. That is 100% poppycock! Congress can submit a “clarification” on what is meant by “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” by a simple majority which will happen after the conservatives retake the house and senate in November. There isn’t anything you can do about it…why? because IT”S THE LAW stupid! Read it!

  23. californiawiseguy
    August 16, 2010 at 6:19 pm

    Once again, a self-styled “conservative” champions taking away personal freedoms while promoting division and animosity. The selfishness is astounding but typical.

  24. atty78
    August 16, 2010 at 9:05 pm

    sloconservative :
    The 14th amendment does NOT need to be revised by a constitutional amendment. That is 100% poppycock! Congress can submit a “clarification” on what is meant by “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” by a simple majority which will happen after the conservatives retake the house and senate in November. There isn’t anything you can do about it…why? because IT”S THE LAW stupid! Read it!

    Poppycock? Now I understand why you called me “kid” earlier, Gramps.

    The Congress doesn’t need to clarify the 14th Amendment. Clarification has already been given. In Kim Wong Ark, Justice Gray explained that the 14th Amendment was crafted with common law views on jurisdiction in mind. At common law, anyone within the kingdom was subject to the jurisdiction of the King. Further, Gray explained that, at common law, anyone born inside the kingdom was a citizen of the kingdom, unless they were the child of a foreign diplomate or the child of an enemy of the King.

    You can read the entire case at this address: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=169&invol=649

    Although, who are we kidding? You won’t read it. Not enough pictures.

  25. sloconservative
    August 17, 2010 at 10:49 pm

    Congress can submit a “clarification” on what is meant by “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” by a simple majority…slow down cowboy! Look it up. No need to apologize. I will try to go slow for you from now on. Stay focused buckaroo!

  26. californiawiseguy
    August 18, 2010 at 7:28 am

    So what?

    What if we allow the “free market” to decide where people will live rather than, as “sloconservative” wants, have Big Government get involved and stick its nose into people’s lives.

    It seems that for every problem, sloconservative wants Big Government to step in and take control and restrict the freedoms of individuals and create hierarchies and divisions among U.S. citizens.

    Conservatives need to understand that we can’t expect government to solve all our problems.

    Sometimes it seems sloconservative has succumbed to the same right wing extremist propaganda and twisted views Jerry in AZ was a victim of.

  27. richinpaso
    August 22, 2010 at 1:34 am

    Part of clarifying the 14th Amendment would have to be a definition of what the benefits are of citizenship. If someone can come to the United States illegally and receive all of the benefits of a naturalized or native-born citizen, why would anyone take the time and incur the expense of doing it legally? Why buy the cow when you get the milk for free? In-state tuition, free public education, no state or federal income tax, ObamaCare, food stamps, free emergency room visits, guranteed employment with jobs that Americans are too lazy to do and DUI as much as you want (because ICE won’t prosecute you) are all apparently benefits of coming to America illegally. Now you can walk the streets with “I am an illegal alien” tatooed on your forehead because a district judge in Arizona said that it’s the federal government’s job to enforce immigration, not the state’s.

    What are the point of any “immigration reform” if the feds won’t enforce the laws already on the books? Hell, the feds are looking for all kinds of ways to undermine the laws that already exist. THAT is the bigger problem than anchor babies and chain migration.

  28. californiawiseguy
    August 22, 2010 at 4:32 am

    First of all its not accurate or fair to make a blanket statement saying that illegal immigrants don’t pay state or federal income taxes. There are plenty of citizens who you could say the same thing about. There are literally millions upon millions of dollars of state and federal taxes collected from illegal immigrants through withholding. Then, of course, is all the sales tax they pay.

    I didn’t have to “incur the expense” of being granted U.S. citizenship. That’s the same for most American citizens (including most of our extremist right wing conservatives who post here.). We are citizens simply because we were born under fortunate circumstances. It has nothing to do with our intelligence, morals or financial status. We have done nothing more than most illegal immigrants have to be able to take advantage of various public services.

    And the fact is that “anchor babies” have become U.S. citizens legally. What inspires some of us to want to take away that privilege from people, simply because of the status of their parents? Why must we feel compelled to make U.S. citizenship so exclusive? If we have something good here, why not share it?

    Many, if not most illegal immigrants work at least as long and hard and have contributed as much or more to the United States as most citizens.

    Granted that the U.S. healthcare system could be improved so that less non-emergency medical situations are handled in the emergency care centers (among citizens and non-citizens), but anyone with an ounce of compassion would not want to see non-citizens with life-threatening, emergency related medical conditions turned away from help at emergency rooms.

    Americans visiting many other countries will be accepted in the emergency rooms in those countries when the need arises, no payment required. If any nation should be able to and want to do the same, it should be the United States.

    The immigration “problem” in the United States is being blown way out of proportion as part of well-funded propaganda campaign to distract Americans from the real factors and culprits (who happen to be legal citizens) who are systematically ripping off Americans for massive sums of money. Multi-million dollar “no-bid” military contracts to companies like Dick Cheney’s Halliburton are simply one small example, with the majority having continued far from the media spotlight.

    Illegal immigrants are scapegoats for Americans who refuse to accept that their biggest enemies, the criminals who have killed more and robbed more Americans, ARE, sad to say, primarily born and bred American citizens.

    We see this on a local level with scoundrels like Kelly Gearhart. But that is nothing compared to the American citizen crooks, hiding behind diverse corporate titles, who have ripped off VAST sums and remain at large, often protected by politicians who they recruited and funded and put in office to do their bidding. (Most often, by far, being affiliated with the Republican Party, but not limited to that party alone.)

    Studies suggest that on a per capita basis illegal immigrants living in the United States commit LESS robberies,violence and property crimes than do American citizens. Based on what I have seen in life, I’m inclined to believe this. And without a doubt, most everyone can agree that it is American CITIZENS who commit the VAST majority of the most heinous crimes and most huge financial rip-offs. Enron being just one small example that came to light.

    The United States could very well become a greater, more just and more economically viable nation by fostering more immigration. People are natural resources and much of the most back-breaking work, and some of the greatest advancements in health, industry and science are due to immigrants. The limiting factor is the fear and pessimism that and general negative, greedy and selfish attitudes coming from too many American citizens who not only don’t actively facilitate immigrants from reaching their highest potential, they actively work and spread attitudes that prevent it.

  29. richinpaso
    August 23, 2010 at 12:18 pm

    What lunacy we have here. First, its not about taxes; its about the difference between right and wrong, legal and illegal. It is wrong to unlawfully enter someone else’s domain. That holds true with your home or your country. We make millions of people wait years and years to gain any measure of legal immigrant status before allowing them into our country. WE have turned away thousands of sadder souls than the poor mexicans that flood our southern border. FDR turned away the MS St Louis full of jews fleeing a certain death in Nazi death camps. Why? So we will bend over backwards to accommodate peasants fleeing underemployment in Mexico because they are right next door but we will shutter our doors to those that are truly in need? What makes the Mexican illegal immigrant so special to be allowed to walk in?

    Not only that but they are not just walking in to do “jobs Americans won’t do” (which is a total load of crap), they are muling illicit drugs by the ton. There are websites with video footage of drug gangs armed with AK-47s leading mexicans packing hundreds of pounds of dope per person 40 miles inside the US. There are places in the deserts of Arizona where there are signs warning Americans of armed gangs. But that is okay by you.

    And I love your straw man arguments, like where you talk about ancient history like Haliburton, your bogus appeal to authority with your claim that “studies” show illegals are better citizens than native born Americans. Again, total crap. the evidence is against you. Just ask the nun a drunken illegal ran over with his car in Virginia… oh, wait, you can’t because she’s dead. The newspapers are full of stories of illegal aliens commiting all kinds of heinous acts. Rapes, murders, child rape, kidnapping, breaking and entering and robbing people well above the national averages occur every day along our southern border.

    You say that America has a great thing going on here and I agree. You think that we should let everyone in who can get here? I bet you have a pretty nice house wherever it is. Why don’t you share your house with the 20,000 skid row bums in LA? They could use some of the great things you got going on. Why not share with THEM? That’s right, you won’t because you are a hypocrite.

    • californiawiseguy
      September 4, 2010 at 10:43 pm

      Rich, you’re all over the map again, so I ask you to please be clear here. Do you or do you not believe it was a good thing that Jews were denied entry into the U.S., turned back and faced “a certain death in Nazi death camps”?

      Also, Haliburton is most certainly NOT “ancient history.,”

      And, again, your fears and insecurities and paranoia is getting the better of you to the point you are being absurd when you suggest that immigrants, illegal or otherwise, or “skid row bums” will be invading your home or my home.

      Finally, do you even realize the inherent bigotry in nearly all your posts where you continually suggest that the lives of American citizens are more worthy and valuable and worthy of respect than people of other nations.

  30. atty78
    August 23, 2010 at 7:13 pm

    Oh, god. Here’s Rich, again. Ignorant rage at its worst.

    Rich, you might want to learn about the subject before you start bitching. Citizenship does carry distinct privileges as provided for by the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Constitution and as interpreted by the courts in countless cases throughout our country’s history.

    Your comments regarding illegal immigrants and crime make you come across as some sort of a bigot suggesting that illegal immigrants, somehow, have a predisposition to commit all sorts of heinous crimes.

    You also compulsively assert that the federal government isn’t doing “anything” to protect the border. Why have you ignored the fact that Obama recently put 1000 additional border patrol agents on the Mexican border? Was that not a big deal on Rush Limbaugh and Hannity? Why not give credit where credit is due?

    And why have you ignored the fact that more illegal immigrants have left this country over the last few years than have entered? This is a shrinking problem and you want to act as though the sky is falling. It’s inconvenient when the facts don’t support your narrative, isn’t it, Rich in Paso?

  31. californiawiseguy
    August 24, 2010 at 7:18 am

    Rich, what’s wrong with letting the “free market” decide?

    Rich, your bigotry is showing again, which in turn indicates why you have a hard time accepting the truth. I would like to see YOUR proof that illegal aliens commit more violence and property crime per capita than do citizens. Your highly subjective anecdotal evidence does not cut it.

    It’s clear you consider Mexican’s less valuable or less desirable than people from other nations.

    Studies are incomplete, but there is growing evidence that immigrants from Mexico improve our economy. Which makes sense because why else would the job market find a place for immigrant workers? One thing is for certain, any farm expert will tell you that without illegal immigrants working in agriculture our food would cost a LOT more.

    Finally, your “skid row” analogy is ridiculous and makes no sense. Mexican immigrants aren’t going to take over my home or your home, your extreme fear-mongering notwithstanding.

    What exactly are you afraid of? What do you fear is going to be taken from you by Mexicans? Your money? Your house? Your woman? Your children? Your job? What ARE you afraid of, Rich?

    • atty78
      August 24, 2010 at 5:00 pm

      Yeah, the example he used of illegal immigrants from Mexico killing nuns in DUI accidents was actually an immigrant from Bolivia and there’s no proof that he entered illegally, only that he was here illegally (Rich probably doesn’t understand the distinction). He wants to say the “n” word and he thinks brown people are inherently criminally prone. He reminds me why I stay away from North-County.

  32. richinpaso
    August 28, 2010 at 10:02 am

    atty78, you remind me why liberals are generally assholes. YOU WANTED to use the N word because you asked why can’t we be adults and just use the word. Also what makes you an asshole is how you state with certitude what I think. I DO NOT think that “brown people are inherently criminally prone. I do think that if they weren’t here after being deported the FIRST time they were busted for a felony DUI, then that nun in virginia would be alive today. Also, there is not much distinction in my mind between a person that enters the US legally on a visa and the stays after it expired and a drug mule hauling dope on their backs over the southern border and just staying. Both are here illegally, period. Only in your warped mind would this even be a topic of discussion. But then again, you are probably a lawyer specializing in parsing the difference between happy and glad as well as the difference between puppies and small dogs. The fact that the illegal alien that killed the nun was from bolivia instead of Mexico is irrelevant. He was here illegally. There are thousands more examples of illegals from all over Latin America that have entered the US illegally and have killed our fellow citizens. I sure the victim’s friends and family would find no comfort in your display of trivial knowledge. The fact remains a drunken illegal alien murdered their loved one. Only you care about which country illegals come from.

  33. atty78
    August 30, 2010 at 5:37 pm

    richinpaso :
    atty78, you remind me why liberals are generally assholes. . . . . . . Also what makes you an asshole is how you state with certitude what I think. . . . . . . Also, there is not much distinction in my mind between a person that enters the US legally on a visa and the stays after it expired and a drug mule hauling dope on their backs over the southern border and just staying. Both are here illegally, period. . . . . But then again, you are probably a lawyer specializing in parsing the difference between happy and glad as well as the difference between puppies and small dogs. The fact that the illegal alien that killed the nun was from bolivia instead of Mexico is irrelevant. He was here illegally. There are thousands more examples of illegals from all over Latin America that have entered the US illegally and have killed our fellow citizens. . . . . The fact remains a drunken illegal alien murdered their loved one. Only you care about which country illegals come from.

    So we’ve come to the point in the disagreement where, facing frustration from total defeat, you can only resort to name calling. Brilliant.

    And, I am alarmed that you find no distinction between puppies and small dogs. A 12 year old chihuahua (sorry to use a Mexican breed) is a small dog but not a puppy. Great dane puppies can weigh 60 lbs. at 16 weeks.

    The reason we’re having such a difficult time seeing eye to eye is probably due to your inability to observe and distinguish details.

    You stated, “The fact remains a drunken illegal alien murdered their loved one. Only you care about which country illegals come from.” On the contrary, I don’t care what country they came from or what federal documents or fees they did or didn’t pay. I don’t see how the man’s immigration status was the proximate cause of the nun’s death. You, seem to take the actual causation approach in arguing that, if the man had not been in the country illegally, he would not have killed the nun in a drunk driving accident. That may be, but, using your line of reasoning, I could argue that, if the driver had ordered a steak at dinner instead of a ham sandwich, he would not have been on the road at the same time as the nun and, therefore, would not have killed her in the accident. Immigration status can be blamed for causing this accident no more than a ham sandwich.

    You seem to be taking the stance that illegal immigrants are somehow more prone to commit horrible crimes against citizens. This is the debate tactic of the anti-immigration right in this country, but our country is not alone in this kind of scapegoating. The Costa Ricans blame Nicaraguan immigrants for crime, Vietnamese blame Laotians, Israelis blame Palestinians, the Nazis blamed the Jews.

    The fact is, that DUI driver was a person who, like millions of U.S. citizens, drove with too much alcohol in his system. What papers he had or had not filed with the federal government had nothing to do with his DUI accident and it is silly and racist for you to pretend that it did.

    Also, for someone who champions against “federal tyranny” and wants the federal government to atrophy into a mere tourist gift shop, I am surprised your would become so passionate about enforcing the borders this overreaching, evil federal government has established.

  34. californiawiseguy
    September 4, 2010 at 5:07 pm

    Studies show that immigrants IMPROVE the U.S. economy. Immigrants and their children can be valuable, productive citizens that make our nation stronger and more productive. Give “anchor babies” a good education and a healthy environment and that will absolutely help the U.S. economy.

    People have the potential to be a drain, or a boost to a community. People MAKE wealth. People are a resource.

    Instead of using immigrants as scapegoats and falsely blaming them for all the ills of our world, simply work on improving education, medical care and the environment and immigration and “anchor babies” will be a boon to the U.S.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: