AZ wants to end birthright citizenship - Page 5

You seem to have ignored the second part of the Amendment you quote... "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." Illegal aliens are not subject to the full jurisdiction of the US. The quote I cited is, obviously, not in the Constitution, but it is from Jacob Howard, author of the citizenship clause and indicates the intent behind it.

You can read about it here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizenship_Clause

You're making the same error that you (incorrectly) assume I am making. My point is that there is no precedent... period. So, any conclusion you draw as to whether the 14th Amendment extends to illegal immigrants is opinion. The only ruling we have on the matter (Ark) specifically cites the legal, permanent residence of the parents. We also have the legislative record which, in several instances, specifically states that the amendment does not apply to aliens.

If the issue were so simple as "reading the full document" then we wouldn't need a Supreme Court to interpret (since Marbury v. Madison) the Constitution, but thanks for insulting my ability to read anyways!

There are a number of reasons I can see that it might not have specifically referenced "freed slaves." Perhaps one reason is that, at the time, "freed slaves" were not a defined class of people. All former slaves were already citizens because of the 1866 CRA. The amendment solidified the already existing laws as constitutional -- i.e. it was already clear who the laws targeted.

Oh please... Don't try and label me as a 'xenophobe' or toss around terms like 'citizen race.' Frankly, it's just drags down everything else you've said, which at least focuses on what the amendment really means.

I think this is a reference to diplomats from foreign countries, as mentioned earlier, if it means anything specific about citizenship. And I am not convinced it does.

Just because the intent of the author may have been to restrict citizenship, that does not mean that this is what the Constitution does--the Constitution is, after all, a document not for the person who wrote it, but for the people who agree to live by its dictates and rules as a group. Besides, I think the wording of the amendment is clear. When the amendment became a part of the Constitution, it did not include the language barring citizenship to people born here from foreign countries. If that was a concern, it would have contained specific language that was approved by the States to ensure citizenship rights were restricted in the United States the same way they were everywhere else at that time.

I still don't understand why there has to be a precedent--i.e., a court ruling, I presume you mean?--for the amendment to be constitutional. It is very clear as to its meaning.

That was my point: the Supreme Court's job is to interpret the law, not ratify sections of the Constitution. If this were the Supreme Court's job, you could claim it is unconstitutional to bar presidents from serving more than two elected terms, simply because nobody has ever challenged and therefore the court has never ruled on the constitutionality of the 22nd Amendment, for example.

This is very circular. If they were not "a defined class of people" how does saying that you are born in this country reference slaves specifically? Moreover, I think it was very clear who freed slaves were at the time--over 600,000 Americans had just died over the question--so I am not sure what you are getting at there. If the Fourteenth Amendment were intended to merely confirm the constitutionality of the 1866 Civil Rights Act, why was the language of the two not more similar?That law says nothing about who a citizen is: "All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other." Again, the easiest way to bar the children of foreign countries would have been to come out explicitly and say that "children born in this country of alien parents do not get citizenship." Very simple and economical, but the 14th Amendment does not say that, or anything direct like that.

You never answered the question: if ius sanguinis is the citizenship principle you want, then what "blood"is American blood? This is what the term means in the countries you referenced earlier, but such an idea would be completely meaningless in the United States because we are a people composed of many different ethnic groups--hence the reason for ius soli.

I never directly called you a xenophobe, by the way, and I am sorry if you feel offended about what I said. But the arguments you make are very similar to the very real xenophobia that is predominant among many on the far right in this country. I know this for a fact because I have looked at websites on the right that deal with this issue, and I listen to conservative talk radio pretty regularly to find out what the other side is up to and saying.

In any event, my point was more to the other people who were making this case than you, because their whole concern is to figure out a way to live legally in this country--to come out of the shadows since they know nothing more than being de facto--if not de iuris--Americans and would not understand how to live in their mother countries--their patriae sanguinis, as you see them. If the whole point of this forum is to advocate for the DREAM Act specifically--and CIR more generally, insofar as the politicians refuse to push the DREAM Act as a stand-alone bill--then continually caving to the arguments of people like J.D. Hayworth, Michael Savage, Mark Levin, or people even farther right than them, does nothing to advance our cause.

And I am sure you will agree that the cause is one you support as a new member of this forum?

The crux of your argument is that the amendment is obvious in its intent due to the way its written. It's not, as evidenced by the fact that the people who wrote it thought it meant something different. Even if it is so obvious, the simplest way to eliminate any ambiguity would be to have a law like this go to the SC. I also think dismissing the intent of the author is ridiculous -- the intent of the framers is cited all the time in SC rulings.

As for my opinions... Since I don't think the 14th Amendment grants citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants, I don't think the Constitution needs to be amended. In an ideal world I think US citizenship should be granted to people whose first and foremost allegiance is to America and "not subject to a foreign power." The best reasonable proxy I can come up with in that case would be mean being born to at least one US citizen or someone with permanent residence in the US. It's certainly a better proxy than one's ability to simply have a baby on US soil. By global standards, I think that's a pretty reasonable policy and one which has nothing to do with race or bloodlines. For what it's worth, my heritage is Swedish, German, Portuguese and Cherokee... to say that I support blood-lineage citizenship is a straw man. Come to think of it, I've never really heard anyone suggest something like that, even radical right wingers like Michael Savage.

I joined the forum because I ran across this thread when I was searching for information on the 14th Amendment...I saw some stuff that I disagreed with and decided to add an additional viewpoint. I don't support the DREAM act because I think its yet another feel-good entitlement program targeting a sought after voting contingent. If you're as excited about a constitutional government as you appear to be, then you're going to have a REALLY hard time justifying increased federal involvement in education... particularly federal subsidies to people who aren't even US citizens. I would think that if the aim were to actually affect practical reform, it would be beneficial to have more dialog as to why opponents feel the way they do.