Changing the 14th Amendment

Change it? No, I want it to be clarified to the general public as to what what it actually means. No living document BS, what was originally intended and what should be enforced.

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction" does not mean physical location, it is a legal status. It means making oneself known and legally recognized by the governmental authority. Just because you are born inside the borders is not carte blanche citizenship. Your parents should at least have a green card. What country on the planet would seriously make it so easy for a kid from a different country to become a full citizen? Certainly not the 19th Century USA, they had common sense. 20th and 21st century progressives, not so much.

"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" - due process means the illegal aliens are legally recognized as illegal aliens and deported. Equal protection means we don't treat one illegal alien any different than another. Note also that it restricts the States on due process, it does not restrict the federal government.

a reply to: Liquesence

So I take it you're all for deporting Dreamers so it can be challenged?

TheRedneck

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Murder and violent offenders?

Yes THAT 'S perfect.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: seagull
If they've crossed into this country north or south, or on the coasts illegally, the 14th doesn't apply, then either.

I don't recall this ever being brought before the Supreme Court, I know they ruled on legal citizens having children here. I would think one of these groups advocating that position would bring a legal challenge first before dicking around with the Constitution.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 1898

Wong Kim Ark's parents were legally recognized residents in the USA when he was born. Even though the parents were subjects of the Emperor of China, they were not illegally present in the USA and were legally working.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Liquesence

So I take it you're all for deporting Dreamers so it can be challenged?

TheRedneck

Where did I ever indicate that?

a reply to: Liquesence

Well, for that decision to be extended to illegal aliens, there would need to be a clarification. For that to happen, there would have to be a court case. For there to be a court case, there would have to be an action for the plaintiff to file on... such as an attempt to deport Dreamers...

First line of my signature...

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

for that decision to be extended to illegal aliens, there would need to be a clarification.

Legally, it already does extend. That is the point.

You're talking about restricting what has already been legally recognized.

For there to be a court case, there would have to be an action for the plaintiff to file on... such as an attempt to deport Dreamers...

Oh, I got your point, before.

a reply to: Liquesence

Legally, it already does extend. That is the point.

No, legally it is assumed to extend by certain lawyers and lower judges. The situations are quite different, including a Constitutional conflict between the present 14th Amendment interpretation and the Constitutional right (duty?) of the Federal government to protect the borders. This conflict did not exist in the previous ruling, because the plaintiffs were here legally and had not violated US border enforcement.

TheRedneck

I am somewhat confused by the digression into legal questions. When you go to get a passport, there is no question about the legal status of your parents. Your birth certificate is adequate. Someone born in the US is a citizen.
The other aspect of this is the so-called "anchor babies". These are children of pregnant women who came into the US to have a US citizen child. They may be here totally legally, bypassing any potential legal questions, even if they hardly exist. Should the US keep doing this? I am not aware of any other countries which allow this, so perhaps they understand some reason to disallow this that we do not?

originally posted by: fiverx313

originally posted by: RazorV66
If they live with you, don't you mean they will be coming HOME to leftovers?

NO, silly... ICE is coming over for leftovers. my illegal immigrant family got the meal on the big day, before any legal citizens. as it should be!

Ahhh...well there you go.

a reply to: TheRedneck

No, legally it is assumed to extend

It legally exists and is legally recognized, until challenged.

The situations are quite different
This conflict did not exist in the previous ruling, because the plaintiffs were here legally

Again, the ruling grants jus soli and is currently recognized by law.

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: kelbtalfenek

For murder its fine.
They aren't citizens so no rights will be extended at all.
PROBLEM solved.

I do believe that basic human rights are afforded to everyone in our judicial system, regardless of citizenship. It's kind of what makes us the "good guys" per se.

a reply to: Liquesence

You do realize just using a Latin phrase over and over does nothing to advance your argument, right?

Jus soli is simply "right of the soil." It's used so lawyers can look and feel important. It has nothing to do with the question of whether or not it applies to illegal entry.

You know, I really, really feel sorry for the Dreamers. They had no say on whether or not they came here; their parents are the criminals, and even they did it for their children. Most of the Dreamers grew up here and never knew another home. Some were even born here, the situation we are discussing. They are in this predicament because liberals wanted more votes and decided to loosely interpret the 14th Amendment and allow illegals the ability to vote to get them. Now they're facing deportation because those same liberals in Congress probably won't act to prevent their deportation... they didn't during the previous administration.

I see the following options:

• We give the Dreamers legal status and clarify the 14th Amendment to prevent future problems (my preference).
  
• We give the Dreamers legal status and secure the border with a wall and heavier enforcement.
  
• We deport the Dreamers back to their 'home' (which they have never seen).
  
• We completely remove all borders and citizenship, absolutely destroying first our economy and then our very country (the default if nothing is done to stop our present path). In essence, this option 'deports' the Dreamers to a country they have never seen as well, because the United States will cease to exist.

TheRedneck

a reply to: StanFL

America has bigger problems to solve before starting a race war. If all undocumented immigrants disappeared tomorrow, this nation wouldn't know what to do with itself.

a reply to: TheRedneck

You do realize just using a Latin phrase over and over does nothing to advance your argument, right?

You do realize we're talking about a SCOTUS case as currently recognized by law, which recognizes right of citizenship by birth, hence jus soli, as cited?

Jus soli is simply "right of the soil." It's used so lawyers can look and feel important.

It's legally recognized. As cited.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Dreamers have nothing to do with birthright citizenship.

originally posted by: TheRedneckAn amendment to include the phrase "of parents not in violation of US customs laws" would fix the problem...

Sure
Also while at it, change the 2nd to include "right of the people, currently in the military, to keep and bear...etc"


The amendment is fine. If you are born here, you are American.
Thats how its always been, thats how it should always be. The sins of the father does not pass on to the son and such.

liberals need to get over the 2nd amendment, conservatives need to get over the 14th (and the 13th for some)

Oh, and its called the civil war, or as I like to call it, the spanking on the anti-american traitors in the south...I guess we all have our pet names for historical events.

a reply to: SaturnFX

Also while at it, change the 2nd to include "right of the people, currently in the military, to keep and bear...etc"

It needs changing. We should either go by it as it was intended: all citizens have the right to own and carry any weapon they so choose, including an A-bomb, or we need to change it to reflect the fact that it doesn't include weapons of mass destruction and doesn't apply to convicted felons, etc.

The amendment is fine. If you are born here, you are American.
Thats how its always been, thats how it should always be.

That's NOT how it always has been. Prior to 1968,the 14th Amendment did not exist. Even more recently, it was not interpreted the way it is now.

Oh, and its called the civil war

Not around here it ain't, Yankee.

TheRedneck

a reply to: kelbtalfenek

I lack such predilections when faced with a pragmatic issue like people coming here to kill.
I struggle with the lack of engagement and half assed explanations based on legal or political loopholes.


BUT hey I am not in ANY authority beyond my own door.

Its funny to see someone who thinks he has all the answers. a reply to: fiverx313