Just 'Cause You're Born Here Don't Make You One of Us!

[BENESSE]

I am very right of center on this issue. I actually believe that citizenship should be connected to national service. If you are born here you have the "right to access to citizenship" which does not become vested until you serve your nation in some major capacity. You EARN vestment of your citizenship.

You did not serve, sorry, you do not vote. Sick, halt, lame= Join the peace corps/VISTA. You were not in the military= How the hell can you be Commander in Chief?

I agree completely, and have believed the same for a long time.

[Rick]

I doubt any of of the recent Presidents were pulling the strings on tactical decisions. They may have established a political goal but I'd hope the Joint Chiefs were laying out the "how to" and he just gives the green light. I sure hope that's it.

[Winter]

It's unconstitutional.

If you are born here, you are an American citizen. If you let America's constitutional ideals run your life then you are an American.

[Rick]

Deja vu all over again.

My bed time is 7:00 p.m. I get a little goofy (ier) after that. Sorry

[Pocomoonskyeyes3]

G'night Rick, sleep well.

[crashdive123]

My bed time is 7:00 p.m. I get a little goofy (ier) after that. Sorry

I was just thinking it must have been that whole great minds think alike thing, but then thought ....wait....what?

[Nutman]

Well the law on illegals giving birth to babies in the U.S. should be fixed

[Pocomoonskyeyes3]

Well the law on illegals giving birth to babies in the U.S. should be fixed

I agree. There is a difference between someone who was brought here against their will (slaves) and people breaking the law to get here(illegal aliens). It smacks of rewarding criminals. While we're at it, why not give all murderers a brand new 19" HDTV with cable to use in their cells(heavy sarcasm).

JMO but there is a HUGE difference between those that this Amendment was intended to provide for, and those that reap the same rewards as a side benefit, because they break the law. I have no problem with those this applies to that are here LEGALLY, like work and travel visa's, as well as legal immigrants. Just the ILLEGAL ones.

[Trabitha]

This is going to be a very interesting law to watch. Those cats in Arizona are pretty hard nosed. Down right obnoxious. My kind of folks!

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE70Q94G20110127

I'm with you, Rick. Just wondered why it took so darn long tog et things moving with this after it was announced that the amnesty thing was being considered.

[Justin Case]

Its strange to me how some people expect the country to honor the 2nd amendment word for word EXACTLY as written , Yet want to "update" or speculate the meaning of the 14th,, The times have changed since both amendments were drafted,,,, They both are obviously out dated,, Weapons have changed, we have police and military now,, No need for militias, The 2nd needs to be amended, We have Immigration from Mexico now so the 14th needs amended as well,, The Constitution is just like any other set of laws,, They need to adapt and change accordingly with the times,, IMO

[BENESSE]

Its strange to me how some people expect the country to honor the 2nd amendment word for word EXACTLY as written , Yet want to "update" or speculate the meaning of the 14th,,

Because people like to pick and choose because they think that intellectual honesty is so inconvenient.

[Justin Case]

Because people like to pick and choose because they think that intellectual honesty is so inconvenient.

I guess so

[Pocomoonskyeyes3]

The Constitution is just like any other set of laws,, They need to adapt and change accordingly with the times,, IMO

Careful, once you open that door you won't be able to shut it. Then it becomes so "Modified" that it isn't even the same anymore, and you have NO rights. This is one of those cases of "Be careful what you ask for....you just might get it, only to find it isn't what you wanted all along".

[Trabitha]

I think it needs to be taken into account that the "anchor baby" concept only came in to play in the 60's. Not only was it not "original intent" but we didn't have nearly as many issues as we do today with illegals flowing over the boarders. While the change made to the amendment was reasonable in the 60's, it's is not as reasonable today, given the abuse of the amendment that now takes place.

[Justin Case]

Careful, once you open that door you won't be able to shut it. Then it becomes so "Modified" that it isn't even the same anymore, and you have NO rights. This is one of those cases of "Be careful what you ask for....you just might get it, only to find it isn't what you wanted all along".

The gun laws were "amended" already, Hence "the second amendment",, why shouldn't they continue to be "amended" as needed,,? I am talking Amended per a vote.

[Pocomoonskyeyes3]

I think it needs to be taken into account that the "anchor baby" concept only came in to play in the 60's. Not only was it not "original intent" but we didn't have nearly as many issues as we do today with illegals flowing over the boarders. While the change made to the amendment was reasonable in the 60's, it's is not as reasonable today, given the abuse of the amendment that now takes place.

Thank you!

[Justin Case]

I think it needs to be taken into account that the "anchor baby" concept only came in to play in the 60's. Not only was it not "original intent" but we didn't have nearly as many issues as we do today with illegals flowing over the boarders. While the change made to the amendment was reasonable in the 60's, it's is not as reasonable today, given the abuse of the amendment that now takes place.

agreed,, The 14th amendment is too old,, It needs to be updated to meet current conditions. not unlike other amendments,,,,,

[Trabitha]

Actually, I don't believe it needs to "amended" again, rather it should be brought back closer to it's original intent. Basically back in the 1800's it was ratified for African Americans of the time in an attempt to address some of the injustices they were suffering. In 1866, Senator Howard clearly spelled out the original intent of the 14th Amendment when he said, "Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."
I believe our need NOW is different...but similar to the way it was translated in the 1800's.

[Pocomoonskyeyes3]

The gun laws were "amended" already, Hence "the second amendment",, why shouldn't they continue to be "amended" as needed,,? I am talking Amended per a vote.

EXACTLY!! Which goes AGAINST the original intent of the Original Amendment.Deciding Which type of guns or speech is "Allowed". Goes AGAINST the original Amendment meaning,purpose,and scope.

This is taken from something in the thread links, but is valid here .....

Even some decisions of the US Supreme Court, written long after the Court's early 14th Amendment decisions were rendered, attempt to paint a picture that the Supreme Court justices who lived during the Amendment's ratification were somehow confused about its meaning, but that they [the later justices] know better the true meaning of the Amendment. Such representations are legal poppycock intended to support a court's political agenda. All judges know that one of the primary "rules of construction" (both constitutional and statutory) is that early decisions, made closer to the time of the event, are to be given far greater weight than the views of jurists who may have ruled on the subject many decades after the fact.

So the closer to the actual case decisions of the Amendment(s) in question have more relevance and bearing on them. So now, here we are 2 centuries later trying to second guess them? Doesn't work that way. So in a sense many of the laws governing these Constitutional Rights is in a sense Breaking the Constitutional law!

[Justin Case]

Maybe we dont need it at all anymore ? slavery is gone,, That point in history is no longer relevant. We are way paste those days