POLITICS - Border Fence update

Leverdude · Post by **Leverdude** » Sat Feb 09, 2008 11:10 pm

Thanks H-Talon.
I knew it was in there. Citizenship isn't a requirement for rights either. We all know the constitution only recognizes rights endowed by the Creator. Those rights were enjoyed by everyone before citizenship was even defined.
The 14Th amendment is only there because folks had a hard time once before realizeing that everyone here has these rights guarenteed & everyone born here has a fair say. I'm not happy some Mexican lady can swim across & have a baby thats American but thats the way it has to be. Hell shes just trying to give her kid the best she can.
We shouldn't let them in but once their here theyre here & they are human beings.
Calling Charles names isn't doing much good either. He may well be of Mexican descent, who cares?
Me & him disagree but I respect him. Dont know if its mutual, I hope so but its not important. Whats important is we find a way to put a plug in it.

Charles · Post by **Charles** » Sun Feb 10, 2008 7:48 am

Well now... Am I a Mexcan by descent or by heart? On my Father's side I am German and Norwegian. On my Moher's side I am English and Welsh. I am into geneology so I am pretty certain there is no Mexican blood. So that is out. I am not a Mexican by blood.

Am I am Mexican by heart? I did grow up on the Texas Mexico Border and one can't do that without a huge exposure to Mexican culture. But, I am still and Anglo/Gringo/Gabacho.

I did serve for a number of years as a Missionary Evangelist in South America, Ecuador to be precise. One cannot go to another land to preach the Gospel unless they care about and respect the people of that land.

I won't bore you with the detail, but I did have the opportunity to stay in Ecuador as part of an Ecuadorian International Law firm and get stinking rich. But in order to do so I would have to be a member of the Collegio de Abogados (College of Lawyers/Bar Association) and to do that I would have to take out Ecuadorian citizen ship, which would mean I would lose my U.S. Citizenship.

I thought about it for about a half hour and turned the offer to get rich down. There was no way I was going to turn in that purple passport with the gold American Eagle on it for mere money. I am an American and will die an American.

I will admit to believing that God created ALL people equal. I will admit to believing that Christ die for all manking. I do believe that I am not better than the Bushman in the African desert or the Indian in Andes Mountains, that we are all part of God's creation.

I am a member of the Son's of the American Revolution having four direct lineal ancestors who fought to establish this great republic. My anscestors have fought in the Revolutiionary War, War of 1812, The Mexican War, The Civil War, The Spanish-American War, World War I, Wold War II, and Korea.

My Father was discharged from WWII with the Rank of Captain. My Grandfather was discharged from WWII with the rank of full Colonel.

I started off my working life as a Trial Attorney, but switched to Christian Ministry. Ido have more education than is probably good for a fellow, but I am not an academic. I chose to spend my life in service to others, following the example of Christ. I am finishing my 37th years as a Christian Pastor.

Both my son and daughter make more money in the first year of there working life, than I am making now in my last year of working life.

Teaching will be my retirment gig when the church puts me out to pasture in June of this year.

Am I a Mexican..no! However, I don't consider it an insult to be called one! I am an American, but I am not anti-anybody. The ground at the foot of the cross is level and filled with all kinds of people.

Yes, Leverdude I do respect you. Folks don't have to agree in order to have mutual respect. When I disagree with folks, I may say their "thinking" is wrong headed, that they are uninformed on an issue, that their ideas are unworkable, but I try very hard not to call them names nor indicate they are inferior human beings. My criticism goes to what folks think and not their value as a human beings. Folks can think wrong things without being bad people.

I am concerned about the welfare and wellbeing of everybody on this board. I pray for them. Some of the attitudes expressed make me very concerned about the spiritual welfare of those folks. I do pray for them, because they are as important to God as a Mexican, but not more so.

So, boys make what you will of me! Pin whatever lables on me you want so you can dismiss what I say! Call me any kind of name you wish! Nothing of what you say or think will hurt or dimish me in any way. In the words of that great philosopher Popeye the Sailor... "I yam what I yam".

My theology is Evangelical. My politics are conservative Republican with moderate leanings on some issues. I don't like McCains record on 2nd. Admendment, but on other issues, he is "da man".

The religious content of this missive will cause some of you to grind your teeth and see red, but just deal with it, because that is who I am and what I am about.

Blessings on you all.

El Mac · Post by **El Mac** » Sun Feb 10, 2008 9:51 am

Nice pedigree Charles. You sound like a fine man. It'd be nice to cross paths one day and share a cup, a brew or a stogie.

FWiedner · Post by **FWiedner** » Sun Feb 10, 2008 9:58 am

Gosh, you coulda just said "No, I am not a Mexican."

You speak as a fine and humanitarian soul.

Old Time Hunter · Post by **Old Time Hunter** » Sun Feb 10, 2008 11:50 am

Aw! Just make me want to tell everyone to set down their weapons and have a big group hug!

Caco · Post by **Caco** » Sun Feb 10, 2008 11:57 am

Charles
Great!! -part norwegian, attorney turned minister. As a 50% norwegian myself, can now understand

Also now you know why I have a spelling problem

Seriously you sound like a genuine person that i can respect, but not always agree with.
Dave

Caco · Post by **Caco** » Sun Feb 10, 2008 12:18 pm

H-Talon
Thanks for the lesson. Got out the encyclopedia and read the amendments. The first part of that #14 is a lose cannon and obvious lack of foresight. Understand the intent, but gotta believe it was never intended to be used for the purpose of circumventing emigration policy. Suspect some of it's interpertation resulted from court cases.
Didn't see any thing about the 14 year old getting a small busload of relatives naturalized though.
Am going to try and learn more on the interpertation. Shure sounds like a bridge over the Rio Grande

Dave

H_Talon · Post by **H_Talon** » Sun Feb 10, 2008 12:43 pm

Caco wrote:H-Talon
Thanks for the lesson. Got out the encyclopedia and read the amendments. The first part of that #14 is a lose cannon and obvious lack of foresight. Understand the intent, but gotta believe it was never intended to be used for the purpose of circumventing emigration policy. Suspect some of it's interpertation resulted from court cases.
Didn't see any thing about the 14 year old getting a small busload of relatives naturalized though.
Am going to try and learn more on the interpertation. Shure sounds like a bridge over the Rio Grande
Dave

our immigration laws .. allow for "family" to be immigrated. it not part
of the 14th ... the 14 is just allows citizenship by birth ...

Talon

Caco · Post by **Caco** » Sun Feb 10, 2008 3:49 pm

Just to stir the pot a little I found this

Immigration and the Fourteenth Amendment

The Fourteenth Amendment (1868) was the first definition of citizen to make its appearance in the

Constitution:

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.

The immediate purpose of the citizenship clause was to overturn the infamous Dred Scott decision of 1857

which had proclaimed all blacks of African descent to be ineligible for citizenship. Prior to the Fourteenth

Amendment, Federal citizenship was an incident of State citizenship; every citizen of a State was, by virtue

of that citizenship, automatically a citizen of the United States. The Fourteenth Amendment reversed this

relationship. Federal citizenship became primary and State citizenship derivative.

The principal purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment therefore was to secure Federal citizenship for the

newly freed slaves and extend to them the whole panoply of civil rights that are the necessary incidents of

Federal citizenship. In order to forestall attacks upon the citizenship of the former slaves, the framers of the

Fourteenth Amendment made Federal citizenship primary and State citizenship derivative, so that any

person who was a citizen of the United States was automatically a citizen of the State wherein he resided.

This made it impossible for the States to circumvent Federal protection for civil rights by withholding State

citizenship from the former slaves and thus preventing them from becoming citizens of the United States.

Even though it is clear that the Fourteenth Amendment was passed principally to settle the question of the

citizenship of the newly freed slaves, today the phrase "All persons born or naturalized in the United

States" is almost universally understood to confer citizenship upon all persons who are born in the United

States regardless of whether they are legally in the country or not. Thus Governor Wilson has called for a

constitutional amendment to restrict the reach of the Fourteenth Amendment. Is an amendment necessary?

What is the meaning of the subordinate clause in the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment ("subject

to the jurisdiction thereof")? It is clear that, whatever else it means, it was intended to limit or qualify "All

persons born or naturalized..." Only those persons "born or naturalized" and "subject to the jurisdiction" of

the United States are citizens of the United States. Thus the phrase clearly does not have universal

application. The precise meaning of the limitation, however, is not entirely clear and has received no

authoritative interpretation by the Supreme Court, particularly in regard to illegal aliens.

The legislative debates are rather sparse, but not entirely unrevealing. Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the

Senate Judiciary Committee and a powerful supporter of the Fourteenth Amendment, remarked on May

30, 1866, that the limiting clause refers to those "Not owing allegiance to anybody else ... It is only those

persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making

citizens; and there can be no objection to the proposition that such persons should be citizens."4

Senator Jacob Howard, the author of the citizenship clause, made the most precise statement about the

character of the limitation contained in the "jurisdiction" clause:

[E]very 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.5

Clearly, the author of the citizenship clause intended to count "foreigners," "aliens," and those born to

"ambassadors or foreign ministers" as outside the "jurisdiction of the United States."

Dave

FWiedner · Post by **FWiedner** » Sun Feb 10, 2008 4:15 pm

...and how does the 14th Amendment address the birthright citizenship aspect of those persons born on U.S. soil while their parents, who are both foreign nationals, are here and knowingly committing a crime?

Charles · Post by **Charles** » Sun Feb 10, 2008 4:37 pm

The only foreigners/aliens not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States would be those with diplomatic immuity. All others are subject to our laws and courts. which is what jurisdiction means.

That would mean, a child born of criminal aliens would be a citizen, becase the laws and courts have jurisdiction over those parents. If the laws don't apply them, they would not be criminals. A person can only violate a law if they are subject to that law.

Sorta convoluted, but the law tends to be convoluted.

Leverdude · Post by **Leverdude** » Sun Feb 10, 2008 5:12 pm

Sorta convoluted, but the law tends to be convoluted.

Truer words have never been spoken.

pharmseller · Post by **pharmseller** » Sun Feb 10, 2008 5:40 pm

My two cents:
An appropriate reading of the 14th Amendment looks closely at the meaning of the clause "under the jurisdiction of the United States." I do not agree with Charles. I think illegals, by virtue of being in the US illegally, are NOT under the jurisdiction of the United States. They have no passport, green card, or other legal presence here. As such, they do not fall under the protection of the 14th Amendment.
Regarding the elimination of the economic incentive, I believe that this is the crux of the solution.
1. Require proof of citizenship or legal status to get a driver's license or bank account AND ENFORCE IT.
2. Require that an employee's name match his/her SSN in order for his/her wages to be deducted from profit, or else the employer must pay taxes on those wages AND LET THE IRS! ENFORCE IT.
3. Fine the heck out of employers who knowingly hire workers who have no legal right to be here AND ENFORCE IT.

If you really wanted to get crazy, require proof of citizenship or legal status to wire money out of the country, north south east or west.

I think most of the illegals would self-deport if this were to happen. The cash market exists but it isn't large enough to support 12-20 million illegals.

Quinn

Charles · Post by **Charles** » Sun Feb 10, 2008 5:55 pm

jurisdiction is a legal term..this from Law.com dictionary. It is not a fluid, foggy term subject to individual interpretation.

jurisdiction
n. the authority given by law to a court to try cases and rule on legal matters within a particular geographic area and/or over certain types of legal cases.

It is absurd to think you have to be in the country legally to be under the jurisdiction of U.S. law and courts. If the Border Patrol can pick you up for violation of the Immigration law, that means the laws and courts have jurisdiction over you.

Jurisdiction means the laws and courts have AUTHORITY over you!!! That is why folks with diplomatic immunity do not come under the jurisdiction of U.S. courts, because those courts do not have AUTHORITY over them. This by virture of international treaty.

If the law and court does not have jurisdiction you cannot be arrested as the law doesn't apply to you.

Get real pharmseller, you just can't make this stuff up and maintain it means what you want it to mean.

pharmseller · Post by **pharmseller** » Sun Feb 10, 2008 6:03 pm

I hold to my opinion.

Quinn

Caco · Post by **Caco** » Sun Feb 10, 2008 7:04 pm

Ah Charles, the twist and spin of the lawyer comes through

Don't be selective completly read the words of senator Howard the author of the citizen clause

Dave

Charles · Post by **Charles** » Mon Feb 11, 2008 9:06 am

Dave... I wasn't trying to tap dance around your post. I did read it all. I was just trying to lay out the legal rational why children born in this country of non-diplomat alliens (legal or illegal) are U.S. citizens.

Like most others, I think something should change in regard to these "anchor" babies. United States citizenship should be harder to obtain than it is. I have never agrued IN FAVOR of the status quo.

But, whether you, I, or anybody else like it, the current law makes children born in this country of illiegal aliens citizens. That is just a hard cold reality and thinking it should not be so, does not change the situation. As long as the United States State Department will issue the children U.S. Passports, the problem will persist.

Only by understanding and acknowleding current reality can we work to change it. It is not productive for folks to maintain the state of the law is not what is is. It is not productive for folks to mainting that their individual understanding of the Constution is what the law is. The law is, what the United States Goverment says it is. Start with that hard unplesent reality and then work and pressure for change.

My whole life has been about making change happen. I am not interested in endless discussions about cracker barrel theory of what should be. We start with what is.

Caco · Post by **Caco** » Mon Feb 11, 2008 11:25 am

Clearly, the author of the citizenship clause intended to count "foreigners," "aliens," and those born to

"ambassadors or foreign ministers" as outside the "jurisdiction of the United States."

They have citizenship in another country, and this is an EXEMPTION clause.
Dave

Charles · Post by **Charles** » Mon Feb 11, 2008 12:40 pm

Caco wrote:Clearly, the author of the citizenship clause intended to count "foreigners," "aliens," and those born to

"ambassadors or foreign ministers" as outside the "jurisdiction of the United States."

They have citizenship in another country, and this is an EXEMPTION clause.
Dave

Well Dave, apparently to the Courts it is not as clear as it is to you.

Again and for the last dad blamed time. Jurisdiction has nothing to do with citizenship. It is about the authority of the law and courts to hold persons accountable. If a court can hold you accountable for a law, you are in that court's Jurisdiction. Why is that so hard to understand?

Now, was did the drafters mean? If they meant citizenship they should have said citizenship. However the wording of the Constitutiion said jurisdiction when means something entirely different than what you are trying to say.

It may be the original drafters did a pee poor job, but they did the job they did and we are stuck with jurrisdiction unless somebody ammend the Constution?

If you have not read Don Quixote you should as you are his spiritual child.

Caco · Post by **Caco** » Mon Feb 11, 2008 1:21 pm

If you have not read Don Quixote you should as you are his spiritual child

Charles
I fear this is wearing thin on everbody and will not strain past this last post on my part. Sooo There IS a qualifing statment we do not agree on and and as far as I know, the courts have not ruled on regarding ellegal entry.
Also-Remember some time back when the Cuban father was ruled to have custody and have his son who was in the states with relatives returned to him. If I remember right his mother had passed away ?? and the father wanted him back in cuba or cuba wanted him back-Can't be shure who was pulling the strings as one would think a father would want his son to have a better life. Was he a US citizen? He is cuban now.
He evidently was under US jurisdiction to have the US courts rule, was he - is he a US citizen?
As every one has been convinced to change their mind I'll quite wasting everyones time

Dave

Leverdude · Post by **Leverdude** » Mon Feb 11, 2008 1:22 pm

Honestly I dont think the founders were as caught up in citizenship as we are. I'm not even sure its mentioned. I think they were of the opinion that if you were here you were here & the constitution covered you.
Juristiction is a whole different thing. If citizenship was required for someone to be under US juristiction we couldn't do anything about illegal immigration.

We have immigration law. If its enforced this haveing a baby here is pretty immaterial. We are nitpicking now.

Charles · Post by **Charles** » Mon Feb 11, 2008 3:06 pm

Lever dude.. This baby thing isn't quite nit picking. The baby when it comes of age, has every right as a citizen to live in this country. Then the "Family Reunification" provision of the Immigration Code comes into play. That now grown baby can bring members of his/family in and they can be naturalized. When they get naturalized, each of them can brings in more of their family and so on and so on. One anchor baby can open the door for hundreds and thousands of people to come here.

How do you think the Patel clan came to own more motels in the United States than anybody else?

Leverdude · Post by **Leverdude** » Mon Feb 11, 2008 4:10 pm

Charles wrote:Lever dude.. This baby thing isn't quite nit picking. The baby when it comes of age, has every right as a citizen to live in this country. Then the "Family Reunification" provision of the Immigration Code comes into play. That now grown baby can bring members of his/family in and they can be naturalized. When they get naturalized, each of them can brings in more of their family and so on and so on. One anchor baby can open the door for hundreds and thousands of people to come here.

How do you think the Patel clan came to own more motels in the United States than anybody else?

I'm sure its abused but think the larger issue is porosity of the border. I wasn't aware of the bring along the family deal until just now in this thread.
Its ok with me if they/we change the immigration code. But I think people born here should be citizens. Alot of my family are only citizens because they were born here. My fathers parents became citizens but not my moms. They came here legally raised a family & died. Their kids were Americans & thats what they wanted.
Both sides of my family have uncles or aunts that never became citizens. Many of them fought for the country.

Anyway, like most things legal it gets complicated.
I like simple. Being a citizen if your born here is simple. Lets find something complicated to fix, leave the simple stuff alone.

Charles · Post by **Charles** » Mon Feb 11, 2008 4:50 pm

" Anyway, like most things legal it gets complicated. "

Yep...for shure and for cetain. It is always easier to have the solution, when you don't have the problem.