Do we really need Illegal Aliens?

[gutinstinct]

I have no use for any illegal immigrant(s). By this, a person or persons entering the country illegally is sending a red signal (flag) that he or she (right from the get go) doesn't respect our laws. Am sure that most of the immigrants are good people but it sends the wrong message out, " Just enter our country and you got it made." That's the type of attitude am seeing & am hearing here in NYC. I am sick and tired of the excuses that they had to get out of their country in a hurry. One of my Grandfather's immigrated to this country with his family right after WWI. As well as the other before WWII. Both Grandparents & their families(My father & mother) had to endure hardships while waiting to enter this GREAT country LEGALLY. I say that when we catch them we should ship them home to there country. If we catch them again ship them home in a box. That's the way I feel on the issue Marines.

[OLE SARG]

I'm getting sick of paying my taxes to support their ****ing asses!!!!!!! I mean this bull**** of not being able to ask if they are legal or not - give me a ****ing break. Paying for their medical care through the local emergency rooms - feeding their asses - paying for their kid's education - etc. Sick to death of this ****.
THEN you have the poor land owners down South ALONG THE BORDER who have to put up with these turds trashing their property, dying on their property, ****ting on their property, trespassing on their property, etc.
If we could only get our LOWEST RATED CONGRESS IN HISTORY OFF THEIR ****ING FAT ASSES FROM RECESSES AND ****ING SLEEP-INS, AND GET SOMETHING, ANY THING DONE ON THIS SUPPOSEDLY GREAT IMMIGRATION BILL THEY HAVE NNNNOOOOTTTTT BEEN WORKING ON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! RIGHT NOW CONGRESS IS A LEECH ON US TAX-PAYERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

SEMPER FI,

[Gary Hall]

No to all illegals, and put the hurt (financial) on anybody that hires them. Gary Hall

[SlingerDun]

It started hundreds of years ago!

Woooooo Yellowing scores!

They didn't have a country.

Oh is that so. I'd like to have seen any fine haired politician try to penny loafer and brief case his way into the Ochoco stronghold of the Snake War Tribes back in the day. And tell them it wasn't there country.

--->Dave

[3077India]

Oh is that so...

Yes it is.

[Zulu 36]

You might want to read Article of Amendment 14, Section 1. Which says, "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." It will actually take a constitutional amendment to end birthright citizenship.

Sorry for the delay in response. Some legal research was necessary.

In reading the US Constitution and the annotations (discussions of statutes and case law) available through FindLaw, it appears that the operative phrase in this part of the 14th Amendment is,"...and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, ...".

Congress has the authority, under common law, to determine who is "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" for citizenship purposes. For instance, the children born in the US of foreign diplomats are NOT citizens of the US. Congress can indeed legislate that the children of persons illegally in the US, are nationals of the country of which their parents are citizens.

Now, could this be argued in the other direction? Of course; that is how lawyers make their money.

If Congress chooses, they can remove any birthright citizenship from the children of illegal aliens through legislation on the jurisdiction matter. Furthermore, they could deny the federal courts from having any legal jurisdiction over the question of the Constitutionality of any such statute.

Now, does Congress have the balls to do such a thing? Does the sitting President of the time have the balls to sign it into law? Probably not on both counts. Mores the pity.

This is the link to the annotations for the 14th Amendment as applied to citizenship. See specifically Footnote 7 and the text it references:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/c...nt14/01.html#1

[jrhd97]

Our current crop of politicians don't have the balls! That is the problem! When we the people have had enough and stand up, stop voting for these leeches, and demand a change it just might happen.
My whole family, except for a couple natives in the wood pile, are immigrants ans can be tracked through Ellis Island and Philladelphia LEGALLY.
When we lack the balls to p### off our criminals to the south and inforce the laws it sets the standard, sends the word that we are not seriouse, sooo .... they keep coming.
Arm the National Guard troops on the border and let the Border Control do there jobs.

[3077India]

Sorry for the delay in response. Some legal research was necessary.

In reading the US Constitution and the annotations (discussions of statutes and case law) available through FindLaw, it appears that the operative phrase in this part of the 14th Amendment is,"...and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, ...".

Congress has the authority, under common law, to determine who is "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" for citizenship purposes. For instance, the children born in the US of foreign diplomats are NOT citizens of the US. Congress can indeed legislate that the children of persons illegally in the US, are nationals of the country of which their parents are citizens.

Now, could this be argued in the other direction? Of course; that is how lawyers make their money.

If Congress chooses, they can remove any birthright citizenship from the children of illegal aliens through legislation on the jurisdiction matter. Furthermore, they could deny the federal courts from having any legal jurisdiction over the question of the Constitutionality of any such statute.

Now, does Congress have the balls to do such a thing? Does the sitting President of the time have the balls to sign it into law? Probably not on both counts. Mores the pity.

This is the link to the annotations for the 14th Amendment as applied to citizenship. See specifically Footnote 7 and the text it references:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/c...nt14/01.html#1

It is interesting that you pick and choose those parts which best fits the point your are defending, but how about this portion:

In Afroyim v. Rusk, 11 a divided Court extended the force of this first sentence beyond prior holdings, ruling that it withdrew from the Government of the United States the power to expatriate United States citizens against their will for any reason. ''[T]he Amendment can most reasonably be read as defining a citizenship which a citizen keeps unless he voluntarily relinquishes it. Once acquired, this Fourteenth Amendment citizenship was not to be shifted, canceled, or diluted at the will of the Federal Government, the States, or any other government unit. It is true that the chief interest of the people in giving permanence and security to citizenship in the Fourteenth Amendment was the desire to protect Negroes. . . . This undeniable purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment to make citizenship of Negroes permanent and secure would be frustrated by holding that the Government can rob a citizen of his citizenship without his consent by simply proceeding to act under an implied general power to regulate foreign affairs or some other power generally granted.''

But why simply stop there, below I post the full text of the article you quote:

SECTION 1. RIGHTS GUARANTEED: CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES

In the Dred Scott Case, 1 Chief Justice Taney for the Court ruled that United States citizenship was enjoyed by two classes of individuals: (1) white persons born in the United States as descendents of ''persons, who were at the time of the adoption of the Constitution recognized as citizens in the several States and [who] became also citizens of this new political body,'' the United States of America, and (2) those who, having been ''born outside the dominions of the United States,'' had migrated thereto and been naturalized therein. The States were competent, he continued, to confer state citizenship upon anyone in their midst, but they could not make the recipient of such status a citizen of the United States. The ''Negro,'' or ''African race,'' according to the Chief Justice, was ineligible to attain United States citizenship, either from a State or by virtue of birth in the United States, even as a free man descended from a Negro residing as a free man in one of the States at the date of ratification of the Constitution. 2 Congress, first in Sec. 1 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 3 and then in the first sentence of Sec. 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, 4 set aside the Dred Scott holding in a sentence ''declaratory of existing rights, and affirmative of existing law. . . .'' 5

While clearly establishing a national rule on national citizenship and settling a controversy of long standing with regard to the derivation of national citizenship, the Fourteenth Amendment did not obliterate the distinction between national and state citizenship, but rather preserved it. 6 The Court has accorded the first sentence of Sec. 1 a construction in accordance with the congressional intentions, holding that a child born in the United States of Chinese parents who themselves were ineligible to be naturalized is nevertheless a citizen of the United States entitled to all the rights and privileges of citizenship. 7 Congress' intent in including the qualifying phrase ''and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,'' was apparently to exclude from the reach of the language children born of diplomatic representatives of a foreign state and children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation, both recognized exceptions to the common-law rule of acquired citizenship by birth, 8 as well as children of members of Indian tribes subject to tribal laws. 9 The lower courts have generally held that the citizenship of the parents determines the citizenship of children born on vessels in United States territorial waters or on the high seas. 10

In Afroyim v. Rusk, 11 a divided Court extended the force of this first sentence beyond prior holdings, ruling that it withdrew from the Government of the United States the power to expatriate United States citizens against their will for any reason. ''[T]he Amendment can most reasonably be read as defining a citizenship which a citizen keeps unless he voluntarily relinquishes it. Once acquired, this Fourteenth Amendment citizenship was not to be shifted, canceled, or diluted at the will of the Federal Government, the States, or any other government unit. It is true that the chief interest of the people in giving permanence and security to citizenship in the Fourteenth Amendment was the desire to protect Negroes. . . . This undeniable purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment to make citizenship of Negroes permanent and secure would be frustrated by holding that the Government can rob a citizen of his citizenship without his consent by simply proceeding to act under an implied general power to regulate foreign affairs or some other power generally granted.'' 12 In a subsequent decision, however, the Court held that persons who were statutorily naturalized by being born abroad of at least one American parent could not claim the protection of the first sentence of Sec. 1 and that Congress could therefore impose a reasonable and non-arbitrary condition subsequent upon their continued retention of United States citizenship. 13 Between these two decisions there is a tension which should call forth further litigation efforts to explore the meaning of the citizenship sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Citizens of the United States within the meaning of this Amendment must be natural and not artificial persons; a corporate body is not a citizen of the United States. 14

Footnotes

[Footnote 1] Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393, 404 -06, 417-18, 419-20 (1857).

[Footnote 2] The controversy, political as well as constitutional, which this case stirred and still stirs, is exemplified and analyzed in the material collected in S. Kutler, The Dred Scott Decision: Law or Politics? (1967).

[Footnote 3] ''That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States; and such citizens, of every race and color, without regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude . . . shall have the same right[s]. . . .'' Ch. 31, 14 Stat. 27.

[Footnote 4] The proposed amendment as it passed the House contained no such provision, and it was decided in the Senate to include language like that finally adopted. Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. 2560, 2768-69, 2869 (1866). The sponsor of the language said: ''This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is . . . a citizen of the United States.'' Id. at 2890. The legislative history is discussed at some length in Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253, 282 -86 (1967) (Justice Harlan dissenting).

[Footnote 5] United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 688 (1898).

[Footnote 6] Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36, 74 (1873).

[Footnote 7] United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898).

[Footnote 8] Id. at 682.

[Footnote 9] Id. at 680-82; Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94, 99 (1884).

[Footnote 10] United States v. Gordon, 25 Fed. Cas. 1364 (C.C.S.D.N.Y. 1861) (No. 15,231); In re Look Tin Sing, 21 F. 905 (C.C.Cal. 1884); Lam Mow v. Nagle, 24 F.2d 316 (9th Cir. 1928).

[Footnote 11] 387 U.S. 253 (1967). Though the Court upheld the involuntary expatriation of a woman citizen of the United States during her marriage to a foreign citizen in Mackenzie v. Hare, 239 U.S. 299 (1915), the subject first received extended judicial treatment in Perez v. Brownell, 356 U.S. 44 (1958), in which by a five-to-four decision the Court upheld a statute denaturalizing a native-born citizen for having voted in a foreign election. For the Court, Justice Frankfurter reasoned that Congress' power to regulate foreign affairs carried with it the authority to sever the relationship of this country with one of its citizens to avoid national implication in acts of that citizen which might embarrass relations with a foreign nation. Id. at 60-62. Three of the dissenters denied that Congress had any power to denaturalize. See discussion supra pp. 272-76. In the years before Afroyim, a series of decisions had curbed congressional power.

[Footnote 12] Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253, 262 -63 (1967). Four dissenters, Justices Harlan, Clark, Stewart, and White, controverted the Court's reliance on the history and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment and reasserted Justice Frankfurter's previous reasoning in Perez. Id. at 268.

[Footnote 13] Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971). This, too, was a five-to-four decision, Justices Blackmun, Harlan, Stewart, and White, and Chief Justice Burger in the majority, and Justices Black, Douglas, Brennan, and Marshall dissenting.

[Footnote 14] Insurance Co. v. New Orleans, 13 Fed. Cas. 67 (C.C.D.La. 1870). Not being citizens of the United States, corporations accordingly have been declared unable ''to claim the protection of that clause of the Fourteenth Amendment which secures the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States against abridgment or impairment by the law of a State.'' Orient Ins. Co. v. Daggs, 172 U.S. 557, 561 (1869). This conclusion was in harmony with the earlier holding in Paul v. Virginia, 75 U.S. (8 Wall.) 168 (1869), to the effect that corporations were not within the scope of the privileges and immunities clause of state citizenship set out in Article IV, Sec. 2. See also Selover, Bates & Co. v. Walsh, 226 U.S. 112, 126 (1912); Berea College v. Kentucky, 211 U.S. 45 (1908); Liberty Warehouse Co. v. Tobacco Growers, 276 U.S. 71, 89 (1928); Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U.S. 233, 244 (1936).

It appears there is considerable debate as to whether or not the US Constitution guarantees birthright citizenship. As such the only way this can be constitutionally clarified once-and-for-all would be a Constitutional Amendment; otherwise the debate will continue. So again I state that the only way to end birthright citizenship and settle this debate will require a Constitutional Amendment that can only originate in the US Congress; but that isn't likely to happen anytime soon.

[gutinstinct]

This site used to be so simple. Now I need to hire a lawyer just to figure out what hell is going on(LOL).

[jrhd97]

No kidding, sometimes it feels like I'm reading a book.

[3077India]

This site used to be so simple. Now I need to hire a lawyer just to figure out what hell is going on(LOL).

Then a few Intellectual Marines infiltrated and changed things.

[grampsdw251]

Here's some more good readin' for you that was sent to me

This should make everyone think, be you Democrat, Republican or Independent

From a California school teacher:
"As you listen to the news about the student protests over illegal immigration,
there are some things that you should be aware of:
"I am in charge of the English-as-a-second-language department at a large southern
California high school, which is designated a Title 1 school, meaning that its students
average lower socioeconomic and income levels. South Gate High, Bell Gardens,
Huntington Park, etc., where these students are protesting, are also Title 1 schools.

"Title 1 schools are on the free breakfast and free lunch program. When I say free
breakfast, I'm not talking about a glass of milk and roll -- but a full breakfast and
cereal bar with fruits and juices that would make a Marriott proud. The waste of
this food is monumental, with trays and trays of it being dumped in the trash uneaten.
(OUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK)

"I estimate that well over 50% of these students are obese or at least moderately
overweight. About 75% or more DO have cell phones. The school also provides
daycare centers for the unwed teenage pregnant girls (some as young as 13), so
they can attend class without the inconvenience of having to arrange for babysitters
or having family watch their kids.
(OUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK)
"I was ordered to spend $700,000 on my department or risk losing funding for the
upcoming year even though there was little need for anything; my budget was
already substantial. I ended up buying new computers for the computer learning
center, half of which, one month later, have been carved with graffiti by the
appreciative students who obviously feel humbled and grateful to have a free
education in America.
(OUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK)
"I have had to intervene several times for young and substitute teachers whose
classes consist of many illegal immigrant students here in the country less than three
months, who raised so much hell with the female teachers, calling them "Putas," *****s,
and throwing things that the teachers were in tears.

"Free medical, free education, free food, daycare, etc., etc., etc. Is it any wonder they
feel entitled to not only be in this country, but to demand rights, privileges, and
entitlements?

"To those who want to point out how much these illegal immigrants contribute to our
society because they LIKE their gardener and housekeeper and they like to pay
less for tomatoes, spend some time in the real world of illegal immigration and
see the TRUE costs:
"Higher insurance, medical facilities closing, higher medical costs, more crime,
lower standards of education in our schools, overcrowding, new diseases, etc.,
etc, etc.

[Gary Hall]

Well Said and As used to be said in nearly any and all campaigns: "Your Vote and Influence will be and is Appreciated." With Kindest regards, Gary Hall.

[gutinstinct]

I really feel sorry for the future of this country relating to the immigration problems of today. We must stop it at all legal means possible. Its do or die Marines.

[3077India]

Here's some more good readin' for you that was sent to me

This should make everyone think, be you Democrat, Republican or Independent

From a California school teacher:
"As you listen to the news about the student protests over illegal immigration, there are some things that you should be aware of: "I am in charge of the English-as-a-second-language department at a large southern California high school, which is designated a Title 1 school, meaning that its students average lower socioeconomic and income levels. South Gate High, Bell Gardens, Huntington Park, etc., where these students are protesting, are also Title 1 schools.

"Title 1 schools are on the free breakfast and free lunch program. When I say free breakfast, I'm not talking about a glass of milk and roll -- but a full breakfast and cereal bar with fruits and juices that would make a Marriott proud. The waste of this food is monumental, with trays and trays of it being dumped in the trash uneaten. (OUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK)

"I estimate that well over 50% of these students are obese or at least moderately overweight. About 75% or more DO have cell phones. The school also provides daycare centers for the unwed teenage pregnant girls (some as young as 13), so they can attend class without the inconvenience of having to arrange for babysitters or having family watch their kids. (OUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK)

"I was ordered to spend $700,000 on my department or risk losing funding for the upcoming year even though there was little need for anything; my budget was already substantial. I ended up buying new computers for the computer learning center, half of which, one month later, have been carved with graffiti by the appreciative students who obviously feel humbled and grateful to have a free education in America. (OUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK)

"I have had to intervene several times for young and substitute teachers whose classes consist of many illegal immigrant students here in the country less than three months, who raised so much hell with the female teachers, calling them "Putas," *****s, and throwing things that the teachers were in tears.

"Free medical, free education, free food, daycare, etc., etc., etc. Is it any wonder they feel entitled to not only be in this country, but to demand rights, privileges, and entitlements?

"To those who want to point out how much these illegal immigrants contribute to our society because they LIKE their gardener and housekeeper and they like to pay less for tomatoes, spend some time in the real world of illegal immigration and see the TRUE costs: "Higher insurance, medical facilities closing, higher medical costs, more crime, lower standards of education in our schools, overcrowding, new diseases, etc., etc, etc.

I found the above "email" on Snopes.com entitled, "The Cost of Tomatoes," it's origins are undetermined. Therefore, the information contained can't be verified. USE EXTREME CAUTION WHEN YOU RECEIVE EMAILS LIKE THIS. Don't assume that it is factual or true.