DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: kimba1 on December 22, 2010, 01:56:09 PM
-
http://www.stateline.org/live/details/story?contentId=535745 (http://www.stateline.org/live/details/story?contentId=535745)
-
The Constitution is really clear on this: if you are born here, you are a citizen.
They would have to amend the Constitution to change this.
-
"http://videos.mediaite.com/embed/player/?layout=&playlist_cid=&media_type=video&content=5VXTCP07M55925WF&widget_type_cid=svp" >
-
Again, it DOES NOT MATTER what Congress does.If Reid got a bill passed, it would be ruled unconstitutional.
It DOES NOT MATTER whether O'Reilly or anyone else thinks this is "fair".
The Constitution says everyone born here is a citizen.The only way to change this is to amend the Constitution.
Coulter seems to have that sunken eye socket cadaverous look that Cher has.
-
Again, it DOES NOT MATTER what Congress does. If Reid got a bill passed, it would be ruled unconstitutional.
It DOES NOT MATTER whether O'Reilly or anyone else thinks this is "fair".
The Constitution says everyone born here is a citizen.The only way to change this is to amend the Constitution.
Coulter seems to have that sunken eye socket cadaverous look that Cher has.
Nice "attack the messenger" personally again like you did with Governor Christie's weight.
But beyond your dodging the issues petty personal attacks you are just wrong again.
It would not be ruled unconstitutional. See Section 5 of the 14th Amendment.
Iowa GOP Rep.Steve King the incoming chairman of the house subcommittee
that oversees immigration said one of the first things the incoming Republican
controlled congress will take up will be ending the practice of automatically
awarding U S citizenship to children of illegal aliens.
Is is clear that the 14th Amendment was not intended to reward lawbreakers.
Rep. Steve King Schools Colbert and Democrats on American Workers (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nkoq209AcqA#ws)
-
The way to see that this is unconstitutional is to pass the law and see what happens.
Coulter is a disgusting harpy. I find her to be one of the most repulsive people in American politics, right up there with Carville.
As for Christie, I simply was stating a fact: Christie will never be elected president unless he loses some serious tonnage. watch and see.
-
I'm not sure how section 5 could be used to alleviate the anchor baby syndrome.
For some deeper background on the citizenship clause of the 14th, this might prove interesting.
http://www.acslaw.org/files/Wydra%20Issue%20Brief.pdf (http://www.acslaw.org/files/Wydra%20Issue%20Brief.pdf)
-
I'm not sure how section 5 could be used to alleviate the anchor baby syndrome.
Well I am glad six-tem California Congressman Gary Miller understands how Section 5
can be used to stop this disgracful prostitution of the original intent of the Constitution.
Time to End birth rite citizenship anchor-babies (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obflNyuvZ4A#ws)
-
For those following, this is section 5 of the 14th amendment
Section. 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Miller is arguing that congress has the power to determine how the amendment is applied, in my mind that is quite different than having the power to enforce.
-
Being elected five times does not bestow upon him the power to change the Constitution.
Again, the Constitution will have to be amended.
-
Being elected five times does not bestow upon him the power to change the Constitution.
Again, the Constitution will have to be amended.
Either that or the courts would have to rule that a legislative remedy was not in conflict with the 14th.
-
Again, the Constitution will have to be amended.
No it won't, but either way to stop this insanity is ok with me.
The 14th Amendment stipulates that Congress has the power to
enforce its provisions by enactment of legislation and the power
to enforce a law is necessarily accompanied by the authority to
interpret that law. Therefore, an act of Congress stating its
interpretation of the 14th Amendment, as not to include the
offspring of illegal aliens, would fall within the Congress's
prerogative.
-
"Margaret Stock, a lawyer who teaches immigration law at the University of Alaska Anchorage, says that principle dates back to medieval times in England. The qualification that the parents must be subject to the home country’s jurisdiction goes back to those times, too, she says, in order to clarify that the children of foreign diplomats and invading armies would not be considered citizens.
But illegal immigrants today do not fit that exception, Stock argues. “Illegal immigrants have always been subject to our jurisdiction and subject to our laws,” she says. “That’s why we deport them.” If the immigrants were not subject to U.S. laws, Stock explains, they would be treated like diplomats or invading armies: They could not be charged with crimes or deported."
From the URL in the opening post.
-
I have an immigrant, just became a US citizen, who works for me doing odd jobs. His son will become a US citizen next year and will apply to get his mother here. Great, hard working, people. Who is more American? The Anchor baby, or the assholes who are trying to change some of America's most fundamental laws, and principles, because they're set now, and feel they don't need them? I'll take the hard worker immigrant, legal, or illegal, and their anchor baby, every time. These chickensh*t, moronic, new far-right fools are no more American in their outlook than Snowblower was. It's the far right that should be deported. We'll start with Ann Coulter. She looks like a Nazi collaborator looking for a Nazi to collaborate with.
bsb
-
Therefore, an act of Congress stating its interpretation of the 14th Amendment, as not to include the offspring of illegal aliens, would fall within the Congress's prerogative.
I don't think so. I think constitutional law falls under the jurisdiction of the federal courts. But i'm more than willing for you to show me where that is not true.
-
I guess we'll see BT when it goes to court.
but really I dont care to debate the details
of whether we do it this way or that way.
I think we can do it by Congress....but again
I dont care how we do it....I just want to stop
the insanity of anchor babies just like almost
all developed countries in the world have done.
Ireland stopped it in 2004.
Mark Levin explains the 14th amendment (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EX37aeoyr4#)
-
We'll start with Ann Coulter. She looks like a Nazi collaborator looking for a Nazi to collaborate with.
I bet she could kick your ass!
Yeah great idea.....
deport educated American citizens & wave in poor, uneducated, non-english speaking masses of lawbreaking people.
::)
-
I guess we'll see BT when it goes to court.
but really I dont care to debate the details
of whether we do it this way or that way.
I think we can do it by Congress....but again
I dont care how we do it....I just want to stop
the insanity of anchor babies just like almost
all developed countries in the world have done.
Ireland stopped it in 2004.
Mark Levin explains the 14th amendment (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EX37aeoyr4#)
I guess the courts will decide. But Levin got the 14th amendment explanation wrong. Illegal aliens are subject to US federal state and local jurisdiction as any visit to jail will prove.
-
But Levin got the 14th amendment explanation wrong.
I doubt it.
Illegal aliens are subject to US federal state and local jurisdiction as any visit to jail will prove.
I am sure Levin is well aware that anyone inside the US is subject to "US jurisdiction" in that
if they blow up a bomb at the Super Bowl they will be arrested and prosecuted....I am no
lawyer and certainly no constitutional scholar like Levin, but I assume there are different
legal meanings to the word "jurisdiction" and that is what he is referring to.
-
actually that can be quite blurry. I hear quite afew urban myths about what laws don`t apply to immigrants(legal or otherwise)
like only american citizens pay taxes(total BS)
-
As far as i know the only living breathing humans within US borders not subject to US laws are those covered by diplomatic immunity.
Which i also believe was spelled out in the 14th.
I think Levin was being rhetorical and wasn't speaking as a constitutional scholar.
-
actually that can be quite blurry. I hear quite afew urban myths about what laws don`t apply to immigrants(legal or otherwise)
like only american citizens pay taxes(total BS)
Hey Kimba,
In your experience, would you think the asians you know would be more in favor of small government or big government?
-
BT obviously we do not agree, but this is another example
of what a great learning tool this place is...I was never aware
until tonight that....
The 14th Amendment was basically ratified at "at the Point of the Bayonet". As the legally reconstituted
Southern states were busy ratifying the anti-slavery Thirteenth Amendment, the Northern dominated Congress
refused to seat Southern representatives and Senators. This allowed the remaining Congress to propose
the Fourteenth Amendment, consistent with Article V's requirement of a 2/3 majority for sending a proposed
amendment to the states. Never mind that Congress also clearly violated that Article's provision that "no State,
without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate."
Though the Northern states ratified the Fourteenth Amendment, it was decisively rejected by the Southern
and border states, failing to secure the 3/4 of the states necessary for ratification under Article V. The Northern States
responded with the Reconstruction Act of 1867, which virtually expelled the Southern states from the Union and placed
them under martial law. To end military rule, the Southern states were required to ratify the Fourteenth Amendment.
As one Northerner politician described the situation: "the people of the South have rejected the constitutional amendment
and therefore we will march upon them and force them to adopt it at the point of the bayonet."
-
actually i know only a handful would even think in those context. Seriously politics is not a common topic,notice most of mine is economic. I`ll bet when i do talk government it`s money related.
I can`t explain why.
-
If it centers on economics would they be in favor of more or less taxes? More regulation or less?
-
actually alot of them would be for less taxes And no regulation but no cutting of services.
-
CU,
Do you see any parallels between the dream act and the 14th amendment except that the party roles are reversed?
Kimba,
So the asians you know would probably fit right in with the tea party folks. except for maybe the immigration issue?
-
yep
but that`s no surprise, I`ve stated it before most folks are conservative, but thier not gonna to vote for something that will negatively impact on them.
-
yep
but that`s no surprise, I`ve stated it before most folks are conservative, but thier not gonna to vote for something that will negatively impact on them.
Yep you did. That kind of got me looking at a lot of things in ways i hadn't before.
-
"I bet she could kick your ass!"
You better warn her that I fight dirty plus I'm usually packing. If not a firearm, always a knife.
Merry Christmas CU4 and the all the rest of you chowderheads.
bsb
-
Do you see any parallels between the dream act and the 14th amendment except that the party roles are reversed?
I am not sure I am following you, but I sure hope you are not equating the horrible
crimes the slaves had to endure with some program rewarding the consequences of
lawbreaking parents. They should get in line behind everyone else waiting and wait
their turn.
-
One of the arguments i have heard against the dream act is that it will allow for an entire stream of voters for the dems. The 14th proposed a solid block of black voters for the GOP that lasted well into FDR's second term. And the ratio wasn't overwhelmingly for the dems until Truman integrated the armed services.
-
You are the one bitching about how the abolition of slavery and the enfranchisement of former slaves was illegal and immoral, and how the XIV Amendment was passed unconstitutionally.
The Southern states seceded, appropriated US government property and then attacked the North. Why should the North have shown them any respect? The Civil War proved that states cannot do any of those things.
Once they start shooting, the Constitution becomes irrelevant. Perhaps they should have taken it to the Supreme Court when they had the chance.
-
What is the jurisdiction of Indian tribes?
-
What is the jurisdiction of Indian tribes?
At the time of the 14th they were sovereign nations. I'm not sure what the territorial status is now. Maybe like an embassy? Must be somehow different, because of the casinos.
-
What is the jurisdiction of Indian tribes?
At the time of the 14th they were sovereign nations. I'm not sure what the territorial status is now. Maybe like an embassy? Must be somehow different, because of the casinos.
Does that produce an exception?
-
What is the jurisdiction of Indian tribes?
At the time of the 14th they were sovereign nations. I'm not sure what the territorial status is now. Maybe like an embassy? Must be somehow different, because of the casinos.
Does that produce an exception?
The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, also known as the Snyder Act, was proposed by Representative Homer P. Snyder (R) of New York and granted full U.S. citizenship to America's indigenous peoples, called "Indians" in this Act. (The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees citizenship to persons born in the U.S., but only if "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"; this latter clause excludes certain indigenous peoples.) The act was signed into law by President Calvin Coolidge on June 2, 1924.
Even Native Americans who were granted citizenship rights under the 1924 Act, may not have had full citizenship and suffrage rights until 1948. According to a survey by the Department of Interior, seven states still refused to grant Indians voting rights in 1938. Discrepancies between federal and state control provided loopholes in the Act?s enforcement. States justified discrimination based on state statutes and constitutions. Three main arguments for Indian voting exclusion were Indian exemption from real estate taxes, maintenance of tribal affiliation and the mistaken notion that Indians were under guardianship, or lived on lands controlled by federal trusteeship (Peterson 121). By 1947 all states with large Indian populations, but Arizona and New Mexico, had extended voting rights to Native Americans that qualified under the 1924 Act. Finally, in 1948 these states withdrew their prohibition on Indian voting because of a judicial decision (Bruyneel).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Citizenship_Act_of_1924 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Citizenship_Act_of_1924)
Re: Casinos
In the very early 1970s, Russell and Helen Bryan, a married Chippewa couple living in a mobile home on Indian lands in northern Minnesota, received a property tax bill from the local county, Itasca County.[1] The Bryans had never received a property tax bill from the county before. Not certain what to do, but unwilling to pay it, they took the tax notice to local legal aid attorneys at Leech Lake Legal Services, who brought suit to challenge the tax in the state courts. The Bryans lost their case in the state district court, and they lost again on appeal in a unanimous decision by the Minnesota Supreme Court. Their last chance was to seek review in the United States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court granted review, and in a sweeping and unanimous decision authored by Justice Brennan, the Supreme Court held not only that states do not have authority to tax Indians on Indian reservations, but that they also lack the authority to regulate Indian activities by Indians on Indian reservations.[1] As Gaming Law Professor Kevin K. Washburn has explained, the stage was now set for Indian gaming. Within a few short years, enterprising Indians and tribes began to operate Indian bingo operations in numerous different locations around the United States.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_gaming_enterprises (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_American_gaming_enterprises)
-
That explains this famous photo.
http://comminfo.rutgers.edu/~davidgr/coolidge.html (http://comminfo.rutgers.edu/~davidgr/coolidge.html)
(http://comminfo.rutgers.edu/~davidgr/Coolidge%20in%20headdress_small.jpg)
-
I`m pretty sure they can do everything like a foriegn country except break federal laws. people say this means they get more rights than a average american and thats probly true. Which is a interesting matter since they don`t really have the better life than americans.
could be a good topic on the subject of people getting more rights than the general population.
-
Which is a interesting matter since they don`t really have the better life than Americans.
=============================================
Rights do not equate to better living conditions or money.
In nearly every way imaginable, Indians got the dirty end of the stick in this country.
I don't think I will begrudge them the right to build casinos and tobacco stores and bilk the more dense of the non-Indian population.
-
Re Planes picture: Those look like eagle feathers in the headdresses. Wow. You won't find a headdress like that today.
-
Wow. You won't find a headdress like that today.
========================================
Perhaps not made of eagle feathers, but I bet you will find some really impressive Indian gear on e-bay and at other sites. Turkey and vulture feathers are as big,and can be dyed.
-
Wow. You won't find a headdress like that today.
========================================
Perhaps not made of eagle feathers, but I bet you will find some really impressive Indian gear on e-bay and at other sites. Turkey and vulture feathers are as big,and can be dyed.
Turkey might be leagal , don't want to possess any raptor feather or beak or claw , federal protection.
-
When I was in the Boy Scouts, the Kansas City Council had a fraternal scout organization called the Tribe of Mic-O-Say. You started out as a brave,and wore a hawk's claw. Then you progressed to two eagle claws worn like this )(. Honorary members (scoutmasters and those who joined as adults wore their claws like this (). Then you got pain on the tips" firebuilder, warrior, sachem, and eventually chief. I was a Sachem, and I forget how many ranks were required to become a chief.
It was founded by H Roe Bartle, "Lone Bear", a mayon fo KC MO who was a big fan of Indian rites of passage. Because of him the KC NFL team was called the Chiefs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribe_of_Mic-O-Say (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribe_of_Mic-O-Say)
We were told that out eagle claws came from eagles and hawks who died of natural causes. A good set cost about $20 back in the 1950's
-
I didn't know this till pretty recently myself.
When I read a story aboutan Indian who wanted a set of feathers and was haveing a hard time getting the proper permit .
http://digital-desert.com/wildlife/raptors/06.html (http://digital-desert.com/wildlife/raptors/06.html)
Legal Requirements for Possessing a Raptor or Raptor Parts
Many people ask “If I find an eagle or hawk feather, can I keep it?” Unfortunately the answer is No. All raptors are protected by state and federal regulations. It is illegal to capture or kill a raptor; possess a raptor (living or dead), or any pieces or parts of raptors, including feathers, without the proper permits from state governments and the federal U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Migratory Bird Treaty Act - 1918
Bald Eagle Act - 1940
Endangered Species Act (ESA) - 1973
Each of these laws has a separate set of regulations and permits. Depending on the species of bird you would like to possess, at least one and possibly three federal permits may be required.