So what exactly is the downside to closing the loophole? Only non-citizens will be affected, and the Constitution wasn't written for them. Oh yeah... we're all racists, I forgot.
Birthright means children have their parent's citizenship. Elian Gonzalez had to return to Cuba, thanks to Janet Reno, because his parent was Cuban. Children adopt the citizenship of at least one of the parents. Otherwise, American children born overseas would have the citizenship of the country where they are born. Sounds stupid? Illegal immigrant children must have the citizenship of one of their parents, or both.
You are all wrong -- this bill does not come even close to going far enough -- it should apply retroactively -- that way there is an excellent (almost 100%) chance that neither Kyl nor McConnell would be citizens either -- problem solved!
All countries are initially settled by immigrants from elsewhere. We admit more legal immigrants every year than other 1st-world countries combined. There comes a time when wide-open immigration is not viable or desirable. An open-borders policy will only bankrupt us and kill their world's golden goose. Get over it. Not everyone can, or wants to be an American. Many illegal Mexican immigrants come here to work, make money, and go home (check it!). Why should they enjoy all of our societal welfare benefits while here?
Whoa, whoa, whoa here!! When did illegal not mean illegal? The only definition being considered is if one is born to persons who illegally entered this country by crossing an international border in violation of our own national laws, are they legal by the happening of their birth on our soil? What would be the difference, say, if your parents were from New Hampshire and you happen to be born in Alabama? Are you then eligible for addmision to an Alabama university at in-state rates or are you excluded because your address is in New Hampshire? Your birth certificate states you were born an Alabamian. There fore you are an Alabamian. Hmmmmm.
Dems do not want "to just open the door to illegal criminals".
That type of hyperbole is the tool of people who have nothing of substance to add to the debate. (I bet you actually believe that Phoenix is the #2 kidnapping city... too bad, it's not true)
The Democrats and most Republicans (I hope) want to follow their oaths to the US Constitution ... and not try to play games about changing it -- JUST to make points in an election season.
If you think McConnell will bring this to the floor after the six week break (when other issues have likely risen to the "top of the scream machine") -- you may also need to move that purple unicorn-man-dog creature out of your front yard. You are delusional.
This is political maneuvering, plain and simple. McConnell can count...I think? He doesn't have the numbers to enact a Constitutional amendment, by any path prescribed.
Oh I just noticed you are the one who posted the Howard comments.
While most constitutional scholars agree what he said does not agree with your point of view, there are some who do take your stance.
However, years of precedence have established the common interpretation -- the one upheld by the SCOTUS (to date).
While decisions are made using the words of the founders (authors) -- the document itself is the ultimate authority.
If you disagree, okay. But you and all of us have to accept the prescribed measures to interpret the Constitution (as written in the document itself).
PS: It is unlikely this will go to the SCOTUS. Immigration issues crop up during elections and then are most often again put on the back burner. I hope this is not true, as I would like to see functional and comprehensive Immigration Law Reform... but I lived through Reagan's attempts and since -- I don't have a lot of confidence in our Legislature having the guts to craft something that works. This is such a divisive issue, and our elected officials are just that ... elected, and sadly -- always looking to the next election.
It's simple: If you can't be trusted to vote Republican, you don't deserve to be a citizen...and we'll change the Constitution to arrange this. (And No, that doesn't make us like "activist judges," because we are always right.)
Fear, Hatred, Distortion, Distraction and Division. The Republican view of America. The Republican Platform. The Republican Agenda. It's all they have to offer America.
"Heritage, integrity, law-abiding, common-sense and the knowledge that money DOES NOT grow on lollie-pop trees. Why is that so hard for democrats to understand?"
Heritage: Ah yes, Strom Thurmond, George Wallace - the racial segregation = good crowd, great heritage. The Walker and Bush families, investors in IG Farben and other Nazi interests until congress had to intervene in 1941 and force them to surrender their assets - wonderful heritage there, knowing that the Bush family directly financed Nazi death camps.
Law abiding: Larry Craig, Mark Foley, Vitter...shall I go on?
Common sense: Three words- George Walker Bush, the living antitheis of common sense.
The knowledge that money doesn't grow on trees: our national debt more than DOUBLED under Bush and the Republican controlled Senate and House from 6 trillion to 12 trillion.
Get real dude. Republicans spend as much or more than "socialist" democrats...and I'm saying this despite the fact that I HATE the democratic party!
I have a home in San Diego county and I can assure you ... there is no "flood of undocumented people". It really annoys me when you alarmist, propaganda-believing types totally discredit the hard work done EVERY DAY bu the US Border Patrol!
Also, just this morning the local newspaper has the headline "Violent crime falling in county".
It isn't about crime or criminals... it is about fear that somebody else might no longer be "beneath me". Period.
I wasn't speaking for any other state or location, DidHeSayThat.
Do you have a map? Are you aware of where San Diego County is?
You must know that Arizona is not the only state with an international border. They are just the one that has a legislature and governor that can't read the US Constitution, it seems.
If we are to replace the clear language of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, what exactly will replace it? Only those with sufficiently pure (read: white) blood may be considered citizens? Only direct descendants of those who came over on the Mayflower?
DidHeSayThat, You don't know anything about this person. You know what happens when you assume? Assumptions are about the only thing the right has to cling to. If you are attempting to impress with your superior wisdom gained from your old age, you just failed completely.
It is also apparent that what GoGoUsa said about you and your assumptions is so true.
All you have is assumptions and a bunch of supposition about the US Constitution. Perhaps you should leave the legal debate to someone that knows better than to discredit another person without facts...
Changing the constitution to fit the needs of repugs is disgusting and anti-american,and I think that if someone wants to change the amendments to their likings is an insult to our forefathers.I don't believe it said at the bottom.P.S......You can change things around to your needs if you want to,signed,Thomas Jefferson 1776
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this Web site you agree to accept our Terms of Service. Click here to read the Rules of Engagement.
Reply to Comment The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this Web site you agree to accept our Terms of Service. Click here to read the Rules of Engagement.
Only non-citizens will be affected, and the Constitution wasn't written for them.
Oh yeah... we're all racists, I forgot.
We admit more legal immigrants every year than other 1st-world countries combined.
There comes a time when wide-open immigration is not viable or desirable. An open-borders policy will only bankrupt us and kill their world's golden goose.
Get over it. Not everyone can, or wants to be an American. Many illegal Mexican immigrants come here to work, make money, and go home (check it!). Why should they enjoy all of our societal welfare benefits while here?
The anti-immigrant hatred comes up every couple of decade (Irish?, Italians? Chinese? Jews?) and America is always stronger.
Why don't Republicans have faith in America??
____________________________
retm-w
Dems do not want "to just open the door to illegal criminals".
That type of hyperbole is the tool of people who have nothing of substance to add to the debate. (I bet you actually believe that Phoenix is the #2 kidnapping city... too bad, it's not true)
The Democrats and most Republicans (I hope) want to follow their oaths to the US Constitution ... and not try to play games about changing it -- JUST to make points in an election season.
If you think McConnell will bring this to the floor after the six week break (when other issues have likely risen to the "top of the scream machine") -- you may also need to move that purple unicorn-man-dog creature out of your front yard. You are delusional.
This is political maneuvering, plain and simple. McConnell can count...I think? He doesn't have the numbers to enact a Constitutional amendment, by any path prescribed.
And frankly it is not a valid one.
First, get yourself a dictionary and look up the word "jurisdiction".
Second, look up precedents using that word.
Third, quit barking up trees that will not bear fruit -- no matter how much the right wing noise machine tells you they will.
Fourth, you can (of course) disagree with me. However, I will direct you back to points one and two and say "wait and see".
While most constitutional scholars agree what he said does not agree with your point of view, there are some who do take your stance.
However, years of precedence have established the common interpretation -- the one upheld by the SCOTUS (to date).
While decisions are made using the words of the founders (authors) -- the document itself is the ultimate authority.
If you disagree, okay. But you and all of us have to accept the prescribed measures to interpret the Constitution (as written in the document itself).
PS: It is unlikely this will go to the SCOTUS. Immigration issues crop up during elections and then are most often again put on the back burner.
I hope this is not true, as I would like to see functional and comprehensive Immigration Law Reform... but I lived through Reagan's attempts and since -- I don't have a lot of confidence in our Legislature having the guts to craft something that works. This is such a divisive issue, and our elected officials are just that ... elected, and sadly -- always looking to the next election.
Heritage: Ah yes, Strom Thurmond, George Wallace - the racial segregation = good crowd, great heritage. The Walker and Bush families, investors in IG Farben and other Nazi interests until congress had to intervene in 1941 and force them to surrender their assets - wonderful heritage there, knowing that the Bush family directly financed Nazi death camps.
Law abiding: Larry Craig, Mark Foley, Vitter...shall I go on?
Common sense: Three words- George Walker Bush, the living antitheis of common sense.
The knowledge that money doesn't grow on trees: our national debt more than DOUBLED under Bush and the Republican controlled Senate and House from 6 trillion to 12 trillion.
Get real dude. Republicans spend as much or more than "socialist" democrats...and I'm saying this despite the fact that I HATE the democratic party!
Get over it, rednecks. There was a Civil War, and you LOST.
If you want to become independent, say so. I'm sure many of us, myself included, will help you pack it up and leave.
Also, just this morning the local newspaper has the headline "Violent crime falling in county".
It isn't about crime or criminals... it is about fear that somebody else might no longer be "beneath me". Period.
Do you have a map? Are you aware of where San Diego County is?
You must know that Arizona is not the only state with an international border. They are just the one that has a legislature and governor that can't read the US Constitution, it seems.
It is also apparent that what GoGoUsa said about you and your assumptions is so true.
All you have is assumptions and a bunch of supposition about the US Constitution. Perhaps you should leave the legal debate to someone that knows better than to discredit another person without facts...