Lindsey Graham's Modification of 14th Amendment

[cristo]

The constitution does not apply to the people of the world in general, it is a legal document by and for the American people.

The declaration of independence and the US constitution are separate documents. The former is where that quotation is taken from, and I think it's quite clearly talking about the rights of man, and not of Americans. However, I guess that's the problem with somewhat vague statements, that they are always open to interpretation.

 

[Evo]

If I was Mexican these days I'd want to get the hell out of the country. Mexico is unstable, and dominated by well financed mafias and cartels that have tentacles branching out to every level of society. The average citizen Jose doesn't much options there.

But the solution isn't to illegally invade the US. Why isn't world opinion coming down harshly on the government of Mexico?

 

[Char. Limit]

But the solution isn't to illegally invade the US. Why isn't world opinion coming down harshly on the government of Mexico?

Probably they're too mad at us for trying to enforce our just laws on immigration.

 

[Cyrus]

The declaration of independence and the US constitution are separate documents. The former is where that quotation is taken from, and I think it's quite clearly talking about the rights of man, and not of Americans. However, I guess that's the problem with somewhat vague statements, that they are always open to interpretation.

Whoops, sorry about that. Thought you were talking about the constitution. Shame on me for mixing the two! Note, the DOE has no bearing here.

You are correct that that is about all people, not just Americans. I made that statement because I was basing it on being in the constitution, which would change things.

 

[lisab]

The US federal government cannot pass such a law. It would have to go through as a constitutional amendment, which is a significantly larger undertaking. And I doubt it would pass.

That's an understatement, haha. The process for amending the constitution is something like:

The bill has to be passed by both the Senate and the House, by two-thirds in each. Then it goes to the states, and it has to pass three-fourths of them. (I think there's another way, a Constitutional convention, but it's never been done afaik.)

I don't think there's a time limit, so you can imagine it would be a loooooong process.

For this reason, it's a non-issue; I group it in with the proposal to outlaw flag burning.

 

[Evo]

I know I'll get reamed by constitutionalists, but seriously, we have to stop clinging *literally* to something written in a bygone era. There are a lot of things in the constitution that need to go. Like the "right to bear arms". We are no longer living in small unprotected communities with little in ways of communication, we have police and sheriffs, FBI, State BI's,etc... We no longer need to form possies and go after horse thieves.

Just making a point. Do not start another gun thread.

 

[cristo]

Shame on me for mixing the two!

Shame, indeed. That may be cause for a retrospective citizenship removal. Please, leave your passport at the border on your way down to Mexico

 

[cristo]

I know I'll get reamed by constitutionalists, but seriously, we have to stop clinging *literally* to something written in a bygone era. There are a lot of things in the constitution that need to go. Like the "right to bear arms". We are no longer living in small unprotected communities, we have police and sheriffs, FBI, State BI's,etc... We no longer need to form possies and go after horse thiefs.

Just making a point. Do not start another gun thread.

That would be my go-to example, but for the want of not starting a gun debate!

 

[Cyrus]

Shame, indeed. That may be cause for a retrospective citizenship removal. Please, leave your passport at the border on your way down to Mexico

I am senor bandito!

 

[waht]

But the solution isn't to illegally invade the US. Why isn't world opinion coming down harshly on the government of Mexico?

Because Mexico isn't within the world's sphere of influence, but on the other hand, violation of human rights tends to permeate into most people's hearts.

I wonder why now the 14th amendment is challenged? Nobody cared about it when relatively few people sent a Trojan horse across the border, but on mass scales they want it revised or repealed?

The fact of the matter is the US citizens are just looking for something to do because the federal government has done little to fix the borders, and has demonstrated immense spinelessness in the matter.

Repeal 14th amendment, and illegal immigrants will still come.

 

[hamster143]

The declaration of independence and the US constitution are separate documents. The former is where that quotation is taken from, and I think it's quite clearly talking about the rights of man, and not of Americans. However, I guess that's the problem with somewhat vague statements, that they are always open to interpretation.

You're right, it is a very general statement. Nowhere in the declaration of independence does it say that all people have the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" specifically within the borders of the United States. It declares that those people should be able to do that in their own countries (in this case, Mexico). And, if the government of Mexico is destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

 

[Evo]

Because Mexico isn't within the world's sphere of influence, but on the other hand, violation of human rights tends to permeate into most people's hearts.

I wonder why now the 14th amendment is challenged? Nobody cared about it when relatively few people sent a Trojan horse across the border, but on mass scales they want it revised or repealed?

The fact of the matter is the US citizens are just looking for something to do because the federal government has done little to fix the borders, and has demonstrated immense spinelessness in the matter.

Repeal 14th amendment, and illegal immigrants will still come.

Of course the massive scale it is being abused is the reason to repeal it. I think it will be significant in curtailing illegals. If they know they cannot get any foothold here, there will be less to entice them, it's not a cure, but it's a start. Family is very important to them, if they know that they cannot get a legal family started here, there won't be as much of a compelling reason.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I know I'll get reamed by constitutionalists, but seriously, we have to stop clinging *literally* to something written in a bygone era. There are a lot of things in the constitution that need to go. Like the "right to bear arms". We are no longer living in small unprotected communities with little in ways of communication, we have police and sheriffs, FBI, State BI's,etc... We no longer need to form possies and go after horse thieves.

Just making a point. Do not start another gun thread.

Then don't make bogus arguments to which others are not allowed to respond. And it is bogus.

I personally cling to the Constitution to protect me from people who don't respect it.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

This is all moot anyway. It is just more Republican bluster for headlines. It will go nowhere. Even today the Republicans were softening their language. Now it's about the Chinese.

 

[Jack21222]

I know I'll get reamed by constitutionalists, but seriously, we have to stop clinging *literally* to something written in a bygone era.

Legally, I don't think we have a choice. If we can just start ignoring certain parts of the constitution because it's "outdated," there's no point in having a constitution whatsoever. Granted, we've already started doing that, but at least we're keeping up the veneer of "following the constitution," even if it means stretching the commerce clause like a cheap bungee cord. If we actually took the next step and got rid of any pretense of following the constitution, I think there'd be a major backlash.

For example, if the Supreme Court said something like "Even though the Constitution explicitly says xyz, we're deciding to ignore that and come up with our own ruling of abc," you might find some people exercising their second amendment rights the old fashioned way.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The Constitution can be modified by Congress anytime - provided no one's rights are violated. This whole idea that we are stuck with something we can't change is ludicrous.

Consider the personal right to own a gun. This was only decided this year. No one had ever ruled on this before. This is not an old interpretation of the law. It is the current interpretation of the law - a question that had never before been answered.

 

[Office_Shredder]

provided no one's rights are violated.

Says who?

 

[Jack21222]

The Constitution can be modified by Congress anytime - provided no one's rights are violated. This whole idea that we are stuck with something we can't change is ludicrous.

That is incorrect. A modification to the constitution requires 2/3rds majority vote in both houses of congress PLUS 3/4ths of the states to agree. Congress cannot modify the constitution alone.

 

[Cyrus]

Says who?

The supreme court, duh.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

That is incorrect. A modification to the constitution requires 2/3rds majority vote in both houses of congress PLUS 3/4ths of the states to agree. Congress cannot modify the constitution alone.

Sorry, we the people can change it anytime we want.

The only reason it doesn't change more often is that the suggested changes don't have the support required. So the complaint is really that we live in a democracy.

 

[cronxeh]

I agree with this amendment idea fully. Finally someone been stalking my chat rantings on PF and who knew it was Lindsey Graham. I hope that's as far as his stalking go, but on a more serious note this is exactly what is needed.

Both parents should be either 1) legal residents (green card) or 2) citizens or 3) both parents either a legal or a citizen for the child to become a citizen if he is born here. Furthermore, there should be no preferential treatment for parents of children who are born here who want to become US citizens. We did not invite them here, we did not invite their fetus, and certainly as hospitable as we are, we all got here legally, myself included.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

On the issues of the suggested change, it would be impossible to enforce the law, so there is no way it can pass.

Can you imagine the nightmare this would create in the courts??

 

[Char. Limit]

I can imagine it: I'd imagine it would be similar to the situation we have now, with Obama suing Arizona.

Doesn't mean I don't support the idea.

 

[Office_Shredder]

http://newsroom.blogs.cnn.com/2010/07/26/u-s-citizens-deported/

US citizens are accidentally deported because it's tough to establish whether someone is a citizen or not when paperwork is missing. It would be insane if along with a birth certificate you needed proof that your parents were in the country legally

 

[Evo]

http://newsroom.blogs.cnn.com/2010/07/26/u-s-citizens-deported/

US citizens are accidentally deported because it's tough to establish whether someone is a citizen or not when paperwork is missing. It would be insane if along with a birth certificate you needed proof that your parents were in the country legally

Basically, that report concerns naturalized citizens that failed to file so there wasn't a record for their children that became citizens automatically. I don't remember the requirements off the top of my head. My father was American but my mother was a French citizen when I was born. She became naturalized but I remained a French citizen, although a dual national. I could have renounced my French citizenship when I turned 18 but never got around to it.

Requiring a legitimate social security number and birth certificate for the parent(s) would go a long way to cutting down illegal birth registrations. Nothing is perfect, but it would certainly help. It's better than nothing. You've got to start somewhere. Naturalized citizens have their certificates of naturalization on file.

 

[Cyrus]

http://newsroom.blogs.cnn.com/2010/07/26/u-s-citizens-deported/

US citizens are accidentally deported because it's tough to establish whether someone is a citizen or not when paperwork is missing. It would be insane if along with a birth certificate you needed proof that your parents were in the country legally

Why would you need papers that your parents were in the country legally?

 

[Evo]

Why would you need papers that your parents were in the country legally?

They weren't born in the US and their parents weren't US citizens when they were born. BIG difference.

 

[Cyrus]

They weren't born in the US and their parents weren't US citizens when they were born. BIG difference.

So why do they need their parents papers, all they need is their own papers.

 

[Evo]

So why do they need their parents papers, all they need is their own papers.

In the case reported, his mother never filled out the papers that would have shown his naturalization.

 

[Cyrus]

In the case reported, his mother never filled out the papers.

<mind boggled> How do you forget to fill out the paperwork for your kids citizenship.

 

[Evo]

<mind boggled> How do you forget to fill out the paperwork for your kids citizenship.

Well, according to the report, if you believe in magic, everyone will know. In other words, fill out the paperwork. Get your kid naturalization papers and a social security card. Boom, proof of citizenship. That way, when they go to prison, they won't have to prove their citizenship like that guy did.

 

[edward]

We always ask what was the original intent of an amendment. In this case it appears to have little to do with immigration. The writers of this amendment, appropriate at the time, could have had no idea that there would be an anchor baby issue in the distant future.

The Fourteenth Amendment (Amendment XIV) to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868 as one of the Reconstruction Amendments.

Its Citizenship Clause provides a broad definition of citizenship that overruled the decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which held that blacks could not be citizens of the United States.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Emphasis mine.


We have a lot of people coming to this country who only want to make money. They don't really care about becoming Americans and they don't bother to learn English.

 

[Evo]

We always ask what was the original intent of an amendment. In this case it appears to have little to do with immigration. The writers of this amendment, appropriate at the time, could have had no idea that there would be an anchor baby issue in the distant future.




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Emphasis mine.


We have a lot of people coming to this country who only want to make money. They don't really care about becoming Americans and they don't bother to learn English.

I have to agree. Times change and no one could have forseen what would happen. Laws need to change to keep up with what is happening.

 

[hamster143]

We have a lot of people coming to this country who only want to make money. They don't really care about becoming Americans and they don't bother to learn English.

I could counter that why should they care about doing something that they can't legally do (becoming Americans)? As for the language, their children do end up learning English.

 

[Cyrus]

I could counter that why should they care about doing something that they can't legally do (becoming Americans)? As for the language, their children do end up learning English.

And that excuses them for not learning English, why?