What Constitution?
Early bills give glimpse of legislative agendas
Illegal immigration, sexual predators, abortion on the docket
The Texas of the future will be tougher on illegal immigrants, sexual predators and women seeking abortions if the Legislature approves a slew of legislation filed Monday, the first day for lawmakers to formally propose new laws before the upcoming session.
We all know they won’t even get the chance to look at most of the bills that are filed this year. It is the same every year but one in particular caught my interest.
Rep. Leo Berman, R-Tyler, proposed a crackdown on the entitlements afforded to U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants, including public education.
His proposal also would prohibit the granting of state employment, public assistance and professional licenses to all children of illegal immigrants.
Let us not forget the 14th amendment.
FindLaw: U.S. Constitution: Fourteenth Amendment:
U.S. Constitution: Fourteenth Amendment
Fourteenth Amendment - Rights Guaranteed Privileges and Immunities of Citizenship, Due Process and Equal Protection
Section. 1. 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
These children are, constitutionally, United States Citizens what gives us any right to decide which of our citizens are good enough for anything. I know people call these children Anchor Babies because they usually allow the parents of the U.S. Citizen to stay in the United States legally. It also very well might be a bit of a dirty trick to cross the border and have your baby so that he or she is a United States Citizen but those are our laws and we have to work within them. We don’t get to pick and choose which citizens get which rights and this is an abomination. Maybe Leo Berman forgot that the constitution trumps all.
Constitutionality aside, in the last several hours I haven’t been able to get this out of my head. These are babies we are talking about, not adults who are breaking any law of their own volition. We hear the GOP spouting “family values” while they do things like this. I do understand the thought is that they place a drain on our resources but that is simply the cost of doing business as a society. Even barbarian cultures took care of their babies. This is the United States, how can we possibly stand proud and hurt babies. These are the weakest citizens among us and we owe them our voices to stop unconstitutional bills like this from being passed. They are citizens, that is clearly written in our constitution, they didn’t choose to be born here but they were and that makes them our responsibility. Why would we enact laws that go against basic human morality? Write to your local representative and tell them we won’t stand for any citizen legally being deemed second class.
Filed under: 14th Amendment, Constitution, Constitutional Rights, HB 28, Leo Berman, Texas Legislature, citizen rights, illegals, immigrants, immigration, politics, texas, texas politics
AAGH…what is wrong with us? How can no one comment to such horrible stuff?! Okay..does anyone else think…gastapo???? Come on people..history is repeating itself and we are pretending it is not. There is a point when saying nothing makes you part of the problem. Why is no one protesting this???
The Fourteenth Amendment does not apply to children born to Citizens of Foreign Countries. (36 US 38) 1873)) Slaughterhoous Cases.
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/case30.htm
I would have to say to you the same thing I would say to Rep. Berman when he says that the 14th amendment was written to protect the children of slaves and no others. Why aren’t you arguing that the right to bear arms only applies to muskets? That was what they were talking about in 1776 and so if we really want to interpret the Constitution by the writers intentions or thoughts at the time then everything past a musket and very rudimentary shotguns aren’t covered by the Constitution. That certainly isn’t the only example I could write about but I think it makes the point pretty clearly. The Constitution and Amendments were written with farther reaching implication than the immediate case at hand when it was written and if you would like to seriously discuss Constitutional interpretation I would be more than happy to.
it had been held by this court, in the celebrated Dred Scott case, only a few years before the outbreak of the civil war, that a man of African descent, whether a slave or not, was not and could not be a citizen of a State or of the United States. This decision, while it met the condemnation of some of the ablest statesmen and constitutional lawyers of the country, had never been overruled; and if it was to be accepted as a constitutional limitation of the right of citizenship, then all the negro race who had recently been made freemen, were still, not only not citizens, but were incapable of becoming so by anything short of an amendment to the Constitution.
To remove this difficulty primarily, and to establish a clear and comprehensive definition of citizenship which should declare what should constitute citizenship of the United States, and also citizenship of a State, the first clause of the first section was framed.
‘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 first observation we have to make on this clause is, that it puts at rest both the questions which we stated to have been the subject of differences of opinion. It declares that persons may be citizens of the United States without regard to their citizenship of a particular State, and it overturns the DRED SCOTT DECISION by making all persons born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction citizens of the United States. That its main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the negro can admit of no doubt. The phrase, ’subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.
The next observation is more important in view of the arguments of counsel in the present case. It is, that the distinction between citizenship of the United States and citizenship of a State is clearly recognized and established.
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/case30.htm
(83 US 36) 1873)) Slaughter House Cases
So called “Anchor Babies” and the mother are subject to the Jurisdiction of the Home Country (Mexico).
Well, thank you for that quote from the article you sent the first time. My question still stands, why aren’t you arguing that the right to bear arms only applies to muskets?
Yes, the mother is subject to the juristiction of the home country (Mexico) but the child isn’t. You can say they are as many times as you want but it will not make it true. There are generations of upstanding, taxpaying citizens whose founding member was born here to parents of foreign descent.
What you call “Anchor Babies” I, and the United States government, call United States Citizens and while I know it sometimes works with sheople to dehumanize the subject with a change of vocabulary I, sir, am not sheople.
I do not care to argue about muskets.
The children are innocent and unfortunately caught in the middle of these situations caused by their parents.
If you read the exceprt from the Lectlaw link the court said, “The Prase Subject to Its Jurisdiction was intended to exclude CHILDREN of Ministers, Consuls and Citizens or foreign states born within the United States.”
If you have a SCOTUS link which changes that post it and we will all live in a yellow submarine and sing Beetle Songs.
Pal I served in the Occupation of Japsn after the war and went through three wars and a long cold one which at timees got close to becoming hot. I do not have hatred in my heart for anyone. I do however, believe in the laws and the Constitution which I swore an oath to defend many times and served for a quarter of a century. I do not object to immigration. I object to illegal aliens who violate our laws and I object to our government failing to do anything about enforcing them. I saw too much of that business with the Nazis and the Kewmpai Tai.
I know a lot about Mexican History and if Little Ben, Madero, Huerte, Carransa and Obregon had done what they promised Zapata and Villa the country would be a paradise today.
But that is water under the bridge. You and your friends should be doing what you can to get your country away from the Oligarchy whichhas stood on your backs for three centuries. If I wastn’t too old at setenta Y sais I sould join you.
I will post a longer and more in depth reply to your entire comment tomorrow but just wanted to say that me and my friends are doing what we can to get rid of the “Oligarchy” that we have been living under for the last 6 to 12 years and seem to have done a pretty good job of it on the 7th by taking back the house and the senate. None of us are immigrants, I am the granddaughter of polish and french legal immigrants, but that was around the turn of the century and not terribly relevant because anyone showing up at ellis island at that time was admitted with very little red tape.
Je ne pas bien parle votre langue.
Dobre den.
since you are now in the majority mayhaps you will do something for the poor and unfortunate children who are the VICTIMS of the problems caused by those who by design or ignorance have permitted this situation to prevail for so long.
Je ne sais quoi? Comment?
I am doing this a little backwards. I am going to answer your comment (number
before I go back and answer number 6.
You forget that we are in the majority in Congress but there is still a president with veto power over everything and anything. The only real way to affect change is to take away what is making our country attractive to them. That would be jobs. If we enact and enforce penalties on businesses and people who employ undocumented workers they have no reason to stay illegally. Now, that becomes harder when you realize that most of america’s elite (including politicians) like to have their houses cleaned, their lawns tended, crops picked etc and don’t want to pay a fair wage for it. They need to get over it and if it affects their quality of life so be it.
Once we make it impossible for people to employ undocumented workers because of fear of losing their businesses etc the problem is solved. Of course, we can expect things to be more expensive at that point but no more undocumented workers and you will be happy.
I find the citizen babies to be not the problem you do at all since you are mistakenly believing that welfare is a viable lifestyle option. I couldn’t feed my dogs on what a child can get from welfare and it is a finite service (4 years per lifetime).
A civilized society must decide and publish those things which it considers to be right and those which are wrong. They do this in the form of their rules and regulations of behavior called laws.
Too many Americans see illegal aliens as an instance of Malum Prohibitum, that is something prohibited in society such as speeding in automobiles. Others see it as Malum in se, or bad in itself such as breaking and entering where the “policeman” ignores the act and does little or nothing. The latter instance involves the loss of property in the form of goods or services used or taken to which the person doing so is not entitled by law.
Regardless of all of the side issues the underlying cause of the effects of the problems associated with the aliens is the breaking of our laws.
Some may see it as a case of who they are. My take on the issue is: That they are.
A society which does not speak to the rights and wrongs of its existence ceases to be a society and becomes just a “Mob.”
To OnWatch, your prejudices are showing.
“You and your friends should be doing what you can to get your country away from the Oligarchy whichhas stood on your backs for three centuries. If I wastn’t too old at setenta Y sais I sould join you.”
Wow! Given your comment/assumption, it must be difficult for you to imagine American citizens not of Mexican descent being outraged by these bills.
Sorry to disappoint you but my mother is a German immigrant and I’m a seventh generation Texan of German ancestory on my dad’s side. After six generations in the United States, his was the last to grow up speaking German. Talk about delaying assimilation.
But despite that we still have a strong tradition of military service, not unlike many of Mexican descent. My dad and uncle are retired military, all my uncles served in the military and two cousins from my generation served.
So I guess since I don’t think the proposed laws are a good idea, it makes me some sort of commie, liberal traitor?
Going back to answer your comment number 6.
The reason our constitution works today as well as it did 200 years ago is that it is interpretted in the context of whatever time we are living in. We don’t go back and say oh wait a minute in the time this was written the right to bear arms meant muskets and hence we must ban everything but muskets. That right must be interpreted to make sense in this time we are living in. In extention the 14th amendment must be interpretted to make sense in the time we are living now. Now luckily we do have something in place for just this issue, it’s called the supreme court and if they decide that the children of illegal immigrants are not United States Citizens than we have a whole new ballgame but they haven’t. You can tell me all you want what you think the laws should be but at this time, in this place, a child born to illegal immigrants is a United States Citzen and while you can argue the point all you want the law is on my side.
I do have to say here that I believe you when you say you don’t hold hatred in your heart for anyone. I disagree with your opinion of our current situation and I noticed that you didn’t actually answer my comment about how to deal with undocumented workers, instead you argued a philisophical point. I think our legal immigration system is Malum in se at this time but that is another discussion.
The last figure I heard was that there are 11.9 million people here illegally. The only way to strike at a problem that large is to deal with what we can control, we have the ability to fine or jail employers who choose to employ undocumented workers and without the enticement of a job we will see those number decrease rapidly. We can continue our present course which is punitive to the weakest among us or we can try to affect real change. The choice is out there we just have to choose it.
Fets Attencion Madam.
Vous mais case ma couer avec votre logic.
I have long advocated a Registered Alien Worker Program which would be self funding, provide for health care for them and their families, education for their children if present in the country, and provide for downturns in our economy when jobs might not be available. This idea has been presented to both Senators and my Representative of Texas, Senators and Representatives of other States and talking heads all over the country. On Blogs in San Diego and San Francisco. No one has the cojones to address the issue.
Instead we will likely move to some sort of compromise on the McCain/Kennedy S-2611 travesty which is an Amnesty bill dressed up in lamb’s clothing.
A donde a donde a donde mi patrie?
a donde a donde se fuis?
I am not really sure what you mean by “I box your heart with my logic” but since I not a french speaker I have to just figure that babelfish’s translation left a lot to be desired. I am also not sure why you are singing the little doggie song in a spanish/french mixture but c’est la vie.
If memory serves the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006 was Sen. Arlen Specter’s. I would have to say I find it a travesty too but probably not for the same reasons.
I am not sure what is taught in schools now (doesn’t seem like much) but when I was growing up we were taught that
“Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me:
I lift my lamp beside the golden door.”
was more than just a poem on a statue, it was America and what we stand for. I for one still stand for that country that I grew up in.
When you have your Utopian dream of 500000000 citizens and people in your country in 2050 may you enjoy it as you do today. Forecasters say the minorities will be 80 percent thanks to abortion on demand.
I couldn’t remember the word for surround.
adieu.
Adieu
See you next time something I say ticks you off.