http://www.numbersusa.com/interests/birthrightcitizenship.htm

I would agree that an illegal alien or temporary visitor should (and must) be removed upon discovery. But a child born in the US for a period of time where they have in essence integrated – regardless of the guardian’s status – would be “subject to the jurisdiction” of the US if for no other reason they have no claim to citizenship in another country.

My sister-in-law flew back from Taiwan to give birth to her children in San Francisco, specifically to ensure their US citizenship even though she was living in Taiwan (married to a foreign national).

“Even originalists know this is as it was intended to be, and it has worked fairly well.” Scalia where art thou?

There is a system by which the law and constitution can be changed. The concept of “contemporary interpretation” is anathema to originalists. What the hell is contemporary anyway? What five supreme court justices think? Ginsburg was born before cars were invented.

“Privacy” doesnt appear; neither does “Money = Free Speech” yet the interpretations stand strong.

Women got the right to vote in 1920. Fetal tissue may take a little longer. In utero electronic voting machines.

BTW, I don’t think anybody but citizens should be able to bear arms. This is qualitatively different than curtailing law-abiding citizens’ gun rights. Guess who’s doing that?

I don’t have a problem with modern day jurists adjusting interpretation of the constitution to reconcile it with contemporary situations. Even originalists know this is as it was intended to be, and it has worked fairly well.

Reason and consistency, however, cannot be built on “emanations” of “penumbras”. Such language is just one example of the tricks used by liberals to foist virtually any “right” they desire upon the rest of us. And then call it constitutional!

The word “privacy” does not occur anywhere in the Constitution or Bill of Rights. The word “private” does though, in the form “private property”. Leftist judges see the former (Griswold/Roe) but not the latter (Kelo).

Oddly enough leftists don’t consider section 1 of the 14th amendment flexible enough to apply to fetal tissue pending birth.

The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868. The country was not trying to restrict immigration, in 1882 the first “immigration law” appeared:

“in 1882 the federal government asserted its authority to control immigration and passed the first immigration law, barring lunatics and felons from entering the country. Later in 1882, the second immigration law barred Chinese, with a few narrow exceptions. “

[from http://www.angelisland.org/immigr02.html%5D

The need post dated the law.

– It also doesn’t say, even if the kids are citizens, that we can’t deport the parents.

Blame your bleeding hearts for not enforcing the laws.

– The US has spent the last 200 years explicitly qualifying many such commonsense clauses in the Constitution.

WTF? Are they “novel misinterpretations” because you dont agree with them? “Qualifying” statements? Like what – Presidential signing statements? This is exactly why “originalist intent” is a farce – because society has changed and our bureaucratic system cannot invoke changes to keep the pace.

Instead in true American-fashion, we go with quick fixes – by reinterpreting ambiguous legislation or more currently interpreting legislation prior to ratification.

As we mince words, the fox gets off with hens.

On immigration in general both parties have betrayed the US. The problem with the 14th is a loopy liberal interpretation of just one Section. Only a bleeding heart could assume that the lack of an explicit “born to citizens” clause means therefore citizenship must be given to the babies of illegal aliens. The children of diplomats and invading armies don’t get this boon, why should illegals?

It also doesn’t say, even if the kids are citizens, that we can’t deport the parents.

The US has spent the last 200 years explicitly qualifying many such commonsense clauses in the Constitution. Even so, novel misinterpretations are constantly made by liberals, who see federal funds for killing babies, gay marriage, and all sorts of imaginary “privacy” rights endlessly springing from the “emanations of penumbras”.

They do this even as they find ways (eg. foreign precedent) to ignore and even contradict explicit protections for private property, the right to bear arms, and free speech.

All while they caterwaul endlessly about Bush tearing up the Constitution.

Tell a big lie often enough…and people will eventually dedicate blogs to it.

Keep those checks to the RNC and DNC coming!

More mythology: The cost to remove illegals far exceeds the cost to legalize them.

The Buchanan family have a good perspective of the issue. Starve them out. Enforce the existing laws: immigration, labor, health care and education. This will not get rid of the problem overnight, but it will the cozy setup created by the Reagan Amnesty and enforcement failure that followed.

“the supply of hard working poor is always plentiful and cheap for unscrupulous employers?” – future union members? Another fallacy – outside the agriculture industry, these hardworking illegals are getting paid above the minimum wage, under the table and have no tax consequences – as do their employers! Many live in slum housing in groups (breaking local building ordinances) which benefits the slum landlords, send their children to public schools and receive “subsidized” healthcare AKA emergency room and clinic services.
*** This labor is not that cheap – it comes with a cost! ***

Dont blame loopy liberal interpretation of the 14th Amendment. Without the 14th, ALL PEOPLE WITHIN OUR BORDERS ARE PROTECTED BY THE CONSTITUTION. There is nothing liberal here – thats originalist intent. The 14th actually provides the first anti-immigrant POV –

“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States”

Doesnt protect non-citizens. We have changed from an immigrant-friendly society to one who by necessity should shun the “tired, poor and huddled masses”.

We dont need new legislation. The problem is simple: ENFORCE THE LAWS.

http://immigration.findlaw.com/immigration/immigration-deportation/immigration-deportation-overview.html

The Immigration Taboo continues…