Innovating Anti-Immigration
Forget the walls guys, this idea is even better. In an editorial today in the Washington Post we learn that the esteemed Gentleman from Colorado Tom Tancredo has a bold new initiative to curb immigration. He and others believe that Congress can prohibit children of illegal immigrant’s birthright citizenship. Apparently Representative Tancredo hasn’t bothered to read the Constitution or even the rulings of the court which are very, very clear on this. In fact so clear that it was decided about a century ago.
More disturbingly like the WaPo correctly points out, he argues that children of illegal immigrants should fall under the same designation as Diplomats, never mind that their mission is considered sovereign territory for so long as the government is recognized by the host country. More importantly, is Mr. Tancredo suggesting that we don’t have jurisdiction over these children or their parents and the crimes they commit; surely that’s not what he wants, unless of course he’s suggesting we submit them to indefinite detentions and immediate deportation, which of course wouldn’t be a stretch for someone with this kind of thinking.
This whole case just further shows how out of touch factions of the Republican Congress have become with what is actually going on in the world around them.
it is my belief that the constitution would prove to be an inefficient weapon in our battle against illegal immigration. the representative is dead wrong in looking askance at the 14th amendment. we cannot choose to abided by our constitutional principles whenever convenient or to suit a fashionalbe political purpose. haven’t we gotten into trouble following this rational in the past?
Comment by dkaska — November 12, 2005 @ 11:01 pm
On page 2893 (1st col.), Congressional Globe, 39th Congress, 1st Session, May 30, 1866, Judiciary Committe Chairman Senator Lyman Trumbull defines the meaning of the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” during the Citizenship Clause debate in this manner:
“What do we mean by ’subject to the jurisdiction of the United States’? Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.”
But why is the phrase “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” enclosed within a pair of commas?
A similar provision in the 1866 Civil Rights Act enacted two months earlier is worded this way:
“All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.”
Why no pair of commas?
An element enclosed within a pair of commas is defined in English grammar as “non-restrictive.”
A comma placed before a coordinating conjunction (”and, in this instance) conveys an entirely different meaning from what is now the official interpretation of the Citizenship Clause.
Why?
Comment by domingo arong — November 12, 2005 @ 11:41 pm
It would seem that the courts have disagreed with this for quite a long time. And precedent has held our current definition of the Citizenship Clause as true. No one would argue that illegal immigrants in the Untied States are not subject to our juridiction, and so the children of those born within our juridiction are citizens. Unless of course you are aruging that we have no legal juridiction of illegal immigrants in our country, and if that’s so if there is no juridicition to act than how are they illegal?
Comment by Gary — November 13, 2005 @ 5:30 pm