Comments on: Innovating Anti-Immigration http://twodems.com/2005/11/12/innovating-anti-immigration/ News, Opinion, Analysis & Victory Mon, 09 Jul 2007 03:46:22 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Gary http://twodems.com/2005/11/12/innovating-anti-immigration/comment-page-1/#comment-88 Gary Sun, 13 Nov 2005 21:30:41 +0000 http://twodems.com/2005/11/12/innovating-anti-immigration/#comment-88 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? 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?

]]> By: domingo arong http://twodems.com/2005/11/12/innovating-anti-immigration/comment-page-1/#comment-75 domingo arong Sun, 13 Nov 2005 03:41:26 +0000 http://twodems.com/2005/11/12/innovating-anti-immigration/#comment-75 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? 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?

]]> By: dkaska http://twodems.com/2005/11/12/innovating-anti-immigration/comment-page-1/#comment-74 dkaska Sun, 13 Nov 2005 03:01:30 +0000 http://twodems.com/2005/11/12/innovating-anti-immigration/#comment-74 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? 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?

]]>