NationStates Jolt Archive

Rep. Lungren is of the opinion that congress can vote to define "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the 14th amendment in order to disalow the children of illegal aliens from becoming citizens by birth.


In April, Lungren joined Republican Rep. Nathan Deal of Georgia and fellow California Republican Brian Bilbray of Carlsbad, in introducing legislation that stops well short of repealing the 14th Amendment. Instead, it calls for defining what "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means.

The legislation declares that the clause would apply to any person born to a parent who is a citizen, a legal alien or an alien serving in the military.

Lungren said he thinks that provision would pass constitutional muster, noting that there already exists an exclusion to the 14th Amendment for children of foreign diplomats and representatives born in the United States.

http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/370050.html

Surely, even in NSG, cesspool that it is, there is no one stupid enough to agree with this idea.

I actually often agree with conservatives on immigration, even if I can't stand them on anything else. However, one issue is not enough to garner my vote.

I simply can't fathom the problems people have with immigrants. Perhaps it's because I live on the other end of the continent from where the "problem" seems to be.

I wholeheartedly agree.

I simply can't fathom the problems people have with immigrants. Perhaps it's because I live on the other end of the continent from where the "problem" seems to be.

they took our jerbs and talk funny. wait, no, i'm thinking of californians.

I actually often agree with conservatives on immigration

which part of the movment - the part that thinks we ought have a permanent underclass with no political or social power to exploit the fuck out of, or the part that hates the darkies?

I wholeheartedly agree.

Is it that you haven't read the 14th amendment, or that you have no idea what "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means?

Yes it's an inhuman and just plain stupid idea, New Granada. It is also common practice pretty much everywhere in the world. Ne'er-do-wrong EU countries included.which part of the movment - the part that thinks we ought have a permanent underclass with no political or social power to exploit the fuck out of, or the part that hates the darkies?Out of the Mouth of Free Ba.. Soviets.

Seriously, what the hell? I guess he not only didn't read the Constitution and US immigration law but has managed to completely ignore the entire history of the United States and its culture. Not to mention this genius idea simply propagates the problems associated with illegal immigration indefinitely...you know what this reminds me of? Serfdom. A permanent underclass denied the right to pursue their dreams, share in the decisionmaking of their adopted country and denied the rewards of hard work and education.

This doesn't have a chance in hell of being passed, that's for sure, and if it does it won't last for long before being struck down in court. Nobody could seriously pass something this irresponsible.

they took our jerbs and talk funny. wait, no, i'm thinking of californians.

You're in Michigan now? Where at? (To speak Michigander properly you have to end phrases with prepositions)

You're in Michigan now? Where at? (To speak Michigander properly you have to end phrases with prepositions)

yeah, just moved to east lansing. figured i hadn't lived in the other state that borders my lake yet (indiana doesn't count), so i might as well get on that. also, these crazy bastards are paying me to go to school.

which part of the movment - the part that thinks we ought have a permanent underclass with no political or social power to exploit the fuck out of, or the part that hates the darkies?

The part that thinks the law should be enforced. I have no problem with legal immigration, and I think that the process needs to be cleaned up to make it easier to legally immigrate here.

That said, I have little sympathy for those who come here illegally. Very few countries will let you just waltz on in over their borders with no paper-work.

However, plans to build a fence and other such things are just silly. The problem isn't going to stop until Mexico starts doing something for their poor people besides telling them to go hop the border.

Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats offer a solution as far as that goes though.

And no major reform will come from either as the employers who get rich off paying illegals obscenely low wages are the ones funding their campaigns. So while lower level politicians might propose things, nothing will change really.

Yes it's an inhuman and just plain stupid idea, New Granada. It is also common practice pretty much everywhere in the world. Ne'er-do-wrong EU countries included.Out of the Mouth of Free Ba.. Soviets.

The stupidity isn't necessarily in the idea of denying citizenship by birth, that is another matter entirely and one which it is up to each country to decide.

The stupidity is in the way this hack thinks he can go about it.

The 14th amendment grants citizenship to everyone born on US soil of parents under US jurisdiction.

Lungren thinks that the work-around to this is declaring that illegal aliens are not under US jurisdiction, which is the same as stating they are immune from US law and prosecution.

You'll quickly find that we live in our own little world here in the mitten. East Lansing isn't the worst town around, but I'd suggest visiting Ann Arbor at some point. It's one of the few American cities I actually like.

Columbus, naturally, is much better. ;)

yeah, just moved to east lansing. figured i hadn't lived in the other state that borders my lake yet (indiana doesn't count), so i might as well get on that. also, these crazy bastards are paying me to go to school.

Check out the Mongolian Barbecue in Okemos. It's good stuff.

You'll quickly find that we live in our own little world here in the mitten. East Lansing isn't the worst town around, but I'd suggest visiting Ann Arbor at some point. It's one of the few American cities I actually like.

First off where do you idiots get the idea there will even be an underclass? it only hinders ILLEGAL immigrants. ILLEGAL people. Legal immigrants aren't effected so guess what? ANYONE can still achieve their dreams, they just have to go through the same process as any other immigrant rather than getting freebies that they don't deserve.

I support any measure that makes the lives of illegal immigrants harder. Especially when it includes plugging holes in a corrupt system. A bunch of people who aren't even citizens or legal immigrants just decide to have their kids here and bam, they're citizens while all the other immigrants who try to do things the right way get stuck behind red tape and have to wait. HOW is that fair? How is stopping this practice creating an underclass? If your view is that the illegal immigrants are somehow an underclass of American society then guess what? They CHOSE to come over here without due process. Its not OUR fault that they're an "underclass". Give me a break people.

New idea! Have the idiotic-governmental-sibling-rivalry emmigrate!!! or immigrate a couple new parties... I am sick and tired of american politics... off to some other country... seriously tho... :headbang:

Ooh! and maybe we can get congress some education... ... I started learning definitions to words when I was 3... :D

To speak Michigander properly you have to end phrases with prepositions

or as some Kazoo people do, guesture to your hand at the approximate GPS location of your home. ;) [speaking as a kazoo-ian]

Columbus, naturally, is much better. ;)

Better at being home to all that is evil in this world? Yes, Columbus does quite well at that :p

It definitely isn't one of the finest pieces of legislation we've thought about but I find it very appealing. I will have to read more about it.

The congressman needs to re-read his copy of the constitution. It's VERY clear on the issue, no matter what he might think of it.

I'm also forced to conclude that the readers of the Sacramento Bee need to do the same.

Umm, no. The power to interpret the constitution is held by the judiciary, not the legislature. The legislature can not pass laws defining the constitution. That is the role of the courts. Even if Congress does pass a law defining a clause within the constitution, the courts are free to disagree with their definition. And if SCOTUS has a differing opinion as to what the constitution means, they win, because it is the role of the courts to define the constitution, not the legislature.

See City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997

Moreover there's a big, BIIIIG problem with this that nobody seems to have thought of. The 14th amendment reads

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

His argument is that children of illegal immigrants should be defined as not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. Here's a tiny problem with that. If you define children of illegal immigrants as not subject to the jurisdiction of the united states....you just rendered them completely immune from prosecution.

The 14th gives citizenship to those 1) born in the US, and; 2) subject to the jurisdiction of the US. Which is why children of diplomats born in the US are not citizens, because children of diplomats have diplomatic immunity, and are not subject to the jurisdiction of the united states. What this would do is mean that no child of an illegal alien could ever be taken to court in the united states, for anything, ever!

Because if they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the government, the courts have no jurisdiction over them. A child of an illegal alien can go on a killing spree in times square and there's not jack shit all anyone can do about it because this will render them immune from any prosecution because you've just stripped the power of the courts to have jurisdiction over that person.

They couldn't even be deported because we couldn't hold a deportation hearing because the courts would have no power over them.

STUPID!

Moreover there's a big, BIIIIG problem with this that nobody seems to have thought of. The 14th amendment reads



His argument is that children of illegal immigrants should be defined as not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. Here's a tiny problem with that. If you define children of illegal immigrants as not subject to the jurisdiction of the united states....you just rendered them completely immune from prosecution.

The 14th gives citizenship to those 1) born in the US, and; 2) subject to the jurisdiction of the US. Which is why children of diplomats born in the US are not citizens, because children of diplomats have diplomatic immunity, and are not subject to the jurisdiction of the united states. What this would do is mean that no child of an illegal alien could ever be taken to court in the united states, for anything, ever!

Because if they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the government, the courts have no jurisdiction over them. A child of an illegal alien can go on a killing spree in times square and there's not jack shit all anyone can do about it because this will render them immune from any prosecution because you've just stripped the power of the courts to have jurisdiction over that person.

They couldn't even be deported because we couldn't hold a deportation hearing because the courts would have no power over them.

STUPID!
Even better, would probably could not declare them Persona non grata given that they do not fall under the treaties that deals with diplomatic personel and might also be considered stateless, meaning there's no nate to return them to in the first place.

Even better, would probably could not declare them Persona non grata given that they do not fall under the treaties that deals with diplomatic personel and might also be considered stateless, meaning there's no nate to return them to in the first place.

sure, persona non grata only applies to diplomatic staff. They're wouldn't be diplomats of anything. They'd just be completely immune from any state action what so ever. Deportation, arrest, lawsuit, they couldn't even be made to pay taxes.

And there would be nothing anyone can do about it, because you have declared that they're completely outside the jurisdiction of the united states, and thus not subject to american law.

And even if you added some sort of triggering mechanism that says that if they do something illegal it automatically grants the government jurisdiction you have:

1) now given them citizenship because they're now somoene born in the US and currently subject to the jurisdiction of the US

and

2) accomplished not a whole hell of a lot because you can't arrest someone ex poste facto for something that was not illegal at the time that they did it.

Maybe the congress could put all their anti-immigration legislation in one package and call it 'Fortress America'.

Moreover there's a big, BIIIIG problem with this that nobody seems to have thought of. The 14th amendment reads



His argument is that children of illegal immigrants should be defined as not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. Here's a tiny problem with that. If you define children of illegal immigrants as not subject to the jurisdiction of the united states....you just rendered them completely immune from prosecution.

The 14th gives citizenship to those 1) born in the US, and; 2) subject to the jurisdiction of the US. Which is why children of diplomats born in the US are not citizens, because children of diplomats have diplomatic immunity, and are not subject to the jurisdiction of the united states. What this would do is mean that no child of an illegal alien could ever be taken to court in the united states, for anything, ever!

Because if they are not subject to the jurisdiction of the government, the courts have no jurisdiction over them. A child of an illegal alien can go on a killing spree in times square and there's not jack shit all anyone can do about it because this will render them immune from any prosecution because you've just stripped the power of the courts to have jurisdiction over that person.

They couldn't even be deported because we couldn't hold a deportation hearing because the courts would have no power over them.

STUPID!

Ding ding ding!

Exactly

What this would do is mean that no child of an illegal alien could ever be taken to court in the united states, for anything, ever!Fortunately the US administration has come up with The Military Commissions Act and The Patriot Act, so the problem you outline is purely theoretical.

Fortunately the US administration has come up with The Military Commissions Act and The Patriot Act, so the problem you outline is purely theoretical.

you know what's funny about those? They're american laws.

Which wouldn't apply.

you know what's funny about those? They're american laws.

Which wouldn't apply.Now I'm laughing out loud :)

But why do they apply to other foreigners then?

Now I'm laughing out loud :)

But why do they apply to other foreigners then?

because in certain circumstances foreigners can be held to be under the jurisdiction of american law, primarily if they are attacking or suspected of attacking america.

However since this would render these individuals outside the jurisdiction of america, full stop, it wouldn't matter.

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 matter what this idiot congresscritter thinks, the first SENTENCE of the 14th amendment shows him to be a fool.

As for repealing the 14th - lose the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses?

Prepare for Civil War II. Seriously.

However since this would render these individuals outside the jurisdiction of america, full stop, it wouldn't matter.Ah, well in that case, it's tempting to suggest you let the idiot reap what he wants to sow, so to speak. Then again, I'm not American. I wouldn't have to deal with the mess.

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 matter what this idiot congresscritter thinks, the first SENTENCE of the 14th amendment shows him to be a fool.


Well, no, he's kind of right. Note the qualifier "and". One must be born in the united states AND be subject to the jurisdiction of the united states.

He merely wants to make children of illegal immegrants outside the jurisdiction of the united states. If valid, this would make them not become citizens at birth.

It will also render them immune from any prosecution for any crime.

Surely, even in NSG, cesspool that it is,

Praise from Caesar!
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y9/MAR-Peeves/applause_crowd.gif

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.
--the 14th ammendment.

USA 1, Lungren 0, ggnore.

Not only do I agree with this law, but it should be applied retroactively.

Therefore, everyone who descended from non-citizens will no longer be a citizen. Get the fuck out. :)

Not only do I agree with this law, but it should be applied retroactively.

Therefore, everyone who descended from non-citizens will no longer be a citizen. Get the fuck out. :)Neatly solves the problem with all those overcrowded prisons, yeh? :p

However since this would render these individuals outside the jurisdiction of america, full stop, it wouldn't matter.
I've just had another interesting thought. Since the intellectual property of the majority of software is registered under Californian law...

Wouldn't it be sensible to base it on the amount of human DNA that these human/alien hybrids have?

Wouldn't it be sensible to base it on the amount of human DNA that these human/alien hybrids have?

So if they have more alien DNA we send them back to Mars or whatever backwards planet they came from? :p

Neatly solves the problem with all those overcrowded prisons, yeh? :p

AMong other things. :)

which part of the movment - the part that thinks we ought have a permanent underclass with no political or social power to exploit the fuck out of, or the part that hates the darkies?

Hey if the underclass wants a vote they can have their say in their own darn country. You don't see me trying to influence the United States of Mexico do you?

because in certain circumstances foreigners can be held to be under the jurisdiction of american law, primarily if they are attacking or suspected of attacking america.

However since this would render these individuals outside the jurisdiction of america, full stop, it wouldn't matter.

if they are outside of american jurisdiction does that mean anyone can shoot them without committing a crime?

if they are outside of american jurisdiction does that mean anyone can shoot them without committing a crime?

I may not be a lawyer, but I would guess that since you are still under jurisdiction, you could still be charged with murder if you shot someone, regardless of the victim's legal status.

if they are outside of american jurisdiction does that mean anyone can shoot them without committing a crime?
No, because you are subject to American laws, and murder is something every state has a law against.

Now, if Congress does indeed do something this stupid, they can shoot YOU without it being a crime though.

I may not be a lawyer, but I would guess that since you are still under jurisdiction, you could still be charged with murder if you shot someone, regardless of the victim's legal status.

Trespassing is illegal...so therefore if they trespass on American soil...just think that this gives the minute men a nice excuse to shoot mexicans...which is wrong.

Trespassing is illegal...so therefore if they trespass on American soil...just think that this gives the minute men a nice excuse to shoot mexicans...which is wrong.
The Minutemen don't happen to own America though. The right to shoot trespassers depends a great deal upon the state, but only applies to property that is PERSONALLY owned.

Trespassing is illegal...so therefore if they trespass on American soil...just think that this gives the minute men a nice excuse to shoot mexicans...which is wrong.

You don't seem to understand. If someone is not 'under the jurisdiction' of the USA, it is impossible for the laws of the USA to apply to that person. They can't trespass because the No Trespassing law doesn't apply to them, even if they walk on your lawn without asking.

If you wanted to be able to shoot them for trespassing, they would have to be 'under the jurisdiction' of the USA. Got it?

You don't seem to understand. If someone is not 'under the jurisdiction' of the USA, it is impossible for the laws of the USA to apply to that person. They can't trespass because the No Trespassing law doesn't apply to them, even if they walk on your lawn without asking.

If you wanted to be able to shoot them for trespassing, they would have to be 'under the jurisdiction' of the USA. Got it?

You can shoot moose and bear...and the government has no jurisdiction over them. If they don't fall under any jurisdiction then they have no rights. They don't exist in the eyes of the judicial system. Anything with no standing in the law...well I imagine you can take down.

You can shoot moose and bear...and the government has no jurisdiction over them. If they don't fall under any jurisdiction then they have no rights. They don't exist in the eyes of the judicial system. Anything with no standing in the law...well I imagine you can take down.

No se como puedes ser tan...

Do you know what a diplomat is? A foreign diplomat?

No se como puedes ser tan...

Do you know what a diplomat is? A foreign diplomat?

Yeah it is someone who can ask for the butter when the guy next to him asserts that his country is more foul than camel excrement.

You can shoot moose and bear...and the government has no jurisdiction over them. If they don't fall under any jurisdiction then they have no rights. They don't exist in the eyes of the judicial system. Anything with no standing in the law...well I imagine you can take down.

You don't understand what you're talking about. There are people in the US right now who are not subject to our jurisdiction, they have diplomatic immunity and are officers of foreign countries.

They certainly do have rights, they just don't have legal liability.

You can shoot moose and bear...and the government has no jurisdiction over them. If they don't fall under any jurisdiction then they have no rights. They don't exist in the eyes of the judicial system. Anything with no standing in the law...well I imagine you can take down.

Um, no. That's wrong. And stupid. In a crime, jurisdiction has nothing to do with the victim it has to do with the actor. You can shoot moose and bear because the government has chosen not to criminalize hunting them.

Go take some shots at a bald eagle, see what happens to you. Murder is defined as the intentional slaying of "a person". That's it, just a person. That person need not be legal or illegal. The government need not have jurisdiction over the victim because in a criminal trial, the victim is not a party in a criminal trial.

A diplomat is not subject to the jurisdiction of american law. At all. It's part of the vienna convention. Legally the government can't touch a diplomat. Want to see what happens if you take a shot at one?

Actually a diplomat is subject to the law of the land he inhabits. Fortunately many nations have agreed that each others diplomats are unprosecutable so as to avoid the problems that arise when a diplomat accidently breaks a law in his host country. Diplomatic Immunity is not a right, merely an agreement between nations not to touch each others diplomats. That is why when relations go sour for the US with other countries the Marines get sent in to evacuate diplomatic staff...and other americans that happen to be around.

I simply can't fathom the problems people have with immigrants. Perhaps it's because I live on the other end of the continent from where the "problem" seems to be.

There is no problem with immigrants. There is a problem with ILLEGAL immigrants. :eek:

There is no problem with immigrants. There is a problem with ILLEGAL immigrants. :eek:

Perhaps the laws need to be changed so that they're no longer illegal.

Perhaps the laws need to be changed so that they're no longer illegal.

It's not that simple. First, the government needs to crack down on the people hiring the illegal aliens (by hitting the employers with very large fines for every illegal working for them). Then the government can loosen the immigration laws so that more people can immigrate legally. Those 2 steps should help encourage anyone here illegally to go through the process (which will help them, because employers won't be able to exploit them anymore, by denying workmans compensation, insurance, etc).

I support this. This is not unheard of actually. Certain European countries abide by this aswell.

I support this.

You support children of illegal aliens being completely and totally immune from prosecution for any crime committed in america?

Well, ok. That's pretty dumb, but at least you're honest.

You support children of illegal aliens being completely and totally immune from prosecution for any crime committed in america?

Well, ok. That's pretty dumb, but at least you're honest.
I support taking any action against this idiotic injustice:

"Each year, an estimated 400,000 babies are born in the United States to mothers who are illegal immigrants. More than 25 percent of those babies are born in California.

Although Congress has never passed a law saying so, no president has ever ordered it, and no court has ever ruled on the issue, each of these babies automatically becomes a U.S. citizen when it takes its first breath."

I support taking any action against this idiotic injustice:

"Each year, an estimated 400,000 babies are born in the United States to mothers who are illegal immigrants. More than 25 percent of those babies are born in California.

Although Congress has never passed a law saying so, no president has ever ordered it, and no court has ever ruled on the issue, each of these babies automatically becomes a U.S. citizen when it takes its first breath."

riiight. The reason no court has ever ruled on it, it's pretty fucking obvious once you, ya know read the constitution which says, quite plainly:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States

No court has ever ruled on the issue because it's probably the most easily understood part of the constitution. If you're born in the US, and subject to the jurisdiction of the US, you are a citizen. Period, end of story.

now if you want to change that, you can do one of two things:

1) lobby for the 14th amendment to be repealed, which, good luck with that one, or:

2) try to get children of illegal immigrants defined as not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States as this senator is trying to do, which would, of course, render them immune from prosecution in any american court.

So really, either you can have children of illegal aliens freely able to take an assault rifle and mow down anyone who looks at them funny and there's not a damn thing anyone can do about it OR you can allow state police to arrest you without charged, detain you without trial and beat you into confessing to crimes you didn't commit.

Hell if you want to fix a paper cut with a hand grenade that's up to you, however given those two options, I'll go with option "c" which is "people born in the US are US citizen" as it is by far the most attractive of the three. I like my rights, and I like police to be able to do something about children of illegal immigrants who commit crimes.

If they're not American what are they?

Perhaps the laws need to be changed so that they're no longer illegal.

Perhaps the laws need to be enforced. :rolleyes:

There is a plus side to this legislation. Michelle Malkin would be kicked out of the country under it, assuming it was retroactively applied. The irony of one of the nation's biggest anti-immigration assholes being busted out of the country would be shattering.

Rep. Lungren is of the opinion that congress can vote to define "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the 14th amendment in order to disalow the children of illegal aliens from becoming citizens by birth.


In April, Lungren joined Republican Rep. Nathan Deal of Georgia and fellow California Republican Brian Bilbray of Carlsbad, in introducing legislation that stops well short of repealing the 14th Amendment. Instead, it calls for defining what "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means.

The legislation declares that the clause would apply to any person born to a parent who is a citizen, a legal alien or an alien serving in the military.

Lungren said he thinks that provision would pass constitutional muster, noting that there already exists an exclusion to the 14th Amendment for children of foreign diplomats and representatives born in the United States.

http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/370050.html

Surely, even in NSG, cesspool that it is, there is no one stupid enough to agree with this idea.

Well, they were kinda born here so they're citizens.

yeah, just moved to east lansing. figured i hadn't lived in the other state that borders my lake yet (indiana doesn't count), so i might as well get on that. also, these crazy bastards are paying me to go to school.

Whereabouts are you in the EL?

And does your last sentance imply that you are currently enrolled in the most alcohol saturated campus in the world?

If you were born and grew up in an area familiar to you, you have every right to associate yourself with that region.

I'm quite interested to see how this senator thinks jurisdiction is defined. The USA is a sovereign state - meaning it has jurisdiction over a certain territory. So if the US doesn't have jurisdiction over illegal immigrants, then it doesn't have jurisdiction over the territory, which means said territory isn't part of the USA.

I suspect the amendment was written that way so the children of diplomats and the like would not become citizens.