NationStates Jolt Archive

Ok, this comes from a different forum inhabited, I am sorry to say, by my fellow Nevadans, many of whom missed out on the US Government class and have, shall we say, interesting opinions regarding illegal immigrants.

In any case, on this forum this article was posted: http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/105485 about a proposed bill in Arizona that would deny birth certificates to so called anchor babies if their parents could not prove legal residency in the US at that time. I pointed out that the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution is rather explicit about applying to "all people" born in the US being US citizens regardless of the status of their birth parents. Besides getting "That was supposed to be only for slaves" argument I have one person trying to tell me that the 14th was illegally ratified.

Since the intellectual ability (Not to mention literacy rate) of this forum is much higher, I thought I'd turn this one over to you and see what NSG makes of the argument that, 1. Due to the make up of the US Congress after the Civil War, the 14th Amendment was never properly ratified and is therefore illegal and null and 2. The 14th applies only to children of former slaves and not illegal aliens.

The other forum thread (for reference not advertisement) is here: http://talk.rgj.com/viewtopic.php?t=53895

Have at it.

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.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.
But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.
But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Nowhere in that does it mention immigrants. This is a pretty open and shut case. All persons=everyone.

I don't know enough to say if it was perfectly legal in its ratification, but then at that time it wasn't completely obvious which states were allowed to have a say.


Okay, I just did some reading up on it, and even if it had been illegally ratified in 1868, enough states have ratified it since then that it would still be law.

Your first link doesn't open.

1. Are they claiming that too few of the States ratified it? I've honestly never heard this before. I think if you contacted each of the State legislatures and asked them "Do you claim your State never ratified the 14th Amendment to the Constitution?" you wouldn't get many surprises. Are they claiming all of the post Civil War amendments are no good?

2. Where in the 14th does it say slave kids only?

I think their argument is thin, but I'll have a look at the amendment again. Either way, I think Arizona must have many that know that they'll lose in front of the Supremes on a bill like that.

My Dad came here legally and can't stand illegals, but he's crotchety in general.

1. Are they claiming that too few of the States ratified it? I've honestly never heard this before. I think if you contacted each of the State legislatures and asked them "Do you claim your State never ratified the 14th Amendment to the Constitution?" you wouldn't get many surprises. Are they claiming all of the post Civil War amendments are no good?
The claim is that the US Congress at the time did not actually represent the nation as a number of the rebellious states were not seated at the time and those that were had been supposedly forced into accepting the 14th.

your wasting time debating the constitution why?

Neither argument is valid. The reasons for the 14th may well have been for the benefit of former slaves, but that doesn't change what it says, and it's simple, black-letter law.

As regards ratification, the "makeup of Congress" argument is new to me, but clearly spurious - the Southern States could hardly be expected to be fully represented right after they lost an attempt to rebel! The argument that has some possible validity is that it was improperly declared ratified, because one state, after ratifying the amendment, then turned around and said they didn't (I forget which).

However, the Courts have addressed this issue before. The constitution provides for the ratification or the refusal of ratification of an amendment to the states, but does not provide for any such withdrawal of ratification. The state's withdrawal was unconstitutional, and therefore the 14th was indeed fully ratified by a sufficient number of states.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark

Opinion
Held: In a 6-2 decision, the Court held that under the Fourteenth Amendment, a child born in the United States of parents of foreign descent who, at the time of the child's birth are subjects of a foreign power but who have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States and are carrying on business in the United States, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under a foreign power, and are not members of foreign forces in hostile occupation of United States territory, becomes a citizen of the United States at the time of birth.

I believe, and I know a lawyer will correct me here, but would one invoke this case in a situation like this?

Now that's interesting. If that one State had been allowed to deratify (that even a word?), would that have put it under the required percentage?

Not sure I buy the idea that the Southern States weren't properly represented after the war...kind of like demanding your girl give you a ride the day after you take a swing at her. She's well within her rights to tell you to get bent.No, "rescind" is the word you're looking for.

Neither argument is valid. The reasons for the 14th may well have been for the benefit of former slaves, but that doesn't change what it says, and it's simple, black-letter law.

As regards ratification, the "makeup of Congress" argument is new to me, but clearly spurious - the Southern States could hardly be expected to be fully represented right after they lost an attempt to rebel! The argument that has some possible validity is that it was improperly declared ratified, because one state, after ratifying the amendment, then turned around and said they didn't (I forget which).

However, the Courts have addressed this issue before. The constitution provides for the ratification or the refusal of ratification of an amendment to the states, but does not provide for any such withdrawal of ratification. The state's withdrawal was unconstitutional, and therefore the 14th was indeed fully ratified by a sufficient number of states.

Now that's interesting. If that one State had been allowed to deratify (that even a word?), would that have put it under the required percentage?

Not sure I buy the idea that the Southern States weren't properly represented after the war...kind of like demanding your girl give you a ride the day after you take a swing at her. She's well within her rights to tell you to get bent.

Ok, this comes from a different forum inhabited, I am sorry to say, by my fellow Nevadans, many of whom missed out on the US Government class and have, shall we say, interesting opinions regarding illegal immigrants.

In any case, on this forum this article was posted: http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/105485 about a proposed bill in Arizona that would deny birth certificates to so called anchor babies if their parents could not prove legal residency in the US at that time. I pointed out that the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution is rather explicit about applying to "all people" born in the US being US citizens regardless of the status of their birth parents. Besides getting "That was supposed to be only for slaves" argument I have one person trying to tell me that the 14th was illegally ratified.

Since the intellectual ability (Not to mention literacy rate) of this forum is much higher, I thought I'd turn this one over to you and see what NSG makes of the argument that, 1. Due to the make up of the US Congress after the Civil War, the 14th Amendment was never properly ratified and is therefore illegal and null and 2. The 14th applies only to children of former slaves and not illegal aliens.

The other forum thread (for reference not advertisement) is here: http://talk.rgj.com/viewtopic.php?t=53895

Have at it.


Indeed, the 14th amendment is disputed by some('some' meaning wackos and racists). But 'disputed' is a far cry from 'illegal'. To be illegal requires legislative and/or judicial action to make it so and not just a ranting gaggle of morons. *nod*

The claim is that the US Congress at the time did not actually represent the nation as a number of the rebellious states were not seated at the time and those that were had been supposedly forced into accepting the 14th.

Actually...in order to be readmitted into the Union, they had to ratify it.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark



I believe, and I know a lawyer will correct me here, but would one invoke this case in a situation like this?

Seems reasonable.

Heehee, I like that they threw in that if an invading army has a pregnant soldier who drops calf on our soil, it isn't a citizen.

The real question is, is it a veteran.

Now that's interesting. If that one State had been allowed to deratify (that even a word?), would that have put it under the required percentage?

Not sure I buy the idea that the Southern States weren't properly represented after the war...kind of like demanding your girl give you a ride the day after you take a swing at her. She's well within her rights to tell you to get bent.

As I understand it, it would indeed have prevented the legal ratification of the Amendment. Which is why arguments like this tend to occur regarding the 14th.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark

I believe, and I know a lawyer will correct me here, but would one invoke this case in a situation like this?

Yes, that is exactly what you would do. Nice work.:cool: Even though I bet you just looked it up on Wikipedia. But still, good work.

Yes, that is exactly what you would do. Nice work.:cool: Even though I bet you just looked it up on Wikipedia. But still, good work.

Honestly I did but I also found the full text of the decision:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=169&invol=649

Actually...in order to be readmitted into the Union, they had to ratify it.

To be honest, that seems like a reasonable requirement. Its no more coercive then having state ordinances required for petition to join the union.

I wonder, would they have been made territories had they refused?

Yes, that is exactly what you would do. Nice work.:cool: Even though I bet you just looked it up on Wikipedia. But still, good work.

Heh, well, I'm told a good Lexis Nexis account isn't cheap...

Be funny if, in 100 generations, Wiki has canonical status and a well placed edit both starts and ends Jupiter War II.

To be honest, that seems like a reasonable requirement. Its no more coercive then having state ordinances required for petition to join the union.

I wonder, would they have been made territories had they refused?

Well, yes if the states had refused they would become territories, but you must remember that at first the 14th was not a requirement to reenter the union so many states were kicked out again because they voted against the 14th, which makes many people feel that it was unfair, and was imposed unfairly.

ok, the thing about the 14th was that it was forced on southern states, in order to reenter the Union they had to ratify it or they would be treated as occupied areas, this is why many southern areas now don't agree with it.


I believe that 14th should be amened to say that children of LEGAL residents, with all the exceptions of diplomats and what not, will become citizens at the time of birth.

Also, we can fix the border problem by just putting a huge mine field there, after all look at what kind of border the USSR had and they had less people get out then we get in in a year.

You sound like my old man, except he wants some kind of "Korea" style DMZ with a big ass minefield.

This is probably a horrible thing to say, but I'd give frontsies to any immigrant with either an advanced degree or is female and above a 5. Those with both qualifications just get residency, at the gate.

To be honest, that seems like a reasonable requirement. Its no more coercive then having state ordinances required for petition to join the union.

I wonder, would they have been made territories had they refused?

That was pretty much the stick part of the 'carrot and stick' approach Congress used with the former Confederate states. Worse, they could have been broken up into entirely new states - and after all, part of the reason for the Civil War was loyalty to State outweighing loyalty to Nation.

The carrot part was restoration of self-government and reduction of taxes - once an occupying force was no longer needed, the Army could be scaled back to a skeletonized ghost.

Well, yes if the states had refused they would become territories, but you must remember that at first the 14th was not a requirement to reenter the union so many states were kicked out again because they voted against the 14th, which makes many people feel that it was unfair, and was imposed unfairly.

Well, to be honest, if they lost the war, I'm not sure what kind of expectations they're plausibly left with.

It would be interesting to see how many states would back an amendment giving "native" status only to the children of legal immigrants (at least one, or both?)

Maybe in the same one, we can change it so naturalized citizens can run for prez; be a good incentive to come legally and get rich! Heh.

That was pretty much the stick part of the 'carrot and stick' approach Congress used with the former Confederate states. Worse, they could have been broken up into entirely new states - and after all, part of the reason for the Civil War was loyalty to State outweighing loyalty to Nation.

The carrot part was restoration of self-government and reduction of taxes - once an occupying force was no longer needed, the Army could be scaled back to a skeletonized ghost.

Huh...welcome to East Lousiana State vs. Texasee A&M!

Now I'm picturing undead union troops...

I remember reading something by Lee somewhere, post war, about how he thought the Southern States should re-embrace the Union. Wonder what his view on the 14th was.

Maybe in the same one, we can change it so naturalized citizens can run for prez; be a good incentive to come legally and get rich! Heh.

There's one that doesn't make sense anymore. Bill Richardson grew up in Mexico, but because he was born in the States, he can be President. But my sister's friend Hallee was born in Korea, and adopted and brought to the states when she was way too young to remember, and she can't be president. She can't speak Korean, save for a few small words, she doesn't remember Korea at all, and she's a naturalized citizen. It makes no sense that someone like her can't be President. I can see why the Founding Fathers put that part in there, since there weren't people like Hallee in 17whatever. But I think it should be changed.

That's not to say I wouldn't vote for Richardson, though. I think he's more qualified than most of the other candidates. But that's another thread.

Huh...welcome to East Lousiana State vs. Texasee A&M!

Now I'm picturing undead union troops...

I remember reading something by Lee somewhere, post war, about how he thought the Southern States should re-embrace the Union. Wonder what his view on the 14th was.

Given his other writings, I suspect hed've supported it - he was at best ambivalent about slavery, and really didn't overly support the rebellion, but felt his duty lay with the state of Virginia.

However, if I recall correctly, he didn't live to see the 14th Amendment proposed.

The problem is, constitutional amendments are ratified by the state legislatures of each of the states, not congress. Even if the states did not have congressional representation at the time, that doesn't prevent ratification, as congress doesn't ratify amendments.

The problem is, constitutional amendments are ratified by the state legislatures of each of the states, not congress. Even if the states did not have congressional representation at the time, that doesn't prevent ratification, as congress doesn't ratify amendments.

Maybe they're claiming that, because amendments are introduced by Congress, they didn't have the chance to introduce a "better" Amendment to compete with or preclude the 14th? I think its bullshit, but its the only thing I can think of off the top of my head.

I think even if Arizona passes this thing, it will get two in the back of the head under even the most rudimentary Constitutional review. The 14th is on the books, and I think it clearly says anybody born here with only very few exclusions.

Besides, it got us Bruce Lee, maaaaan!

Maybe they're claiming that, because amendments are introduced by Congress, they didn't have the chance to introduce a "better" Amendment to compete with or preclude the 14th? I think its bullshit, but its the only thing I can think of off the top of my head.

I think even if Arizona passes this thing, it will get two in the back of the head under even the most rudimentary Constitutional review. The 14th is on the books, and I think it clearly says anybody born here with only very few exclusions.

Besides, it got us Bruce Lee, maaaaan!

Well, I should think that if there were a problem with the Amendment, that SCOTUS would have had a case brought before it already to determine its legality.

Seems like whining about it 140 years later is kind of ridiculous.

The claim is that the US Congress at the time did not actually represent the nation as a number of the rebellious states were not seated at the time and those that were had been supposedly forced into accepting the 14th.

So the claim is based on the fact that the states that seceded didn't ratify it while they considered themselves to not be part of the USA?

Well, I should think that if there were a problem with the Amendment, that SCOTUS would have had a case brought before it already to determine its legality.

Seems like whining about it 140 years later is kind of ridiculous.

Yeah...Arizona is just going to look bad on this one. Would've expected this from Georgia, but Arizona? Oy, vey.

Indeed, the 14th amendment is disputed by some('some' meaning wackos and racists). But 'disputed' is a far cry from 'illegal'. To be illegal requires legislative and/or judicial action to make it so and not just a ranting gaggle of morons. *nod*

i've always loved this type of person. not content with merely thinking something is wrong and ought be changed, they believe that it is actually already illegal, and only being upheld by a massive conspiracy. even better is when they start thinking that if they participate in certain magic-legal rituals, then they will be immune from the power of the conspiracy.

i've always loved this type of person. not content with merely thinking something is wrong and ought be changed, they believe that it is actually already illegal, and only being upheld by a massive conspiracy. even better is when they start thinking that if they participate in certain magic-legal rituals, then they will be immune from the power of the conspiracy.

Should I be scared? I'm actually agreeing with FS. ;)

Should I be scared? I'm actually agreeing with FS. ;)

Be afraid! Be VERY afraid! AAAAHHHH!!1!!!!oneone!!!!seven! :eek:

Anyway, I think this whole thing proves a good point: People are stupid. Especially stupid people.

Should I be scared? I'm actually agreeing with FS. ;)

no, scary is when you wind up agreeing with corny. freaked the hell out of me.

There's one that doesn't make sense anymore. Bill Richardson grew up in Mexico, but because he was born in the States, he can be President. But my sister's friend Hallee was born in Korea, and adopted and brought to the states when she was way too young to remember, and she can't be president. She can't speak Korean, save for a few small words, she doesn't remember Korea at all, and she's a naturalized citizen. It makes no sense that someone like her can't be President. I can see why the Founding Fathers put that part in there, since there weren't people like Hallee in 17whatever. But I think it should be changed.

That's not to say I wouldn't vote for Richardson, though. I think he's more qualified than most of the other candidates. But that's another thread.

no matter what the rule is, someone is going to be on the wrong side of it.

so we have a rule that is pretty liberal but doesnt satsify everyone. some would like to make it more strict to keep out illegal aliens; some would like to make it more lenient so that arnold schwartzenegger can be president. if you open it up to the winds of public opinion, you might find it going in the direction you dont want it to go.

no, scary is when you wind up agreeing with corny. freaked the hell out of me.

I don't know, I think this is the first time I've agreed with you :(

Either as Dyakovo or Baran-Duine

I don't know, I think this is the first time I've agreed with you :(

Either as Dyakovo or Baran-Duine
Doctors recommend agreeing with Free Soviets at least twice a day.

Yes, I do think that the Fourteenth Amendment was illegally ratified, seeing as how the South was placed under martial law in order to force its ratification. I oppose it because it radically extended the jurisdiction of the Fed's; for example, a while ago a man was convicted of battery for several years, but was then prosecuted and sentenced by the Feds for a much longer period. This could only have happened thanks to Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. The only honorable solution would have been to allow the Confederacy to go their separate way, but require them in a peace agreement to manumit their slaves. Forcing them to stay in a political unit they did not wish to be in is not fair.

I think the most powerful argument for the constitutionality of the 14th amendment comes from New Jersey's rescindment of its ratification of the amendment. New Jersey's argument being that the amendment was not legally proposed.
The said proposed amendment not having yet received the assent the three-fourths of the states, which is necessary to make it valid, the natural and constitutional right of this state to withdraw its assent is undeniable.

That it being necessary by the constitution that every amendment to the same should be proposed by two-thirds of both houses of congress, the authors of said proposition, for the purpose of securing the assent of the requisite majority, determined to, and did, exclude from the said two houses eighty representatives from eleven states of the union, upon the pretence that there were no such states in the Union: but, finding that two-thirds of the remainder of the said houses could not be brought to assent to the said proposition, they deliberately formed and carried out the design of mutilating the integrity of the United States senate, and without any pretext or justification, other than the possession of the power, without the right, and in palpable violation of the constitution, ejected a member of their own body, representing this state, and thus practically denied to New Jersey its equal suffrage in the senate, and thereby nominally secured the vote of two-thirds of the said houses.

It could also easily be argued that the Confederate states had a right to have representatives in Congress as the Union claimed that they had not seceded. Rather the Union, in its justification for war, claimed that the Confederacy was rebelling against federal authority. Hence, the Union also claimed that the Confederate states had never left the Union and therefore still had the right to representation in Congress.

Doctors recommend agreeing with Free Soviets at least twice a day.

I'm not seeing those doctors ;)

I now see where the misunderstanding is coming from. The people in the other forum don't seem to understand that the 14th Amendment is legal. And the Southern states had to ratify it to pass it so the some stats weren't there argument doesn't work. The amendment clearly states anyone born on US soil is a US citizen. That really sums it up. I'm not sure what the bill is. If the bill makes the child of an illegal immigrant born in the US also an illegal, well thats plain unconstitutiona.

Yes, I do think that the Fourteenth Amendment was illegally ratified, seeing as how the South was placed under martial law in order to force its ratification. I oppose it because it radically extended the jurisdiction of the Fed's; for example, a while ago a man was convicted of battery for several years, but was then prosecuted and sentenced by the Feds for a much longer period. This could only have happened thanks to Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. The only honorable solution would have been to allow the Confederacy to go their separate way, but require them in a peace agreement to manumit their slaves. Forcing them to stay in a political unit they did not wish to be in is not fair.

So I see you support racism as well.

Ok, this comes from a different forum inhabited, I am sorry to say, by my fellow Nevadans, many of whom missed out on the US Government class and have, shall we say, interesting opinions regarding illegal immigrants.

In any case, on this forum this article was posted: http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/105485 about a proposed bill in Arizona that would deny birth certificates to so called anchor babies if their parents could not prove legal residency in the US at that time. I pointed out that the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution is rather explicit about applying to "all people" born in the US being US citizens regardless of the status of their birth parents. Besides getting "That was supposed to be only for slaves" argument I have one person trying to tell me that the 14th was illegally ratified.

Since the intellectual ability (Not to mention literacy rate) of this forum is much higher, I thought I'd turn this one over to you and see what NSG makes of the argument that, 1. Due to the make up of the US Congress after the Civil War, the 14th Amendment was never properly ratified and is therefore illegal and null and 2. The 14th applies only to children of former slaves and not illegal aliens.

The other forum thread (for reference not advertisement) is here: http://talk.rgj.com/viewtopic.php?t=53895

Have at it.

As a sub to this, perhaps someone will do well with the 16th Amendment too.

I'm sure the people who wrote it never thought illegal immigrants would be a significant problem. It was intended for slaves and Native Americans to a lesser degree. If they thought of illegal immigrants, they would have added a clause for that in.

We should still amend it now to clarify that the children of illegal immigrants are not citizens.

I'm sure the people who wrote it never thought illegal immigrants would be a significant problem. It was intended for slaves and Native Americans to a lesser degree. If they thought of illegal immigrants, they would have added a clause for that in.

We should still amend it now to clarify that the children of illegal immigrants are not citizens.

Every historical record I've read has had "illegal" immigrant children born on US soil marked as US citizens.

Then again, this whole making immigration into the US illegal also seems fairly new. New being a relative term used loosely.

So I see you support racism as well.

Seeing as how the empowerment of the Feds' jurisdiction has allowed them to more severely punish criminals (assuming, of course, that they are actually guilty of the crime in the first place; that is not a given in our criminal justice system), and that these punishments subject them to the brutalities of other inmates, take away a good portion of their productive lives, forces them to adopt the modus operandi of more dangerous criminals, do not help them gain valuable skills but rather make them practically unemployable due to their record, and that proportionally it is impoverished minorities that are forced to suffer this, I would hardly qualify this as 'supporting racism.'

It's yet one more flaw of your glorified piece of paper.

Seeing as how the empowerment of the Feds' jurisdiction has allowed them to more severely punish criminals (assuming, of course, that they are actually guilty of the crime in the first place; that is not a given in our criminal justice system),

They do not call it hate crimes for nothing.

and that these punishments subject them to the brutalities of other inmates, take away a good portion of their productive lives, forces them to adopt the modus operandi of more dangerous criminals, do not help them gain valuable skills but rather make them practically unemployable due to their record, and that proportionally it is impoverished minorities that are forced to suffer this, I would hardly qualify this as 'supporting racism.'

Oh cry me a river.

It's yet one more flaw of your glorified piece of paper.

You are really pathetic but then...what can I expect from an anarchist.

It's yet one more flaw of your glorified piece of paper.

What, it's like you're Bush all of a sudden, eh?

They do not call it hate crimes for nothing.

I never said hate crimes. This applies even for things like battery, or GTA, and even after they've been sentenced by state courts.

Oh cry me a river.

Seeing as how this means that there will be fewer goods for you to consume (since there will be fewer people working), more people alienated from society, a greater quantity and worse kinds of crime, a bloated prison bureaucracy that does nothing to solve crime but rather exacerbates it, I thought you'd like to know for your own sake. It's interesting that you are so ready to accuse people of racism in defense of the one organization that is doing more harm to certain races than any other, and which you give free license to stomp on your face in turn.

You are really pathetic but then...what can I expect from an anarchist.

You are certainly welcome to feel that way, if it makes you feel better.

What, it's like you're Bush all of a sudden, eh?

Ah, but Bush disregards the Constitution because it gets in the way of his power. I disregard it because most people are more clever than Bush and use the Constitution to justify whatever they want to do.

I'm sure the people who wrote it never thought illegal immigrants would be a significant problem. It was intended for slaves and Native Americans to a lesser degree. If they thought of illegal immigrants, they would have added a clause for that in.

incorrect. they specifically were thinking of both slaves and immigrants, and said so in the congressional debates on the subject. do you think you guys are the first people to irrationally fear and hate foreigners in USia?

We should still amend it now to clarify that the children of illegal immigrants are not citizens.

why? what possible legitimate reason could there even be to do so?

Doctors recommend agreeing with Free Soviets at least twice a day.

but the positive effects can be overwhelmed if you don't also eat right and exercise.