honestly, contrary to what I would have wanted (limited and controlled immigration) for the first time ever, I would have felt compelled to take Stu's side on this issue, even just a few years ago. The clause is clear. The drafting was suspect... but I would have said that part of the amendment is unambiguous therefore there is no need to go to the drafters intent or context. But, now I do even see the point of arguing about how to properly read a statute, a law or the constitution. Having seen what Roberts did... it almost makes me want to say having a law license and studying jurisprudence is a waste of time. If you are a judge, you can read the law and decide whatever the hell you want it to mean... and then when the other side stacks the court it can mean the opposite. if you are a lawyer advising clients... you are now a K street analyst. it is very distasteful. makes me glad I don't practice law for the vast portion of my living. so my advice is stack the court with political operatives and lets skip the concept of blind justice... and proper jurisprudence and stare decisis and statutory construction. Then we would know the meaning of the 14th amendment.
I think you are beginning to catch on. See those articles Arnie gave links to, and that article on Originalism Jem gave a link to. Good stuff!
Just thought you might like to know the Supreme Court is majority conservative. So when you are referring to "leftist courts" at least you are not referring to the Supreme Court. That should make you very happy.
Yup. Illegal immigration is all about corporate bailouts (cheap labor) and votes (democratic). You can't have open-door immigration in a welfare state. Immigrants go on the dole, and bankrupt the system. The cultural fabric of the nation has radically changed since the 50's when these handout programs were introduced. People used the social net sparingly, and with embarrassment. People back then liked to work and took pride in being self reliant. Now, both Americans and newcomers game the system every way they can. It's complete foolishness to support open door immigration in a welfare state. What we ought to be doing is more Trump (kicking out the illegals) and ending unemployment benefits/HUD/food stamps for millions of able-bodied Americans. This country is going down the shitter real fast, and we all know it. Open borders works with no social safety net. Only the hard working, ingenious and rich migrate to the country.
Going by how you'd turn on its head the unequivocal statement of the Constitution that states "all people..." to mean not all people, it has to be assumed that by "Good stuff" you must mean utter crap.
There are more than adequate legal grounds for lawmakers to restrict illegal immigration and to adjust rules around benefits and handouts which may encourage anchor babies, if that's what's required, without disingenuously attempting to justify it with extreme mashing of a couple of words in the Constitution to say the opposite of what they do.
The senators who wrote the fourteenth amendment stated exactly what it meant. It is present day ass clowns who mash the words.
So we have a situation where even the defenders of birth citizenship for the children of illegals seem to concede it is a bad policy, albeit one necessitated by the peculiar wording of the 14th Amendment. At the very least, we should secure the border, stop the refugee scam that obama is running and stop the family unification/anchor baby scam. You come here and have an anchor baby, you can take him back home with you. You're not using him to bring your entire hundred strong extended family here to go on welfare.
Ditto! Odumbo's "open border" policy is all part of his Cloward-Piven strategy to destroy America! Just like his "Give Iran everything it wants in the nuclear deal with nothing in return", policy.
Actually the point is that it is NOT necessitated by the wording of the 14th Amendment. See Arnie's and Jem's links. The real problem is a political one, it's not the 14th Amendment. Trump is correct! The 14th amendment does not confer citizenship on "anchor" babies born to parents here illegally. That said, if you are running for President of the United States and you propose to deport people who have lived all their lives in the U.S., graduated from U.S. schools and are as American as you or I, you better think twice. That's why the Dream Act was proposed, i.e., to get around this very sticky political problem. It is not that those non-citizens will be voting against you, it is that the citizens of this country will vote against you. Deporting these kids and young adults that are thoroughly "Americanized" is unpopular among the general population, and hugely unpopular among the legal Hispanic population!!!