Last year, 92 Congressmen sponsored a bill?
that would change the 14th Amendment
so that children of illegal aliens born in the United States
would not be granted citizenship.
The bill is still in committee.
Last month, Rep. Duncan Hunter of California told a tea party rally
he would support deporting children of illegal aliens, even if they are citizens.
Everyone Here Knows I Am In Favor Of This Bill
My Q ;
Do You Support This Bill ??
@ Stone Cold ... I'm Happy To See That You Understand That The Ammendment Is MISINTERPRETED ... It Does Not NEED To Be CHANGED ... Only INTERPRETED Correctly ... Thanx For Answering
@ Daria ... Well Done ... Being an American used to be understood to have a real and substantial significance,
as well it ought to, given the moral obligations one has as the citizen of a democracy.
Now it has become a parody of the welfare state: the ultimate handout.
@ Thor ...
1.The Fourteenth Amendment excludes the children of aliens.
(The Slaughterhouse Cases (83 U.S. 36 (1873))
2.The Fourteenth Amendment draws a distinction
between the children of aliens and children of citizens.
(Minor v. Happersett (88 U.S. 162 (1874))
3.The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction"
requires "direct and immediate allegiance" to the United States,
not just physical presence.
(Elk v. Wilkins 112 U.S. 94 (1884))
4.The Supreme Court has never confirmed birthright citizenship
for the children of illegal aliens, temporary workers, and tourists.
(Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 211 n.10 (1982))
There are other cases referring to minor details of the question.
Thanx For Answering
Although the State
has no direct interest
in controlling entry into this country,
that interest being one
reserved by the Constitution
to the Federal Government,
unchecked unlawful migration
might impair the State's economy generally,
or the State's ability
to provide some important service.
Despite the exclusive federal control
of this Nation's borders,
we cannot conclude
that the States are without any power
to deter the influx
of persons entering the United States
against federal law,
and whose numbers might have a discernible impact
on traditional state concerns.
See De Canas v. Bica, 424 U.S., at 354 -356.
- StoneColdLv 61 decade agoFavorite Answer
Yes I do. It will finally state what the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution actually said all along. Only I think they should revoke the citizenship of those children born to illegals in this country.
- Gabby JohnsonLv 71 decade ago
A bill can't superceed the constitution, and the supreme court decision which had the net effect of granting citizenship to anyone born here was based on an interpretation of the 14th amendment. Saying it was misinterpreted is your opinion, which is not a legal one. A supreme court decision can only be changed when a new case is brought before it covering the same issues, and the court hands down a ruling that overturns the original ruling. If this bill were to be passed I guarantee you that it would be appealed in federal court. That process would work it's way through the lower courts until the SCOTUS is petitioned to hear the case, at which point they can simply say no. Even if they did hear the case there is no guarantee that they would rule the way you want them to. While the case was being appealed, the new law would, I'm sure, be enjoined from being enforced so everyone born in the interim would continue to be granted US citizenship.
And Hunter is an idiot. You can't 'deport' someone when they were A, born here (the word 'deport' implies that they originally entered through a port) and B, are legally entitled to be here. Even the bill you referenced isn't retroactive. That means that if it was passed and went into effect tomorrow, everyone born in the US up through today would be a citizen, despite their parents immigration status.
- 1 decade ago
Yes, I support the bill because I feel that it's being taken advantage of.
It's a privilege to be an American citizen, not a right. In this nation we all must abide by the law and no person is exempt. Children born to illegals are nothing more than anchor babies and should not be given citizenship. Most other industrialized/developed nations have gotten rid of the birth right anyway.
- ?Lv 71 decade ago
No, I like the constitution
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- 1 decade ago
What is the oldest Colony in the world today?
On July 25, 1898, during the Spanish-American War, Puerto Rico was invaded by the United States
The People of Puerto Rico are US citizens since 1917
The citizens of Puerto Rico pay full Medicare payroll taxes but their benefits are capped at 30% of the national average.
The government of Puerto Rico lacks legal personality and therefore is unable to make commercial treaties and pacts with the rest of the world. The commerce which we can establish with other countries must be via the United States, its customs, and subject to the conditions of the international treaties that the United States have agreed to, of which Puerto Rico has had no participation or voice. Obviously, Puerto Rico cannot open a niche in the world markets, nor can it establish and implement plans of economic development oriented to foreign trade due to this limitation. In this era of free trade and economic liberalization, Puerto Rico is essentially, because of its continued colonial subordination, a captive market of the United States.
Puerto Rico does not have the authority to regulate affairs and policies related to the establishment of communication systems with the outside world. The United States government is the one who has this authority in its exclusive form.
All merchandise between ports within US territory must be transported in ships of the American merchant marine. Puerto Rico is obligated to fulfill this disposition while it cannot benefit from the lower costs of ships with foreign matriculation. In this way, the products that arrive and leave the island are made more expensive due to the excessive costs of transportation. It is estimated that in 1999, the costs added to merchandise, due to the transportation costs of the American merchant marine, was over $500 million.
All nations need to regulate migratory movements for social reasons, security reasons, and economic reasons. The absolute authority in the matters of emigration to Puerto Rico rests with the federal government. By virtue of the previously stated, Puerto Rico must admit all persons that the United States authorizes to reside in its territory, including colonies. In such a situation, we lose control over any measure of economic protection that could be established for ourselves and new emigrants.
The fact that Puerto Rico must accept the dispositions of laws imposed by another country, without its consent, clearly demonstrates the colonial character of our relationship with the United States. In Puerto Rico, this is called "Estado Libre Asociado"(Free Associated State or Commonwealth). In international law, it is called "colony".
Only 2 percent of the People of Puerto Rico support the independence for Puerto Rico
It is clear that there is a democracy deficiency in the United States.
Thousands of Puerto Ricans have shed their blood defending the United States in the name of freedom and democracy in all wars since World War I. Yet, they are not allowed to vote for their Commander-in-Chief. The people of Puerto Rico do not have voting representation in the U.S. Congress, even though all federal laws apply to them. Therefore, Puerto Ricans have no say in the making of the federal laws that apply to them. Likewise, the U.S. Supreme Court has absolute jurisdiction over Puerto Rico and all its rulings apply to Puerto Rico. However, the people of Puerto Rico do not have representation in the U.S. Senate to vote on the confirmation of Supreme Court nominees. In all, the people of Puerto Rico are ultimately governed by an Executive whom they did not vote for, a Congress in which they are not represented in, and a Supreme Court whose justices they did not confirm.
The 4 million U.S. citizens of Puerto Rico are disenfranchised citizens and are treated as second-class U.S. citizens. Are we going to tolerate this un-American and discriminatory treatment towards a particular group of U.S. Citizens? Are you willing to keep contributing $22 billion per year to support this unjust territorial status? After 112 years of service and sacrifice, it is time to add an additional star to our American constellation.
Our sons and daughters have made their mark on the US honor roll. I invite you to find a state that has earned more Purple Hearts per capita in combat than our island. Our people are never afraid to defend the red, white, and blue.
Being a colony of the United States has changed the lives of five generations and granted them a shot at democracy and an abridged version of the American Dream. But after 112 years of playing in the minor leagues, don't we deserve our shot at the big leagues?
- Anonymous1 decade ago
You bet I do.