Is it so much "warm and fuzzy" leftism (though there is a lot of that), or is it him knowing how his bread gets buttered. He gets paid, to some degree, according to how many students are "taught". With a declining native population, an exodus from public schools if and when possible, and other problems, this could be purely economics. Still, a tarring and feathering would draw only applause from my general direction. Maybe a hoot. It's Friday, my final is done, I'm headed for the fridge, there is beer there... a hoot could happen if you hurry
Wes, you xenophobe, you.
Is it so much "warm and fuzzy" leftism (though there is a lot of that), or is it him knowing how his bread gets buttered.
Oh, I'm sure it's a combination of both.
Glenn, my motto is never do anything half-heartedly. Skip mere distaste & go straight for xenophobia.
The legal problem is that the illegal immigrant children are American citizens if they have been born here in the United States. Therefore they might have legal standing toward these services that you are not factoring into this post. It's wrong, but if that's the way it is, then something has to be done. My personal preference is to require at least one citizen parent in order to be declared a citizen, and to deport all minor citizen children of illegal aliens until they are 18 and can claim their citizenship on their own.
Mike, I see your point, but it bears mentioning that no distinction is being made between the children of illegal aliens born here, & people who were born elsewhere--no distinction between citizenship & non-citizenship. The county skewel administration doesn't even want to know their legal status.
As for these illegal alien children born in the U.S., labelling them citizens requires a warping of the Constitution & a distortion of the intentions of those who wrote it. I realize that this represents the status quo.
I do like your idea, though. It's far more logical than our current handling of the problem.
It requires no such warping, Wes. The Constitution explicitly labels them as citizens:
"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." --14th Amendment
Like it or not, but this is in the constitution. You can't argue original intent either, as that is absolutely irrelevant here, since our founders made this legally possible through the amendment process. Even they would tell you that you have no recourse but to draft a new constitutional amendment.
The very Amendment you've quoted states: and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. . .
The 14th Amendment's authors were referencing children w/ at least one citizen parent. Illegal aliens are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
If a foreign dignitary visits the U.S. w/ his pregnant wife, & she then gives birth on American soil, the child currently is considered an American citizen, despite the fact that his parents are non-resident visitors who have zero intention of changing their status. This is a perversion of the 14th Amendment.
I most certainly can argue original intent; the Constitution means what those who wrote it intended, not whatever those in power at the moment say it means. This renders the document useless, & makes null arguments for or against anything on a constitutional basis, long-term. That is what people mean when they talk about "a living constitution," which is a concept anathema to everything the Founders believed & elaborated upon in their speeches & writings.
Further, if the 14th Amendment's meaning cannot be determined by original intent--the intentions of those who wrote it--how is drafting a new Amendment helpful in solving this problem? Its words will be twisted toward the agenda of those in power, just as they have done w/ the 14th Amendment.
Interesting. Do you have a reference to the original legal meaning of "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof?" If it had a 19th century legal meaning other than being subjected to the laws of the United States, which every alien without a diplomatic visa is, then I would concede your point.
Commenting by HaloScan
