Thread: Time to re-litigate the 14th Ammendment

A serious reexamination of the 14th amendment is needed. We are about the only country in the world that allows a baby (MOD EDIT) by illegal immigrants to be a citizen. It has been 1898 since the citizenship clause was revisited in United States v. Wong Kim Ark -- it needs to be relitigated with a view to anchor babies of illegal immgrants. The entire phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" and ius soli should be reexamined. The distinction between "legal" and "illegal" immigrants was not clear at the time of the decision of Wong Kim Ark. Neither in that decision nor in any subsequent case has the Supreme Court explicitly ruled on whether children born in the United States to illegal immigrant parents are entitled to birthright citizenship via the Amendment.

It is time to relitigate it and abolish this right for illegal immigrants are are in reality subject to the jurisdiction of Mexico or central America or whereever they are from. IUS SOLI must be abolished and I think it can be done via Congress rather than a Constitutional Amendment.

Also any pregnant woman who is an illegal should be immediately deported before she (MOD EDIT) her anchor. Also ambulances from Mexico should be banned from bringing pregnant women here to have their anchor babies (MOD EDIT)

NYTimes Sunday, 7/20
Immigrant, Pregnant, Is Jailed Under Pact
E-Mail

By JULIA PRESTON
Published: July 20, 2008
It started when Juana Villegas, an illegal immigrant from Mexico who was nine months pregnant, was pulled over by a police officer in a Nashville suburb for a routine traffic violation.

Josh Anderson for The New York Times
Juana Villegas and 2-week-old son in her lawyer’s office Thursday in Nashville. Mother and son had been separated for two days.
By the time Mrs. Villegas was released from the county jail six days later, she had gone through labor with a sheriff’s officer standing guard in her hospital room, where one of her feet was cuffed to the bed most of the time. County officers barred her from seeing or speaking with her husband.

After she was discharged from the hospital, Mrs. Villegas was separated from her nursing infant for two days and barred from taking a breast pump into the jail, her lawyer and a doctor familiar with the case said. Her breasts became infected, and the newborn boy developed jaundice, they said.

Mrs. Villegas’s arrest has focused new attention on a cooperation agreement signed in April 2007 between federal immigration authorities and Davidson County, which shares a consolidated government with Nashville, that gave immigration enforcement powers to county officers. It is one of 57 agreements, known formally as 287G, that the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency has signed in the last two years with county and local police departments across the country under a rapidly expanding program.

Nashville officials have praised the agreement as a successful partnership between local and federal government.

“We are able to identify and report individuals who are here illegally and have been charged with a criminal offense, while at the same time remaining a friendly and open city to our new legal residents,â€

I completely agree with you. Funny, I was just thinking about this an hour ago.

I wish we could get someone like Jeff Sessions or Tom Tancredo to introduce a bill to CLARIFY the 14th.

Here is what I was thinking about:

Hypothesis: Say, one of bin Laden's wives came to America (coz we all know how easy it is to sneak in here). Say, she gives birth here. ARE WE REALLY GONNA CONFER INSTANT US CITIZENSHIP TO HIS KID????

If this really happened, I betcha the US Congress and the President himself will rescind his child's US citizenship. I BETHCA!!

Soooooooo, if we can rescind the 14th Amendment in ONE CASE, why can't we rescind it for others?

Reality: We value the price of US citizenship. We give it to the most deserving of applicants. LEGAL IMMIGRANTS go through Hell and back to comply with DHS's criterium. DHS is really strict about who they want in the country.

SO WHY ARE WE GIVING US CITIZENSHIP WILLY-NILLY TO CHILDREN BORN HERE OF ILLEGAL PARENTAGE????????? DOES THIS MAKE SENSE? On one hand, we are saying we only give US citizenship to those who qualify to our high standards, and then on the other hand, we just HAND IT OUT FREE AND EASY TO ILLEGAL ALIENS!!!!!!!!!!

WHERE IS THE LAW AND ORDER? WHERE IS THE COMMON SENSE? WHY CAN'T CONGRESS SEE THIS?? THIS IS NOT ROCKET SCIENCE. IT IS PLAIN OL' COMMON SENSE!!!!!

[quote]“I felt like they were treating me like a criminal person,â€

So many agree. What would it take to litigate? Apparently it would need to go to the supreme court? Or can you find a judge with a loophole to suspend the SC interpretation?

Originally Posted by usatime

So many agree. What would it take to litigate? Apparently it would need to go to the supreme court? Or can you find a judge with a loophole to suspend the SC interpretation?

I think the USA's authorities are working against Americans so the NAU happens. They want to shove the illegal down our throats!

I wouldn't count on the Supreme (crock) Court for anything good these days...

It's not in the plan they all have for us stupid doormat citizens. One day we'll all wake up and wonder how all this happened and we let it happen... Well NOT us, but the uninformed.

Originally Posted by usatime

So many agree. What would it take to litigate? Apparently it would need to go to the supreme court? Or can you find a judge with a loophole to suspend the SC interpretation?

i've aways understood (could be way off base) the the supreme court only hears cases or certain principles (questioning the interpratation of any aspect of the constitution) of cases that are currently in the judical process.

or like someone said here, could congress request they (supreme court) address a case/amendment?

Originally Posted by usatime

So many agree. What would it take to litigate? Apparently it would need to go to the supreme court? Or can you find a judge with a loophole to suspend the SC interpretation?

A law would have to be passed at either the state or the federal level which basically declared that babies born to illegals are not citizens since their parents are subject to the jurisdiction of a foreign country -- i.e. Mexico.

Or Congress ( fat chance with Ted Kenneday around and all the Dems) passing a law which basically says that IUS SOLI is not applicable in the US. Or that CHilden of illegal immigrants are citizens since their parents are subject to the laws of Mexico.

YOu have to a law passed in order to litigate to the Supreme Court. I think Plyer vs. Doe should be challenged again -- by charging children of illegals tuition, denying them free lunch etc. That would raise that issue again.

Question . Do ya'll really think "Now" is a good time for review ? With an Ex-ACLU leader sitting on the Court ?

Anchor babies and illegal parents out of the United States.

This stupid illegal person in 1996 knew she was not permitted back in our country. I do not feel sorry for her; she is breaking laws as she pleases.

Deport her, or is it a vacation from her family

What is her husband's status? Visitor or citizen?