Thread: 11/15/07 The CNN Democratic Presidential Debate

The eyes of the nation are upon Nevada on Thursday, November 15th for the Democratic Presidential Debate
CNN will serve as moderator and exclusive national broadcaster of the debate.
11/15/07 8:00 pm est.

I hope Wolf Blitzer will ask some tough illegal immigration questions but I doubt we'll see any.I hope Hillary isn't allowed to continue being for something while at the same time being against it.

I would love to see someone ask a question on the birthright citizenship and the intent of the 14th Amendment. If you have looked at the comments of one of the authors of the amendment, the intent is pretty clear.

Citizenship Clause: "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."

Senator Jacob Howard, the author of the clause, said "This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States".

Here's Section 1 of the Amendment: http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution ... ntxiv.html

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.

Now, here's an 1866 quote from Senator Jacob Howard concerning that Section:

"Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."

And, here's 1997 Congressional testimony http://judiciary.house.gov/legacy/6042.htm from Edward J. Erler (California State University, San Bernardino; The Claremont Institute for the Study of Statesmanship and Political Philosophy):

Clearly, the author of the citizenship clause intended to count "foreigners," "aliens," and those born to "ambassadors or foreign ministers" as outside the "jurisdiction of the United States." Senator Howard knew, as his reference to natural law indicates, that the republican basis for citizenship is consent. This is the natural law principle of the Declaration of Independence that proclaims that legitimate governments derive "their just powers from the consent of the governed."

Interesting reading

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Govern ... /wm925.cfm
http://www.theamericanresistance.com/is ... abies.html

"and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"

This is the key. If you are an illegal, i.e., Mexico, you are UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF MEXICO........NOT THE U.S. No argument rooted in the Constitution can support automatic birthright citizenship.

Both the author of the 14th Amendment and the US Supreme Court recognized that an alien mother and her baby are subject to the jurisdiction of their native country - not the US. The 14th Amendment wasn't created to provide an end run for aliens to defy US immigration laws. But politicians have subverted the Constitution and allowed citizenship to any child born in the US. This misinterpretation is not accidental - it is intentional. An error of this magnitude could not be accidental.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Supreme Court decisions

The correct interpretation of the 14th Amendment is that an illegal alien mother is subject to the jurisdiction of her native country, as is her baby.

Over a century ago, the Supreme Court appropriately confirmed this restricted interpretation of citizenship in the so-called "Slaughter-House cases" [83 US 36 (1873) and 112 US 94 (1884)]13. In the 1884 Elk v.Wilkins case12, the phrase "subject to its jurisdiction" was interpreted to exclude "children of ministers, consuls, and citizens of foreign states born within the United States." In Elk, the American Indian claimant was considered not an American citizen because the law required him to be "not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance."

[b]The Court essentially stated that the status of the parents determines the citizenship of the child. [/b]To qualify children for birthright citizenship, based on the 14th Amendment, parents must owe "direct and immediate allegiance" to the U.S. and be "completely subject" to its jurisdiction. In other words, they must be United States citizens. Congress subsequently passed a special act to grant full citizenship to American Indians, who were not citizens even through they were born within the borders of the United States. The Citizens Act of 1924, codified in 8USCSß1401, provides that:

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe.

In 1889, the Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court case10,11 once again, in a ruling based strictly on the 14th Amendment, concluded that the status of the parents was crucial in determining the citizenship of the child. The current misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment is based in part upon the presumption that the Wong Kim Ark ruling encompassed illegal aliens. [b]In fact, it did not address the children of illegal aliens and non-immigrant aliens, but rather determined an allegiance for legal immigrant parents based on the meaning of the word domicil(e).[/b] Since it is inconceivable that illegal alien parents could have a legal domicile in the United States, the ruling clearly did not extend birthright citizenship to children of illegal alien parents. Indeed, the ruling strengthened the original intent of the 14th Amendment.

The original intent of the 14th Amendment was clearly not to facilitate illegal aliens defying U.S. law and obtaining citizenship for their offspring, nor obtaining benefits at taxpayer expense. Current estimates indicate there may be between 300,000 and 700,000 anchor babies born each year in the U.S., thus causing illegal alien mothers to add more to the U.S. population each year than immigration from all sources in an average year before 1965. (See consequences.)

American citizens must be wary of elected politicians voting to illegally extend our generous social benefits to illegal aliens and other criminals.

http://www.14thamendment.us/birthright_ ... ntent.html

I'm just making a note for possible future reference here...

Wolf Blitzer asked all the candidates..."Should illegal immigrants be allowed to get state driver's licenses"?

Answers - by memory (as this is now after the fact);


Top tier -

Clinton: No, but with some explanatory filler

Obama: Yes, with explanatory filler/justification

Edwards: No, but with some qualification/explanation


Second tier -

Richardson: Yes, "I already had done this in my state"

Kucinich: Yes, "And I resent you referring to those people as 'illegal' - no one is illegal"

Biden: No - no justification nor rationalization offered ( )

Dodd: No - a little filler explanation, but not very much. ( )

Ive had about all this i can take

Its a crying shame that after 8 years of Bush these are the best canidate we have to chose from.
I am about to make a fediral case out of clinton saying "when she is in the white house agian" this is twice she has said it
imply what she will
its looking like Bill will be running things or that she was when Bill was supposed to be
What 35 years did she have any way

During the previous debate, where Hillary was all over the place, weren't they asked to put up their hand if they didn't agree with Spitzer's plan and only Dodd raised his?
If so, quite a change tonight.

After watching the debate, it went pretty much the way i thought it would, bottomline is they all support Amnesty which now has become a silver bullet issue that can sink the entire Dem party beyond hope. We must keep illegal Immigration on the front burner of the Presidential debates with both parties.

I was furious when [Mod Edit - written 'Dobb'; should be Dodd] spoke in Spanish. He didn't even bother to translate what he said. I thought this was an American debate. Am I the only one that felt insulted and excluded?

Originally Posted by MontereySherry

I was furious when [Mod Edit - written 'Dobb'; should be Dodd] spoke in Spanish. He didn't even bother to translate what he said. I thought this was an American debate. Am I the only one that felt insulted and excluded?

What did he say anyway ?
I feel left out on the greeting as well
I will say that
Lite off an uproar here


This young mans question was avoided