Thread: Am I wrong about the 14th Admendment Section 1?

I'm new to this whole political scene, but when I hear stuff about illegal immigration it just raises my blood pressure. I read a court case PLYLER V. DOE where illegal immigrant children have the right to free public education. The Supreme Court judges claims that illegal immigrant children are people "in any ordinary sense of the term", and therefore had protection from discrimination unless a substantial state interest could be shown to justify it. I believe this is rubbish and the Supreme Court judges took the 14th Amendment Section 1 out context. The 14th Amendment Section 1 states:

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.

First of all, the Constitution was made by the people for the people. And what I mean by "The People", I'm talking about the Citizens of the United States. The intent of this section on the 14th Amendment is to protect the Citizens of this country from being deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. The part on which I disagree with the Supreme Court judges is when the amendment uses the word "person". They believe when the amendment uses the word "person" that it also includes illegal immigrants and that is how they justified their decision in that court case. The scope and intent of those lines, in which contain the word "person", is to clarify, individually, that each person of the United States shall not be deprive of life, liberty, or property without due process by any State. Nor deny to any person (of the United States) within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Second, according to Article IV, section 4 the Constitution is to protect our country from invasion. Aren’t we getting invaded by illegal immigrants? These invaders are hurting our economy. To me, these people are economic terrorists (just like Obama, but that is another issue). Are you trying to tell me that the 14th Amendment protects invaders from another country? That is ridiculous.

Well this is my rant. Thanks for reading. Sometimes I feel like we need to challenge the Supreme Court’s interpretation of this Amendment. If we are able to interpret this way (which I believe is the original intent of this amendment) we would win a lot of court cases against illegal immigration because it no longer applies to illegal immigrants. I will say it one more time. The Constitution was made by the people for the people!

very good rant and welcome to ALIPAC and the fight against illegal immigration.

come back often and reply to anything you see on here.

Stay informed with federal and state legislation
and dont forget to make those calls

welcome
To ALIPAC

Welcome to ALIPAC My_Constitution
welcome aboard

The 14th Amendment along with other policies and laws have been and are being used against us and are being backed by orgaizations like the ACLU and others. These laws were meant for citizens but as you see and hear they are being twisted to cover people that are abusing the systems we had put into place over the years.

That is one reason there are movements in works now to try and correct the 14th Amerndment (for the ones who appear not able to read and comprehend). And I hope to GOD it is successful. I call my Senators and Reps continually until I see changes "I can BELIEVE IN" and SEE actually happen.

But again WE, THE CITIZENS,SHOULD NOT HAVE TO CHANGE FOR THE LIKES OF INVADERS!

I think the key phrase in the 14th that is being abused is "subject to the jurisdiction of." If you read the transcripts of the debate of the wording of the amendment when it was enacted the term "illegal alien" was used and it referred to those that were NOT subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. This has been overlooked and twisted to fit the socialist agenda.

WELCOME when they went over the costitution in JAN.in the house of REPS.they must have skipped that part

Originally Posted by avenger

I think the key phrase in the 14th that is being abused is "subject to the jurisdiction of." If you read the transcripts of the debate of the wording of the amendment when it was enacted the term "illegal alien" was used and it referred to those that were NOT subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. This has been overlooked and twisted to fit the socialist agenda.

Correct.

The thing I find interesting about the 14th amendment is that it does NOT apply to "Native Americans". When the 14th was passed, the Natives were DENIED citizenship because their first loyalty was to their tribal counsels and not the US Gov. Because of that, technically and legally they were not considered to be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US.

These 2 links here have more information.

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

http://www.streetprophets.com/story/201 ... 32417/1567


On the education of illegal kids, I found a site with the opinions of the Judges. It is pretty heavy reading but very interesting too. I'm gonna cut n paste part of it below the link to the site.

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/f ... lyler.html

Appellants argue that the classification at issue furthers an interest in the "preservation of the state's limited resources for the education of its lawful residents." Of course, a concern for the preservation of resources standing alone can hardly justify the classification used in allocating those resources. The State must do more than justify its classification with a concise expression of an intention to discriminate. Apart from the asserted state prerogative to act against undocumented children solely on the basis of their undocumented status -- an asserted prerogative that carries only minimal force in the circumstances of these cases -- we discern three colorable state interests that might support § 21.031.

First, appellants appear to suggest that the State may seek to protect itself from an influx of illegal immigrants. While a State might have an interest in mitigating the potentially harsh economic effects of sudden shifts in population, § 21.031 hardly offers an effective method of dealing with an urgent demographic or economic problem. There is no evidence in the record suggesting that illegal entrants impose any significant burden on the State's economy. To the contrary, the available evidence suggests that illegal aliens underutilize public services, while contributing their labor to the local economy and tax money to the state fisc. The dominant incentive for illegal entry into the State of Texas is the availability of employment; few if any illegal immigrants come to this country, or presumably to the State of Texas, in order to avail themselves of a free education. Thus, even making the doubtful assumption that the net impact of illegal aliens on the economy of the State is negative, we think it clear that "[charging] tuition to undocumented children constitutes a ludicrously ineffectual attempt to stem the tide of illegal immigration," at least when compared with the alternative of prohibiting the employment of illegal aliens.

Second, while it is apparent that a State may "not . . . reduce expenditures for education by barring [some arbitrarily chosen class of] children from its schools," appellants suggest that undocumented children are appropriately singled out for exclusion because of the special burdens they impose on the State's ability to provide high-quality public education. But the record in no way supports the claim that exclusion of undocumented children is likely to improve the overall quality of education in the State.The State failed to offer any "credible supporting evidence that a proportionately small diminution of the funds spent on each child [which might result from devoting some state funds to the education of the excluded group] will have a grave impact on the quality of education." In terms of educational cost and need, however, undocumented children are "basically indistinguishable" from legally resident alien children.

Finally, appellants suggest that undocumented children are appropriately singled out because their unlawful presence within the United States renders them less likely than other children to remain within the boundaries of the State, and to put their education to productive social or political use within the State. Even assuming that such an interest is legitimate, it is an interest that is most difficult to quantify. The State has no assurance that any child, citizen or not, will employ the education provided by the State within the confines of the State's borders. In any event, the record is clear that many of the undocumented children disabled by this classification will remain in this country indefinitely, and that some will become lawful residents or citizens of the United States. It is difficult to understand precisely what the State hopes to achieve by promoting the creation and perpetuation of a subclass of illiterates within our boundaries, surely adding to the problems and costs of unemployment, welfare, and crime. It is thus clear that whatever savings might be achieved by denying these children an education, they are wholly insubstantial in light of the costs involved to these children, the State, and the Nation.

If the State is to deny a discrete group of innocent children the free public education that it offers to other children residing within its borders, that denial must be justified by a showing that it furthers some substantial state interest. No such showing was made here. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals in each of these cases is Affirmed.

Excellent "rant" My_Constitution! Welcome home!

AMEN sugerhighwolf we seam to forget who the true americans are and how they were treated.If anybody has alot to complain about its them.But anytime they rose up against the goverment they were mistreated and punished severely.Why cant this dam goverment do the samething against illegals just aint right.The true americans can vote have they forgotten about them?You never hear a politician campaining for them.But only just to cater to a bunch of illegals for votes.When was the last time you heard of an AMERICAN INDIAN SMUGGLE GUNS TRADING IN DRUGS RIOTING FOR RIGHTS,OR STEALING FREEBES FROM GOVERMENT.This is why i jioned this group to fight for americans rights.I hate alot of the politicing on here blaming the liberals blaming conservitives,conservitives blaming liberals.I cant see this POLITICIAN is a POLITICIAN thay are all crooks.They tell you what you want to hear and as soon as they get in they do what they want.Both parties have been in power over the years and neather one has done a hell of alot to amount to a hill of beans.I study the canditate his or her record and hope like hell i make the right choice and if i didnt i look better for next election.But when i make phone calls or emails i send them to all the ones that support illegals and to the ones that dont.I slam the ones that support it and i thank the ones that dont and tell them to keep up the good fight because there of alot of us americans that are on their side.B ut i just cant get on here and bad mouth one party its all parties fault im sorry.